1 

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460 

 

 

 DP Barcode: D415164

 Date: June 25, 2014 

 PC Code: 122304

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for Foliar, Soil Drench, and 

Seed Treatment Uses of the New Insecticide Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960) 

TO: Jessica Rogala, Risk Manager 

Meredith Laws, Branch Chief 

Insecticide-Rodenticide Branch 

Registration Division, 7505P 

 

FROM: Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist 

Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist 

 Environmental Risk Branch IV 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVIEWED Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist

BY: Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor 

 Environmental Risk Branch IV 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

APPROVED 

BY: Sarah Winfield, Acting Branch Chief 

 Environmental Risk Branch IV 

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed a review of the new systemic 

insecticide flupyradifurone (BYI 02960; PC Code 122304). Attached is the environmental fate 

and ecological risk assessment chapter written in support of the registration decision for foliar, soil 

drench, and deed treatment uses of the compound. 

 

 
 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for 

Foliar, Soil Drench, and Seed Treatment Uses of the New Insecticide 

Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960) 

Flupyradifurone

CAS 907204-31-3 PC Code 122304 

June 25, 2014 

Prepared by

Scott Glaberman, Ph.D., Biologist 

Katrina White, Ph.D., Biologist 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460 Reviewed by 

Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist 

Sarah Winfield, Acting Branch Chief
 

Table of Contents 

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................... 6

2. Problem Formulation ...................................................................................................................................... 10

Chemical Class and Mode of Action ........................................................................................................... 10

Overview of Proposed Uses ......................................................................................................................... 10

Identification of Residues of Concern ......................................................................................................... 10

Receptors ..................................................................................................................................................... 10

Assessment Endpoints ................................................................................................................................. 11

Conceptual Model ........................................................................................................................................ 11

2.6.1. Risk Hypothesis ................................................................................................................................. 11

2.6.2. Conceptual Model ............................................................................................................................. 11

Analysis Plan ............................................................................................................................................... 13

2.7.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments .................................................................................. 14

2.7.2. Data Gaps .......................................................................................................................................... 14

2.7.3. Measures of Exposure ....................................................................................................................... 15

2.7.4. Measures of Effect ............................................................................................................................. 15

2.7.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects .................................................................................................. 16

3. Analysis ............................................................................................................................................................. 16

Use Characterization .................................................................................................................................... 16

Exposure Characterization ........................................................................................................................... 18

Terrestrial Exposure ..................................................................................................................................... 49

Ecological Effects Characterization ............................................................................................................. 59

3.5.1. Ecotoxicity Data ................................................................................................................................ 59

3.5.1. Incident Reports ................................................................................................................................ 88

4. Risk Characterization ...................................................................................................................................... 88

Risk Estimation ............................................................................................................................................ 88

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms ............................................................................................................................ 88

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms ........................................................................................................................ 94

Risk Description and Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 105

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms .......................................................................................................................... 105

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms ...................................................................................................................... 107

4.2.3. Conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 113

5. Additional Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, Strengths ....................................... 114

Label Uncertainties .................................................................................................................................... 114

Aquatic Exposure ....................................................................................................................................... 115

5.2.1. Unextracted residues ....................................................................................................................... 115

5.2.2. Soybean Seed Planting Depth and Application Rate ....................................................................... 115

5.2.3. Model Input Values ......................................................................................................................... 116

5.2.4. EPA Pond ........................................................................................................................................ 117

5.2.5. Dilution of Sediment ....................................................................................................................... 118

5.2.6. A Well-Mixed Pond ........................................................................................................................ 118

5.2.7. Lack of Averaging Time for Exposure ............................................................................................ 118

Terrestrial Exposure ................................................................................................................................... 118

Effects Assessment Uncertainties .............................................................................................................. 118

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern ........................................................ 119

Action Area ................................................................................................................................................ 119

Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk ...................................................................................................... 119

7. References ....................................................................................................................................................... 121

Literature Cited .......................................................................................................................................... 121

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Example of a biphasic decline curve with an initial rapid rate of loss that slows over time ....................... 22
 

Figure 2. Decline curve for aerobic soil metabolism in the Neosolo soil ................................................................... 23

Figure 3. Decline curve for aerobic aquatic metabolism in the German gravel pit sediment ..................................... 23

Figure 4. Flupyradifurone dissipation in the terrestrial field dissipation study completed in Florida ........................ 29

Figure 5. Potential degradation pathways of flupyradifurone ...................................................................................... 32

Figure 6. Measured flupyradifurone residues on various crops over time after foliar application. .......................... 104

Figure 7. Relationship between the measured Koc and the flupyradifurone equilibrium concentration in water in the 

Argissolo soil (1/n =0.81) ........................................................................................................................ 117

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of risk conclusions for non-target animals for proposed uses of flupyradifurone. .......................... 8

Table 2. Summary of risk conclusions for non-target plants for proposed uses of flupyradifurone. ............................. 9

Table 3. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the models will be used to assess risk. ................ 13

Table 4. Proposed uses of flupyradifurone ................................................................................................................. 17

Table 5. Summary of physical-chemical properties of flupyradifurone1 .................................................................... 19

Table 6. Maximum amount of unextracted residues observed in aerobic metabolism studies ................................... 21

Table 7. Abiotic and biotic transformation kinetics of flupyradifurone, flupyradifurone plus M48 plus M47, and 

flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. ................................................................................................ 24

Table 8. Biotic degradation kinetics for 6CNA and DFA ........................................................................................... 26

Table 9. Summary of submitted sorption studies for flupyradifurone and its degradates 2-chloronicotinic acid 

(6CNA), and difluoroacetic acid (DFA) .................................................................................................... 27

Table 10. Summary of terrestrial field dissipation study results for flupyradifurone ................................................. 30

Table 11. Summary of DT50 and DT90 of flupyradifurone in outdoor microcosm studies (MRID 48843673) ........... 31

Table 12. Summary of maximum amount of transformation products observed in fate studies ................................. 33

Table 13. Use site group, associated crops, and PRZM scenarios used to calculate EDWC for the use site group ... 36

Table 14. Summary of scenario alterations of the Flcarrot scenario for the multiple crop cycle per year analysis .... 39

Table 15. Proposed uses with possible multiple crop cycles per year1 ....................................................................... 40

Table 16. SCI-GROW (v2.3) input parameter values for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues 

(abbreviated as “FLU-UN”) and for flupyradifurone alone (abbreviated as “FLU”)1

 ............................... 40

Table 17. Tier I PRZM-GW input parameters ............................................................................................................ 40

Table 18. Input values used for Tier II surface water modeling with SWCC ............................................................. 41

Table 19. Summary of EECs estimated for radishes assuming a different number of crop cycles per year ............... 44

Table 20. Comparison of representative model inputs for parent and parent plus unextracted residues .................... 45

Table 21. Comparison of EEC for residues of FLU-UN versus FLU ......................................................................... 46

Table 22. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and flupyradifurone 

alone (FLU) in surface water* ................................................................................................................... 46

Table 23. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) or flupyradifurone 

alone (values designated with an asterick) in groundwater source irrigation water ................................... 48

Table 24. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed foliar 

uses. ........................................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 25. Terrestrial dose-based EECs for the range of seed treatment uses proposed for flupyradifurone. .............. 52

Table 26. Summary of contact and dietary exposure estimates used for foliar application, soil treatment, and seed 

treatment uses of pesticides for honeybee Tier I risk assessment. ............................................................. 53

Table 27. Screening-level EECs for honeybees based on foliar, drench, and seed treatment applications ................. 54

Table 28. Empirical pollen, nectar, and flower residue data for applications of flupyradifurone formulations to 

different crops ............................................................................................................................................ 56

Table 29. EECs for non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on proposed uses of flupyradifurone based 

on TERRPLANT. ...................................................................................................................................... 59

Table 30. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates 

exposed to flupyradifurone. ....................................................................................................................... 63

Table 31. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates 

exposed to flupyradifurone. ....................................................................................................................... 65

Table 32. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic plants exposed to 

flupyradifurone. ......................................................................................................................................... 66

Table 33. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to 
 

flupyradifurone. ......................................................................................................................................... 69

Table 34. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to 

flupyradifurone. ......................................................................................................................................... 75

Table 35. Additional non-guideline toxicity data for hazard characterization of beneficial arthropods exposed to 

flupyradifurone. ......................................................................................................................................... 76

Table 36. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants 

exposed to flupyradifurone. ....................................................................................................................... 77

Table 37. Summary of higher tiered honeybee semi-field and field studies for flupyradifurone. .............................. 82

Table 38. RQ values for aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI in the water column. ..................... 90

Table 39. RQ values for sediment-dwelling invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI. ................................... 92

Table 40. Acute and chronic RQ values for birds exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed uses. ........ 94

Table 41. Chronic dietary and dose-based RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the 

proposed uses. ............................................................................................................................................ 96

Table 42. Chronic dietary RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone following the proposed seed 

treatment uses. ........................................................................................................................................... 98

Table 43. Comparison of EECs (foliar and soil drench) and body-weight adjusted NOAELs for DFA (degradate). . 99

Table 44. Screening level RQ values for insect pollinators. ...................................................................................... 100

Table 45. Refined Tier I RQ values for honeybees based on empirical residue data from pollen and nectar. .......... 101

Table 46. Impact of different foliar dissipation half-lives on terrestrial vertebrate RQs. ......................................... 109

Table 47. Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed uses of flupyradifurone. .............. 120

Appendices 

Appendix A. Fate Data Table for Flupyradifurone ................................................................................................... 137

Appendix B. Effects Data Table for Flupyradifurone............................................................................................... 142

Appendix C. Summary of Aquatic Modeling Completed ......................................................................................... 148

Appendix D. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the Groundwater Modeling ................................................... 153

Appendix E. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the SWCC ............................................................................. 155

Appendix F. Estimation of Exposure of Terrestrial Plants to Flupyradifurone and Unextracted Residues in 

Groundwater Used as Irrigation Water .................................................................................................... 180

Appendix G. Example STIR (v. 1.0) input and output data ...................................................................................... 181

Appendix H. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.2) input and output data. ............................................................................... 182

Appendix I. Toxicity Comparisons of Flupyradifurone and Transformation Products. ........................................... 184

Appendix J. OECD and OPP Rating System for Data Evaluation Records and/or Monographs ............................. 187
6 

1. Executive Summary 

Flupyradifurone, a butenolide insecticide, is an active ingredient proposed for registration as both 

a foliar treatment on many agricultural crops and a seed treatment for soybeans. The compound 

can be taken up and systemically distributed in plants. Flupyradifurone is characterized as being 

persistent to very persistent and is moderately mobile to mobile depending on soil conditions; 

therefore, it has the potential to reach aquatic environments, including surface and groundwater, 

for several months or more following application. Flupyradifurone is nonvolatile, and thus 

movement through air will not constitute a major transport pathway.1 The available fate data 

suggest that flupyradifurone is likely to dissipate from the point of application through various 

transport mechanisms, including runoff, erosion, and leaching to groundwater, although times to 

90% decline of pesticide mass (DT90) from surface soils in terrestrial field dissipation studies 

often exceeded one year (see Section 3.2 for the Exposure Characterization). 

Based on a log octanol-water partition coefficient (log Kow) of 0.08 and organic-carbon 

normalized soil-water distribution coefficients (Koc) ranging from 80 to 283 L/kg-organic 

carbon, a higher percentage of flupyradifurone is expected in the water column as compared to 

sediment, although the chemical’s persistence in aquatic environments will lead to some 

diffusive transfer into sediment pore water. 

For aquatic organisms, the primary risks of concern in this assessment are for freshwater and 

estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting both the water column and benthic environments. 

Flupyradifurone is very highly toxic to both freshwater insects and estuarine/marine crustaceans 

on an acute exposure basis. Acute risk to federally threatened and endangered (listed) species 

and chronic risk Levels of Concern (LOCs) for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates 

were exceeded for the majority of proposed uses in this assessment. Flupyradifurone is mobile to 

moderately mobile and persistent in the aquatic environment, and as a result, there is the 

potential for both short-term and long-term exposure to aquatic organisms. After the contribution 

of spray drift was removed from aquatic exposure estimates, many proposed uses still exceeded 

the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs. Therefore, the proximity of foliar 

applications from a water body are not likely to substantially change the potential for risks of 

concern to aquatic organisms. While any setback buffer between an aquatic water body and the 

treated field is expected to reduce exposure, methodologies are not available to determine the 

distance that is needed to eliminate the risk concern from transport in runoff. In this assessment, 

the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of 

flupyradifurone was considered. In general, the use of a single crop cycle (2 applications at 0.18 

lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed freshwater invertebrates; however, 

multiple crop cycles (i.e., ≥2) did lead to risks of concern for this group. 

Although flupyradifurone is classified as ranging between practically nontoxic and moderately 

toxic to birds on acute oral exposure basis, and is classified as slightly toxic to birds on a 

subacute dietary exposure basis, risk estimates exceeded the acute risk to listed birds LOC for all 

proposed foliar and soil drench uses, as does the proposed seed treatment use of flupyradifurone 

 

1

 Flupyradifurone is classified as non-volatile under field conditions (according to the classification system in 

Guideline 835.6100) (USEPA, 2008). Based on results of the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk model, exposure 

through inhalation is not a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian species on an acute basis. 
7 

on soybean. In addition, the acute risk LOC for non-listed birds was exceeded for the seed 

treatment use and all foliar and drench uses, except for hops. The modeling of multiple crop 

cycles generally increased the number of dietary items for which the acute risk to non-listed 

species LOC was exceeded. Flupyradifurone is classified as practically nontoxic to mammals on 

an acute oral exposure basis; however, chronic risks of concern (based on reductions in growth 

following long-term exposure) were identified for multiple size classes of mammals foraging on 

multiple dietary items and for all proposed uses evaluated. 

Consistent with the fact that the compound is an insecticide, terrestrial invertebrates are 

relatively sensitive to the compound as well. However, while flupyradifurone is highly toxic to 

honeybees on an acute oral exposure basis, the compound is practically nontoxic to adult bees on 

an acute contact exposure basis. These data indicate that the primary exposure route of concern is 

through ingestion of residues in pollen/nectar rather than through contact. Although laboratorybased studies with individual adult bees indicate that 50% of bees will be subject to acute 

mortality following ingestion of residues at relatively low exposure levels, semi-field studies 

with whole colonies, in which applications were made while bees were actively foraging at full 

bloom using maximum proposed foliar application rates, only identified relatively transient 

increases in adult bee mortality within hours to several days of treatment as compared to 

untreated control colonies. Colonies exposed to flupyradifurone did not exhibit any detectable 

long-term effects. Field studies examining colonies through overwintering did not demonstrate 

any adverse effects in the treated colonies. 

Other than for bees, this assessment does not evaluate risk to terrestrial invertebrates. However, 

in non-guideline toxicity studies submitted for terrestrial arthropods exposed to formulated 

flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G), reduced survival was observed at exposure levels below 

the maximum proposed label application rate for flupyradifurone, in some cases several orders of 

magnitude lower. The most sensitive non-target arthropod was the parasitoid wasp. These data 

indicate that potential for effects of flupyradifurone to non-target terrestrial arthropods is 

possible at or below proposed application rates. 
Table 1. Summary of risk conclusions for non-target animals for proposed uses of flupyradifurone. 

Group 

RQs Risks of Concern 

Refinements Use

Acute1,2,3,4 Chronic5 (Effects) Acute: Listed Acute: Non-listed Chronic 

Freshwater Vertebrates NC6 ≤0.01 (fry survival) None None None Estuarine/Marine Vertebrates NC6 NC7 None None Not expected7 Freshwater Invertebrates 0.05-1 

0.87-18.8 

(emergence/ 

development rates) 

All uses 

≥2 crop 

cycles per 

season 

Most uses 

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 0.01-0.26 0.22-4.70 (young/female/day) Most uses None Most uses Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial Phase Amphibians 

<0.01-1.13 

0.01-1.49 

(parental survival & body 

weight; multiple reproductive 

endpoints) 

All Uses 

All Uses 

(except 

hops) 

Seed 

treatment 

only 

Mammals NC6 

0.01-5.6 

(pup body weight and weight 

gain) 

Not 

Expected 

Not 

Expected All uses 

Days exceeding chro

LOC calculated 

(spray/drench applicat

examined influence of 

dissipation half-life on 

Honeybees <0.01-4.8 0.02-12.58 NA All foliar Uses9 All foliar uses9

RQs refined based 

empirical residue da

higher-tiered studi

available 

NC = Not calculated; NA = Not applicable 1 Acute risk to listed species LOC = 0.05 for all animals. 2 Acute risk to non-listed species LOC = 0.5 for aquatic animals. 3 Acute risk to non-listed species LOC = 0.1 for terrestrial vertebrates. 4 Acute risk to non-listed species LOC = 0.4 for terrestrial invertebrates. 5 Chronic risk LOC = 1 for all animals. 6 RQs could not be calculated because toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested) 7 Chronic toxicity data are not available for estuarine/marine fish; however, based on risk estimations for freshwater fish, chronic risks to this group of 8 No effects at highest concentration tested. 9 Although laboratory-based studies with individual adult bees indicate that 50% of bees will be subject to acute mortality following ingestion of resid

levels, semi-field studies with whole colonies, in which applications were made while bees were actively foraging at full bloom using maximum propo

only identified transient increases in adult bee mortality within hours to several days of treatment as compared to untreated control colonies. Colonies 

did not exhibit any detectable long-term effects. Field studies examining colonies through overwintering did not demonstrate any adverse effects in th
Table 2. Summary of risk conclusions for non-target plants for proposed uses of flupyradifurone. 

Group RQs Risks of Concern Uncertainties Listed Spp.1 Non-Listed Spp.1 Listed Spp. Non-Listed Spp. 

Aquatic Vascular Plants <0.01 NC None Not expected Aquatic Non-Vascular Plants <0.01 NC None Not expected Terrestrial Monocotyledonous Plants <0.01-0.5 NC2 None Not expected Terrestrial Dicotyledonous Plants NC3 NC2 Uncertain3 Not expected 

NOAEC not established 

seedling emergence or 

vegetative vigor studies 

NC = Not calculated 1 Risk to aquatic and terrestrial plant listed and non-listed LOC is 1. 2 RQs could not be calculated because toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested) 3 RQs could not be calculated because a NOAEC was not established in seedling emergence or vegetative vigor studies.
10 

2. Problem Formulation 

Chemical Class and Mode of Action 

Flupyradifurone (PC Code 122304, 2(5H-(furanone), 4-{{(6-chloro-3-pyridinyl)methyl](2,2-

difluoroethyl)amino]-, also known as BYI 02960) is a new active ingredient proposed for use as 

a systemic insecticide. The chemical belongs to the butenolide class of insecticides and the 

insecticidal activity of flupyradifurone is similar to the neonicotinoids with agonist activity in 

nicotinic acetylcholine receptors, making it a member of the Insecticide Resistance Action 

Committee (IRAC) Group 4 insecticide class (IRAC, 2012). 

Overview of Proposed Uses 

Flupyradifurone has proposed foliar uses on crop group 15 cereal grains (except rice), cotton, 

nongrass animal feeds (forage, fodder, straw, hay), peanut, root vegetables (except sugarbeet), 

tuberous and corm vegetables, leafy vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (cole leafy 

vegetables), legume vegetables (succulent or dried), fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, 

hops, citrus fruit, pome fruit, bushberry (except cranberry), low growing berry (except 

cranberry), small fruit vine climbing group (except fuzzy kiwifruit), tree nuts, prickly pear, and 

soybean seeds. The registrant (Bayer CropScience) is seeking registration of flupyradifurone on 

two labels: 

 SivantoTM 200 SL (Sivanto) for use as a foliar and soil drench application to various 

agricultural crops, and 

 BYI 02960 480 FS (BYI 02960), a systemic seed treatment insecticide for use on 

soybean seeds. 

Both are liquid formulations and each only has the one active ingredient. Sivanto is proposed for 

application to agricultural crops before bloom, during bloom, or following bloom up to the stated 

pre-harvest interval (PHI). Sivanto may be applied via ground, airblast, aerial, or chemigation 

equipment while BYI 02960 is proposed for application to soybean seeds via commercial seed 

treatment application only. 

Identification of Residues of Concern 

Based on available data for degradates, the residues of concern for estimating aquatic exposure 

are flupyradifurone (parent) and unextracted residues that have not been characterized. The 

residues of concern for terrestrial vertebrates include parent and difluoroacetic acid. Only 

flupyradifurone (parent) is considered a residue of concern for terrestrial invertebrates based on 

honeybee toxicity data. Justification of the residues of concern are further discussed in Section 

3.2.5 and 3.5. 

Receptors 

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA, 1998). For this 
11 

assessment, the receptor includes terrestrial animals inhabiting fields where flupyradifurone 

foliar applications occur or treated seeds are planted, and non-target areas to where 

flupyradifurone is transported (via spray drift, runoff or leaching to groundwater) where 

terrestrial and aquatic animals may be exposed. Consistent with the process described in the 

Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the risk assessment uses a surrogate species approach in 

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

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

of species (receptors) included under these taxonomic groupings. 

Assessment Endpoints 

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be protected, defined by 

an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its attributes (USEPA, 1998). For 

flupyradifurone, the ecological entities include birds (as well as reptiles and terrestrial-phase 

amphibian for which birds serve as surrogates), mammals, freshwater fish (as well as aquaticphase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates) and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, and aquatic vascular and nonvascular plants. The 

attributes evaluated for each of these entities may include growth, reproduction, and survival. 

Conceptual Model 

A conceptual model provides a written description and visual representation of the predicted 

relationships between flupyradifurone, the potential routes of exposure, and the predicted effects 

for each assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk 

hypothesis and the conceptual diagram (USEPA, 1998). 

2.6.1. Risk Hypothesis 

For flupyradifurone, the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for this risk 

assessment: 

Given the uses of flupyradifurone and its environmental fate properties, there is a 

likelihood of exposure to non-target terrestrial and/or aquatic organisms. Flupyradifurone 

may be transported to surface water and groundwater via runoff, leaching, and spray drift. 

It may be transported to offsite terrestrial environments via spray drift. When used in 

accordance with the label, flupyradifurone may result in potential adverse effects upon the 

survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Based 

on the reduced risk assessment (USEPA, 2013, D408685), there will be potential direct 

risks to aquatic invertebrates and birds. 

2.6.2. Conceptual Model 

The environmental fate properties of flupyradifurone indicate that for foliar applications, spray 

drift, runoff, and leaching are potential transport mechanisms to aquatic habitats where nontarget organisms may be exposed. It is expected that non-target terrestrial organisms can be 

exposed to foliar applications of flupyradifurone through consumption of exposed plants and 
12 

invertebrates on the treated field. Additionally, flupyradifurone may reach terrestrial 

environments off the field via spray drift, and via application of irrigation water containing 

residues of flupyradifurone. With regards to the seed treatments, flupyradifurone may reach 

aquatic habitats via leaching of the chemical from the seed coat, and subsequent transport via 

runoff and/or infiltration. It is expected that non-target terrestrial organisms can be exposed to 

flupyradifurone through consumption of treated seeds. A summary of the transport pathways 

and the models used for those pathways in the assessment are provided in Table 3. 

As flupyradifurone is nonvolatile, atmospheric transport is not a major transport pathway. 

Additionally, the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) version 1.0 (November 23, 2010) 

indicates that exposure via inhalation is not likely to be a risk concern for birds and mammals 

(Appendix G). These results combined with the estimated atmospheric half-life of less than two 

days indicate that long-range transport in the vapor phase is not an exposure pathway of concern 

for terrestrial and aquatic organisms. Additionally, the octanol-air KOA and octanol-water KOW 

partition coefficients suggest that flupyradifurone is not likely to bioconcentrate or 

bioaccumulate in aquatic or terrestrial organisms.2

 Organic-carbon normalized sorption 

coefficient (KOC) values range from 80 to 283 L/kg-OC indicating that flupyradifurone is 

classified as mobile to moderately mobile under the FAO mobility classification system. 

Therefore, flupyradifurone does have the potential to leach to groundwater. While 

flupyradifurone does not have Koc values that indicate most flupyradifurone will quickly move 

into sediment, some flupyradifurone will be transported to sediment and pore water and 

flupyradifurone is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. Therefore, risk to sediment dwelling organisms 

due to exposure to flupyradifurone in pore water is evaluated in this assessment. Flupyradifurone 

may be applied as a flowable or seed treatment; spray drift is expected to result in significant 

exposure to organisms off of the field with broadcast applications of liquids (both aerial and 

ground boom spray). Spray drift is not modeled for seed treatments. 

The exposure pathways may result in exposure to various aquatic and terrestrial organisms. 

With exposure, the following attribute changes have the potential to occur: 

 effects to individual organisms, 

 effects to the food chain (reduction in prey and food, modification of primary constituent 

elements (PCE) related to prey availability), and 

 effects to habitat integrity (reduction in primary productivity, reduced cover, community 

change, and modification of PCE related to habitat). 

 

2

 A recent scientific advisory panel (SAP) reported, “Gobas et al. (2003) concluded that chemicals with a log KOA > 

5 can biomagnify in terrestrial food chains if log KOW >2 and the rate of chemical transformation is low. However, 

further proof is needed before accepting these limits without reservations” (SAP, 2009). This was also supported by 

Armitage and Gobas’s work completed in 2007 (Armitage and Gobas, 2007). 
13 

Table 3. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the models will be used to assess risk. 

Environment Taxa of 

Concern 

Exposure 

Media 

Exposure 

Pathway 

Model(s) or 

Pathway Attribute Change 

Aquatic 

Vertebrates/ 

Invertebrates 

Surface water/ 

sediment 

Runoff and spray 

drift to water and 

sediment 

SWCC 

Individual 

Organisms 

Food Chain 

Habitat Integrity 

Aquatic Plants 

(vascular and 

nonvascular) 

Food Chain 

Habitat Integrity 

Riparian plants See terrestrial exposure pathways Habitat Integrity 

Terrestrial 

Vertebrate 

Dietary items 

Ingestion of 

residues in/on 

dietary items, 

including treated 

seeds as a result 

of direct 

application 

T-REX 

Individual 

Organisms 

Food Chain 

Habitat Integrity 

Consumption of 

aquatic organisms 

Residues taken 

up by aquatic 

organisms 

Not a major 

transport 

pathway 

--- 

Plants 

Spray drift/runoff Runoff and spray 

drift to plants TERRPLANT 

Food Chain 

Surface water Habitat Integrity 

Residues in 

irrigation water 

leaching to 

groundwater 

SWCC 

Groundwater 

SCIGROW 

PRZM-GW 

Bees and other 

terrestrial 

invertebrates1 

Dietary items 

Spray contact 

and ingestion of 

residues in/on 

dietary items as 

a result of direct 

application 

Multiple models

Individual 

Organisms 

Colony/Population 

Integrity 

All 

Environments All 

Movement through 

air to aquatic and 

terrestrial media 

Spray drift 

AgDRIFT (Spray 

drift) Individual 

Organisms 

Food Chain 

Habitat Integrity 

AgDISP (Spray 

drift) 

Atmospheric 

transport 

Not a major 

transport 

pathway 

Text in italics represent transport pathways that are not of concern. 1 See pollinator SAP white paper for full list of modelling approaches for evaluating exposure used in this 

assessment (USEPA, 2012d). 

Analysis Plan 

The analysis plan is the final step in Problem Formulation. During this step, an assessment 

design is developed, the scope of the assessment is outlined, the methods for conducting the 

assessment are determined, measurements of effects and exposure to evaluate the risk hypothesis 

are delineated, and initial data gaps and assumptions required to address them are identified. 
14 

2.7.1. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments 

A reduced risk assessment has been completed for flupyradifurone. The reduced risk assessment 

was completed prior to reviewing all available data. Additionally, the toxicity endpoints used in 

the reduced risk assessment were not the same as those used in this risk assessment. The reduced 

risk assessment was specific for use on pome fruit, citrus, cotton, and vegetables, and indicated 

that flupyradifurone had less environmental risk as compared to some alternatives but not others. 

The flupyradifurone request for reduced risk was granted based on the full comparison of all 

potential risk as compared to alternatives (including considerations for risk to human health).

2.7.2. Data Gaps 

The following environmental fate and ecological effects data gaps are identified in this 

assessment: 

 The test on photodegradation in water (OCSPP Guideline 835.22403

) did not fully 

characterize potential degradates. 

 Terrestrial field dissipation studies (OCSPP Guideline 835.61004

) are currently available on 

bare ground sites only, and did not track some of the major degradates observed in photolysis 

studies. 

 Submitted adsorption/desorption data (OCSPP Guideline 835.12305) did not include sorption 

of flupyradifurone to an aquatic sediment, as is recommended in the guideline. 

 There are no acceptable chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish (OCSPP Draft 

Guideline 850.1400). However, the potential for chronic risk to this group of organisms is 

considered low. 

 At the time of this assessment, there are no acceptable toxicity data for several aquatic 

nonvascular plants including diatoms (freshwater or estuarine/marine) and freshwater 

cyanobacteria (OCSPP Guidelines 850.4500 and 850.4550). Although risks of concern to 

aquatic plants from proposed uses of flupyradifurone are not anticipated based on available 

toxicity data for green algae, toxicity data for additional species would allow for a more 

robust risk conclusion for this groups of organisms. 

 Definitive no observed adverse effects concentrations (NOAEC) were not established for 

terrestrial dicotyledonous plants as the lowest observed adverse effects concentrations 

(LOAEC) occurred at the only concentration tested in submitted seedling emergence and 

vegetative vigor studies. Without additional toxicity data on terrestrial plants, risks of 

concern to listed dicotyledonous plants cannot be ruled out. 

Appendix A and Appendix B contain data tables with details on whether additional data are 

needed to address the uncertainties for these data gaps. 

 

3

 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0012 4

 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0040 5

 http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0152-0006 
15 

2.7.3. Measures of Exposure 

Screening-level assessments are intended to be protective of wildlife on a national level, as 

opposed to being regionally- or locally-specific. Therefore, this assessment is not intended to 

represent a spatially- or temporally-specific analysis. Maximum application rates are used to 

model estimated environmental concentrations (EECs). Measures of exposure are based on 

aquatic and terrestrial models that calculate EECs using proposed application rates and methods. 

Exposure modeling assumes that the seed treatment use will not result in spray drift. Particulate 

drift (also known as “dust-off” or “fugitive dust”), which may occur from abrasion of treated 

seeds during field application, is not assessed in screening-level exposure models. Groundwater 

is assessed, due to the mobility of flupyradifurone and the potential that contaminated 

groundwater could be used as irrigation water on crops. As this is a new registration, there are 

currently no monitoring data for flupyradifurone for comparison with model-generated EECs. 

The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, version 1.1) is used to calculate surface 

water EECs and EECs for sediment-dwelling invertebrates. The SWCC is a graphical user 

interface that runs the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM, version 5, November 15, 2006) and 

the Variable Volume Water Body Model (VVWM, 3/6/2014) (USEPA, 2006). Groundwater 

concentrations are estimated using the Screening Concentration in Groundwater (SCI-GROW, 

version 2.3, 7/30/2003) model and the Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (Pesticide 

Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.07, August 31, 2012). The Terrestrial Residue 

Exposure Model (T-REX, version 1.5.2, 06/06/2013) is used to derive terrestrial EECs on food 

items for terrestrial vertebrates (USEPA, 2012c). The TerrPlant model (v. 1.2.2, 12/26/2006) is 

used to derive runoff EECs for estimating exposures to terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and semiaquatic areas (USEPA, 2009). AgDRIFT (version 2.1.1) was used to evaluate exposure to all 

taxa via spray drift according to guidance on modeling spray drift (USEPA, 2013b). Exposure 

models are parameterized using relevant use and environmental fate data according to EFED 

input parameter guidance for water modeling (USEPA, 2009), EFED guidance on calculating 

degradation kinetics (NAFTA, 2012; USEPA, 2012b), and the EFED input parameter guidance 

specific to PRZM-GW (USEPA, 2013a; USEPA and Health Canada, 2013). Information on 

EFED models is available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm. The 

registrant provided a suite of Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) 

guideline-compliant environmental fate and product chemistry studies that provide data for these 

various estimates of exposure. 

2.7.4. Measures of Effect 

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

conducted with a limited number of surrogate species. The test species are not intended to be 

representative of the most sensitive species but rather are selected based on their ability to thrive 

under laboratory conditions. For example, toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment 

utilizes surrogate species to represent all freshwater fish (>2000 species) and birds (>680 

species) identified in the U.S. Open literature searches are not conducted to identify data for 

potential use in this risk assessment because flupyradifurone is a new active ingredient. 

 

The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment include the median lethal 
16 

dose (LD50), median lethal concentration (LC50), and the median effect concentration (EC50). 

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

organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of effect are the No Observed Adverse Effects 

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

studies are submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and 

invertebrates, aquatic and terrestrial plants, birds, mammals and honeybees. The measurement 

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

are classified as “fully reliable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be 

scientifically sound) or “reliable with restrictions” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the 

results are scientifically sound). Please see Appendix J for more information on the study 

classification system. 

2.7.5. Integration of Exposure and Effects 

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

effects on non-target species. For the screening-level assessment of flupyradifurone, the 

deterministic, risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured 

toxicity values. The RQ method involves dividing EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. 

The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s levels of concern (LOCs) (USEPA, 2004). 

When the RQ is greater than the LOC, it indicates that applications of flupyradifurone have the 

potential to cause adverse effects to non-target organisms when used as directed on the label. 

Although risk is often described in terms of the likelihood and magnitude of adverse effects, the 

risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of likelihood or magnitude 

of an adverse effect, but rather provides a “yes” or “no” answer depending upon whether or not 

LOCs are exceeded. 

3. Analysis 

 Use Characterization 

The registrant (Bayer CropScience) is seeking registration of several uses (described in Table 4) 

of flupyradifurone on two labels: 

 SivantoTM 200 SL (Sivanto) for use as a foliar and soil drench application to various 

agricultural crops. 

 BYI 02960 480 FS (BYI 02960), a seed treatment insecticide for use on soybean seeds. 

Both are liquid formulations. Sivanto is proposed for application to agricultural crops before 

bloom, during bloom, or following bloom up to the stated pre-harvest interval (PHI). Sivanto is 

proposed for application via ground, airblast, aerial, or chemigation equipment; BYI 02960 is 

proposed for application to soybean seeds via commercial seed treatment only. 

Most uses have the same proposed maximum single and seasonal application rates of 0.18 lbs 

active ingredient per acre (lbs ai/A) and 0.37 lbs ai/A per season, respectively. A few crops 

(fruiting vegetables, cucurbit vegetables, citrus fruit, small fruit and vine climbing group) have 
17 

both proposed maximum single and seasonal application rates of 0.37 lbs ai/A. The number of 

proposed seasonal or annual applications is not specified for any use, and retreatment intervals 

range from “not specified” to 10 days. The proposed labels include a maximum seasonal 

application rate and thus the maximum number of applications per season may be estimated by 

dividing the maximum seasonal application rate by the maximum single application rate. 

Table 4. Proposed uses of flupyradifurone 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate 

in lbs. ai/A

(kg ai/ha) 

# of 

App 

Seasonal 

App. Rate 

lbs. ai/A 

(kg ai/ha) 

MRI 

(days) PHI (days) 

Geographic 

Restriction

s 

Comments 

Crop Group 15: 

Cereal Grains 

(except Rice) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 

7 forage and sweet 

corn -- foliar 

21 dried grain -- 

Cotton 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 14 -- foliar 

Nongrass Animal 

Feeds (Forage, 

Fodder, Straw, Hay) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 10 

7 forage, silage, hay 

or seed of alfalfa -- foliar 

14 all others -- 

Peanut 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 -- foliar 

Root Vegetables 

(except Sugarbeet) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 7 -- foliar 

Tuberous and Corm 

Vegetables 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 7 7 West of MS 

river 

Leafy Vegetables 

(except Brassica) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 7 1 -- foliar 

Brassica (Cole) 

Leafy Vegetables 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 7 1 -- foliar 

Legume Vegetables 

(Succulent or Dried) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 

7 forage, leaves, 

vines, pods, cutting 

for hay or seed 

-- foliar 

21 dry soybean 

seed -- foliar 

Fruiting Vegetables 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 West of MS river foliar 

0.27 – 0.37 

(0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 (0.409) NS 45 -- 

soil, chemigation to root zone, 

injection below seed line, potting 

hole drench at transplanting, 

post-transplant drench following 

setting and covering 

Cucurbit Vegetables 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 1 West of MS river foliar 
18 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate 

in lbs. ai/A

(kg ai/ha) 

# of 

App 

Seasonal 

App. Rate 

lbs. ai/A 

(kg ai/ha) 

MRI 

(days) PHI (days) 

Geographic 

Restriction

s 

Comments 

0.27 – 0.37 

(0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 (0.409) 7 21 -- 

soil, chemigation to root zone, 

injection below seed line, potting 

hole drench at transplanting, 

post-transplant drench following 

setting and covering 

Hop 0.09 – 0.14 

(0.10 - 0.15) NS 0.14 (0.15) NS 21 -- foliar 

Citrus Fruit 

0.27 – 0.37 

(0.31 – 0.41) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 

10 30 -- 

Soil, chemigation into root zone 

through low pressure drip, 

trickle, micro-sprinkler; basal 

drench in sufficient water to 

move into root zone 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 10 1 -- foliar 

Pome Fruit 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 10 14 -- 

Foliar, combine with 

horticultural oil for early season 

applications targeting San Jose 

scale and Pear psylla 

Bushberry 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 7 3 -- foliar 

Low Growing Berry 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 10 0 -- foliar 

Small Fruit Vine 

Climbing (except 

Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 

0.365 

(0.409) 

10 0 -- foliar 

0.27 – 0.37 

(0.31 – 0.41) NS NS 30 -- 

Soil, chemigation into root-zone 

through low pressure drip, 

trickle, micro-sprinkler or 

equivalent equipment; basal 

drench in sufficient water to 

move into root zone. 

Tree Nut 0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 

(0.409) 14 7 -- foliar 

Prickly Pear/Cactus 

pear 

0.09 - 0.18 

(0.10 - 0.20) NS 0.365 (0.409) 14 7 -- foliar, ground only 

Soybean Seeds 0.037 

(0.041) NA 0.365 NA NS -- 

Maximum single application rate 

calculated from label restriction 

of 0.068 mg ai/seed and an 

assumption of 250,000 seeds 

planted per acre which may 

occur in North Dakota (USEPA, 

2011).

App=application; MRI=minimum retreatment interval; PHI=preharvest interval; NA=not applicable; NS=not specified; ai=active 

ingredient; A=acre 

*Application limitations were on a single and seasonal application basis. It is possible that the chemical could be applied over 

multiple seasons to one field. 

Exposure Characterization 

3.2.1. Physical-Chemical Properties 

Table 5 summarizes the identity information and physical-chemical properties of 

flupyradifurone. While flupyradifurone reportedly does not dissociate at environmentally 

relevant pH values, water solubility does decrease from 3200 mg/L at pH 4 and 7 to 3000 mg/L 
19 

at pH 9. Based on its vapor pressure, water solubility, octanol-water partition coefficient (KOW), 

and solid-water distribution coefficients (Kd), flupyradifurone is classified as non-volatile from 

water, moist soils, and dry surfaces (OPPTS Guideline 835.6100 classification system). Based 

on flupyradifurone’s log KOW value of 0.08, and log octanol-air partition coefficient (KOA) values 

of 11, it is not likely to bioconcentrate in terrestrial organisms.6

 This conclusion is strengthened 

by the chemical’s predicted reactivity in the vapor phase (estimated atmospheric decay half-life 

of 0.4 days, Table 7). Compounds with log KOW of three and above are generally considered to 

have the potential to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms. Because flupyradifurone’s log KOW

falls well below this at 0.08, it is not expected to bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms. 

Table 5. Summary of physical-chemical properties of flupyradifurone1 

Parameter Value and Units Source and/or Comment 

PC Code 122304 -- 

CAS Number 951659-40-8 -- 

SMILES Code C1=CC(=NC=C1CN(CC(F)F)C2=CC(OC2)=

O)Cl -- 

Chemical Name Flupyradifurone -- 

Empirical Formula C12H11ClF2N2O2 -- 

Molecular Weight 288.68 g/mole -- 

UV/Visible Absorption λmax (nm): 213 and 259 nm MRID 48843628 

Water Solubility at 

20o

C (mg/L) 

pH Solubility 

MRID 48843644 4 3200 

7 3200 

9 3000 

Vapor Pressure 

o

C Vapor Pressure 

MRID 48843650. Non-volatile under field 

conditions 

Pascal Torr 

20 9.1×10-7 6.8×10-9

25 1.7×10-6 1.3×10-8

Henry’s Law constant 

at 20o

C 8.1×10-13 atm-m3

/mol (pH 4 and 7) Estimated from vapor pressure and water 

solubility at 20o

C. 

Log Dissociation 

Constant (pKa) No dissociation between pH 1 -12 MRID 48843634. Not expected to ionize in 

natural waters 

Octanol-water partition 

coefficient (Kow) at 

25o

C 

1.2 (log KOW=0.08) pH 4, 7, and 9 MRID 48843639. Not likely to 

bioconcentrate. 

Air-water partition 

coefficient (KAW) 3.3×10-11 (log KAW = -11) 

Estimated from vapor pressure and water 

solubility at 20oC and pH 7. 

Nonvolatile from water. 

Octanol-air partition 

coefficient (KOA) 3.6×1010 (log KOA = 11) Estimated from KAW and KOW. 

 

6 A recent scientific advisory panel (SAP) reported, “Gobas et al. (2003) concluded that chemicals with a log KOA > 

5 can biomagnify in terrestrial food chains if log KOW >2 and the rate of chemical transformation is low. However, 

further proof is needed before accepting these limits without reservations” (SAP, 2009). This was also supported by 

Armitage and Gobas’s work completed in 2007 (Armitage and Gobas, 2007). 
20 

Parameter Value and Units Source and/or Comment 

Solubility in organic 

solvents 

Methanol >250 g/L 

n-Heptane 0.0005 g/L 

Toluene 3.7 g/L 

Dichloromethane >250 g/L 

Acetone >250 g/L 

Ethylacetate >250 g/L 

Dimethyl sulfoxide >250 g/L 1

All estimated values were estimated according to “Guidance for Reporting on the Environmental Fate and 

Transport of the Stressors of Concern in Problem Formulations for Registration Review, Registration Review Risk 

Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk 

Assessments” (USEPA, 2010). 

3.2.2. Transformation Rates in Laboratory Studies 

Table 7 summarizes abiotic and biotic transformation data. Study results indicate that 

flupyradifurone is persistent to very persistent7 in soil, sediment and water. Measured aerobic 

soil DT50 (time interval where mass has declined by 50%) values of 38 to 401 days are uncertain 

because of high amounts (greater than 10% applied radioactivity) of unextracted residues which 

may or may not constitute residues of concern. Aerobic soil DT50 values calculated assuming 

that the unextracted residues constitute residues of concern range from 79 to 799 days and are 

approximately double those for parent alone. Flupyradifurone is stable to hydrolysis at pH 4, 7, 

and 9, though it does degrade via aqueous photolysis, with a DT50 of 2.5 days. Aqueous 

photolysis would be limited to surface waters that are shallow and clear. Under aerobic aquatic 

conditions, DT50 values ranged from 237 to 365 days for parent alone, and from 676 to 893 days 

for parent plus unextracted residues.8 Estimated DT50 values for soil photolysis (1 soil), 

anaerobic soil metabolism (4 soils), and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (2 sediments) were all 

very high (i.e., >391 days) or not quantifiable (i.e., stable), indicating that these degradation 

pathways contribute little to the degradation of flupyradifurone. Based on graphical analysis and 

visual inspection, there was not a relationship between pH or percent organic carbon and 

degradation rates 

Unextected residues were present at greater than 10% applied radioactivity (AR) in the aerobic 

soil and aerobic aquatic studies. They were also present at greater than 10% applied 

radioactivity in the anaerobic soil and anaerobic aquatic studies; however, the amount of 

unextracted residues were relatively constant after the system was anaerobic. In most studies, 

the extraction procedure involved shaking one time in each of the following solvent systems: 

50:50 acetonitrile:water, 80:20 acetonitrile:water, and 100% acetonitrile. Finally, soils were 

extracted once in a microwave at 70o

C with 80:20 acetonitrile:water. The extraction procedure 

did not include a range of polar and nonpolar solvents with a sufficient range of chemical 

properties. Therefore, it is uncertain whether all potentially available residues were extracted. 

There were different percentages of unextracted residues in studies with the same soil but with 

different radiolabels, indicating that a portion of the unextracted residues are likely degradates(s). 

 

7

 According to the Toxic Release Inventory Classification System, chemicals with half-lives greater than 60-days are 

classified as persistent and chemicals with half-lives greater than 180 days are classified as very persistent (USEPA, 

2012a). 

8

 Unextracted residues in aerobic aquatic metabolism studies were greater than 10% applied radioactivity and it is 

uncertain whether the extraction procedures were sufficiently exhaustive. 
21 

However, it is unknown what portion may be degradate and what portion may be parent. Thus, 

degradation kinetics and risk were explored with assuming that the unextracted residues were 

parent and with assuming they were not a residue of concern. 

Table 6. Maximum amount of unextracted residues observed in aerobic metabolism studies 

Study (number of test systems)* Maximum %AR associated with 

unextracted residues 

Aerobic Soil (18) 12.7 – 33.8 

Anaerobic Soil (5) 13.6 – 30.8 

Aerobic Aquatic (6) 13.9 – 27.3 

Anaerobic Aquatic (2) 5.4 – 12.0 

*The number of test systems reflects the individual studies with different radiolabels. 

Many of the decline curves were biphasic with an initial rapid rate of decline that slows as time 

passes. The curves where this occurred were generally described using the indeterminate order 

rate equation (IORE) and the double first order in parallel (DFOP) models and can be understood 

by considering both the DT50 and DT90 values. Figure 1 gives an example of a biphasic decline 

curve. Half or the initial concentration declined over 59 days. This was followed by a 10% loss 

of flupyradifurone over the next 61 days. As shown in Table 7, the majority of decline curves 

for metabolism were biphasic. 

EFED exposure models require first-order inputs for pesticide transformation processes even 

though pesticide transformations in soil and aquatic systems often do not follow a single 

exponential decline pattern. For this reason, the North American Free Trade Agreement 

(NAFTA) guidance introduced a "representative half-life (tR)", to estimate a single first order 

(SFO) half-life for model input from a degradation curve that does not follow the SFO equation.9

These values are shown in Table 7. The representative half-life considers both the initial and the 

slower portions of the decline curve and is not necessarily numerically similar to the value of the 

DT50, rather it provides a conservative input value for modeling. The actual DT50 and DT90 from 

the representative degradation kinetic equations for the curve are used for descriptive purposes 

and understanding the decline curve and the representative half-life is used in modeling. 

 

9 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/degradation_kinetics/NAFTA_Degradation_Kinetics.htm
22 

Figure 1. Example of a biphasic decline curve with an initial rapid rate of loss that slows over time 

The curve shown is an aerobic soil metabolism study conducted on the German AX soil (MRID 48843674).

The DT50 for the Neossolo soil and parent flupyradifurone alone was determined using the DFOP 

model. However, the SFO model was used to describe the decline curve for residues of 

flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. Because different equations were used, the DT50 and 

DT90 for parent plus unextracted residues were shorter than the DT50 and DT90 for parent alone. 

This is an artifact of the methodology used to select which equation is used to describe the 

decline curve and the tool used to fit the curves. In the Neossolo soil, the DFOP model did not 

regress correctly in the R program (i.e., a negative values calculated for the slow rate) and the 

IORE results were very high resulting in a very high recommended representative model input 

half-life (TIORE) of 7.12×107 days. Finally, 70% of residues were remaining at the end of the 120 

day study. Therefore, the SFO model was chosen as the representative model for that soil. 

Figure 2 shows the decline curve for this soil. While it is counterintuitive that the DT50 and 

DT90 are shorter for parent plus unextracted residues, the overall the value is the result for one 

soil. When calculating the input parameters for modeling, results from all 10 soils were used and 

the estimated model input value for both flupyradifurone alone and flupyradifurone plus 

unextracted residues is conservative. 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percent

Flupyradifurone Remaining

Time (days)
23 

Figure 2. Decline curve for aerobic soil metabolism in the Neosolo soil 

A similar situation occurred in the aerobic aquatic metabolism study with sediment from a 

German gravel pit. In this case, all of the equations converged appropriately and the equation 

recommended using the NAFTA procedure was used to characterize degradation kinetics. 

Again, the important thing is that both selected values are reasonable based on available data and 

the model input chosen to represent aerobic aquatic metabolism is conservative. 

Figure 3. Decline curve for aerobic aquatic metabolism in the German gravel pit sediment 

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percent Remaining

Time (days)

Parent plus unextracted residues Parent alone

70

75

80

85

90

95

100

105

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Percent Remaining

Time (days)

Parent alone Parent plus unextracted residues
24 

Table 7. Abiotic and biotic transformation kinetics of flupyradifurone, flupyradifurone plus M48 plus M47, 

and flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. Study 

System Details 

(Kinetic 

Equation) 

Kinetic Equation 

Fitted1 Value1

Representative 

Half-life to 

Derive Model 

Input (days)2

Reference Or (MRID), 

Study Classification3 

And Comments DT50

(days) 

DT90

(days) 

Hydrolysis 

(50oC) 

pH 4 

No significant 

degradation Stable MRID 48843667, Fully Reliable 

pH 7 

pH 9 

Atmospheric 

Degradation 

Hydroxyl Radical 

(SFO) 0.4 NA Not applicable 

Estimated using EPIWEB v.4.1 for 12-hour 

day, 1.5x106

 OH- molecules/cm3. 

Flupyradifurone is not expected to undergo 

long range transport in the vapor phase. 

Aqueous Photolysis 

(25oC) 

pH 7 

Sterile 

40o

N sunlight 

(SFO, SFO**) 

2.5 

13.0** 

8.2 

43.2** 

2.5 

13.0** 

MRID 48843669, Fully reliable. Corrected for 

40oN latitude. Furanone ring labeled. 

pH 8 

Natural water 

40o

N sunlight 

(SFO, SFO**) 

2.5 

9.6** 

8.4 

31.9** 

2.5 

9.3** 

MRID 48843670, Fully reliable. Corrected for 

40oN latitude. Furanone ring labeled. 

Soil 

Photolysis 

CA loam 

pH 6.5, 20o

C 

(SFO) 

449 1495 Not applicable 

MRID 48843672, Fully reliable. Soil 

photolysis is of minor importance for the 

degradation of BYI 02960 under outdoor 

conditions and a major phototransformation 

product is not expected. 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (20oC) 

German AX 

pH 6.8, 1.2% OC 

 (DFOP, DFOP*) 

62.9 

169* 

468 

767* 

178 

258* 

MRIDs 48843674, 48843676, 48843677, 

48843679, 48843681, 48843682, 48843683. 

Reliable with restrictions. Results are shown 

for combined study results for the German and 

U.S. soils. The furanone label soils had a 

higher percentage of unextracted residues than 

the other labels. The differences suggest that 

at least some of the unextracted residues are 

degradate. The German DD soil had some 

divergence in the results for different labels, 

DT50 ranged from 34 to 56 days for the 

individual studies. 

German HF 

pH 7.0, 1.8%OC 

 (IORE, IORE*) 

37.5 

78.8* 

260 

1292* 

78.4 

389* 

German HN 

pH 5.9, 2.3%OC 

 (DFOP, DFOP*) 

112 

303* 

562 

1100* 

194 

343* 

German DD 

pH 7.7, 4.6%OC 

 (IORE, IORE*) 

45.4 

96.7* 

249 

1510* 

75 

455* 

NE silt loam 

pH 6.7, 2.3%OC 

 (DFOP, SFO*) 

215 

355* 

743 

1179* 

227 

355* 

CA sandy loam 

pH 7.4, 0.57%OC 

 (IORE, IORE*) 

56.6 

173* 

378 

3139* 

114 

945* 

Argissolo 

pH 6.0, 2.8 %OC 

(SFO, SFO*) 

202 

296* 

671 

982* 

202 

296* 

Latossolo 

pH 5.2, 1.8 %OC 

(DFOP, SFO*) 

134 

291* 

364 

966* 

97.9 

291* 
25 

Study 

System Details 

(Kinetic 

Equation) 

Kinetic Equation 

Fitted1 Value1

Representative 

Half-life to 

Derive Model 

Input (days)2

Reference Or (MRID), 

Study Classification3 

And Comments DT50

(days) 

DT90

(days) 

Neossolo 

pH 4.9, 0.21%OC 

(DFOP, SFO*) 

170 

221* 

1293 

734* 

484 

221* 

Gleissolo 

pH 4.1, %OC 7.8 

(SFO, SFO*) 

401 

799* 

1331 

2655* 

401 

799* 

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism (20oC) 

German HF soil 

pH 6.4, %OC 2.7 

(DFOP, SFO*) 

632 

3793* 

2098 

12601* 

711 

3793* 

MRID 48843686. Reliable with restrictions. 

Dissolved oxygen concentrations were near 1 

mg/L at some time points. Unextracted 

residues exceeded 10%AR but were relatively 

constant post flood. An overall DFOP DT50

and DT90 are not available for parent only. 

The values shown are the results for the SFO 

model. 

Sanger, CA 

pH 7.2, %OC 0.45 

(SFO) 392 1303 392 

MRID 48843687. Reliable with restrictions. 

Oxygen concentrations were near 1 mg/L at 

some time points after flooding but redox 

conditions were appropriate days 30-121 post 

flood. Unextracted residues were greater than 

10%AR but were relatively constant during 

the anaerobic phase. 

NE soil 

pH 6.7, %OC 1.9 Essentially stable over 30 days 

MRID 48843688. Reliable with restrictions. 

Study terminated 60 days after flooding. No 

loss over 30 days of appropriate redox 

conditions. 

Aerobic Aquatic 

(20oC) 

German pond HW 

pH 7.4, 3.59 %OC 

20o

C 

(IORE, SFO*) 

237 

893* 

1818 

2965* 

547 

893* MRID 48843690 and 48843692. Reliable with 

restrictions due to presence of unextracted 

residues at greater than 10%AR. Results are 

shown for combined study results. 

German gravel pit 

(AW) 

pH 7.0, 1.20 %OC 

20o

C 

(IORE, SFO*) 

365 

676* 

5793 

2247* 

1740 

676* 

Anaerobic Aquatic 

(24oC) 

KS pond 

Water: pH 8.3, 

7.8% OC 

(SFO) 

1999 

Stable* 

6640 

Stable* 

1999 

Stable* MRID 48843689. Reliable with restrictions. 

Up to 12%AR present as unextracted residues 

in NC system and it is uncertainty whether the 

extraction procedure was sufficiently 

exhaustive. 

NC pond 

Water: pH 7.4, 

11.9%OC 

(SFO, SFO*) 

416 

2470* 

1381 

8204* 

416 

2470* 

AR=applied radioactivity; OC=organic carbon; DTX=time for concentration/mass to decline by X percentage; 

SFO=single first order; DFOP=double first order in parallel; IORE=indeterminate order (IORE); SFO DT50=single 

first order half-life; TIORE=the half-life of a SFO model that passes through a hypothetical DT90 of the IORE fit; 

DFOP slow DT50=slow rate half-life of the DFOP fit, NA=not available, AR=applied radioactivity * Value calculated for parent and unextracted residues which may or may not be parent. These values are relevant in 

understanding the uncertainty in data due to unextracted residues. 

** Value calculated for parent plus M47 plus M48. 

1

 DT50 and DT90 values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE equations. The 
26 

equations can be found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to 

Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation (USEPA, 2012b). 2

 The value used to estimate a model input value is the calculated SFO DT50, TIORE, or the DFOP slow DT50 from the 

DFOP equation. The model chosen is consistent with that recommended using the, Guidance for Evaluating and 

Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media (NAFTA, 2012). The same kinetic equation used to 

determine the representative model input value was used to describe the DT50 and DT90 results based on standard 

kinetic equations. 

3

 See Appendix J for a comparison of OPP and OECD classification systems. OECD classifications were used 

because the monograph was harmonized with other countries. 

Four degradates were present in one or more fate studies at greater than 10% of applied 

radioactivity (AR): 

 6-chloronicotinic acid (6-CNA)10, 

 difluoroacetic acid (DFA), 

 BYI 02960-succinamide (M48), and 

 BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide (M47). 

Table 8 summarizes available degradation studies for 6-CNA and DFA; 6-CNA is degraded 

rapidly in three aerobic soil systems (DT50 ranged from 3 to 7 days). The degradate DFA was 

persistent to very persistent in two aerobic aquatic systems (DT50 ranged from 121 to 951 days). 

More information on the amount formed and sorption of these degradates is available in other 

sections. Degradation studies were not conducted with M47 and M48; however, they were 

detected at maximum amounts at the end of the aquaeous photolysis study. This suggests that 

M47 and M48 have the potential to be persistent in aqueous environments. 

Table 8. Biotic degradation kinetics for 6CNA and DFA 

Study System Details 

(Kinetic Equation) 

DT50 

(days) 

DT90

(days) 

Representative 

Half-life to 

Derive Model 

Input (days)2

Reference Or (MRID), 

Study Classification 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism – 

6CNA 

UK sandy loam, 20o

C 

pH 6.7, 3.1%OC (IORE) 3.5 8.6 2.6 

MRID 44651882. Reliable 

with restrictions. 

UK clay, 20oC 

pH 7.8, 3.8%OC (IORE) 2.7 7.1 2.1 

UK loam, 20oC 

pH 7.2, 2.9%OC (IORE) 6.5 13.2 4.0 

Aerobic 

Aquatic 

Metabolism - 

DFA 

German pond HW, 20o

C 

pH 7.4, 3.59 %OC (SFO, SFO*) 

121 

226* 

403 

752* 

121 

226* 

MRID 48843691. Reliable 

with restrictions. Unextracted 

residues were less than 

10%AR in the AW system 

and 16% in the HW system, 

except for an outlier presumed 

due to experimental error. 

There was one outlier at the 

same sampling point in both 

systems that resulted in high 

mass balances. 

German gravel pit (AW), 20oC 

pH 7.0, 1.20 %OC (SFO) 951 3159 951 

 

10 6-chloronicotinic acid is a degradate for flupyradifurone, acetamiprid, and imidacloprid. 
27 

OC=organic carbon; DT50=time for concentration/mass to decline by 50%; SFO=single first order; DFOP=double 

first order in parallel; IORE=indeterminate order (IORE) 

* Value calculated for parent and unextracted residues which may or may not be parent. These values are relevant in 

understanding the uncertainty in data due to unextracted residues. 

1

 DT50 values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE equations. The equations can be 

found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative 

Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation (USEPA, 2012b). 2

 The value used to estimate a model input value is the calculated SFO DT50, TIORE, or the DFOP slow DT50 from the 

DFOP equation. The model chosen is consistent with that recommended using the, Guidance for Evaluating and 

Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media (NAFTA, 2012). The same kinetic equation used to 

determine the representative model input value was used to describe the DT50 and DT90 results based on standard 

kinetic equations. 

3.2.3. Sorption and Mobility 

Unlike degradation, study results indicate that soil sorption of flupyradifurone is influenced by 

percent organic carbon (Table 9). Nevertheless, based on organic-carbon water normalized soilwater distribution coefficients (Koc) ranging from 80 to 283 L/kg-organic carbon (measured in 10 

soils), flupyradifurone is classified as mobile to moderately mobile (FAO, 2000) (MRID 

48843662, 48843663, 48843664). Flupyradifurone therefore has the potential to move with 

runoff, and/or to infiltrate the soil and leach into groundwater. The aquatic field dissipation 

results indicate that most flupyradifurone residues will not be quickly transported into sediment 

and sediment pore water; however, some residues will occur in sediment. While Koc values 

indicate that flupyradifurone has a higher affinity for organic matter than water, they are well 

below 1000 L/kg. In most aquatic environments, a greater percentage of flupyradifurone is 

expected to be present in the water column as compared to sediment. 

The degradate, 6-CNA, is mobile to moderately mobile, with Koc values ranging from 17.2 to 

134 L/kg in five soils and one sediment (FAO, 2000) (MRID 44651884). DFA is highly mobile, 

with Koc values ranging from 1.55 to 8.75 L/kg in five soils (FAO, 2000) (MRID 48843665). 

Both 6-CNA and DFA thus also have the potential to runoff or leach to groundwater. Sorption 

data are not available for M47 or M48. 

Table 9. Summary of submitted sorption studies for flupyradifurone and its degradates 2-chloronicotinic 

acid (6CNA), and difluoroacetic acid (DFA) 

Soil texture 

Source 

% 

OC 

soil 

pH 

Regressed 

Kd 

(L/kg-soil) 

KOC 

(L/kg-OC) 

KF

(mg/L)(mg/kg)-1/n 1/n 

KFOC

(mg/L) (mg/kg)-

1/n

Parent, 20oC, MRID 48843662, Fully Reliable

Sandy loam 

AX, Germany 2.1 6.2 2.193 104.4 2.077 0.8445 98.9 

Loam 

HF, Germany 2.4 6.6 2.353 98.05 2.213 0.8682 92.2 

Loam 

HN, Germany 2.2 5.3 2.506 113.9 2.354 0.8643 107.0 

Loam 

DD, Germany 5.1 7.2 4.118 80.74 3.822 0.8648 74.9 

Parent, 20oC, MRID 48843663, Fully Reliable 

Sandy loam 

California 0.7 6.8 0.627 89.5 0.597 0.9021 85.2 

Silt loam, 1.9 6.5 2.824 148.6 2.512 0.8505 132.2 
28 

Soil texture 

Source 

% 

OC 

soil 

pH 

Regressed 

Kd 

(L/kg-soil) 

KOC 

(L/kg-OC) 

KF

(mg/L)(mg/kg)-1/n 1/n 

KFOC

(mg/L) (mg/kg)-

1/n

Nebraska 

Parent, 20oC, MRID 48843664, Fully Reliable 

Clay, Argissolo, 

Brazil 2.8 5.66 7.104 254 6.7 0.8153 241 

Clay,Latossolo, 

Brazil 1.7 4.59 1.462 86 1.5 0.9263 86 

Loamy sand, 

Neossolo, Brazil 0.5 4.93 0.563 113 0.6 0.9246 115 

Silty clay loam, 

Gleissolo, Brazil 7.8 3.51 22.07 283 21.1 0.8317 270 

2-chloronicotinic acid, MRID 44651884, Fully Reliable 

Loamy sand 1 

NC 0.25 4.4 0.335 134 0.377 0.803 151 

Loamy sand 2 

NC 1.5 6.2 0.863 57.6 0.818 1.11 54.5 

Silt loam 

MS 0.44 6.6 0.244 55.4 0.274 0.808 62.3 

Clay 

MS 0.82 7.5 0.205 17.2 0.21 0.96 17.6 

Clay loam 

CA 1.2 8.3 0.168 20.5 0.191 0.794 23.3 

Sandy loam 

sediment 

NC 

2.5 5.6 1.64 65.7 1.8 0.762 72.1 

DFA, MRID 48843665, Fully Reliable 

Silt loam 

HF Germany 2.4 6.5 0.210 8.75 0.229 0.910 9.53 

Loam 

HN Germany 2.9 5.8 0.211 7.27 0.230 0.816 7.94 

Clay loam 

DD Germany 4.5 7.4 0.361 8.03 0.372 0.964 8.26 

Sandy loam 

CA 0.5 6.0 0.030 6.05 0.034 0.703 6.83 

Silty clay loam 

NE 1.7 6.5 0.026 1.55 0.025 0.719 1.46 

NR=not reported 
29 

3.2.4. Field Dissipation 

Several terrestrial field dissipation studies have been completed for flupyradifurone (Table 10). 

Studies were all completed on bare ground sites in the United States (California, Florida, and 

Idaho), Canada (Ontario, Prince Edward Island, and Saskatchewan) and Europe (Germany, Italy, 

United Kingdom, and Spain). The application rate at each North American site was a single 

application of 0.6 kg ai/ha (0.54 lbs ai/A). This is higher than the highest proposed single 

application rate of 0.41 kg ai/ha (0.37 lbs ai/A) in the United States. For each of the European 

sites, the application rate was 0.25 kg ai/ha (0.22 lbs ai/A). The study completed for the 

European sites did not have an independent laboratory validation (ILV) and consequently the 

levels detected and study conclusions are not considered fully reliable. However, available 

information suggests that other than this, the analytical chemistry method was acceptable. 

Values of DT50 for flupyradifurone and for the whole soil profile ranged from 8 to 310 days. 

Time to 90% loss (DT90 value) values for flupyradifurone ranged from 205 to greater than 1000 

days. The difference between the DT50 and DT90 show that there was an initial fast rate of 

dissipation in the first few months followed by a slow rate of dissipation. This is consistent with 

the results observed in the laboratory aerobic soil metabolism studies. As you can see in Figure 

4, the dissipation of flupyradifurone slowed down substantially after 50 days. 

Figure 4. Flupyradifurone dissipation in the terrestrial field dissipation study completed in 

Florida 

At all sites most residues (flupyradifurone and degradates) were observed in the top 15 cm; 

however, a small portion of flupyradifurone was observed up to a depth of 40 cm. Field sites 

varied in percent organic matter (range from 0.8 to 4.4%OM), soil properties, and pH (range 

from 5.5 to 8.2) and based on graphical analysis, there was not a relationship between DT50

values for flupyradifurone and pH or %OM. Carryover of flupyradifurone at the end of the 

sampling period ranged from 8 to 59% applied flupyradifurone, indicating that a portion of 

applied flupyradifurone does have the potential to build up in soil with subsequent applications 

from year to year. Two of the major degradates observed in laboratory studies, 6-CNA and 

DFA, were also observed in the field studies; degradates M47 and M48 were not evaluated in the 

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400

Flupyradifurone (g/ha)

Time (days)
30 

field dissipation studies. Based on available data, the DT50 and DT90 observed in terrestrial field 

dissipation studies is likely due to a combination of leaching (based on the flupyradifurone being 

mobile to moderately mobile) and degradation (shown by the presence of degradates and 

observed degradation in laboratory studies). As the studies were conducted on bare ground, 

these results do not reflect dissipation on a cropped plot. Foliar interception and uptake would 

likely contribute substantially to dissipation of flupyradifurone in a cropped plot. 

Table 10. Summary of terrestrial field dissipation study results for flupyradifurone MRID (Year)

Study Site, 

Crop 

Application Rate 

Formulation 

% Parent 

remaining 

at final 

sampling 

interval 

(Days) 

DT50

(days

) 

DT90

(days) 

Average Max Conc in Soil 

(μg/kg-soil) 

Max Depth detected (cm) Comments 

Parent DFA 6CNA 

48843693 

(2012) 

Tulare Co. 

California, USA 

pH 8.2, 0.9 %OM 

28 

(272) 55.9+ 767+ 200.6 

30 

12.4 

60*

5.6 

15

Reliable with 

restrictions. No 

cropped plots. All 

plots were bare 

ground and used a 

flowable formulation. 

48843694 

(2012) 

Jefferson Co. 

Florida, USA 

pH 6.5, 0.8%OM 

19 

(275) 9.62+ 577+ 304.5 15 

8.2 

15 

5.2 

15 

48843695 

(2012) 

Blaine Co. Idaho, 

USA 

pH 8.0, 1.4%OM 

30 (280) 45.6+ 566+ 416.5 

30 

5.0 

106* 10.8 

15 

48843696 

(2012) 

Ontario 

CANADA 

pH 7.0, 4.4%OM 

25 (337) 99.6+ 751+ 275.2 

30 

10.9 

30* 

3.8 

15 

Prince-EdwardIsland 

CANADA 

pH NA, 3.6%OM 

33 (345) 87.8+ 897+ 220.2 

30 

8.0 

30* 

4.8 

15 

Saskatchewan 

CANADA 

pH 7.6, 2.5%OM 

59 (337) 304# 1.4×10 4#

238.5 

30 

4.7 

15 

2.1 

15 

48843697 (2011) 

Monheim, 

Germany 

pH 6.3, 1.2%OM 

27 (354) 38.4+ 743+ 236.6 

30 

11.2 

30 NA Reliable with 

restrictions. Missing 

ILV but available 

information suggests 

methods were 

acceptable. 

Application rate (250 

g ai/ha) much lower 

than maximum 

proposed rate. All 

plots were bare 

ground and used a 

flowable formulation. 

Great Chishill, 

United Kingdom 

pH 5.8, 2.2%OC 

45 (394) 310+ 4651+ 235.9 

30 

7.2 

20 NA 

Burscheid, 

Germany 

pH 6.3, 0.9%OC 

22 (357) 42.0+ 476+ 244.9 

30 

10.1 

30 NA 

Albaro, Italy 

pH 7.4, 1.3%OC 8 (360) 8.3+ 278+ 267.5 

30 

8.7 

30 NA 

Vilobi d’Onyar, 

Spain 

pH 5.9, 0.7%OC 

9 (357) 27.7#

 205# 239.6 

40 

6.1 

20 NA 
31 

MRID (Year)

Study Site, 

Crop 

Application Rate 

Formulation 

% Parent 

remaining 

at final 

sampling 

interval 

(Days) 

DT50

(days

) 

DT90

(days) 

Average Max Conc in Soil 

(μg/kg-soil) 

Max Depth detected (cm) Comments 

Parent DFA 6CNA 

Hanscheider Hof, 

Germany 

pH 5.5, 1.5%OC 

19 (357) 40.8#

 477# 252.9 

20 

13.5 

30 NA 

NA=not analyzed, ILV=independent laboratory validation, OC=organic carbon, OM=organic matter; 

Conc=concentration 

*Detected below the LOQ at the depth. 

+ The DFOP equation was used to calculate dissipation kinetics. 

# The IORE equation was used to calculate dissipation kinetics. 

A study was also conducted examining dissipation of flupyradifurone in water and sediment in 

four outdoor microcosms spiked at two different concentrations (10 and 100 μg/L). Dissipation 

half-lives are summarized in Table 11. The DT50 values in the water and whole system ranged 

from 64 to 109 days and DT90 values ranged from 212 to 363 days. Concentrations of 

transformation products were not followed in the study. Two to 11% of applied material was 

observed in sediment. Overall, this indicates that most flupyradifurone residues will be observed 

in the water column but exposure may also occur in sediment. Degradation rates in the sediment 

could not be determined because concentrations in the sediment continued to increase over the 

duration of the study. This indicates transfer from the water column was occurring at a greater 

rate than transformation in sediments over this period. These results are consistent with the 

persistence observed in the laboratory sediments. Finally, regardless of the initial exposure 

concentration, dissipation rates were relatively similar. 

Table 11. Summary of DT50 and DT90 of flupyradifurone in outdoor microcosm studies (MRID 48843673) 

Nominal Test 

Concentration μg/L 

Water Phase Whole System 

DT50 (days) DT90 (days) DT50 (days) DT90 (days) 

10 63.9 212 74.0 246 

100 95.0 316 109 363 

3.2.5. Transformation Products of Toxicological and Exposure Concern 

As discussed in Section 3.2.2, the following four transformation products were measured in 

environmental fate studies at 10% or greater of applied radioactivity: 6-CNA, DFA, M48, and 

M47. 

The following three transformation products were also measured in environmental fate studies, at 

less than 10% of applied radioactivity: 

 BYI 02960-deschlorohydroxysuccinamide (DCHS); 

 BYI 02960-des-difluoroethyl (M19); and, 

 BYI 02960-chloro (M01). 

Finally, BYI 02960-difluoro-ethylamino-furanone (DFEAF) was observed in studies conducted 

to evaluate residues in flowers, pollen, and nectar after drench and foliar applications to different 
32 

commodity crops that are potentially of use for refining exposure if initial screening-level risk 

estimates exceed LOCs for honeybees. DFEAF was also observed in the plant metabolism 

studies submitted to the Health Effects Division. 

IUPAC names, molecular weights, formula’s, and SMILES codes are available for these 

compounds in the document titled, Data on Flupyradifurone and Its Environmental 

Transformation Products in Support of the ROCKs (USEPA, 2013, D415161) . 

Figure 5 shows potential degradation pathways of flupyradifurone based on chemical structures 

and observed transformation products in various studies. 

Figure 5. Potential degradation pathways of flupyradifurone 

Bolded values were present at greater than 10% of applied radioactivity and the asterisk indicates the compound was 

observed in a field study. Abbreviations are defined in text above figure. 

Table 12 shows the maximum percent applied radioactivity for each identified transformation 

product and corresponding study type. The transformation products DFA and 6-CNA were 

observed in aerobic environments, especially soils, while M48 and M47 were present in aqueous 

photolysis studies. All other transformation products were present at less than 10% applied 

radioactivity. There is some uncertainty as to whether additional major transformation products 
33 

would have been identified had the unextracted residues been characterized (which is why the 

unextracted residues have been included in the modeling runs). Often the maximum amount of 

AR associated with a degradate was observed at the final sampling interval. This indicates that 

the maximum amount of degradate that could form may not have been observed or captured 

during the study. The transformation products evaluated in field studies were DFA and 6-CNA 

and they were observed at less than 15 μg/kg-soil, at concentrations much lower than 

flupyradifurone concentrations (maximum of 416 μg/kg-soil). 

Table 12. Summary of maximum amount of transformation products observed in fate studies 

Compound 

Maximum % of Applied Radioactivity Associated with Degradate (Time of Peak) 

Amount Detected at Final Sampling Interval in Corresponding Study 

Hydrolysis 

Soil 

Photolysis 

Aerobic Soil 

Anaerobic 

Soil 

Aqueous 

Photolysis 

Aerobic Aquatic 

Anaerobic 

Aquatic 

Observed in 

Field 

Dissipation 

DFA NE NE 35 (48d) 

24 (117d) 

27 (37d) 

27 (153d) NE NE NE Yes 

6-CNA NE NE 22 (64d) 

6.2 (120d) 

15 (14d) 

13 (121d) 

NE NE NE Yes 

M48 

(succinamide) 

NE NE NE NE 39 (35hr)a NE NE NA 

M47 

(azabicyclosucc

inamide) 

NE NE NE NE 

15 (28hr)a

NE NE 

NEA 

BYI 02960-desdifluoroethyl NE NE 0.5 (59d)

ND (120d) NE NE NE NE NE 

BYI 02960-

chloro 

NE NE 1.8 (120d)a 2.8 (59d) 

2.4 (121d) 

NE NE NE NE 

DCHS NE NE NE NA 2.8 (35hr)a NE NE NE 

Unextracted 

Residues 

NE 1.1(4d) 

0.7 (8d) 34 (120d)a 31 (120d) 

30 (123d) NE 27 (120d)a

 12 (102d)a NE 

CO2 NE 2.3 (8d) 59 (120d)a 27 ND 9 (119d)a 0.1(102d)a NE 

NE=not evaluated; ND=not detected a

 Peak at final sampling interval in some studies. 

b

 In some aerobic soil metabolism studies, significant mineralization occurred while in others minimal 

mineralization occurred (max CO2 in one soil was 4% of AR). 

Residues of concern are chosen based on available toxicity data for parent and degradates (see 

Section 3.5 for a discussion of toxicity data and Appendix I for summary information of toxicity 

data of parent and degradates) and structural similarity to the parent or to other structures of 

known toxicity concern. Based on the available ecotoxicity data, none of the transformation 

products of flupyradifurone tested appear to be more toxic than the parent to freshwater fish 

(rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss), freshwater aquatic invertebrates (Daphnia magna; nonbiting midges, Chironomus spp.), terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees, Apis mellifera; 

earthworms, Eisenia fetida) and freshwater aquatic algae (green algae; Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata). However, in some cases, toxicity studies with transformation products were not 

carried out at high enough concentrations to definitively conclude that they are not of equal or 

greater toxicity to the organisms tested as compared to the parent compound. 
34 

HED data on degradates indicates that degradates are less toxic than the parent. There is one 

exception for DFA. When comparing the NOAEL and LOAEL for DFA for a study to a similar 

90-day oral study with the parent compound (MRID 48844111; NOAEL and LOAEL of 38 and 

156 mg/kg bw, respectively), on a molar basis, the NOAELs and LOAELs of DFA and the 

parent are comparable, however, the effects are different. Therefore, DFA was considered a 

residue of concern for risk to mammals. See the Section 3.5 for more discussion on the toxicity 

of DFA. 

DFEAF residues made up 10% applied radioactivity or less in plant metabolism studies, and 

given the low acute toxicity of DFEAF to honeybees, they are not considered a residues of 

concern. 

Aquatic Exposure 

3.3.1. Input Parameters 

As aquatic EECs were anticipated to exceed ecological LOCs based on the reduced risk analysis 

(USEPA, 2013, D408685), the SWCC (Tier II modeling) was used to estimate EECs in surface 

water. Groundwater EECs for evaluation of residues of flupyradifurone in groundwater-derived 

irrigation water were generated using SCI-GROW and PRZM-GW. EECs were generated based 

on maximum labeled use rates (Table 4), and fate input parameters (Table 8 and Table 9) 

selected in accordance with EFED’s guidance documents: 

 Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and 

Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.111 (USEPA, 2009), 

 Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in 

Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model, Version 1 (USEPA and Health 

Canada, 2013), 

 Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental 

Media12 (NAFTA, 2012; USEPA, 2012b), and 

 Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for Ecological 

and Drinking Water Assessment

13 (USEPA, 2013b) 

Summaries of the model input parameter values used in SCI-GROW, PRZM-GW, and SWCC 

are presented in Table 16, Table 17, and Table 18, respectively. 

Sorption Coefficients 

Coefficients of variations (CV) were lower for organic carbon normalized solid-water 

distribution coefficients (KOC; CV=53%) as compared to solid-water distribution coefficients 

(Kd; CV=140%). Therefore, and consistent with the input parameter guidance, the mean Koc 

(137 L/kg-OC) was used to estimate flupyradifurone concentrations with PRZM-GW and the 

SWCC, and the median Koc (109 L/kg-oc) was used to estimate groundwater concentrations with 

 

11 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm (accessed April 11, 2014) 12 http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/guidance/degradation-kin.pdf (accessed April 11, 2014) 13 http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0676 (accessed April 11, 2014) 
35 

SCI-GROW. 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

The aerobic soil metabolism input value used in PRZM-GW and the SWCC was calculated as 

the 90 percent upper confidence limit on the mean of ten representative half-life values. The 

aerobic soil metabolism input value used in SCI-GROW was the median of the same 

representative half-life values. Consistent with the input parameter guidance, the representative 

half-life for PRZM-GW was adjusted to a temperature of 25o

C (USEPA and Health Canada, 

2012). Temperature adjustments were not completed for inputs to the SWCC; however, the 

temperature that the studies were conducted at were input into the SWCC. The temperature 

simulation option was not selected. 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

The aerobic aquatic metabolism input value used in the SWCC was calculated as the 90 percent 

upper confidence limit on the mean of two representative half-life values. The temperatures that 

the studies were conducted at were inputs for the SWCC. Temperature adjustments for aerobic 

and anaerobic aquatic metabolism are automatically simulated in the SWCC. 

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism 

The anaerobic aquatic metabolism input value used in the SWCC was calculated as the 90 

percent upper confidence limit on the mean of two representative half-life values for residues of 

parent alone; stability was assumed for residues of parent plus unextracted residues. The 

temperatures that the studies were conducted at were inputs for the SWCC. Temperature 

adjustments for aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism are automatically simulated in the 

SWCC.

Scenarios and Application Dates Chosen for SWCC modeling 

Scenarios are used to specify soil, climatic, and agronomic inputs in PRZM (a component of the 

SWCC), and are intended to represent runoff-vulnerable soil conditions that result in high-end 

water concentrations associated with a particular crop and pesticide within a geographic region. 

Each PRZM scenario is specific to a location. Soil and agronomic data specific to the location 

are built into the scenario, and a specific meteorological station providing 30 years of daily 

weather values is associated with the location. Table 13 identifies the use sites associated with 

each PRZM scenario. For foliar and soil applications to agricultural crops, the date of 

application was chosen as the day when the crop was present on the field, and during a period of 

generally high rainfall as it is expected that flupyradifurone may be used when the crop is on the 

field and during periods of high rainfall. Crop-specific management practices were used for 

modeling, including maximum proposed application rates, maximum proposed numbers of 

applications per year, minimum proposed re-application intervals, and the first application date 

for each crop. For the seed treatment use, the application date (i.e., the planting date) was chosen 

as two weeks before crop emergence. The incorporation depth was based on information on the 

label. 
36 

Table 13. Use site group, associated crops, and PRZM scenarios used to calculate EDWC for the use site 

group 

Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year1 Scenarios 

Crop Group 15: 

Cereal Grains 

(except Rice) 

Barley; buckwheat; corn; millet, pearl; millet, 

proso; oats; popcorn; rye; sorghum (milo); 

teosinte; triticale; wheat 

-- 

IAcornSTD 

ILcornSTD 

INcornSTD 

KSsorghumSTD 

MNCornSTD 

MScornSTD 

NCcornESTD 

NEcornESTD 

NDwheatSTD 

OHcornSTD 

PAcornSTD 

Cotton Cotton -- 

CAcottonWirrigSTD 

MScottonSTD 

NCcottonSTD 

Peanut peanut -- NCpeanutSTD 

Root Vegetables 

(except 

Sugarbeet) 

Arracacha; arrowroot; artichoke, Chinese; 

artichoke, Jerusalem; beet, garden; beet, sugar; 

burdock, edible; canna, edible; carrot; cassava, 

bitter and sweet; celeriac; chayote (root); 

chervil, turnip-rooted; chicory; chufa; dasheen 

(taro); ginger; ginseng; horseradish; leren; 

parsley, turnip-rooted; parsnip; potato; radish; 

radish, oriental; rutabaga; salsify; salsify, black; 

salsify, Spanish; skirret; sweet potato; tanier; 

turmeric; turnip; yam bean; yam, true. 

3-5 cc/yr in CA for radish 

1cc/yr for carrot 

3-4 cc/yr for turnip greens 

1-2 cc/yr rutabaga 

1-2 cc/yr national for red beet 

Rotated with other crops 

FlcarrotSTD 

IDpotatowirrigSTD 

MEpotatoSTD 

MIasparagusSTDv2 

MNsugarbeetSTD 

ORmintSTD 

NCSweetPotatoSTD 

Tuberous and 

Corm Vegetables 

Arracacha; arrowroot; artichoke, Chinese; 

artichoke, Jerusalem; canna, edible; cassava, 

bitter and sweet; chayote (root); chufa; dasheen 

(taro); ginger; leren; potato; sweet potato; tanier; 

turmeric; yam bean; yam, true 

-- 

IDNpotato_WirrigSTD 

MEpotatoSTD 

NCsweetpotatoSTD 

Leafy Vegetables 

(except Brassica) 

Amaranth (Chinese spinach); arugula (roquette); 

cardoon; celery; celery, Chinese; celtuce; 

chervil; chrysanthemum, edible-leaved; 

chrysanthemum, garland; corn salad; cress, 

garden; cress, upland; dandelion; dock (sorrel); 

endive (escarole); fennel, Florence; lettuce, head 

and leaf; orach; parsley; purslane, garden; 

purslane, winter; radicchio (red chicory); 

rhubarb; spinach; spinach, New Zealand; 

spinach, vine; Swiss chard 

2 cc/yr in NC and CA for 

lettuce 

1-3 cc/yr national for spinach 

Rotated with cole crops 

FLcucumberSTD 

FLtomatoSTD_v2 

CAlettuceSTD 

FLcabbageSTD 

Brassica (Cole) 

Leafy Vegetables 

Broccoli; broccoli, Chinese (gai lon); broccoli 

raab (rapini); Brussels sprouts; cabbage;Chinese 

(bok choy); cabbage, Chinese (napa); cabbage, 

Chinese mustard(gai choy); cauliflower; cavalo 

broccolo; collards; kale; kohlrabi; mizuna; 

mustard greens; mustard spinach; rape greens 

2 cc/yr in NC and CA for cole 

crops 

Rotated with leafy vegetables 

Legume 

Vegetables 

(Succulent or 

Dried) 

Bean (Lupinus) (includes grain lupin, sweet 

lupin, white lupin, and white sweet lupin); bean 

(Phaseolus) (includes field bean, kidney bean, 

lima bean, navy bean, pinto bean, runner bean, 

Beans: 1-3 cc/yr national. 1 

cc/yr (processing), 1-3 cc/yr 

(fresh market) for snap beans. 

1 cc/yr in CA - due to pest 

MIbeansSTD 

ORsnbeansSTD 
37 

Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year1 Scenarios 

snap bean, tepary bean, wax bean); bean (Vigna) 

(includes adzuki bean, asparagus bean, 

blackeyed pea, catjang, Chinese longbean, 

cowpea, crowder pea, moth bean, mung bean, 

rice bean, southern pea, urd bean, yardlong 

bean); broad bean (fava); chickpea (garbanzo); 

guar; jackbean; lablab bean; lentil; pea (Pisum) 

(includes dwarf pea, edible-podded pea, English 

pea, field pea, garden pea, green pea, snowpea, 

sugar snap pea); pigeon pea; soybean; soybean 

(immature seed); sword bean 

problems, succulent beans are 

typically not planted back to 

back. Snap beans have a fall 

crop & a spring crop in desert 

areas. Up to 3 fresh snap bean 

seasons listed for FL GA. 

Fruiting 

Vegetables 

(except cucurbits) 

Eggplant; groundcherry (Physalis spp); pepino; 

pepper (includes bell pepper, chili pepper, 

cooking pepper, pimento, sweet pepper); 

tomatillo; tomato 

1-3 cc/yr national for peppers. 

3 cc/yr in FL for bell peppers 

grow in some areas all times, 

up to 3 seasons 

1 cc/yr national. Production in 

Regions 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 

CAtomatowirrigSTD 

FLtomatoSTD_V2 

PAtomatoSTD 

FLpeppersSTD 

Cucurbit 

Vegetables 

Chayote (fruit); Chinese waxgourd (Chinese 

preserving melon); citron melon; cucumber; 

gherkin; gourd, edible (includes hyotan, 

cucuzza, hechima, Chinese okra); Momordica 

spp (includes balsam apple, balsam pear, 

bittermelon, Chinese cucumber); muskmelon 

(includes cantaloupe); pumpkin; squash, 

summer; squash, winter (includes butternut 

squash, calabaza, hubbard squash, acorn squash, 

spaghetti squash); watermelon 

These crops are often rotated 

in the same field with 

Solanaceous crops (e.g., 

tomatoes, peppers) in the 

southeastern US. In northern 

regions (north of NC) 1 crop 

per year is probably standard, 

with no such rotation. 

FLcucumberSTD 

NJmelonSTD 

MImelonSTD 

MOmelonSTD 

Hop Hop -- ORhopsSTD 

Citrus Fruit 

Calamondin; citrus citron; citrus hybrids 

(includes chironja, tangelo, tangor); grapefruit; 

kumquat; lemon; lime; mandarin (tangerine); 

orange, sour; orange, sweet; pummelo; Satsuma 

mandarin 

-- Cacitrus_WirrigSTD 

FLcitrusSTD 

Pome Fruit 

Apple; azarole; crabapple; loquat; mayhaw; 

medlar; pear; pear, Asian; quince; quince, 

Chinese; quince, Japanese; tejocote; cultivars, 

varieties, and/or hybrids of these 

-- 

NCappleSTD 

ORappleSTD 

PAappleSTD 

CAfruit_WirrigSTD 

Bushberry Blueberry, highbush and lowbush; currant; 

elderberry; gooseberry; huckleberry -- OrberriesOP NYgrapesSTD 

Low Growing 

Berry (excluding 

Cranberry) 

Bearberry; bilberry; blueberry, lowbush; 

cloudberry; lingonberry; muntries; 

partridgeberry; strawberry; cultivars, varieties, 

and/or hybrids of these 

-- 

Flstrawberry_WirrigST

D 

ORberriesSTD 

Small Fruit Vine 

Climbing (except 

Fuzzy Kiwifruit) 

Amur river grape; gooseberry; grape; kiwifruit, 

fuzzy; kiwifruit, hardy; maypop; schisandra 

berry; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of 

these 

-- ORberriesOP 

NYGrapesSTD 

-- Cagrapes_wirrigSTD 

Tree Nut 

African nut-tree; almond; beechnut; Brazil nut; 

Brazilian pine; bunya; bur oak; butternut; Cajou 

nut; candlenut; cashew; chestnut; chinquapin; 

coconut; coquito nut; dika nut; ginkgo; Guiana 

chestnut; hazelnut (filbert); heartnut; hickory 

nut; Japanese horse-chestnut; macadamia nut; 

CAalmond_WirrigSTD 

ORfilbertSTD 

GApecanSTD 
38 

Use Site Crops Associated with Use Site Crop Cycles per year1 Scenarios 

mongongo nut; monkey-pot; monkey puzzle nut; 

Okari nut; Pachira nut; peach palm nut; pecan; 

pequi; Pili nut; pine nut; pistachio; Sapucaia nut; 

tropical almond; walnut, black; walnut, English; 

yellowhorn; cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids 

of these 

Prickly 

Pear/Cactus pear Prickly pear -- CAcitrus_WirrigSTD 

Nongrass Animal 

Feeds (Forage, 

Fodder, Straw, 

Hay) 

Alfalfa; bean, velvet; clover (Trifolium , 

Melilotus); kudzu; lespedeza; lupin; sainfoin; 

trefoil; vetch; vetch, crown; vetch, milk 

-- 

CArangelandhayRLF_

V2 

NCalfalfaOP 

PAalfalfaOP 

TXalfalfaOP 

ILalfalfaNMC 

MNalfalfaOP 

Soybean Seeds Soybean -- MSsoybeanSTD 

1

 Information provided by BEAD in support of diazinon 

Currently approved standard PRZM crop scenarios were used in modeling when available. Low 

growing berries include both berries grown on the ground (i.e., strawberries) and berries grown 

on shrubs (i.e., blackberries). The ORberriesOP and the Flstrawberry_WirrigSTD scenarios 

were used to represent the low growing berry subgroup. The ORberriesOP scenario (this 

scenario was developed for the organophosphate (OP) cumulative assessment) was prepared for 

use on blackberries, and is representative of berries grown on shrubs. Flupyradifurone is not an 

OP class chemical; however, the OP berry scenario is the only scenario available for this type of 

crop. The Root Vegetables Crop Group includes the following: garden beet, burdock, carrot, 

celeriac, turnip-root chervil, chicory, ginseng, horseradish, turnip rooted parsley, parsnip, radish, 

Oriental radish, rutabega, salsify, black salsify, Spanish salsify, skirret, and turnip. The 

following scenarios were chosen for this crop group: FlcarrotSTD, IDpotatowirrigSTD, 

MEpotatoSTD, MIasparagusSTDv2, and ORmint. The asparagus and sugarbeet scenarios were 

chosen to be representative of use on ginseng. ORmintSTD was chosen to be representative of 

use on parsley. To represent use on turnip greens, the FlcarrotSTD scenario and the 

MEpotatoSTD were chosen. There are currently no standard scenarios that are available to 

represent nongrass animal feeds. Therefore, the following scenarios were used to be 

representative of this crop group: CArangelandhayRLF_V2, NcalfalfaOP, PaalfalfaOP, 

TxalfalfaOP, ILalfalfaNMC, MnalfalfaOP.

Unlike EFED’s standard crop scenarios, the OP-cumulative scenarios were not developed 

specifically to represent high-end exposure (i.e., vulnerable) sites. Instead, these scenarios were 

developed by first identifying areas of high combined use of the entire OP class of chemicals that 

coincided with drinking water intakes that draw from surface water sources. Within these high 

OP-use areas, major crop uses were identified and scenarios were developed to represent high 

runoff-prone soils known to support the crops in these areas. In some instances, these scenarios 

may represent the major growing area for a particular crop. In other instances, the major crop 

area may be elsewhere, and the scenario in the high OP-use area may represent a "fringe" area of 

the crop in question. It has not been determined how the vulnerability of a crop scenario 

developed for the OP cumulative assessment compares to a standard scenario developed for the 
39 

same crop; therefore, the OP scenarios may represent either greater or lesser vulnerability than 

standard scenarios. Because the OP scenarios focused on areas that coincided with drinking 

water intakes, their suitability as high-end vulnerable scenarios for ecological exposure 

assessments is less certain. The California red legged frog (Rana draytonii) scenarios were 

developed in support of risk assessments conducted to evaluate potential risks to this listed 

species in California. These scenarios have similar issues as the scenarios developed for the OP 

assessments, except that they were not chosen based on proximity to drinking water intakes, but 

rather to evaluate specific uses of pesticides in California. They may not be representative of 

vulnerable areas across the United States. The CArowcropRLF, CAcolecropRLF, CAstrawberry-noplastic, and CAwinegrapesRLF were used with the appropriate crop groups in this 

assessment. The scenarios ending in NMC were developed to support the N-methyl carbamate 

risk assessments.

Multiple Crop Cycles Per Year 

The number of seasons per year was not specified on the proposed label and, depending on the 

crop, flupyradifurone could be used for multiple seasons per year on one site. Therefore, 

simulations were run assuming one, two, three four, and five seasons per year to characterize the 

uncertainty associated with multiple crops grown and treated with flupyradifurone on the same 

site in a year. This multiple crop cycle per year analysis was conducted with only one PRZM 

scenario, and provides a conservative estimate of the possible resulting exposure. The range of 

1-in-10 year peak, 21-day, and 60-day EECs across the crops where multiple crop cycles per 

year may occur is relatively small (13 to 20 μg/L). Estimating EECs for one PRZM scenario 

(i.e., FLcarrotSTD to represent use on radishes) should provide a reasonable estimate of the 

possible values that may be observed for all crops where multiple crop cycles per year may 

occur. Radishes may be harvested three to four weeks after planting and they may have as many 

as five crop cycles per year in Florida (USDA, 2008). Therefore, root vegetables were modeled 

with five crop cycles per year. To do this, the FLcarrotSTD scenario was modified. It was 

assumed that the dates of emergence, maturation, and harvest occurred over October through 

March, the full growing season for radishes (USDA, 2008). Application dates were assumed to 

occur at the beginning of each month for five months. The runoff routine was modified to reflect 

a curve number (shown by CN in the SWCC) and USLE crop factor (shown by C in the SWCC) 

when the crop was present and when the crop was not present. The curve numbers of 87 was 

used to represent when the crop was present and a curve number of 91 was used to represent 

when the crop was not present. The average USLE crop factor was calculated from the original 

scenario during when the crop was present (0.774) and when the crop was not present (0.632). 

The updated scenario was saved as FLcarSTD5cc.SCN. 

For modeling multiple crop cycles per year for groundwater, the scenarios were not altered as the 

presence of the crop has little influence on groundwater EECs. The number of applications was 

simply doubled or tripled as appropriate, to derive a better understanding of potential exposure. 

Table 14. Summary of scenario alterations of the Flcarrot scenario for the multiple crop cycle per year 

analysis 

Growth Descriptors on the Crop/land tab (Day – Month) 

Emerge Mature Harvest 

01-10 15-10 01-03 
40 

Application Date (Day-Month) 

First application Second Application 

01-10 09-10 

01-11 09-11 

01-12 09-12 

01-01 09-01 

01-02 09-02 

Runoff 

Day Month CN C N 

16 10 87 0.774 0.011 

1 3 91 0.632 0.011 

Table 15. Proposed uses with possible multiple crop cycles per year1 

Crop Group Crop cycles per year 

Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet) 1-5 

Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica) 1-3 

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables 1-2 

Legume Vegetables (Succulent or Dried) 1-3 

Fruiting Vegetables (except cucurbits) 1-3 

Cucurbit Vegetables 1-3 

1 Based on information provided by BEAD in support of diazinon 

Tables summarizing input parameters 

Table 16. SCI-GROW (v2.3) input parameter values for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted 

residues (abbreviated as “FLU-UN”) and for flupyradifurone alone (abbreviated as “FLU”)1

Parameter Residues Value Source Comments 

Application Rate 

(lbs residue/acre) FLU-UN 

FLU 

See 

Table 

23

Proposed label 

Maximum application rate for active 

ingredient 

# of Applications -- 

Koc (mL/g) FLU 

FLU-UN 109 

MRIDs 

48843662, 

48843663, and 

48843664 

Median of 10 KOC values. There is not a 

three-fold difference in observed values. 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism Halflife (days) 

FLU-UN 349 MRIDs 

48843674, 

48843676, 

48843677, 

48843679, 

48843681, 

48843683 

Median of 10 values. There is a five-fold 

difference between the lowest (75 days) and 

highest representative half-lives (484 days) 

for FLU. There is not a 5-fold difference 

for TTR-UN. No temperature conversion 

was completed. 

FLU 186 

FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. 

FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone. 

Table 17. Tier I PRZM-GW input parameters 

Parameter (units) Residues Input Value Data Source Comments 

Application Rate 

(kg residue/ha) 

FLU-UN 

FLU 

See Table 23

Proposed 

label 

Maximum application rate for 

flupyradifurone. 

Number of 

Applications 

FLU-UN 

FLU -- 

Application 

Date(s) 

FLU-UN 

FLU 

The following were considered when 

determining the date of applications: 
41 

timing of crop in scenario, a timing of 

rainfall in scenario, and application 

type. 

Applications Occur 

Every 

FLU-UN 

FLU 

1/year and from 

year 1 to the last 

year 

-- 

Application 

Method 

FLU-UN 

FLU 

Above canopy (2) 

Soil (1) seed 

treatment 

-- 

Hydrolysis Halflife (days) FLU-UN 

FLU Stable (0) MRID 

48843667 -- 

Soil Metabolism 

Half-life at 25o

C 

(days) 

FLU-UN 371 MRIDs 

48843674, 

48843676, 

48843677, 

48843679, 

48843681, 

48843683 

The 90 percent upper confidence 

bound on the mean of ten 

representative half-life values. Halflife values adjusted from 20o

C to 25oC 

according to input parameter 

guidance. 

FLU 124 

Koc (L/kg-OC) FLU-UN 

FLU 137 

MRIDs 

48843662, 

48843663, 

48843664 

Mean of ten KOC values for 

flupyradifurone. 

FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. 

FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone. 

Table 18. Input values used for Tier II surface water modeling with SWCC 

Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments 

Organic-carbon 

Normalized Soil-water 

Distribution Coefficient 

(KOC (L/kg-OC)) 

FLU-UN 

FLU 137 

MRIDs 

48843662, 

48843663, 

48843664 

Mean of ten KOC values for 

flupyradifurone. EECs were also 

explored by assuming the KOC value 

was twice 2x 137 to determine the 

impact of a data gap on sediment 

sorption data. 

Water Column Metabolism 

Half-life or Aerobic 

Aquatic Metabolism Halflife (days) and Reference 

Temperature 

FLU-UN 1118 at 20oC 

MRID 

48843690, 

48843692 

Represents the 90 percent upper 

confidence bound on the mean of two 

representative half-life values. FLU 2979 at 20o

C 

Benthic Metabolism Halflife or Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism Half-life 

(days) and Reference 

Temperature 

FLU-UN Stable (0) 

MRID 

48843689 

One available value was stable. The 

other value was 2470. 

FLU 3643 at 20oC 

Represents the 90 percent upper 

confidence bound on the mean (1208) 

of two representative half-life values. 

Aqueous Photolysis Halflife @ pH 7 (days) and 

Reference Latitude 

FLU-UN 

FLU 2.5 at 40o

N MRID 

48843669 

The aqueous photolysis half-life input 

value was adjusted for continuous 

illumination as well as for 

latitude/season to reflect photolysis in 

summer sunlight at 40o

 N latitude 

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) FLU-UN 

FLU Stable (0) MRID: 46235726 -- 

Soil Half-life or Aerobic FLU-UN 525 at 20oC MRIDs The 90 percent upper confidence 
42 

Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments 

Soil Metabolism Half-life 

(days) and Reference 

Temperature FLU 265 at 20o

C 

48843674, 

48843676, 

48843677, 

48843679, 

48843681, 

48843683 

bound on the mean of ten half-life 

values. No temperature conversion 

was performed. 

MWT or Molecular Weight 

(g/mol)

FLU-UN 

FLU 288.68 -- -- 

Vapor Pressure (Torr) at 

25oC

FLU-UN 

FLU 1.3×10-8 MRID 

48843650 -- 

Solubility in Water @ 20 

OC, pH not reported (mg/L)

FLU-UN 

FLU 3200 MRID 48843644 

20o

C and pH 7 

Foliar Half-life (days) All 0 d-1 Default -- 

Number of Applications FLU-UN 

FLU See Table 22 Proposed 

label -- 

Dates FLU-UN 

FLU 

Assumed 

based on 

type of 

application 

Absolute dates were used in modeling. 

For foliar applications, dates were 

chosen to occur in a month when the 

crop was present and a high average 

rainfall occurred. For seed treatment 

the date of application was chosen as 

14 days before crop emergence. For 

those scenarios that resulted in the 

highest EECs (except the seed 

treatment use) using the above 

scenario, a batch analysis over the 

application window (when the crop 

was present) was completed to 

determine the maximum EEC that 

could reasonably occur. The batch 

analysis was ran every 2 to 3 days 

depending on the length of the batch 

run. 

Amount FLU-UN 

FLU 

Proposed 

label 

Maximum single application rate for 

the crop 

Application method FLU-UN 

FLU 

Foliar for 

ground and 

aerial 

applications 

Incorporate 

for seed 

treatment 

Proposed 

label 

Incorporation depth was assumed to be 

1.27 cm. Soybean seeds are typically 

planted at a depth of 1 to 2 inches 

(2.54 – 5.08 cm). However, the actual 

planting depth will vary. The 

minimum planting depth 

recommended was 0.5 inches (1.27 

cm) (Staton, 2013). Runoff only 

occurs from the top 2 cm of soil 

(Carsel et al., 1997). 

Application Efficiency FLU-UN 

FLU 

Aerial: 0.95 

Ground: 0.99 

Airblast: 0.99 

Seed 

Treatment: 1.0 

Spray drift 

only exposure: 

0 

Input 

parameter 

guidance 

(USEPA, 

2009) 

-- 
43 

Parameter (units) Residue Value (s) Source Comments 

Drift FLU-UN 

FLU 

Aerial: 0.125 

Ground:0.062 

Airblast:0.042 

Seed 

Treatment: 0 

No drift: 

Offsite 

transport 

guidance 

(USEPA, 

2013b) 

EECs were also explored for 

applications without drift (e.g., this 

value was set to zero). 

PRZM Scenario All See Table 22 -- Screening scenario that is expected to 

result in a high end EEC. 

FLU-UN: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. 

FLU: Value for total residues of flupyradifurone. 

3.3.2. Aquatic Modeling Results 

The uses on agricultural crops allow for aerial, ground (including airblast), and seed treatment 

applications of a flowable material and EECs were estimated for all of these application 

methods. The applications directly to soil (including soil drench) were modeled as ground 

applications without spray drift. As noted previously, the maximum number of seasons per year 

was not specified on the proposed label and flupyradifurone could be used for multiple seasons 

per year on one site. Therefore, simulations were run assuming up to five seasons per year for a 

single crop and considered representative of other crops with multiple crop cycles per year. 

Standard simulations assume spray drift will occur, however some simulations were also run 

omitting spray drift, to explore the possibility of mitigating with spray drift buffers. Simulations 

were completed reflecting residues of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and 

flupyradifurone alone (FLU). Finally, EECs were also calculated based upon transport of 

flupyradifurone via spray drift alone (i.e., with zero runoff); this EEC can be used to estimate 

exposure to the end-use product alone. 

Estimated 1-in-10 year FLU-UN and FLU concentrations in surface water and groundwater that 

are used to calculate RQs are summarized in Table 19, Table 22, and Table 23. A complete 

summary of all modeling is available in Appendix C. Example output files for the SWCC are 

provided in Appendix E and groundwater modeling output files are available in Appendix D. 

Surface Water 

For surface water, the highest peak EEC was derived for the use on the crop group for nongrass 

animal feeds including forage, fodder, straw and hay (0.18 lbs ai/A, 2 applications, 7-day 

retreatment interval, foliar, and aerial application) where 1-in-10 year peak, 21-day, and 60-day 

average FLU EECs are 25.2, 24.0, and 22.1 μg/L and are not substantially different from one 

another in terms of the magnitude of residues in water. The corresponding peak and 21-day 

average sediment pore-water FLU concentrations are 17.2 μg/L and reflect that FLU may be 

found to occur in pore water and that residues are relatively constant over a long time frame. 

Time series simulation results show that EECs did not continuously increase over the 30-year 

simulations in the static water body used to simulate aquatic exposure. The effective water 

column half-life was 330.1 days and photolysis was the predominant driver of loss; losses 

attributed to photolysis would likely be accentuated in shallow, clear surface water though. 

Eliminating spray drift from the scenarios that resulted in the highest EECs had a range of 
44 

impacts on the calculated EEC. EECs calculated without spray drift were 38 to 93% of EECs 

calculated with spray drift. This is applicable to applications where spray drift may occur 

(ground and aerial applications); the applications with targeted applications to the root zone and 

the soil are not expected to have substantial spray drift. The variation in the contribution of 

spray drift to EECs is likely due to a variety of factors including how much rainfall occurs near 

the time of application. Values calculated without spray drift may be used to determine whether 

mitigation with a spray drift buffer could eliminate a risk concern. 

Modeling two to five crop cycles per year increased EECs (peak, 21-day and 60-day) for 

radishes by 2 to 4 fold, compared with results based on a single crop cycle per year. While 

multiple crop cycles were only simulated for radish, they may also occur for other root 

vegetables (1 to 5 crop cycles per year), leafy vegetables (1-3 crop cycles per year), Brassica 

leafy vegetables (1 to 2 crop cycles per year), legume vegetables (1 to 3 crop cycles per year), 

fruiting vegetables (1 to 3 crop cycles per year), and cucurbit vegetables (1 to 3 crop cycles per 

year). Similar trends as those observed for radish are expected for the other crop groups where 

multiple crop cycles per year may occur. It is speculated that it is relatively rare for five crop 

cycles per year to be planted due to the possibility of increased pest pressures that may occur 

when planting the same crop back to back. 

Table 19. Summary of EECs estimated for radishes assuming a different number of crop cycles per year 

Number 

of crop 

cycles 

per year 

EECs for parent in μg/L 

Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 21-day 

average 

1 18.9 18.3 16.6 13 12.9 

2a 39.3 37.6 34 27.9 26.8 

3b 43 41.7 38.4 32.1 30.8 

4c 45.8 44.5 41.1 35.1 33.8 

5d 63.8 62.1 62.1 56.2 55.9 a

 Simulation for two seasons per year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, and 11/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario 

was used for this simulation. 

b Simulation with three seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, and 12/9. The modified 

FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

c

 Simulation with four seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, and 01/09. The 

modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

d Simulation with five seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, 01/09, 02/01, and 

02/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

Groundwater 

PRZM-GW predicted the highest EECs for the foliar application at a rate of 0.18 lbs ai/A with 

two applications, and a 7-day retreatment interval. The maximum single-day concentration of 

FLU-UN residues was 96.0 μg/L, and the maximum post-breakthrough (long-term average after 

the chemical reached groundwater) concentration was 89.7 μg/L. The maximum single-day 

FLU-UN concentration in groundwater for other uses ranged from 30 to 109 μg/L. Postbreakthrough average concentrations for these uses ranged from 17 to 96 μg/L. The average 

simulation breakthrough time (i.e., the time required, following application, for the pesticide to 
45 

reach groundwater) in the PRZM-GW simulations ranged from 3.6 to 8.8 years. These results 

indicate that it could take years following initiation of the use of flupyradifurone before the 

compound reaches groundwater in meaningful quantities (although preferential flow could 

substantially shorten such times). Assuming two to three seasons per year resulted in EECs that, 

correspondingly, were approximately two to three times the magnitude of those estimated 

assuming only a single season per year. Specifying the number of crop seasons per year on the 

label would reduce uncertainty in the EECs. 

Unextracted Residues 

Unextracted residues were conservatively assumed to comprise residues of concern in most of 

the modeling, though the extent to which unextracted residues are actually parent 

flupyradifurone is not known. The scenarios that resulted in the highest EECs using half-lives 

based on inclusion of unextracted residues were therefore also modeled using half-lives 

calculated based on residues of parent alone, i.e., employing the less conservative assumption 

that none of the unextracted residues are parent compound. Model inputs corresponding to both 

sets of assumptions (i.e., half-lives for parent only, and for parent plus unextracted residues) are 

shown in Table 20. Table 21 compares some results for FLU-UN and FLU. Not unexpectedly, 

the inclusion of unextracted residues in degradation half-life calculations impacts EECs, 

especially for simulations with the PRZM-GW model, wherein concentrations increased by 

approximately 64 to 66%. It should be noted that the amount of unextracted residues observed 

may be a result of the quality of the extraction procedure, rather than the propensity for a 

compound to sorb to soil and sediment. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that some unextracted 

residues will be mobile. By comparison, the impact on surface water EECs was relatively minor, 

with a change in EECs near or less than 1 μg/L, flupyradifurone only EECs were up to 6% 

higher than flupyradifurone plus unextracted EECs. Surface water EECs for FLU were all 

higher than those calculated for FLU-UN. This is because different degradation kinetic 

equations were selected to calculate the representative half-life for different residues, the 

representative half-lives are shown in Table 20 and the reason for the counterintuitive results is 

discussed in detail in Section 3.2.2. The representative water column half-life for parent plus 

unextracted residues was 1118 days (3.1 years) and the corresponding value for parent alone was 

2979 days (8.1 years).14 The two values used to calculate the parent representative input value 

were very different (547 versus 1740) resulting in a high 90th percentile of the mean 

representative half-life values. Additionally, in one study the representative half-life from the 

parent alone was higher (1740 days, TIORE value) than the half-life for parent plus unextracted 

residues (676 days, SFO model) in the same study. 

Table 20. Comparison of representative model inputs for parent and parent plus unextracted residues 

Input Parameter Representative Half-life Used in Modeling (days) 

Parent Alone Parent Plus Unextracted Residues 

Water column 2979 1118 

Benthic 3643 Stable 

Soil 265 525 

 

14 The DT90 in the aquatic microcosm studies was a maximum or 363 days, which is considerably lower than the 

simulated value. The modeled system is very different then the aquatic microcosm system, and the values are not 

expected to be similar. 
46 

Table 21. Comparison of EEC for residues of FLU-UN versus FLU 

Model 

Peak EEC 60-day EEC or Post 

Breakthrough Average 

FLUUN FLU % 

Difference 

FLUUN FLU % 

Difference 

PRZM-GW 95.7 63.5 51% 89.4 57.7 55% 

SWCC* 23.6 25.2 -6% 22.8 23.7 -4% 

% Difference = (FLU-UN EEC- FLU EEC)/FLU EEC × 100 

*TXalfalfaOP (09-05) scenario; see Table 22. 

Table 22. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) and 

flupyradifurone alone (FLU) in surface water* Use Site Single App. Rate (kg ai/ha), # of App, MRI in days App Type Drift/ No Drift 

Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues 

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

Crop 

Group 15: 

Cereal 

Grains 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

A Drift 23.5 22.8 21.6 18.9 19.0 22.4 21.4 20.6 17.9 18 

No Drift 19.4 18.8 18 15.5 15.6 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 22.2 21.6 20.5 17.9 17.9 -- -- -- -- -- 

No Drift 20.2 19.6 18.8 16.2 16.3 -- -- -- -- -- 

Cotton 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.6 19 18.1 15.9 15.9 19.1 18.4 17.5 15.4 15.4 

No Drift 16.2 15.6 15.1 13.3 13.3 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 18.6 17.9 17.2 15.1 15.1 18.1 17.5 16.6 14.7 14.7 

No Drift 16.9 16.3 15.7 138 13.8 -- -- -- -- -- 

Peanut 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 10.9 10.4 9.81 8.11 8.1 10.5 10 9.52 7.72 7.71 

No Drift 7.31 6.97 6.69 5.44 5.44 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 10.9 10.4 10.1 8.46 8.47 9.09 8.62 8.36 6.67 6.66 

No Drift 9.13 8.95 8.59 7.14 7.15 -- -- -- -- -- 

Root Veg. 

(except 

Sugarbeet) 

and 

Tuberous 

and Corm 

Veg. 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 18.9 18.3 16.6 13 12.9 18 17.5 15.8 12.3 12.2 

No Drift 16 15.3 13.8 10.7 10.6 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G 

Drift 18.2 17.4 15.8 12.3 12.2 17.4 16.7 15.1 11.6 11.5 

No Drift 16.7 15.9 14.4 11.1 11 -- -- -- -- -- 

Legume 

Veg. 

(Succulent 

or Dried) 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 16.8 16.1 15.3 15.1 15.2 16 15.3 14.3 14.2 14.3 

No Drift 12.3 11.8 11.7 11.6 11.7 15.9 15.1 13.7 10.4 10.4 

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 17.9 13.8 13.7 17.7 17 15.9 14.2 14.4 

No Drift 17.8 18.2 16.5 12.7 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- 

Fruiting 

Vegetables 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.9 18.9 17.3 13.3 13.3 19.1 18.1 16.4 12.6 12.5 

No Drift 16.5 15.6 14.3 11 11 15.9 15.1 13.7 10.4 10.4 

F, G Drift 19.8 20.5 18.7 14.5 14.4 18.7 19.6 17.8 13.7 13.5 

No Drift 17.1 17.5 15.8 12.1 12 16.3 16.9 15.1 11.5 11.4 
47 

Use Site 

Single App. Rate 

(kg ai/ha), # of 

App, MRI in days 

App Type 

Drift/ No Drift 

Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues 

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

0.40, 1x S, G No Drift 14.8 15.1 15.4 11.7 11.7 -- -- -- -- -- 

Cucurbit 

Vegetables 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.8 20.5 18.7 14.5 14.4 18.7 19.6 17.8 13.7 13.5 

No Drift 17.1 17.5 15.8 12.1 12 16.3 16.9 15.1 11.5 11.4 

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 17.9 13.8 13.7 18.2 19 17.1 13 12.9 

No Drift 17.8 18.2 16.5 12.7 12.5 -- -- -- -- -- 

0.37 

(0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 16.9 17.6 18.8 13.8 13.2 -- -- -- -- -- 

Hops 0.14 

(0.15), 1x 

F, A Drift 5.57 5.41 5.41 4.73 4.73 5.4 5.24 5.22 4.52 4.52 

No Drift 2.14 2.07 1.99 1.74 1.74 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 3.98 3.89 3.84 3.32 3.32 3.85 3.75 3.67 3.16 3.16 

No Drift 2.29 2.22 2.11 1.84 1.84 -- -- -- -- -- 

Citrus 

Fruit 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A 

Drift 24.4 25.1 23.7 18.1 17.8 22.8 23.6 22.8 17.2 17 

No Drift 22 22.5 20.8 15.8 15.5 20.6 21.3 20.1 15.1 14.9 

Drift 

Only, 

No 

Runoff 

3.45 -- -- 2.38 -- -- -- -- -- -- 

F, AB Drift -- -- -- -- -- 22.2 23 21.9 16.4 16.2 

F, G Drift 22.6 23.3 22.3 16.8 16.6 -- -- -- -- -- 

0.37 

(0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 23.1 22.2 21.1 16.2 16 -- -- -- -- -- 

Pome 

Fruit 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 12.5 11.8 10.9 9.34 9.36 12.2 11.5 10.5 8.98 9 

No Drift 8.73 8.26 7.59 6.4 6.39 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, AB Drift 10.5 9.99 9.19 7.72 7.72 10.2 9.6 8.87 7.37 7.37 

F, G Drift 11 10.4 9.56 8.05 8.05 -- -- -- -- -- 

No Drift 9.1 8.61 7.9 6.59 6.58 -- -- -- -- -- 

Bushberry 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 9.67 9.88 10 9.3 9.05 9.11

+ 9.38 9.52 

No Drift 6.06 6.04 6.2 6.46 6.56 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 7.98 7.96 8.18 8.48 8.55 7.64 7.5 7.73

+ 8.03 8.16 

No Drift 6.32 6.29 6.46 6.73 6.84 -- -- -- -- -- 

Low 

Growing 

Berry 

(excluding 

Cranberry) 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 12.9 12.8 11.6 8.78 8.21 -- -- -- -- -- 

No Drift 10.2 9.66 8.68 6.39 6.15 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 14.3 16.2 15.4 9.38 9.23 -- -- -- -- -- 

No Drift 10.6 10.1 9.04 6.66 6.41 -- -- -- -- -- 
48 

Use Site 

Single App. Rate 

(kg ai/ha), # of 

App, MRI in days 

App Type 

Drift/ No Drift 

Parent Only Parent plus Unextracted Residues 

Water Column Pore Water Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

60-day 

average 

Peak 

21-day 

average 

Small 

Fruit Vine 

Climbing 

(except 

Fuzzy 

Kiwifruit) 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 9.67 9.88 10 8.26 7.97 7.63 6.59 6.6 

No Drift 6.06 6.04 6.2 6.46 6.56 5.71 5.72 5.89 6.2 6.3 

F, G Drift 8.28 8.14 7.64 6.38 6.39 7.9 7.88 7.43 6.17 6.17 

No Drift 6.31 6.03 5.66 4.67 4.66 -- -- -- -- -- 

Tree Nut 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.73 9.26 8.75 8.9 8.9 9.52 8.98 8.21 8.49 8.6 

No Drift 6.55 6.51 6.8 6.53 6.54 -- -- -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 6.82 6.54 6.15 4.98 4.97 -- -- -- -- -- 

Prickly 

Pear 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, G Drift 2.98 2.86 2.68 2.22 2.22 2.8 2.67 2.49 2.14 2.14 

No Drift 1.24 1.22 1.27 1.04 1.04 -- -- -- -- -- 

Nongrass 

Animal 

Feeds 

(Forage, 

Fodder, 

Straw, 

Hay) 

0.18 

(0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A 

Drift 25.2 24 22.1 17.2 17.2 23.6 22.4 20.5 15.7 15.8 

No Drift 21.8 20.8 19.2 14.8 14.9 20.4 19.3 17.7 13.5 13.5 

Drift 

Only, 

No 

Runoff 

3.55 -- -- 2.47 -- 

-- -- -- -- -- 

F, G 

Drift 23.5 22.3 20.6 15.9 15.9 -- -- -- -- -- 

No Drift 21.8 20.7 19.1 14.7 14.8 -- -- -- -- -- 

Soybean 

Seed 

Treatment 

0.37 

(0.40), 1x S, G No Drift 6.97 6.61 6.05 4.7 4.7 6.9 6.53 5.93 4.61 4.6 

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; Ave=average; Veg.=vegetables; 

MRI=Minimum retreatment interval 

sNo Drift= Simulation without spray drift. 

Drift Only, No Runoff= Simulation was completed assuming 0% application efficiency. This essentially estimates EECs that 

could result from spray drift alone. This value may be used to evaluate the toxicity of end-use products. +* The 1 in 10 year 21-day average value reported is higher than the 1 in 10 year peak EECs. This may occur because the 21-

day average calculation may include days from another year but at least one day is in the year of interest, while the calculation of 

the peak concentration is only based on values in that year.∞

Table 23. Estimated concentrations of flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues (FLU-UN) or flupyradifurone alone 

(values designated with an asterick) in groundwater source irrigation water 

Use Site (Timing 

of App) 

Single 

App. Rate 

lbs. ai/A

(kg ai/ha) 

# of 

App 

Ret. 

Int. 

Days 

App. 

Type 

EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues 

EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L) 

SCIGROW PRZM-GW 

Peak Scenario Daily 

Peak 

Post 

Breakthrough 

Average 

Ave 

Breakthrough 

Time (Days) 

Foliar 

Application 

(10 days post 

emergence) 

0.18 

(0.20) 

2 7 F, A 2.10 

1.09* 

WI 95.7 

63.5* 

190a 

284b 

89.4 

57.7* 

178a 

26b 

4205 

Soil Application 

(10 days postemergence) 

0.37 

(0.40) 

1 -- G 2.16 WI 

96.0 89.6 4205 
49 

Use Site (Timing 

of App) 

Single 

App. Rate 

lbs. ai/A

(kg ai/ha) 

# of 

App 

Ret. 

Int. 

Days 

App. 

Type 

EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues 

EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L) 

SCIGROW PRZM-GW 

Peak Scenario Daily 

Peak 

Post 

Breakthrough 

Average 

Ave 

Breakthrough 

Time (Days) 

Seed Treatment 

(14 days preemergence) 

0.37 

(0.40) 

1 -- G 2.16 

1.01* 

4.31α

WI 95.7 

63.1* 

89.7 

58.0* 

4205 

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; NJ/DE=Delmarva Sweet Corn; NC=NC cotton; 

WI=Wisconsin Corn; GA=Georgia Peanuts; Ave.=average; Ret. Int.=retreatment interval 

* Results are for residues of flupyradifurone alone. All other values reflect residues of flupyradifurone plus M47 plus M48 plus 

unextracted residues. 

a Simulation for two seasons per year. 

b Simulation with three seasons a year. 

Terrestrial Exposure 

Birds and Mammals 

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals, 

emphasizing a dietary exposure route for uptake of pesticide active ingredients. Avian exposures 

are considered surrogates for exposures to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. For 

exposure to terrestrial organisms, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues on food items 

are estimated, based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide residues in a 

given exposure use pattern. For flupyradifurone, application methods for the registered uses 

include foliar spray and soil drench. Non-target terrestrial organisms may also be exposed to 

flupyradifurone via treated seeds. For terrestrial animals, the T-REX model (Version 1.5.1)15 is 

used to calculate dietary- and dose-based EECs of flupyradifurone for mammals and birds 

feeding on the site of application. Input values for T-REX include the maximum single 

application rates, number of applications, and retreatment interval for a given use and are located 

in Table 24. In this assessment, EFED uses a default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days as an 

input for terrestrial exposure modeling in T-REX. 

Upper-bound Kenega nomogram values based on Hoerger and Kenega (1972) as modified by 

Fletcher et al. (1994) are used to derive EECs for flupyradifurone exposures to terrestrial 

mammals and birds based on dietary- and dose-based exposures from foliar applications of 

flupyradifurone (Table 24). A one-year time period is simulated. Consideration is given to 

different types of feeding strategies for mammals and birds, including herbivores, insectivores 

and granivores. For dose-based exposures, three weight classes of mammals (15, 35, and 1000 

g) and birds (20, 100, and 1000 g) are considered. T-REX is also used to calculate dose-based 

EECs of flupyradifurone for birds and mammals that consume treated seeds. Seeding rates and 

the maximum application rate based on the proposed label are used to calculate dose-based EECs 

and the mass of flupyradifurone per unit area (mg ai/ft2

) available for consumption by birds and 

mammals (Table 25). For more information on estimating exposure to terrestrial organisms from 

seed treatments, please see the T-REX User’s Guide16. 

 

15 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/ 

16 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm 
Table 24. Terrestrial EECs as food residues for animals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed foliar uses. 

Food Type

Dietary Based 

(mg/kg diet) 

(mammals and 

birds) 

Dose Based (mg/kg bw) 

(birds)

Dose (mg/

(mam

All Size Classes Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Small (15 g) Me

(3

Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval)

Short grass 80.81 92.03 52.48 23.50 77.04 53Tall grass 37.04 42.18 24.05 10.77 35.31 24Broadleaf plants/small insects 45.45 51.77 29.52 13.22 43.34 29Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 5.05 5.75 3.28 1.47 4.82 3Arthropods 31.65 36.05 20.55 9.20 30.18 20Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.28 0.73 0.33 1.07 0

Foliar: Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low 

Fruit Vine Climbing 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval)

Short grass 78.64 89.56 51.07 22.87 74.98 51Tall grass 36.04 41.05 23.41 10.48 34.36 23Broadleaf plants/small insects 44.23 50.38 28.73 12.86 42.17 29Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 4.91 5.60 3.19 1.43 4.69 3Arthropods 30.80 35.08 20.00 8.96 29.37 20Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.24 0.71 0.32 1.04 0

Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval)

Short grass 75.94 86.49 49.32 22.08 72.40 50Tall grass 34.81 39.64 22.60 10.12 33.18 22Broadleaf plants/small insects 42.72 48.65 27.74 12.42 40.73 28Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 4.75 5.41 3.08 1.38 4.53 3Arthropods 29.74 33.87 19.32 8.65 28.36 19Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.20 0.68 0.31 1.01 0

Foliar: Hop 

(0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application) 

Short grass 33.60 38.27 21.82 9.77 32.04 22Tall grass 15.40 17.54 10.00 4.48 14.68 10Broadleaf plants/small insects 18.90 21.53 12.27 5.50 18.02 12Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 2.10 2.39 1.36 0.61 2.00 1Arthropods 13.16 14.99 8.55 3.83 12.55 8
Food Type

Dietary Based 

(mg/kg diet) 

(mammals and 

birds) 

Dose Based (mg/kg bw) 

(birds)

Dose (mg/

(mam

All Size Classes Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Small (15 g) Me

(3

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.53 0.30 0.14 0.44 0

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seed

(0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application) 

Short grass 88.80 101.13 57.67 25.82 84.66 58Tall grass 40.70 46.35 26.43 11.83 38.80 26Broadleaf plants/small insects 49.95 56.89 32.44 14.52 47.62 32Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 5.55 6.32 3.60 1.61 5.29 3Arthropods 34.78 39.61 22.59 10.11 33.16 22Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.40 0.80 0.36 1.18 0

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval b

Short grass 122.05 139.00 79.27 35.49 116.37 80Tall grass 55.94 63.71 36.33 16.27 53.33 36Broadleaf plants/small insects 68.65 78.19 44.59 19.96 65.46 45Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 7.63 8.69 4.95 2.22 7.27 5Arthropods 47.80 54.44 31.05 13.90 45.58 31Seeds (granivore) N/A 1.93 1.10 0.49 1.62 1

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval b

Short grass 146.02 166.30 94.83 42.46 139.21 96Tall grass 66.92 76.22 43.46 19.46 63.81 44Broadleaf plants/small insects 82.13 93.54 53.34 23.88 78.31 54Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 9.13 10.39 5.93 2.65 8.70 6Arthropods 57.19 65.13 37.14 16.63 54.53 37Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.31 1.32 0.59 1.93 1

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval b

Short grass 159.25 181.36 103.42 46.30 151.83 10Tall grass 72.99 83.13 47.40 21.22 69.59 48Broadleaf plants/small insects 89.58 102.02 58.17 26.05 85.40 59Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 9.95 11.34 6.46 2.89 9.49 6Arthropods 62.37 71.03 40.51 18.14 59.47 41Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.52 1.44 0.64 2.11 1
Food Type

Dietary Based 

(mg/kg diet) 

(mammals and 

birds) 

Dose Based (mg/kg bw) 

(birds)

Dose (mg/

(mam

All Size Classes Small (20 g) Medium (100 g) Large (1000 g) Small (15 g) Me

(3

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day interval b

Short grass 166.55 189.68 108.17 48.43 158.79 10Tall grass 76.34 86.94 49.58 22.20 72.78 50Broadleaf plants/small insects 93.68 106.70 60.84 27.24 89.32 61Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 10.41 11.86 6.76 3.03 9.92 6Arthropods 65.23 74.29 42.36 18.97 62.19 42Seeds (granivore) N/A 2.63 1.50 0.67 2.21 1

N/A = Not applicable. Table 25. Terrestrial dose-based EECs for the range of seed treatment uses proposed for flupyradifurone. 

Use App Rate (lbs ai/A) 

Seed 

App Rate 

(mg ai/ 

kg seed) 

Animal Size 

Dose-Based EEC 

(mg ai/kg-bw/day) 

Spatial EEC 

(available ai per 

unit area) 

(mg ai /ft2) Birds Mammals 

Soybeans 0.0371 450 

Small 113.89 95.34 

Medium 64.94 65.89 0.39 

Large 29.08 15.28 

App = Application 1 Estimated based on proposed label rate of 0.068 mg ai/seed and assumption of 250,000 seeds planted per acre 2 Based on proposed label rate of 45 g ai/100 kg seed 
53 

Honey bees 

Potential risk to bees is assessed in this document according to the tiering process described in 

the White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Beessubmitted to the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP) for 

review and comment in September 2012 (USEPA, 2012d). As part of the Tier I risk assessment, 

screening-level exposures are estimated in pollen and nectar using generic residue data generated 

from other chemicals as well as other plant parts as described in Table 26 and Table 27. For 

dietary exposures resulting from foliar applications, it is assumed that pesticide residues on tall 

grass (from the Kenaga nomogram of T-REX) are a suitable surrogate for residues in pollen and 

nectar of flowers that are directly sprayed during application. For soil applications, pesticide 

concentrations in pollen and nectar are assumed to be consistent with chemical concentrations in 

the xylem of barley (calculated using the Briggs’ model). For seed treatments, pesticide 

concentrations in pollen and nectar are based on concentrations in leaves and stems of treated 

plants (based on the European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) default 

value discussed in the White Paper), assumed to be 1 milligram per kilogram (mg/kg) or 1 part 

per million (ppm). More details on these methods are available in the White Paper (USEPA, 

2012d) and in the T-REX User’s Guide17. 

The Tier I method is intended to generate “reasonably conservative” estimates of pesticide 

exposure to honeybees which are then refined using empirical residue data from a variety of 

crops, which are available for flupyradifurone. The Tier I exposure method is intended to 

account for the major routes of pesticide exposure that are relevant to bees (i.e., through diet and 

contact). Exposure routes for bees differ based on application type. Under the approach used in 

this assessment, bees foraging in a field treated with a pesticide through foliar spray could 

potentially be exposed to the pesticide through direct spray, i.e., contact, as well through 

consuming flupyradifurone residues in pollen and nectar. For honeybees foraging in fields 

treated with a pesticide through direct application to soil (e.g., drip irrigation) or through seed 

treatments, direct spray onto bees is not expected. For these application methods, pesticide 

exposure through consumption of residues in nectar and pollen are expected to be the dominant 

routes. Foraging honeybees may also be exposed to pesticides via contact with dust from seed 

treatments or via consumption of water from surface water, puddles, dew droplet formation on 

leaves and guttation fluid; however, exposures via these routes are not quantified in this 

assessment. 

Table 26. Summary of contact and dietary exposure estimates used for foliar application, soil treatment, and 

seed treatment uses of pesticides for honeybee Tier I risk assessment. 

Measurement 

Endpoint Exposure Route Exposure Estimate1 

Foliar Applications 

Individual Survival (adults) Contact APP*(2.7 μg ai/bee) 

Individual Survival (adults) Diet APP*(110 μg a.i /g)*(0.292 g/day) 

Brood size and success Diet APP*(110 μg a.i /g)*(0.124 g/day) 

Soil Treatments 

Individual Survival (adults) Diet (Briggs EEC)*(0.292 g/day) 

 

17 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm 
54 

Measurement 

Endpoint Exposure Route Exposure Estimate1 

Brood size and success Diet (Briggs EEC)*(0.124 g/day)

Seed Treatments 

Individual Survival (adults) Diet (1 μg a.i /g)*(0.292 g/day)

Brood size and success Diet (1 μg a.i /g)*(0.124 g/day)

APP = application rate in lbs ai/A 

1

Based on food consumption rates for larvae (0.124 g/day) and adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration in 

pollen and nectar. 

 Table 27. Screening-level EECs for honeybees based on foliar, drench, and seed treatment applications 

Use Single Maximum 

Application Rate Life-stage Exposure Route 

EEC 

(μg ai/bee/day) 

Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous 

and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables 

(except Brassica), Brassica (Cole) Leafy 

Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, 

Cucurbits, Bushberries, Cotton, Nongrass 

Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables 

(except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, 

Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing 

Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, Tree 

Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

0.18 lbs ai/A 

Adults Contact 0.49 

Adults Diet 5.78 

Brood Diet 2.46 

Hops 0.14 lbs ai/A 

Adults Contact 0.38 

Adults Diet 4.50 

Brood Diet 1.91 

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting 

Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine 

Climbing Fruit 

0.37 lbs ai/A 

Adults Diet 0.02 

Brood Diet 0.01 

Soybean Seeds 0.365 lbs ai/A1 Adults Diet 0.29 

Brood Diet 0.12 1

 Based on maximum label rate per year for seed treatments. 

In cases where RQs exceed the LOC for acute risk to insect pollinators, estimates of exposure are 

refined using measured pesticide concentrations in pollen and nectar of treated crops, and further 

calculated for other castes of bees using their respective food consumption rates. The most 

conservative (highest) exposure estimates for contact and/or dietary exposure routes are selected 

for the refined Tier I screening-level assessment. These exposure estimates are based on adult 

and larval bees with the highest food consumption rates among bees. This is accomplished using 

food consumption rates based on work described in the White Paper (USEPA, 2012d) and 

updated to reflect comments from the Scientific Advisory Panel (SAP). 

A number of studies were conducted to evaluate residues of flupyradifurone and the degradate 

BYI 02960-difluoro-ethylamino-furanone (DFEAF) in flowers, pollen, and nectar after drench 

and foliar applications to different commodity crops that are potentially of use for refining 

exposure if initial screening-level risk estimates exceed LOCs (Table 28). Many of the foliar 

studies consisted of two applications of BYI 02960 SL 200 G: one pre-bloom application (early 

flowering) and a second at full flowering. In all studies, DFEAF residues were low (<0.1 mg/kg), 

and given the low acute toxicity of DFEAF to honeybees (LD50 >81.5 μg/bee), they are not 

characterized further in this assessment. For foliar applications, flower and nectar residues of 

flupyradifurone typically reached their maxima within a few days following the second (full 
55 

bloom) application; pollen residues varied among studies, sometimes increasing until the end of 

the study (e.g., citrus) and sometimes reaching a maximum in the few days following the second 

application, similar to flowers and nectar. These data may indicate that systemic translocation of 

residues in some plants may lead to residues in pollen in the weeks following application. Many 

of the studies used honeybee-collected pollen (dislodged from the legs of forager bees using 

pollen traps affixed to the front of colonies) and nectar (removed directly from the honey 

stomachs of forager bees) to evaluate residues in bee-relevant matrices. Studies generally did not 

measure residues during the interval between the first and second applications, which is a source 

of uncertainty; however, since applications were made just prior to full bloom and at full bloom, 

the residues in pollen and nectar are considered to represent those that were systemically 

distributed to pollen and nectar through uptake and translocation by the plant as well as those 

residues directly landing on the surface of pollen and nectar as a result of application. 

Measured residues from a variety of pollinator-attractive crops indicate that the concentration of 

residues in pollen were higher than those in nectar by factors ranging from 3.5-106x. However, 

cotton was a noticeable exception where total residues in nectar were roughly 50-fold higher than 

in pollen. The maximum residue in pollen was measured in blueberries (67.6 mg ai/kg) 

following application at early bloom of 0.36 lbs ai/A followed by a second application at 0.37 lbs 

ai/A at bloom; however, these applications were mistakenly made at twice the proposed label 

rate for pre-bloom and bloom applications (0.18 lbs ai/A). The highest residues measured in 

nectar were from cotton (21.8 mg ai/L); however, these elevated residues were associated with 

extrafloral nectaries as opposed to peak residues in nectar (0.39 mg ai/L) derived from floral 

sources. In general, peak residues in nectar (other than for cotton) were less than 1.5 mg ai/L. 

Although exposure to bees through residues in guttation fluid are not considered quantitatively in 

this assessment, data were also available on flupyradifurone residues in oilseed rape following 

bare soil treatments followed by the sowing of treated seeds. Residues on guttation fluid were 

measured following planting in autumn and again in the spring. Residues in the autumn ranged 

from 0.039-21 mg ai/L while those in the following spring ranged between 0.014-0.21 mg ai/L. 

Based on the available data, the exposure levels in spring were up to several orders of magnitude 

lower than in autumn indicating that residues were dissipating presumably due in part to growth 

dilution. Given that peak residues in nectar from cotton overlap with peak values measured in 

guttation fluid, this assessment is considered protective for this potential route of exposure. 

Furthermore, there is uncertainty regarding the extent to which bees avail themselves of guttation 

fluid since the fluid may not be attractive to a large number of bees during times of peak foraging 

activity. 

 
56 

 Table 28. Empirical pollen, nectar, and flower residue data for applications of flupyradifurone formulations to different crops 

No. of applications/rate 

per application 

Test 

Substance 

Flupyradifurone residues in mg 

ai/kg Comments 

Tomato (drench) 

1 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(200 g ai/ha)1 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.2%) 

Pollen (max): 0.107 

Pollen (mean): 0.0839 

Flowers (max): 0.315 

Flowers (mean): 0.246 

[Predicted: 19.8]4 

Pollen collected from bumble bees; pollen residhighest in first week after flower emergence. 

Watermelon (drench) 

3 at 0.134 

(150 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.2%) 

Pollen (max): 0.006 

Nectar (max): <0.001 

Flowers (max): 1.56 

Plan Tissue (max): 54.3 

[Predicted: 14.7]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 7 dbetween applications; applications; 1st applicatoccurred just after transplanting 

Watermelon (drench) 

1 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(200 g ai/ha)1 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.2%) 

Pollen (max): 0.002 

Nectar (max): <0.001 

Flowers (max): 0.056 

Flowers (mean): 0.017 

[Predicted: 19.8]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; sinapplication occurred just after transplanting 

Citrus: orange 

(foliar) 

2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(205 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.05%) 

Pollen, traps (max): 1.8 

Pollen, legs (max): 1.3 

Nectar2 (max): 0.2 

Blossoms (max): 2.0 

[Predicted: 19.8]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 2napplication occurred when flowers were 10-30% open; the highest citrus blossom residues occurdays after the 2nd application; the highest nectaresidues occurred 1 day after the 2nd applicatiohighest pollen residues occurred near the time osampling (5-7 days after 2nd application), whicsource of uncertainty. 

Citrus: orange 

(foliar) 

1 at 0.365 lbs ai/A 

(410 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.05%) 

Pollen, traps (max): 1.1 

Pollen, legs (max): 0.48 

Nectar2 (max): 0.31 

Blossoms (max): 5.1 

[Predicted: 40.5]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; application occurred when flowers were 10-30% open; the highest citrus blossom and nectar resioccurred 3 days after application; the highest poresidues occurred at the last sampling (7 days aapplication), which is a source of uncertainty. 

Melon 

(drench) 

1 at 0.365 lbs ai/A 

(410 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(17.05%) 

Pollen (max): 0.50 

Nectar2 (max): 0.76 

Blossoms (max): 0.38 

[Predicted: 40.5]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; application occurred after transplanting; the higblossom, nectar, and pollen residues occurred 3and 28 days after application. 

Melon 

(foliar) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

Pollen (max): 1.5 

Nectar2 (max): 0.36 

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1sapplication occurred when nine flowers on mai
57 

2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(205 g ai/ha) 

(17.05%) Blossoms (max): 2.8 

[Predicted: 19.8]4

stem open and 2nd application occurred at initionset of fruit; the highest blossom residues occu1 day after the 2nd application; the highest nectresidues occurred 1 day before the 2nd applicatand the highest pollen residues occurred one daafter the 1st application. 

Cotton 

(foliar) 

2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(205 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(17.11%) 

Pollen (max): 0.432 

Nectar, total (max): 21.83 

Nectar, floral (max): 0.386 

Nectar, inner-bracteal (max): 12.2 

Nectar, sub-bracteal (max): 15.9 

Nectar, pink floral (max): 0.311 

Blossoms (max): 12.1 

[Predicted: 19.8]4

1st application occurred at 20% flowering and t2nd application at full flowering (10 day intervbetween applications); the highest blossom resioccurred 3 days after the 2nd application; the htotal nectar residues occurred 3 days after the 2application, and the highest pollen residues occon the day of the 2nd application; residues were recorded during the period between the first and applications; all residues appear to have declinesignificantly by 14 days after the 2nd applicatio

Blueberry 

(foliar) 

1 at 0.36 lbs ai/A 

(404 g ai/ha) and 1 at 

0.37 lbs ai/A (411 g 

ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(16.9%) 

Pollen (max): 67.6 

Nectar2 (max): 0.64 

Blossoms (max): 6.49 

[Predicted: 40.5]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1sapplication occurred at 10% flowering and the 2application at full flowering (9 day interval betwapplications); the highest blossom and nectar residues occurred on day of 2nd application, anhighest pollen residues occurred one day after 2application; residues were not recorded during period between the first and 2nd applications; aresidues appear to have declined by at least one of magnitude from the highest daily average by end of the study (10 days after 2nd application)Note: this study was mistakenly carried out at tthe proposed pre-bloom and bloom application (0.18 lbs ai/A). 

Apple 

(foliar) 

2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(205 g ai/ha) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(17.05%) 

Pollen, trap (max): 22 

Pollen, leg (max): 39 

Nectar2 (max): 1.5 

Blossoms (max): 113 

[Predicted: 19.8]4

Pollen and nectar collected from honeybees; 1sapplication occurred when most flowers with pforming a hollow ball and the 2nd application aflowering to flowers fading (8 day interval betwapplications); the highest resides for all matricewere recorded 1 day after the 2nd application; residues were not recorded during the period between the first and 2nd applications 

Apple 

(foliar) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

Pollen (max): 8.3-26.23

Nectar (max): 0.3-1.23 

Three field trials were conducted in NY, OR, anWA states; pollen and nectar collected directly 
58 

2 at 0.18 lbs ai/A 

(205 g ai/ha) 

(16.9%) Blossoms (max): 20.1-27.73

[Predicted: 19.8]4

plants; 2nd application occurred at full flowerin12 days after 1st application; the highest blossoresidues occurred 1 day after the 2nd applicatiohighest nectar residues occurred near the time o2nd application; the highest pollen residues wavariable among field trials; residues were not recorded during the period between the first and applications 

Oil-seed rape 

(foliar) 

Bare soil application: 

0.28 lbs ai/A (310 g 

ai/ha) 

Seed treatment: 9.9 g 

ai/kg seeds, 5.98 kg 

seed/ha 

Bare soil 

application: 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(16.9%) 

Seed 

treatment: 

BYI 02960 

FS 480 G 

(39.9%) 

Guttation liquid residues: 

Fall (2010, range): 

0.039-11 mg ai/L 

Spring (2011, range): 

0.014-0.21 mg ai/L 

Study performed in Germany; bare soil treatmewas made on same day as treated seeds were so(and was followed by immediate mechanical incorporation); droplets of guttation liquid were collected from the surface of the treated winter seed rape plants; residues were sampled in fall (after planting) and following spring (2011); generally, residues of BYI 02960 declined by atwo orders of magnitude during the approximatweek autumn sampling period. 

Oil-seed rape 

(foliar) 

Bare soil application: 

0.28 lbs ai/A (311 g 

ai/ha) 

Seed treatment: 10.11 g 

ai/kg seeds, 6.89 kg 

seed/ha 

Bare soil 

application: 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(16.9%) 

Seed 

treatment: 

BYI 02960 

FS 480 G 

(39.9%) 

Guttation liquid residues: 

Fall (2010, range): 

 0.087-21 mg ai/L 

Spring (2011, range): 

0.062-0.15 mg ai/L 

Study performed in France; bare soil treatment made on same day as treated seeds were sown (was followed by immediate mechanical incorporation); droplets of guttation liquid were collected from the surface of the treated winter seed rape plants; residues were sampled in fall (after planting) and following spring (2011); in fall, residues of BYI 02960 declined by about tworders of magnitude during the approximately 5week autumn sampling period, but residues incduring the spring 2011 sampling period; no explanation for the increases in spring residues provided by the study authors. 

Max = maximum residues (generally represented by the highest daily average residues during study) 1Application rate used in study is half of the maximum single drench (soil) application rate proposed. 2Nectar samples were collected from bee honey stomachs 3Values represent range of average daily maximum residues across three field trials (New York, Oregon, Washington) 4Generic predicted residues of flupyradifurone on bee matrices are based on Table 26 and are calculated by multiplying the application 

estimated tall grass EEC of 110 mg/kg for applications at 1 lbs ai/A. Note: predicted residues are only based on a single spray applicatimultiple spray events.
59 

Terrestrial and Semi-Aquatic Plants 

TERRPLANT (Version 1.2.2)18 is used to calculate EECs for non-target plants that inhabit dry 

and semi-aquatic areas. In this assessment, exposure to non-target plants is calculated based on 

the potential runoff and spray drift of foliar applications of flupyradifurone and potential runoff 

after soil and seed treatment applications (Table 29). Potential exposure resulting from spray 

drift is not calculated for chemigation and seed treatment applications because any spray drift is 

expected to be negligible. TERRPLANT does not account for particulate drift. 

Table 29. EECs for non-target terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants based on proposed uses of flupyradifurone 

based on TERRPLANT. 

Uses Application 

Technique 

Single Max. 

App. Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

EECs (lbs ai/A) 

Semi-Aquatic 

Areas (Total) 

 Spray 

Drift 

Dry 

Areas 

(Total) 

Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous 

and Corm Vegetables, Leafy 

Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica 

(Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting 

Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries, 

Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, 

Peanut, Root Vegetables (except 

Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, 

Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing 

Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, 

Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

Foliar 0.18 0.1 0.009 0.018 

Hops Foliar 0.14 0.08 0.007 0.014 

Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, 

Small Vine Climbing Fruit 

Soil, 

Chemigation 0.37 0.19 N/A 0.019 

Soybeans Seed1 0.365 0.19 N/A 0.019 

App = Application; N/A = Not applicable 

1 Incorporation was not accounted for in EECs since the label only specifies that seeds should be incorporated to at 

least 0.5 inches; TERRPLANT accounts for incorporation at >1 inch. 

Ecological Effects Characterization 

3.5.1. Ecotoxicity Data 

Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for the proposed new uses of 

flupyradifurone are shown in Table 30 through Table 36. In the current risk assessment, the 

most sensitive endpoints available from registrant-submitted toxicity studies classified as fully 

reliable (i.e., acceptable) or reliable with restrictions (i.e., supplemental) are the endpoints 

selected for quantitative use in risk estimation19.

 

18 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/ 

19 Only studies classified as “Supplemental” for quantitative use are used for risk quotient calculations in EFED 

assessments; supplemental studies that are not deemed useful for quantifying risks are used for risk characterization 

purposes only. 
60 

3.3.1.1. Aquatic Organisms 

Acute toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates are summarized in Table 30. 

Based on the available data, flupyradifurone technical grade active ingredient (TGAI) is slightly 

toxic to the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas), 

sheepshead minnow (Cyprindon variegatus), and African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis) on an 

acute exposure basis. For all aquatic vertebrates (fish and aquatic-phase amphibians) tested, the 

acute 96-hr LC50 value exceeded the highest concentration tested, i.e, the acute toxicity estimates 

were non-definitive values at or close to the limit test concentration of 100 mg ai/L. 

Flupyradifurone is slightly toxic to Daphnia magna and the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica) with non-definitive acute toxicity estimates; however, the compound is very highly 

toxic to non-biting midges (Chironomus riparius) and highly toxic to mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia) on an acute exposure basis. 

Several acute toxicity tests were also carried out with the flupyradifurone formulation BY02960 

SL 200 G (17.1% ai) indicating that it is practically non-toxic to rainbow trout, common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio), and D. magna on an acute exposure basis. However, it should be noted that 

acute toxicity tests with the formulation were not carried out with mysid shrimp or chironomids, 

which are the most sensitive aquatic animals to flupyradifurone TGAI.

Acute toxicity was also evaluated for several transformation products of flupyradifurone for 

freshwater vertebrates and invertebrates (Table 30); none of these studies indicate that the 

degradates tested are more toxic than the parent compound. Based on toxicity tests using the 

most sensitive freshwater invertebrate, C. riparius, M47, M48, and 6-CNA degradates are less 

toxic than the parent compound by several orders of magnitude. 

Chronic toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone are summarized 

in Table 31. 

In a 35-day early life-stage toxicity test with fathead minnows exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI 

(MRID 48843714), fry survival in the lowest (0.62 mg ai/L) and highest (8.40 mg ai/L) treatment 

groups was significantly lower than the negative control group. The difference observed for the 

lowest treatment group was not considered to be biologically significant because of the lack of a 

dose-response relationship for fry survival. The reduction in fry survival in the highest treatment 

group as compared to the negative control was approximately 7%. There were no other 

statistically or biologically significant effects for other endpoints, which included hatchability, 

larvae survival, or growth (length and weight). Given that a slight reduction in fry survival was 

the only effect detected in this study, it is uncertain whether this test provides sufficient 

characterization of the effects of the chemical on fish early life stages. This uncertainty will be 

considered further in the Risk Description (Section 4.2) by determining whether the test was 

conducted at high enough concentrations relative to environmental exposure concentrations to 

alleviate potential chronic risk concerns for aquatic vertebrates. 
61 

In a 21-day chronic life-cycle study with D. magna (MRID 48843711), the NOAEC and LOAEC 

were 3.42 and 6.73 mg ai/L, respectively, based on reduced (4.8%) parental body length at test 

termination. 

A 21-day chronic toxicity study with D. magna was also carried out with the transformation 

product, BYI 02960-succinamide (M48; MRID 48843712). The NOAEC and LOAEC were 

determined to be 46.3 and 106 mg/L, based on increased parental age of first offspring. 

Therefore, the BYI 02960-succinamide degradate appears to be less toxic to D. magna than the 

parent compound on a chronic exposure basis. 

No chronic toxicity data are available for estuarine/marine fish. Furthermore, an acute-to-chronic 

ratio from freshwater fish cannot be used to derive a chronic toxicity endpoint for 

estuarine/marine fish because the available acute toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish are nondefinitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested). 

In a 28-day life cycle toxicity test with mysid shrimp (A. bahia; MRID 48843713), there was a 

statistically significant decrease (p<0.05) in reproduction of 60% in the 23.6 μg ai/L treatment 

group. The NOAEC and LOAEC for reproduction were determined to be 13.2 and 23.6 μg ai/L, 

respectively. 

Several degradates were also evaluated in chronic toxicity tests with aquatic invertebrates (Table 

31); none of these studies indicated that the transformation products are more toxic than the 

parent compound on a chronic exposure basis. For the succinamide degradate (M48), D. magna

are an order of magnitude less sensitive as compared to the parent compound. Based on the 

chronic toxicity tests using C. riparius, the sodium difluoroacetate and 6-chloronicotinic acid 

degradates are less toxic than the parent compound by three orders of magnitude. 

Toxicity endpoints for aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone and its formulations are shown 

in Table 32. 

The freshwater vascular plant duckweed (Lemna gibba) was exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI 

(MRID 48843731) over a 7-day period; the EC50 regarding growth inhibition was determined to 

be >67.7 mg ai/L for both frond number and dry weight. The NOAEC was determined to be 34.2 

and 67.7 mg ai/L for frond number and dry weight, respectively. 

The effects of flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843732) on the growth of the freshwater green 

alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata, were tested; the 96-hour EC50 and NOAEC were 

determined to be >80 and 80 mg ai/L, respectively, based on nominal test concentrations. It 

should be noted that 80 mg ai/L was the highest concentration tested and was reported to be at 

the practical limit of solubility for flupyradifurone. 

The effects of several transformation products of flupyradifurone (MRID 48843733 to 

48843735) were also tested on green algae. Although none of the studies showed adverse effects 

at any of the concentrations tested, some degradates were not tested at high enough 

concentrations to demonstrate that they are less toxic than the parent compound. However, 

similar to the parent compound, all of the toxicity tests with green algae provided non-definitive 
62 

endpoints in which the 72-hr EC50 value exceeds the highest concentration tested. 
63 

Table 30. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to flu

Study Type Species Test Material 

Endpoints1,2

(mg ai/L) 

(Study Duration) 

Acute toxicity to freshwater vertebrates 

Rainbow trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 > 74.2 

95% CI = N/A 

(limit test) 

(96 hour test) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

LC50 > 100 

95% CI = N/A 

(96 hour test) 

BYI 02960 

Succinamide (M48) 

(97.8%) 

LC50 > 114 

95% CI = N/A 

(96 hour test) 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 

(>99%) 

LC50 > 10.35 

(96 hour test) 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 > 70.5 

95% CI = N/A 

(96 hour test) 

Common carp 

(Cyprinus carpio) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

LC50 > 100 

95% CI = N/A 

(limit test) 

(96 hour test) 

African clawed frog 

(Xenopus laevis) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 > 74.2 

95% CI = N/A 

(48 hour test) 

(

Acute toxicity to freshwater invertebrates 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

EC50 > 77.6

95% CI = N/A 

(48 hour test) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

EC50 = 115

95% CI = 85-179 

(48 hour test) 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 

EC50 > 10.2 

(48 hour test)
64 

Study Type Species Test Material 

Endpoints1,2

(mg ai/L) 

(Study Duration) 

(>99%) 

6-chloronicotinic acid 

(99.7%) 

EC50 > 95.1 

(48 hour test)

Non-biting midge 

(Chironomus riparius) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

EC50 = 0.0639 

95% CI = 0.0431 – 0.1113 

Slope=4.1 

 (48 hour test)

(

BYI 02960 

Succinamide (M48) 

(97.8%) 

EC50 > 104.5 

(48 hour test)

(

BYI 02960 

Azabicyclosuccinamide

(M47) 

(48%) 

EC50 > 114.5 

(48 hour test)

(

Non-biting midge 

(Chironomus tentans) 6-CNA (97%) EC50 > 1 (96 hour test) 

(

Acute toxicity to estuarine/marine fish 

Sheepshead minnow 

(Cyprinidon variegatus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 > 83.9 

95% CI = N/A 

(96 hour test) 

Acute toxicity to estuarine/marine crustaceans 

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 = 0.25 

95% CI = N/A 

Slope=4.2 

(96 hour test) 

Toxicity to estuarine/marine mollusks – shell deposition 

Eastern oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 > 29 

95% CI = N/A 

(96 hour test) 

1 Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation. 
65 

Table 31. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for fish and aquatic invertebrates exposed to 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1 (mg ai/L) 

(S

Early life stage toxicity to freshwater fish 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 4.41

LOAEC = 8.40 

Chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates 

Water flea 

(Daphnia magna) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 3.42 

LOAEC = 6.73 

Reduc

ne

offs

BYI 02960 

Succinamide (M48) 

(97.8%) 

NOAEC = 46.3 

LOAEC = 106 

Incre

o

Non-biting midge 

(Chironomus riparius) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 0.00332 

LOAEC = 0.00852

Emerge

(Re

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

NOAEC = 0.012 

LOAEC = 0.024 

Emerge

(Re

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 

(>99%) 

NOAEC = 105 

LOAEC >105 

(single concentration test) 

No effe

(Re

6-CNA (97%) 

NOAEC = 102 

LOAEC >102 

(single concentration test)

No effe

(Re

Chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine crustaceans 

Mysid shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 0.0132 

LOAEC = 0.0236

Mean nu

repr

(Re

1 Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation. 2 Time-weighted average pore water concentration at 0.01 and 0.02 mg ai/L nominal test levels for NOAEC and LOAEC, respectively.
66 

Table 32. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for aquatic plants exposed to flupyradifurone. 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1 (mg ai/L) 

Toxicity to vascular aquatic plants 

Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

EC50 > 67.7 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 34.2 

cu

Toxicity to nonvascular aquatic plants 

Green algae 

(Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

EC50 > 80 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 80 

(96 hour test) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

EC50 > 42.8 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 42.8 

(96 hour test) 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 

(>99%) 

EC50 > 10.2 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 10.2 

(72 hour test) 

(single concentration test) 

BYI 02960 

Succinamide (M48) 

(97.8%) 

EC50 > 11.4 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 11.4 

(72 hour test) 

(single concentration test) 

6-CNA (97%) 

EC50 > 100 

95% CI = N/A 

NOAEC = 100 

(72 hour test) 

1 Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation. 
67 

3.3.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms 

Birds and Mammals: Acute 

Acute toxicity data for birds, mammals, honeybees, and earthworms (Eisenia foetida) exposed to 

flupyradifurone are summarized in Table 33. 

Based on the available data, flupyradifurone is moderately toxic to birds (bobwhite quail, 

Colinus virginianus; canary, Serinus canaria) on an acute oral exposure basis and slightly toxic 

to birds (bobwhite quail, C. virginianus; mallard duck, Anas platyrhynchos) on a subacute 

dietary exposure basis. Several of the acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity studies indicate 

effects on feed consumption, body weight, or body weight gain suggesting that the chemical can 

affect either the willingness of birds to consume diets containing elevated levels of 

flupyradifurone or to consume food (i.e., anorexia). In a 28-day acute oral toxicity test conducted 

with chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843717), 

there was nearly complete cessation in feed consumption at the limit dose (2000 mg ai/kg bw), 

which was associated with reduced body weight in treated birds relative to controls throughout 

the study period. Similarly, in an acute oral toxicity study with chickens exposed to the BYI 

02960 SL 200 G formulation (MRID 48844513), all dosed birds avoided food almost completely 

after treatment, but all five birds tested commenced feeding by test Day 7. In a bobwhite quail 

acute oral toxicity study (MRID 48843715), there was reduced body weight and body weight 

gain at concentrations ≥200 mg ai/kg bw. In avian subacute dietary studies (MRIDs 48843718, 

48843719), there was reduced body weight and body weight gain in bobwhite quail and mallard 

ducks at dietary concentrations of ≥1133 and ≥2238 mg ai/kg diet, respectively, during the 5-day 

exposure period; however, there were no treatment-related mortalities in either study and there 

was some evidence of recovery at lower test concentrations during the 3-day post-exposure 

period. When corrected for percent active ingredient, flupyradifurone TGAI appears to be more 

toxic than the BYI 02960 SL 200 G formulation to bobwhite quail on an acute oral exposure 

basis. Although there is uncertainty regarding the potential effects of flupyradifurone on food 

consumption, it is important to note that these effects are not well characterized in the subacute 

dietary toxicity studies since the studies are not typically designed to support hypothesis testing. 

Flupyradifurone is classified as practically nontoxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. 

No mortality was observed at the limit dose (2000 mg/kg bw) in an acute oral toxicity study with 

the rat (Rattus norvegicus), which was the most sensitive mammalian species tested; therefore, 

the 96-hr LD50 is non-definitive, i.e., LD50>2,000 mg ai/kg bw. The US EPA Office of Pesticide 

Programs Health Effects Division (HED) has concluded that flupyradifurone exhibits low acute 

toxicity to mammals by all exposure routes (EPA Toxicity Category III or IV) (USEPA, 2014). 

Terrestrial Invertebrates: Acute 

Flupyradifurone TGAI is practically non-toxic to young adult honeybees (Apis mellifera) on an 

acute contact basis; however, the compound is highly toxic to young adult bees on an acute oral 

exposure basis. In the acute contact toxicity test (MRID 48843722), some bees showed 

movement coordination problems or lethargy at the two highest concentrations (100 and 200 μg 
68 

ai/bee) starting at 48 hours of exposure. In the acute oral toxicity test (MRID 48843722), 

behavioral abnormalities (e.g., movement coordination problems and lethargy) were observed in 

bees at doses >0.34 μg ai/bee only within the first four hours of dosing. In addition, the acute 

oral test resulted in a steep dose response relationship in which 0 and 100 percent mortality were 

observed at 0.34 and 2.8 μg ai/bee, respectively. 

Several formulations and transformation products of flupyradifurone were also tested on 

honeybees on acute contact and oral exposure bases (MRIDs 48844514, 48844515, and 

48843723 to 48843727). The major formulation of flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) was 

shown to be approximately eight times more toxic to honeybees than the TGAI on an acute 

contact exposure basis, but of similar toxicity to honeybees on an acute oral exposure basis. 

Acute contact and oral toxicity data were also generated for a mixture containing BYI 02960 SL 

200 G (17.1%) + tebuconazole EW 250C G (17%) at a ratio of 1:7.5, respectively. Results 

indicate that the toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G increased by 116-fold and 6.1-fold via the 

contact and oral exposure routes, respectively, and that the toxicity of the formulation containing 

tebuconazole increased by >22-fold via contact. The rationale for mixing the two formulations in 

the particular ratio tested was not provided. For all transformation products tested, the acute oral 

and contact LD50 values for all tests were non-definitive values and were greater than the highest 

dose tested, although some studies resulted in mortalities at the doses tested. 
69 

Table 33. Acute toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to flupyradifuro

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1

Acute oral toxicity to birds 

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LD50 = 232 mg ai/kg bw 

95% CI = 173-313 mg ai/kg bw 

Probit Slope=5.9

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

LD50 = 459 mg ai/kg bw 

95% CI = 339-6616 mg ai/kg bw 

Chicken 

(Gallus gallus 

domesticus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw4 

(limit test)

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(17.1%) 

LD50 > 2000 mg/kg bw4 

(limit test) 

Canary 

(Serinus canaria) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LD50 = 330 mg ai/kg bw3

95% CI = 215-625 mg ai/kg bw 

Probit Slope=2.3 

Subacute dietary toxicity to birds 

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 >4,876 mg ai/kg diet 

LD50 >470 mg/kg/day

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 >4,741 mg/kg diet 

LD50 >825 mg/kg/day 

Acute oral toxicity to mammals5 Norway rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) LD50 >2000 mg/kg bw 

Acute contact and oral toxicity to 

honeybees 

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera) 

TGAI 

(99.5%) 

LD50 = 122.8 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 = 1.2 g ai/bee (oral)

P

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.0%) 

LD50 = 15.7 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 = 3.2 g ai/bee (oral) 

P
70 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1

BYI 02960 

FS480G 

LD50 = 68.6 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 = 3.4 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

BYI 02960 

SL200G (17.0%) + 

Tebuconazole EW 

250C G (25.4%) 

LD50 = 1 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 = 0.2 g ai/bee (oral) 

BYI0296 

Difluoroethyl-aminofuranone (DFEAF) 

(99.2%) 

LD50 > 100 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 > 81.5 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

BYI 02960 

Hydroxy 

(95.5%) 

LD50 > 100 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 > 105.3 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

DFA 

(95.8%) 

LD50 > 100 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 > 107.9 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

6-CNA 

(98.8%) 

LD50 > 100 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 > 107.1 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

6-chloropicolylalcohol 

(98.9%) 

LD50 > 100 g ai/bee (contact) 

LD50 > 106.7 g ai/bee (oral) 

P

14-day toxicity to earthworms Earthworm (Eisenia foetida) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

LC50 = 213.2 mg ai/kg soil 

NOAEC < 5 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 5 mg ai/kg soil 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

LC50 = 709 mg ai/kg soil 

NOAEC < 100 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 100 mg ai/kg soil 
71 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1

DFA 

(95.8%) 

LC50 > 1,000 mg ai/kg soil 

NOAEC = 31.3 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 62.5 mg ai/kg soil 

6-CNA 

(99.7%) 

LC50 > 1,000 mg ai/kg soil 

NOAEC = 1,000 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC > 1,000 mg ai/kg soil 

1 Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation. 2 Dose-response slope data not available. The default value of 4.5 (with 95% confidence intervals of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the p

individual effect (Urban and Cook 1986). 

3 Uncertainty surrounding endpoint since 50% mortality was observed at the 175 mg ai/kb bw treatment level. 4 Almost complete reduction in food consumption in all dosed birds at limit dose (2000 mg ai/kg bw). 5 Mammalian toxicity data were reviewed by OPP Health Effects Division (USEPA) as part of the Global Joint Review for flupyradifur
72 

Birds and Mammals: Chronic 

Chronic laboratory toxicity data for birds and mammals exposed to flupyradifurone are shown in

Table 34. 

In an avian reproduction study with mallard ducks (MRID 48843721) exposed to flupyradifurone 

in the diet, there was neither mortality nor significant clinical symptoms or compound-related 

adverse effects observed at any treatment level over the 20-week test period up to the highest 

concentration tested (NOAEC = 845 mg ai/kg diet). There is some uncertainty surrounding this 

study since adverse growth effects were observed at concentrations >1175 mg ai/kg diet in the 

avian dietary study with mallard ducks, although no effects to parental growth were reported in 

the reproduction study. In addition, avian reproduction tests should typically capture a 

reproductive effect or test up 5,000 mg ai/kg-diet. This uncertainty will be further addressed in 

the Risk Description (Section 4.2). 

In a 23-week avian reproduction study with the bobwhite quail (MRID 48843720), at the highest 

concentration tested (999 mg ai/kg-diet), there were statistically significant (p<0.05) effects on 

parental survival and female body weight gain (69% reduction), a biologically significant effect 

on female parental body weight (13% reduction), as well as effects to several reproductive 

parameters including regressed ovaries and/or fewer maturing follicles, the number of eggs laid 

(44% reduction) and the number of eggs set (47% reduction), the number of viable embryos 

(45% reduction) and the number of live embryos (44% reduction), number hatched (49% 

reduction), percent number hatched of eggs laid, percent number hatched of live embryos (8% 

reduction), initial hatchling body weight (14% reduction), and for 14-d survivor body weight 

(11% reduction) and 14-day survivors. Therefore, the NOAEC for both parental toxicity and 

reproduction endpoints is 302 mg ai/kg diet. 

In mammals, reductions in body weight with associated decreases in body weight gains and 

sometimes food consumption were commonly seen in various studies and in all species of the 

test animals (rats, mice, dogs and rabbits) with repeated dosing. 

In a rat 2-generation study evaluated by HED (MRID 48844119), the most sensitive effects were 

decreased body weights and body weight gains in F2 pups at 38.7 mg/kg/day, resulting in an 

offspring NOAEL of 7.7 mg/kg/day. Some reproductive effects, including decreased litter size, 

occurred at higher dietary concentrations (137 mg/kg/day), resulting in a reproductive NOAEL 

of 38.7 mg/kg/day. 

Parental body weight gain and food consumption effects were also observed in the rat 

developmental toxicity study (MRID 48844116) at 150 mg/kg/day, resulting in a study NOAEL 

of 50 mg/kg/day. In addition, decreased body weight and body weight gain also occurred in rat 

and mice chronic carcinogenicity studies (MRIDs 48844122 and 48844123) at 81 and 224 

mg/kg/day, respectively, resulting in NOAELs of 15.8 and 43, respectively. In a rabbit 

developmental toxicity study (MRID 48844117), there were reductions in both maternal and 

fetal body weights at 80 mg/kg/day, resulting in a NOAEL of 40 mg/kg/day. 
73 

HED analysis (USEPA, 2014) indicates that most major metabolites of flupyradifurone exhibit 

lower toxicity to mammals than the parent compound except for DFA. A 90-day oral feeding 

study with DFA in rats (MRID 48844153) resulted in a variety of effects to non-apical endpoints 

(i.e., not directly relatable to survival, growth, or reproductive effects), including the production 

of black foci in the stomach, focal glandular erosion/necrosis, as well as slight decreases in 

hemoglobin, mean corpuscular volume, mean corpuscular hemoglobin, and hematocrit were also 

found. In addition to these effects, reduced body weight (10% on Week 13) and decreased food 

consumption occurred at doses of 66.2 and 78.8 mg/kg bw for males and females, respectively, 

resulting in NOAEL values of 12.7 and 15.6 mg/kg bw for males and females, respectively. It is 

noted that when comparing the NOAEL and LOAEL of this study to a similar 90-day oral study 

with the parent compound (MRID 48844111; NOAEL and LOAEL of 38 and 156 mg/kg bw, 

respectively), on a molar basis, the NOAELs and LOAELs of DFA and the parent are 

comparable, however, the effects are different. Furthermore, it is noted that in the rat 

metabolism study with flupyradifurone, DFA was formed and detected as approximately 6% of 

the administered dose. Since 90-day rat oral toxicity data are not typically used by EFED to 

quantify chronic effects to mammals, a comparison is made in the Risk Characterization between 

the estimated exposure of mammals to DFA following applications of flupyradifurone and the 

dose at which effects to apical endpoints were observed in the 90-day rat oral study with DFA. 

Terrestrial Invertebrates: Chronic 

Chronic laboratory toxicity data for honeybees exposed to flupyradifurone are shown in Table 

34. 

Several 10-day laboratory feeding studies with caged adult honeybees were performed for 

flupyradifurone TGAI (MRID 48843762) and for several degradates (MRIDs 48843763 to 

48843767). In these studies, bees were exposed to sucrose solution containing one or more 

concentrations of the test substance continuously for 10 days and mortality and sublethal effects 

were observed. None of the studies showed prolonged (>1 day) treatment-related effects in any 

of the treatment groups. However, it should be noted that the 10-day study with the TGAI was 

carried out at 4.64 μg ai/bee over 10 days which corresponds to 0.464 μg ai/bee/day, which is 

only 2.5 times lower than the 48-hour oral LD50 for the TGAI (1.2 μg ai/bee), suggesting that a 

minimum threshold may be needed to result in mortality. 

A 22-day in vitro laboratory toxicity test was carried out with honey bee larvae exposed to 

flupyradifurone TGAI (MRIDs 48843768). Individual larvae were exposed to the test substance 

on Days 4-6 of the test through artificial spiked diet at nominal concentrations of 150, 600, 2500 

and 10,000 μg ai/kg diet. Five independent test runs were performed, all of which comply with 

the validity criteria as proposed by the INRA-method (January, 2008) for testing pesticide 

toxicity to honeybee brood in laboratory conditions. However, control mortality was generally 

high (range: 16.7 to 32.4% across test runs and may have affected the ability of the study to 

detect effects to mortality. No statistically significant effects (p<0.05) on mortality were detected 

up to Day 22 in any of the test runs. Therefore, the NOAEC for this test is >10,000 μg ai/kg-diet 

(0.44 μg ai/bee/day) indicating that the compound did not appear to affect larval development or 

adult emergence at the concentrations tested; however, the wide range of mortality rates in the 

control larvae is a source of uncertainty. 
74 

A foliage residue toxicity test (MRID 48843728) was carried out on honeybees exposed to plant 

foliage (alfalfa) treated with BYI 02960 200 SL (17.1% ai) after weathering for various time 

periods (3, 8, and 24 hours). Mortality and sublethal effects such as changes in behavior were 

evaluated. All foliage was treated at a nominal application rate of 0.18 lbs ai/A, which represents 

the single maximum foliar application rate in the proposed label for BYI 02960 200 SL 

formulation. Honeybees showed no treatment-related effects on behavior or survival when 

exposed for 24 hours to alfalfa foliage collected after any of the weathering intervals; therefore 

the RT25 for this study is <3 hours. 

Additional non-guideline contact toxicity data on non-target terrestrial arthropods exposed to 

formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) are considered supplemental information in 

the current risk assessment and are summarized in Table 35. Species tested include the 

predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri), the parasitoid wasp (Aphidius rhopalosiphi), ladybird 

beetles (Coccinella septempunctata), rove beetles (Aleochara bilineata) and the flower bug 

(Orius laevigatus), all of which are routine OECD test species. Of these, the wasp was the most 

sensitive with median lethal rate (LR50) equivalent to an application rate of 0.5 g ai/ha (0.0004 

lbs ai/A). These studies are further characterized in the Risk Description (Section 4.2). 

Terrestrial Plants 

Toxicity data for terrestrial plants exposed to flupyradifurone formulation BYI 02960 SL 200 are 

shown in Table 36. 

A 21-day vegetative vigor study (MRID 48843730) was carried out on eleven terrestrial plant 

species (seven dicotyledonous and four monocotyledonous species) sprayed once with a single 

application rate of BYI 02960 SL 200 of 0.365 lbs ai/A (410 g ai/ha). There were no adverse 

effects on survival in all the species tested. Slight phytotoxicity was observed in Brassica napus 

(oilseed rape), Cucumis sativus (cucumber), Lycopersicon esculentum (tomato) and Zea mays 

(corn). Inhibition in shoot length and shoot dry weight were below 25% in all the species tested. 

There was statistically significant (p<0.05) inhibition in shoot dry weight in Fagopyrum 

esculentum (buckwheat) and B. napus, with 12% and 7% reductions as compared to control 

plants. 

A 21-day seedling emergence study (MRID 48843729) was carried out on eleven terrestrial plant 

species (seven dicotyledonous and four monocotyledonous species) sprayed once with a single 

application rate of BYI 02960 SL 200 of 0.365 lbs ai/A (410 g ai/ha). Effects on emergence, 

survival, and shoot length did not exceed 25% in any of the species tested; therefore an IC25 was 

not established. There were statistically significant (p<0.05) inhibitions in shoot length (13.8%) 

and shoot dry weight (19.7%) in F. esculentum (buckwheat). Slight phytotoxicity was observed 

in L. esculentum (tomato), Avena sativa (oat) and Z. mays (corn) and moderate effects were seen 

in F. esculentum and Glycine max (soybean). 
75 

Table 34. Chronic toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial animals exposed to flupyradifu

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1

Avian reproduction 

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus virginianus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 302 mg/kg diet 

NOAEL = 40 mg/kg bw/day 

LOAEC = 999 mg/kg diet 

Mallard duck 

(Anas platyrhynchos) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 845 mg/kg diet

NOAEL = 83 mg/kg bw/day 

LOAEC = >845 mg/kg diet 

N

Chronic toxicity to mammals2 – 

two-generation reproduction 

Norway rat 

(Rattus norvegicus) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEL = 7.7 mg/kg bw/day 

LOAEL = 38.7 mg/kg bw/day 

10-day honey bee laboratory feeding study 

Honey bee

(Apis mellifera) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

NOAEC = 4.64 μg ai/bee 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

h

BYI0296 

Difluoroethyl-aminofuranone 

(99.2%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

(single concentration test) 

BYI 02960 

Hydroxy 

(95.5%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

(single concentration test) 

DFA 

(95.8%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

(single concentration test) 

6-CNA 

(98.8%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

(single concentration test) 

6-chloropicolylalcohol 

(98.9%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

(single concentration test) 
76 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints1

Toxicity to honey bee larvae (in vitro test) 

Honey bee

(Apis mellifera) 

TGAI 

(96.2%) 

NOAEC = 10,000 μg ai/L 

NOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/larva 

LOAEC > 10,000 μg ai/L 

h

56-day toxicity to earthworms Earthworm (Eisenia foetida) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17%) 

NOAEC = 1.5 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 2.7 mg ai/kg soil 

DFA 

(95.8%) 

NOAEC = 62 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 110 mg ai/kg soil 

6-CNA 

(98.8%) 

NOAEC = 95 mg ai/kg soil 

LOAEC = 100 mg ai/kg soil 

1 Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoint(s) for a given taxonomic group and will be used in risk estimation. 2 Mammalian toxicity data were reviewed by OPP Health Effects Division (USEPA) as part of the Global Joint Review for flupyradifu

 Table 35. Additional non-guideline toxicity data for hazard characterization of beneficial arthropods exposed to flupyradifuro

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints (lbs ai/A) 

Toxicity to predatory mite Predatory mite (Typhlodromus pyri) BYI 02960 SL 200 (17.0%) LR50 = 0.015 (17 g ai/ha) 95% CI: 0.012-0.019 
77 

Study Type Species Test Material Endpoints (lbs ai/A) 

Predatory mite 

(Typhlodromus pyri) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 

(17.0%) 

LR50 = 0.16 (177 g ai/ha) 

95% CI: 0.13-0.18 

Toxicity to parasitoid wasp Parasitoid wasp (Aphidius rhopalosiphi) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G 

(17.1%) 

LR50 < 0.00045 (0.5 g ai/ha) 

(85% mortality at lowest concentration 

tested) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 

(17.0%) 

LR50 = 0.0018 (2.02 g ai/ha) 

95% CI: 0.0014-0.0023 

Toxicity to ladybird beetle 

Ladybird beetle 

(Coccinella 

septempunctata L.) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 

(17.0%) 

LR50 = 0.24 (274 g ai/ha) 

95% CI: 0.17-0.29 

Toxicity to rove beetle Rove beetle (Aleochara bilineata) BYI 02960 SL 200 (17.0%) ER50 = 0.26 (>300 g ai/ha)1 95% CI: NA 

LR = Lethal Body Residues 1 ER50 value depicts F1 reproduction endpoint. 

Table 36. Toxicity endpoints used in risk estimation and characterization for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants exposed to flu

Study Type Test Material Most Sensitive Species Endpoints (lbs ai/A) 

Terrestrial plant toxicity: Tier II seedling emergence BYI 02960 SL 200 

Monocot: all species 

tested 

IC25 > 0.365 

NOAEL = 0.365 

LOAEL > 0.365 

Dicot: buckwheat IC25 > 0.365 NOAEL < 0.365 
78 

Study Type Test Material Most Sensitive Species Endpoints (lbs ai/A) 

(Fagopyrum 

esculentum) 

LOAEL = 0.365 

Terrestrial plant toxicity: Tier II vegetative vigor BYI 02960 SL 200 

Monocot: all species 

tested 

IC25 > 0.365 

NOAEL = 0.365 

LOAEL > 0.365 

Dicot: buckwheat 

(Fagopyrum 

esculentum) 

IC25 > 0.365 

NOAEL < 0.365 

LOAEL = 0.365 
79 

Terrestrial Invertebrate Semi-Field and Full-field Studies 

Multiple higher-tiered honeybee effects studies were carried out including semi-field, full field, 

and colony feeding studies. The results of these studies are summarized in Table 37 and are 

described in detail below. 

Six semi-field studies were conducted on honeybees (MRIDs 48844531 to 48844536) in which 

nucleus colonies were enclosed in gauze tunnels and bees were allowed to forage on the beeattractive plant, Phacelia tanacetifolia, which was sprayed with different applications of 

flupyradifurone. There was no consistent adverse effects observed across the studies aside from 

some increases in mortality and decreases in foraging activity immediately following 

applications, particularly at full bloom while bees were actively foraging. These affects often 

appeared transitory, and in some cases there was recovery from the effects on mortality by test 

termination. Generally, the low number of replicates (2 or 3) per treatment group in these studies 

may have limited the ability to statistically detect effects on mortality and possibly other 

sublethal endpoints even when they appeared to be biologically significant. In addition, several 

studies suffered from large variation in starting colony size which may have prevented detection 

of adverse effects to treatment groups as well as confounded the interpretation of mortality due 

to limited forage. 

In Fall 2010, two honeybee field studies were conducted in Germany and France (MRIDs 

48844516 and 48844517) in which bare soil was sprayed with approximately 0.28 lbs ai/A (310 

g ai/ha) BYI 02960 SL 200 G (1st application) and oil-seed rape seeds treated with BYI 02960 

FS 480 G at 0.01 lbs ai/lb seeds (10 g ai/kg seeds) were sown on the same day. This was 

followed up by two foliar applications the following spring (2011) with approximately 0.18 lbs 

ai/A (200 g ai/ha) BYI 02960 SL 200 G both at early flowering (2nd application) and full 

flowering (3rd application). In both studies, flupyradifurone residues in canola pollen, nectar, 

wax, and flower were measured. Honeybee colonies were kept in the vicinity of treated or 

untreated (control) oil-seed rape until the end of flowering upon which time they were moved to 

a different untreated area and observed through overwintering until spring 2012. 

In both studies, the highest flupyradifurone residues in flowers, pollen and nectar (from foraging 

bees) occurred at the time of the second foliar application at full bloom. Maximum residues in 

comb pollen, nectar, and wax varied, but generally occurred one week to several months after the 

second application indicating that residues were translocated within the hives to varying extents. 

In the field study in Germany, the full bloom (3rd) application was made in May of 2011, and 

comb residues of pollen, nectar, and wax also peaked in May of 2011. In the field study in 

France, the full bloom (3rd) application was made in April of 2011, and comb residues of pollen, 

nectar, and wax reached their maximum levels in early May, June, and August of 2011, 

respectively. These results indicate some conflict in the timing and extent to which 

flupyradifurone may be translocated to hives under realistic field scenarios. 

Neither study indicated any treatment-related adverse effects on mortality, flight intensity, 

behavior around the hives and within the treated crop throughout the entire field exposure period; 

and neither study indicated any treatment related adverse effects on honeybee health, colony 
80 

development, colony strength (numbers of adult bees and brood [eggs, larvae, pupae]), colony 

health, brood development, food storage, colony weight), and overall colony vitality throughout 

the entire field exposure period and throughout the entire monitoring period until the end of 

overwintering in Spring 2012. However, in both studies, honeybees were clearly foraging on 

alternative food sources besides the oil-seed rape based on pollen analysis which may have 

affected the level of exposure during the study. Yet, residue analyses demonstrate that residues 

were brought back to the colonies and were translocated to the hives; therefore, there were 

multiple routes of exposure to both adult and in-hive bees even though the bees may not have 

foraged exclusively on the treated crops. In the field study conducted in Germany, there is an 

association between application of the test item during full flowering of the crop and during bee 

flight (3rd spray application) in terms of intensive grooming behavior and coordination problems 

in a small fraction of bees in the test item treatment group; however, based on the parameters 

measured in the study, these effects appear to have been transitory and did not appear to affect 

the overall performance of the colonies relative to controls. 

In a honeybee colony feeding study (MRID 48843771), honeybees were exposed to 

flupyradifurone TGAI mixed in the diet (pollen and nectar). Colonies were enclosed in gauze 

tunnels during the late spring/early summer. In the first week, honeybees underwent acclimation 

(i.e., no test item treatment) to the tunnels followed by 6 weeks of exposure to fortified diet (600, 

2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet) or untreated control; there were 5 replicates per treatment and 

control. The enclosure contained perennial ryegrass that was regularly cut short to eliminate 

other potential food sources. After the exposure period, bees were removed from the tunnels and 

allowed to forage freely; colonies were monitored until the following spring which included 

overwintering; there were 3 test item treatment groups. Throughout the entire confined 

acclimation (1 week) and subsequent exposure period (6 weeks), honey bee colonies received ad 

libitum untreated sugar diet (i.e., sugar syrup made of sucrose, glucose, and fructose for 

carbohydrate supply) and pollen diet (i.e., pollen mixed with sugar syrup, for protein supply). 

The pollen diet was provided inside the respective hives; whereas, the sugar diet was offered in 

Petri-dishes outside the hives. Both the sugar and pollen diets were replenished three times a 

week. The amount of pollen and sugar syrup consumed were evaluated by weighing over regular 

intervals. 

The results of the colony feeding study indicate that concentrations up to and including 10,000 

μg ai/kg diet did not result in adverse acute, short-term, or long-term effects on mortality, colony 

strength and development, brood development, food storage, honey bee behavior, and overall 

hive vitality and colony health, as well as on overwintering performance. There were occasional 

isolated incidences of increased worker mortality in the 2500 μg ai/kg diet group relative to the 

control during the confinement period, but this is well within the range of natural variability and 

therefore is not considered biologically significant. There were also occasional incidences of 

decreased flight intensity in the 600 and 2500 μg ai/kg diet groups as compared to controls 

during the confinement period, but this was considered of low biological significance since the 

total number of foraging honeybees and total average food consumption did not differ between 

treated and the control colonies during the confinement period. Moreover, measured food 

consumption was not reduced in the days following instances when statistically significant lower 

flight intensity was detected. 
81 

Generally, there were no adverse effects observed for colony strength during the entire course of 

the feeding study including exposure and post-exposure periods and overwintering. However, 

just before the colonies entered their overwintering period in October, the average number of 

honeybees per exposure group was 9083, 8484, 11083 and 7866 for control, 600, 2500, and 

10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively; while at the last colony assessment after overwintering 

(March), the average number of honeybees per exposure group was 6079, 4053, 4752 and 4174 

for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively. Although it appears that 

control colonies survived overwintering with higher numbers of adult bees, there was no 

statistical difference between treatment and control groups. 

Although there were no treatment-related adverse effects detected in honey bee brood, it is clear 

that confinement in tunnels during the acclimation and exposure periods decreased the average 

number of brood cells in hives in both control and treatment groups possibly due to stress on the 

colonies. It should also be noted that the number of brood cells differed widely among groups 

during the evaluation periods before and after overwintering. In October, before overwintering, 

the average number of brood cells per exposure group was 1830, 2670, 1056 and 1920 for 

control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively; while, at the last colony 

assessment after overwintering (March), the average number of brood cells per exposure group 

was 6270, 3770, 6560 and 5328 for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, 

respectively. However, there was no statistical difference between treatment and control groups 

and the increase in brood in the spring indicates that each of the colonies maintained its queen 

and was able to successfully initiate brood production after overwintering. 

No treatment related adverse effects were detected in nectar/honey and pollen storage. There was 

a substantial (approximately 40%) but not statistically significant decrease in honey storage in 

the 600 μg ai/kg diet relative to the control group following the 6-week exposure period, but this 

was attributed to disease-like symptoms in one particular colony which was subsequently 

removed from the study. At the last colony assessment after overwintering (March), the average 

number of cells containing pollen/bee bread per exposure group was 3950, 1650, 2792 and 2136 

for control, 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet groups, respectively, indicating a difference in 

pollen storage between the lowest and highest treatment groups and the control group. However, 

there was no statistical difference between treatment and control groups for pollen storage 

throughout the study. 
igher tiered honeybee semi-field and field studies for flupyradifurone. 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions Study Deficiencies 

ies 

Application to Phacelia 

anacetifolia at full flowering 

under confined conditions 

gauze tunnels); honeybees 

placed in tunnels 4 days before application and were 

emoved from tunnels 8 days 

after application and allowed 

o forage freely until end of est (27 days after exposure); 

fenoxycarb (150 g ai/ha) and 

hiamethoxam (50 g ai/ha) 

used as toxic references; 3 

eplicates per treatment except thiamethoxam, 2 eplicates) Study location: Germany) 

Mortality, foraging activity, behavior , colony strength, brood and food development, hive vitality 

Not measured Foraging activity reduced 

slightly in 150 g ai/ha group after treatment, but recovery occurred after several hours; no effects on mortality of workers and pupae, extent of nectar and pollen stores, egg laying activity, larval and pupal abundance, colony strength, hive weight development and overall hive vitality in treatment groups. 

Application rate below maximum proposed single foliar application rate for many crops (0.18 lbs ai/A); statistics were not performed on data and a measure of variability (standard deviation or standard error) was not included with the means for the various parameters. 

Application to Phacelia 

anacetifolia at full flowering 

under confined conditions 

gauze tunnels); honeybees 

placed in tunnels 2 days before application and were 

emoved from tunnels 12 

days after application and allowed to forage freely until end of test (28 days after exposure); 2 replicates per 

reatment; fenoxycarb (150 g 

ai/ha) and thiamethoxam (50

Mortality, foraging activity, behavior , colony strength, brood and food development, hive vitality 

Not measured Foraging activity reduced 

slightly in 150 g ai/ha group after treatment, but recovery occurred after several hours; no effects on mortality of workers and pupae, extent of nectar and pollen stores, egg laying activity, larval and pupal abundance, colony strength, hive weight development and overall hive vitality in treatment groups. 

Application rate below maximum proposed single foliar application rate for many crops (0.18 lbs ai/A); a measure of variability (standard deviation or standard error) was not included with the means for the various parameters. 
83 

Test Substance, 

Application Rate 

(MRID, 

Study 

Classification) 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions 

references (Study location: Germany) 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G (17% ai) Foliar: 1 treatment group with 2 applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A (200 g ai/ha) (48844533, Reliable with Restrictions) 

Application to Phacelia tanacetifolia at end of inflorescence emergence (1st application) and at full flowering (2nd application) 10 

days later (at approximately 2 pm during active foraging); honeybees placed in gauze tunnels 6 days after 1st application and removed 11 days after 2nd application and allowed to forage freely until end of test; 3 replicates per treatment; dimethoate (400 g ai/ha) used as toxic references (Study location: Germany) 

Mortality, foraging activity, behavior , colony strength, brood and food development, hive vitality; residues (flowers, pollen, nectar) 

Day of 2nd application 

Flower: 7.5-17.3 mg/kg 7 days after 2nd application Flower: 0.14-3.1 mg/kg Pollen (combs): 1.1-6.2 mg/kg Nectar (combs): ≤0.014 mg/kg 

Some transient effects observed 1-2 days following 2nd (full-bloom) application; 

mortality in treatment group was statistically significantly increased relative to control following 2nd application for 1 day (mean number of dead bees was 4 and 18 for control and treatment groups, respectively); mean number oforager bees/m2 reduced 

following 2nd application for 2 days relative to control. No observed lasting treatmenrelated adverse effects on adult bee mortality, flight intensity, behavior of bees on crop and around the colony, number of bees (colony strength), abundance of brood (sum of cells containing eggslarvae and pupae), and development of food storage area (sum of cells containing nectar and pollen). 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G (17% ai) Foliar: 1 treatment group with 1 

Application to Phacelia tanacetifolia on bare soil at day of sowing (1st application), at beginning of flowering (2nd application), 

Mortality, foraging activity, behavior , colony strength, brood and food 

Day of 3rd application 

Flower: 37.6 mg/kg 7 days after 3rd application 

Some treatment-related effecon mortality and flight intensity of foraging adult bees after 3rd (full-bloom) 

application; mean daily 
84 

Test Substance, 

Application Rate 

(MRID, 

Study 

Classification) 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions 

application of 0.28 lbs ai/A (300 g ai/ha) followed by 2 applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A (200 g ai/ha) (48844534, Reliable with Restrictions 

and at full flowering (3rd

application); 7 days between 2nd and 3rd application; 

honeybees placed in gauze tunnels 4 days after 2nd application and removed 7 days after 3rd application and allowed to forage freely until end of test; 3 replicates per treatment; dimethoate (400 g ai/ha) used as toxic references (Study location: Denmark) 

development, hive vitality; residues (flowers, wax, nectar) 

Flower: 0.199 mg/kg Pollen (combs): 3.0-8.1 mg/kg Nectar: 0.015-0.031 mg/kg 

mortality of the test group wa5 times greater than the control during 7-day period after 3rd (full-bloom) 

application and was statistically significant; reductions in flight intensity occurred during some days after 3rd application, but on other days flight intensity in the treatment group was higher than controls. 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G (16.9% ai) Foliar: 1 treatment group with 1 application of 0.28 lbs ai/A (300 g ai/ha) followed by 2 applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A (200 g ai/ha) (48844535, Reliable with Restrictions 

Application to Phacelia tanacetifolia on bare soil at day of sowing (1st application), at beginning of flowering (2nd application), 

and at full flowering (3rd

application); 18 days between 2nd and 3rd application; 

honeybees placed in gauze tunnels 14 days after 2nd application and removed 7 days after 3rd application and allowed to forage freely until end of test; 3 replicates per treatment; dimethoate (400 g ai/ha) used as toxic references (Study location: Italy) 

Mortality, flight intensity, behavior, condition of the colonies and development of bee brood, mean values of the different brood; residues (flowers, pollen, nectar) 

Day of 3rd application 

Flower: 9.5-20 mg/kg 7 days after 3rd application Flower: 0.70-3.6 mg/kg Nectar: ≤0.003 mg/kg 

Possible effects to mortality itreatment group during period before and after the 3rd (fullbloom) application, which wa

confounded by high mortality in control hives; there appeared to be eventual recovery from effects of mortality; decreased flight intensity of worker bees in treatment group was observed on day of 3rd application 

(following application). 
85 

Test Substance, 

Application Rate 

(MRID, 

Study 

Classification) 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions 

BYI 02960 SL 200 G (16.9% ai) Foliar: 1 treatment group with 2 applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A (200 g ai/ha) (48844536, Reliable with Restrictions 

Application to Phacelia tanacetifolia at end of inflorescence emergence (1st application) and at full flowering (2nd application) 10 

days later; honeybees placed in gauze tunnels 5 days after 1st application and removed 7 days after 2nd application and allowed to forage freely until end of test; 3 replicates per treatment; dimethoate (400 g ai/ha) used as toxic references (Study location: Germany) 

Mortality, flight intensity, behavior, condition of the colonies and development of bee brood, mean values of the different brood; residues (flowers, pollen, nectar 

End of Study (27 days 

after 2nd application) Pollen: 0.002-0.004 mg/kg Nectar/honey: ≤0.017 Wax: 0.001-0.062 mg/kg 

Reduced flight intensity was observed on the day of the 2napplication as well as on somfurther days during the confined exposure period 

Full Field StudiesBYI 02960 FS 480 G (39.9% ai) Seed treatment BYI 0296 SL 200 G (16.9% ai) Soil: 1 application at 

0.28 lbs ai/A (310 g ai/ha) Foliar: 2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A (204 g ai/ha) (48844516, 

In September 2010, winter oil-seed rape seeds were treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G seed treatment (10 g ai/kg seed) and planted at 5.98 kg seed/ha; soil treated with 0.28 lbs ai/A foliar spray (1st application) prior to 

sowing (same day); subsequent applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A at early flowering (2nd application) 

and full flowering (3rd

application) in spring 2011; 8 colonies per treatment group and control; bees were allowed to forage on treated/untreated crop and 

Mortality, flight intensity, behavior, brood and food status; colony health and strength; residues (flowers, pollen, nectar, wax, soil) 

Ranges (across study) 

Flowers (1.9-30.4 mg/kg) Pollen, combs: 0.3-3.9 mg/kg Pollen, bee bread: 0.004-2.0 mg/kg Pollen, forager bees: 0.2-14.3 mg/kg Nectar, combs: 0.4-1.3 mg/kg Nectar/honey: 0.05-1.4 mg/kg Nectar, forager bees: 0.3-4.1 mg/kg Wax, combs: 0.006-.15 mg/kg Wax: 0.005-0.17 mg/kg 

Generally, no treatmentrelated adverse effects observed on mortality, flight intensity in the test field, behaviour of the honeybees around the hives and within the treated crop throughout thentire field exposure period, honeybee health, colony development (including colony strength, colony healtbrood- and food developmentweight development of the colonies), overall colony vitality; possible correlation between application of the tesitem during full flowering of the crop and during bee flight 
86 

Test Substance, 

Application Rate 

(MRID, 

Study 

Classification) 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions 

Reliable with Restrictions 

then moved to untreated area at end of flowering period (Study location: Germany) 

Soil: 0.075 mg/kg The highest pollen and nectar (from forager bees) and flower residues were collected from samples following 2nd foliar application (full bloom); the highest average pollen, nectar, and wax residues occurred approximately in combs occurred approximately 1 week after the 2nd

foliar application 

(3rd spray application) in term

of intensive grooming behavior and coordination problems in a small fraction obees in the test item treatmengroup. 

BYI 02960 FS 480 G (39.9% ai) Seed treatment BYI 0296 SL 200 G (16.9% ai) Soil: 1 application at 

0.28 lbs ai/A (310.5 g ai/ha) Foliar: 2 applications at 0.19 lbs ai/A (208-212 g ai/ha) (48844517, Reliable with 

In autumn 2010, winter oilseed rape seeds were treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G seed treatment (10 g ai/kg seed) and planted at 5.98 kg seed/ha; soil treated with 0.28 lbs ai/A foliar spray (1st

application) prior to sowing (same day); subsequent applications of 0.18 lbs ai/A at early flowering (2nd

application) and full flowering (3rd application) in 

spring 2011; 8 colonies per treatment group and control; bees were allowed to forage on treated/untreated crop and then moved to untreated area at end of flowering period 

Mortality, flight intensity, behavior, brood and food status; colony health and strength; residues (flowers, pollen, nectar, wax, soil) 

Ranges (across study) 

Flowers (0.08-36 mg/kg) Pollen, combs: 0.004-1.2 mg/kg Pollen, forager bees: 0.17-21 mg/kg Nectar, combs: 0.012-0.92 mg/kg Nectar, forager bees: ≤4.3 mg/kg Wax, combs: ≤ 0.039 mg/kg Soil: 0.061 mg/kg The highest pollen (from forager bees) and flower residues were collected from samples 

Generally, no treatmentrelated adverse effects observed on mortality, flight intensity, behavior around the hives and within the treated crop throughout the entire field exposure period, honeybee health, colony development (including colony strength, colony healtbrood development and food storage, colony weight), as well as on overall colony vitality throughout the entire field exposure period and throughout the entire monitoring period, until the end of overwintering in sprin2012. 
87 

Test Substance, 

Application Rate 

(MRID, 

Study 

Classification) 

Test Design Effects Evaluated Residue Measures Study Results/ Conclusions 

Restrictions 

(Study location: France) 

following 2nd foliar application (full bloom); the highest average pollen, nectar, and wax residues in combs occurred approximately 1, 2, and 4 months, respectively, after 2nd foliar 

application indicating a build-up of residues in hives 

Colony Feeding Study BYI 02960 TGAI (96.2% ai) 3 treatment groups (spiked diet) of 600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet (48843771, Reliable with Restrictions) 

Honeybees exposed to flupyradifurone in gauze tunnels with fortified diet (both pollen and sugar syrup) for 42 days; afterward bees were allowed to forage freely and were monitored until following spring (through overwintering); 3 test item treatment groups (600, 2500, and 10000 μg ai/kg diet) plus untreated control; 5 replicates per treatment; tunnels erected over ryegrass regularly cut short inside tunnels; (Study location: Germany) 

Mortality, foraging activity, behavior, colony and brood development, general health status, absolute number and percentages of different lifestage bees), number of comb cells with pollen/bee bread and nectar/honey supplies, presence of pests/pathogens, residues in spiked food supply 

N/A No observed adverse acute, 

short-term, and long-term effects on mortality, colony strength and development, brood development, food storage, honey bee behavior, and overall hive vitality and colony health, as well as on overwintering performance. Occasional significant effects on worker mortality and flighintensity during the confinement period, but not considered biologically significant. 
88 

3.5.1. Incident Reports 

Flupyradifurone has no existing registrations in North America; therefore, this assessment 

assumes that there are no existing incident reports associated with flupyradifurone uses in the 

United States. 

4. Risk Characterization 

Toxicity data and exposure estimates for flupyradifurone are used to evaluate the potential for

adverse ecological effects on non-target species. This screening-level assessment employs a 

deterministic risk estimation method, based on risk quotient (RQ) values, to provide a metric o

potential risks (Section 4.1). The RQ provides a comparison of exposure estimates to toxicity 

endpoints (i.e., the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by acute and chronic toxicit

values, respectively). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the Agency’s levels of

concern (LOCs). The LOCs, when exceeded, are used by the Agency to indicate when the use

a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause adverse effects to non-target 

organisms. The potential for risk is characterized further in the Risk Description (Section 4.2)

based on the risk estimation results and other relevant information about toxicity, ecosystems 

potentially at risk, and the environmental fate and transport characteristics of flupyradifurone.

cases where an RQ value exceeds the risk to listed species LOC, the potential for risk to listed

species is characterized in greater detail in Section 5. 

Risk Estimation 

4.1.1. Aquatic Organisms 

RQ values are calculated for estimating acute and chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrate

as well as risks to aquatic plants, where the submitted ecotoxicity data are sufficient to use in r

estimation. In this assessment, risk estimates for fish also apply for aquatic-phase amphibians

for which fish serve as surrogates. Toxicity data for aquatic animals and plants reported in 

Section 3.3.1.1 in terms of mg/L (ppm) are converted to μg/L (ppb) so that both exposure and

toxicity are in similar units, i.e., μg/L. 

Flupyradifurone is slightly to practically non-toxic to aquatic vertebrates (fish and aquatic-pha

amphibians). Since acute toxicity values for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish are nondefinitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested), RQ values could not be calculate

However, estimated peak exposure concentrations in surface water for all proposed uses are 

several orders of magnitude lower than the highest concentration tested in available fish acute

toxicity studies; therefore, the likelihood of acute mortality in freshwater or estuarine/marine f

following exposure to flupyradifurone from any of the uses evaluated is presumed to be low.

Chronic RQ values for freshwater fish for all proposed uses are ≤0.01, and therefore do not 

exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ≥1) for fish. 

Acute and chronic RQ values were derived for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates 

inhabiting both water column and benthic aquatic environments using surface water and 
89 

sediment pore water EECs, respectively. For freshwater invertebrates inhabiting surface waters, 

all proposed uses exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥0.05), while the acute risk to 

non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥0.5) is only exceeded for foliar application when there are ≥2 crop 

cycles per season. For estuarine/marine invertebrates inhabiting surface waters, most proposed 

uses exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥0.05), but none exceed the LOC (RQ 

≥0.5) for risk to non-listed species. Chronic RQ values for freshwater and estuarine/marine 

invertebrates inhabiting surface waters exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ≥1) for the majority of 

uses. For a small number of uses, when the contribution of spray drift to exposure levels is 

removed or when ground spray is modeled as compared to aerial spray, acute risk to listed 

species and/or chronic LOCs are no longer exceeded for freshwater and/or estuarine/marine 

invertebrates. 

For sediment-dwelling freshwater invertebrates, represented by non-biting midges, all proposed 

uses except for prickly pears exceed the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk LOCs (RQ 

≥0.05 and ≥1, respectively), while the acute risk to non-listed species LOC (RQ ≥0.5) is only 

exceeded for foliar applications when there are ≥2 crop cycles per season (Table 39). For 

sediment-dwelling estuarine/marine invertebrates, represented by mysid shrimp, the majority of 

proposed uses exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC (RQ ≥0.05), and approximately half of 

the proposed uses exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ ≥1), but none exceed the non-listed species 

LOC (RQ ≥0.5). 

For both vascular aquatic plants and algae, risk to listed species RQ values are <0.01 and do not 

exceed the LOC (RQ≥1). Risk to non-listed species RQ values could not be calculated since 

available EC50 values are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentrations tested); 

however, EC50 values for both duckweed and green algae are at least two orders of magnitude 

higher than peak surface water EECs. Therefore, the likelihood for adverse effects to aquatic 

plants from the proposed uses of flupyradifurone is considered low. 

As the endpoints for flupyradifurone formulations are higher than those of the TGAI, RQ values 

are not calculated for aquatic organisms using spray drift-only EECs. 

Further characterization of the potential for adverse effects to aquatic organisms, based on the 

available data, is provided as part of the Risk Description in Section 4.2.1. 
90 

Table 38. RQ values for aquatic invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI in the water column. 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate lbs 

ai/A, # of 

App, MRI 

in days 

App 

Type 

Drift/ 

No 

Drift 

Parent Only 

EEC in μg/L RQ Values 

Water Column Freshwater 

Invertebrates 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Peak 21-

day 

Acute 

LC50= 

63.9μg/L1

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

3.3 μg/L2

Acute 

LC50= 

250 μg/L3

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

13.2 μg/L4

Crop Group 

15: Cereal 

Grains 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 23.5 22.8 0.37 6.91 0.09 1.73 

No Drift 19.4 18.8 0.30 5.70 0.08 1.42 

F, G Drift 22.2 21.6 0.35 6.55 0.09 1.64 

No Drift 20.2 19.6 0.32 5.94 0.08 1.48 

Cotton 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.6 19 0.31 5.76 0.08 1.44 

No Drift 16.2 15.6 0.25 4.73 0.06 1.18 

F, G Drift 18.6 17.9 0.29 5.42 0.07 1.36 

No Drift 16.9 16.3 0.26 4.94 0.07 1.23 

Peanut 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 10.9 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 

No Drift 7.31 6.97 0.11 2.11 0.03 0.53 

F, G Drift 10.9 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 

No Drift 9.13 8.95 0.14 2.71 0.04 0.68 

Root Veg. 

(except 

Sugarbeet) 

and Tuberous 

and Corm 

Veg. 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 18.9 18.3 0.30 5.55 0.07 1.39 

No Drift 16 15.3 0.25 4.64 0.06 1.16 

F, G 

Drift 18.2 17.4 0.28 5.27 0.07 1.32 

No Drift 16.7 15.9 0.26 4.82 0.06 1.20 

2 crop 

cycles 

A Drift 

39.3 37.6 0.62 11.4 0.16 2.85 

3 crop 

cycles 43.0 41.7 0.67 12.6 0.17 3.16 

4 crop 

cycles 45.8 44.5 0.72 13.5 0.18 3.37 

5 crop 

cycles 63.8 62.1 1.0 18.8 0.26 4.7 

Legume Veg. 

(Succulent or 

Dried) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 16.8 16.1 0.26 4.88 0.06 1.22 

No Drift 12.3 11.8 0.19 3.58 0.05 0.89 

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 0.30 5.97 0.08 1.49 

No Drift 17.8 18.2 0.28 5.52 0.07 1.38 

Fruiting 

Vegetables 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.9 18.9 0.31 5.73 0.08 1.43 

No Drift 16.5 15.6 0.26 4.73 0.06 1.18 

F, G Drift 19.8 20.5 0.31 6.21 0.08 1.55 

No Drift 17.1 17.5 0.27 5.30 0.07 1.33 

0.40, 1x S, G No Drift 14.8 15.1 0.23 4.58 0.06 1.14 

Cucurbit 

Vegetables 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 19.8 20.5 0.31 6.21 0.08 1.55 

No Drift 17.1 17.5 0.27 5.30 0.07 1.33 

F, G Drift 19.1 19.7 0.30 5.97 0.08 1.49 

No Drift 17.8 18.2 0.28 5.52 0.07 1.38 

0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 16.9 17.6 0.26 5.33 0.07 1.33 

Hops 0.14 (0.15), 

1x 

F, A Drift 5.57 5.41 0.09 1.64 0.02 0.41 

No Drift 2.14 2.07 0.03 0.63 0.01 0.16 

F, G Drift 3.98 3.89 0.06 1.18 0.02 0.29 

No Drift 2.29 2.22 0.04 0.67 0.01 0.17 

Citrus Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d F, A 

Drift 24.4 25.1 0.38 7.61 0.10 1.90 

No Drift 22 22.5 0.34 6.82 0.09 1.70 

Drift 

Only, 3.45 -- 0.05 -- -- -- 
91 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate lbs 

ai/A, # of 

App, MRI 

in days 

App 

Type 

Drift/ 

No 

Drift 

Parent Only 

EEC in μg/L RQ Values 

Water Column Freshwater 

Invertebrates 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Peak 21-

day 

Acute 

LC50= 

63.9μg/L1

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

3.3 μg/L2

Acute 

LC50= 

250 μg/L3

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

13.2 μg/L4

No 

Runoff 

F, AB Drift 22.2* 23* 0.35* 6.97 0.09* 1.74* 

F, G Drift 22.6 23.3 0.35 7.06 0.09 1.77 

0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 23.1 22.2 0.36 6.73 0.09 1.68 

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 12.5 11.8 0.20 3.58 0.05 0.89 

No Drift 8.73 8.26 0.14 2.50 0.03 0.63 

F, AB Drift 10.5 9.99 0.16 3.03 0.04 0.76 

F, G Drift 11 10.4 0.17 3.15 0.04 0.79 

No Drift 9.1 8.61 0.14 2.61 0.03 0.65 

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 0.15 2.86 0.04 0.71 

No Drift 6.06 6.04 0.09 1.83 0.02 0.46 

F, G Drift 7.98 7.96 0.12 2.41 0.03 0.60 

No Drift 6.32 6.29 0.10 1.91 0.03 0.48 

Low Growing 

Berry 

(excluding 

Cranberry) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 12.9 12.8 0.20 3.88 0.05 0.97 

No Drift 10.2 9.66 0.16 2.93 0.04 0.73 

F, G Drift 14.3 16.2 0.22 4.91 0.06 1.23 

No Drift 10.6 10.1 0.17 3.06 0.04 0.77 

Small Fruit 

Vine 

Climbing 

(except Fuzzy 

Kiwifruit) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.65 9.43 0.15 2.86 0.04 0.71 

No Drift 6.06 6.04 0.09 1.83 0.02 0.46 

F, G Drift 8.28 8.14 0.13 2.47 0.03 0.62 

No Drift 6.31 6.03 0.10 1.83 0.02 0.46 

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.73 9.26 0.15 2.81 0.04 0.70 

No Drift 6.55 6.51 0.10 1.97 0.03 0.49 

F, G Drift 6.82 6.54 0.11 1.98 0.03 0.50 

Prickly Pear 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d F, G Drift 2.98 2.86 0.05 0.87 0.01 0.22 

No Drift 1.24 1.22 0.02 0.37 <0.01 0.09 

Nongrass 

Animal Feeds 

(Forage, 

Fodder, 

Straw, Hay) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A 

Drift 25.2 24 0.39 7.27 0.10 1.82 

No Drift 21.8 20.8 0.34 6.30 0.08 1.58 

Drift 

Only, 

No 

Runoff 

3.55 -- 0.06 -- -- -- 

F, G Drift 23.50 22.30 0.37 6.76 0.09 1.69 

No Drift 21.80 20.70 0.34 6.27 0.08 1.57 

Soybean Seed 

Treatment 

0.37 (0.40), 

1x S, G No Drift 6.97 6.61 0.11 2.00 0.03 0.50 

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) for acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.05) and/or non-listed 

(RQ > 0.5) aquatic invertebrates or chronic risk to aquatic invertebrates (RQ > 1). 1

 Based on 48-hr LC50 of 63.9 μg/L for the non-biting midge (Chironomous riparius) (MRID 48843738). 2

 Based on time-weighted average measured flupyradifurone concentration in pore-water during a 28-day toxicity 

study for chironomids (NOAEC of 3.3 μg/L. Effects on emergence rate and developmental rate were observed at 8.5 

μg/L (MRID 48843741). 

3

 Based on 96-hr LC50 of 250 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843704). 4

 Based on the NOAEC of 13.2 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843713). Effects on mean number of young 

produced per reproductive day per female were observed at 23.6 μg/L. 

* Based on residues of parent plus unextracted residues. 
92 

Table 39. RQ values for sediment-dwelling invertebrates exposed to flupyradifurone TGAI. 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate (kg 

ai/ha), # of 

App, MRI in 

days 

App 

Type 

Drift/ 

No Drift 

Parent only 

EEC in μg/L RQ Values 

Pore Water Freshwater 

Invertebrates 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Peak 21-day 

Acute 

LC50= 

63.9μg/L1

Chronic 

NOAEC=

3.3 μg/L2 

Acute 

LC50= 

250 μg/L3

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

13.2 μg/L4

Crop Group 15: 

Cereal Grains 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 18.9 19 0.30 5.76 0.08 1.44 

No Drift 15.5 15.6 0.24 4.73 0.06 1.18 

F, G Drift 17.9 17.9 0.28 5.42 0.07 1.36 

No Drift 16.2 16.3 0.25 4.94 0.06 1.23 

Cotton 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 15.9 15.9 0.25 4.82 0.06 1.20 

No Drift 13.3 13.3 0.21 4.03 0.05 1.01 

F, G Drift 15.1 15.1 0.24 4.58 0.06 1.14 

No Drift 13.8 13.8 0.22 4.18 0.06 1.05 

Peanut 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 8.11 8.1 0.13 2.45 0.03 0.61 

No Drift 5.44 5.44 0.09 1.65 0.02 0.41 

F, G Drift 8.46 8.47 0.13 2.57 0.03 0.64 

No Drift 7.14 7.15 0.11 2.17 0.03 0.54 

Root Veg. 

(except 

Sugarbeet) and 

Tuberous and 

Corm Veg. 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 13 12.9 0.20 3.91 0.05 0.98 

No Drift 10.7 10.6 0.17 3.21 0.04 0.80 

F, G 

Drift 12.3 12.2 0.19 3.70 0.05 0.92 

No Drift 11.1 11 0.17 3.33 0.04 0.83 

2 crop cycles 

F, A Drift 

27.9 26.8 0.44 8.12 0.11 2.03 

3 crop cycles 32.1 30.8 0.50 9.33 0.13 2.33 

4 crop cycles 35.1 33.8 0.55 10.2 0.14 2.56 

5 crop cycles 56.2 55.9 0.88 16.9 0.22 4.23 

Legume Veg. 

(Succulent or 

Dried) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 15.1 15.2 0.24 4.61 0.06 1.15 

No Drift 11.6 11.7 0.18 3.55 0.05 0.89 

F, G Drift 13.8 13.7 0.22 4.15 0.06 1.04 

No Drift 12.7 12.5 0.20 3.79 0.05 0.95 

Fruiting 

Vegetables 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 13.3 13.3 0.21 4.03 0.05 1.01 

No Drift 11 11 0.17 3.33 0.04 0.83 

F, G Drift 14.5 14.4 0.23 4.36 0.06 1.09 

No Drift 12.1 12 0.19 3.64 0.05 0.91 

0.40, 1x S, G No Drift 11.7 11.7 0.18 3.55 0.05 0.89 

Cucurbit 

Vegetables 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 14.5 14.4 0.23 4.36 0.06 1.09 

No Drift 12.1 12 0.19 3.64 0.05 0.91 

F, G Drift 13.8 13.7 0.22 4.15 0.06 1.04 

No Drift 12.7 12.5 0.20 3.79 0.05 0.95 

0.37 (0.40), S, G No Drift 13.8 13.2 0.22 4.00 0.06 1.00 

Hops 0.14 (0.15), 

1x 

F, A Drift 4.73 4.73 0.07 1.43 0.02 0.36 

No Drift 1.74 1.74 0.03 0.53 0.01 0.13 

F, G Drift 3.32 3.32 0.05 1.01 0.01 0.25 

No Drift 1.84 1.84 0.03 0.56 0.01 0.14 

Citrus Fruit 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A 

Drift 18.1 17.8 0.28 5.39 0.07 1.35 

No Drift 15.8 15.5 0.25 4.70 0.06 1.17 

Drift 2.38 -- 0.04 -- 0.01 -- 

F, Drift 16.4 16.2 0.26 4.91 0.07 1.23 

F, G Drift 16.8 16.6 0.26 5.03 0.07 1.26 

0.37 (0.40), 

1x S, G No Drift 16.2 16 0.25 4.85 0.06 1.21 
93 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate (kg 

ai/ha), # of 

App, MRI in 

days 

App 

Type 

Drift/ 

No Drift 

Parent only 

EEC in μg/L RQ Values 

Pore Water Freshwater 

Invertebrates 

Estuarine/Marine 

Invertebrates 

Peak 21-day 

Acute 

LC50= 

63.9μg/L1

Chronic 

NOAEC=

3.3 μg/L2 

Acute 

LC50= 

250 μg/L3

Chronic 

NOAEC= 

13.2 μg/L4

Pome Fruit 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.34 9.36 0.15 2.84 0.04 0.71 

No Drift 6.4 6.39 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.48 

F, 

AB Drift 7.72* 7.72* 0.12* 2.34 0.03* 0.58* 

F, G Drift 8.05 8.05 0.13 2.44 0.03 0.61 

No Drift 6.59 6.58 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50 

Bushberry 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.88 10 0.15 3.03 0.04 0.76 

No Drift 6.46 6.56 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50 

F, G Drift 8.48 8.55 0.13 2.59 0.03 0.65 

No Drift 6.73 6.84 0.11 2.07 0.03 0.52 

Low Growing 

Berry 

(excluding 

Cranberry) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 8.78 8.21 0.14 2.49 0.04 0.62 

No Drift 6.39 6.15 0.10 1.86 0.03 0.47 

F, G Drift 9.38 9.23 0.15 2.80 0.04 0.70 

No Drift 6.66 6.41 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.49 

Small Fruit 

Vine Climbing 

(except Fuzzy 

Kiwifruit) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 9.88 10 0.15 3.03 0.04 0.76 

No Drift 6.46 6.56 0.10 1.99 0.03 0.50 

F, G 

Drift 6.38 6.39 0.10 1.94 0.03 0.48 

No Drift 4.67 4.66 0.07 1.41 0.02 0.35 

Tree Nut 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A Drift 8.9 8.9 0.14 2.70 0.04 0.67 

No Drift 6.53 6.54 0.10 1.98 0.03 0.50 

F, G Drift 4.98 4.97 0.08 1.51 0.02 0.38 

Prickly Pear 0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d F, G Drift 2.22 2.22 0.03 0.67 0.01 0.17 

No Drift 1.04 1.04 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.08 

Nongrass 

Animal Feeds 

(Forage, 

Fodder, Straw, 

Hay) 

0.18 (0.20), 

2x, 7d 

F, A 

Drift 17.2 17.2 0.27 5.21 0.07 1.30 

No Drift 14.8 14.9 0.23 4.52 0.06 1.13 

Drift 

Only, No 

Runoff 

2.47 -- 0.04 -- 0.01 -- 

F, G 

Drift 15.90 15.90 0.25 4.82 0.06 1.20 

No Drift 14.70 14.80 0.23 4.48 0.06 1.12 

Soybean Seed 

Treatment 

0.37 (0.40), 

1x S, G No Drift 4.7 4.7 0.07 1.42 0.02 0.36 

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) for acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.05) and/or non-listed 

(RQ > 0.5) aquatic invertebrates or chronic risk to aquatic invertebrates (RQ > 1). 1

 Based on 48-hr LC50 of 63.9 μg/L for the non-biting midge (Chironomous riparius) (MRID 48843738). 2

 Based on time-weighted average measured flupyradifurone concentration in pore-water during a 28-day toxicity 

study for chironomids (NOAEC of 3.3 μg/L. Effects on emergence rate and developmental rate were observed at 8.5 

μg/L (MRID 48843741). 

3

 Based on 96-hr LC50 of 250 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843704). 4

 Based on the NOAEC of 13.2 μg/L for the mysid shrimp (MRID 48843713). Effects on mean number of young 

produced per reproductive day per female were observed at 23.6 μg/L. 

 
94 

4.1.2. Terrestrial Organisms 

Terrestrial Vertebrates 

In this assessment, RQ values are calculated for acute dose-based risk to birds and for chronic 

risk to birds and mammals. RQ values are not calculated for acute dietary-based risk to birds or 

acute risk to mammals because the toxicity endpoints needed for these calculations are nondefinitive. Specifically, the LC50 and LD50 values for birds and mammals, respectively, were 

greater than the highest concentration/dose tested in each study. 

For all foliar or drench uses of flupyradifurone evaluated, the acute dose-based RQ values for 

birds exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed (RQ≥0.1) species for three or more types 

of dietary items (Table 40). In addition, for all foliar or drench uses except for hops, the acute 

dose-based RQ values for birds exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to non-listed (RQ≥0.5) 

species for the smallest class of birds (20 g) feeding on short grass. The modeling of multiple 

crop cycles generally increases the number of dietary items for which the acute risk to non-listed 

species are exceeded. The chronic risk LOC (RQ≥1) is not exceeded for birds for any proposed 

use, including when multiple crop cycles are taken into account. 

Chronic, dietary-based RQ values for mammals only exceed the chronic risk LOC (RQ≥1) for 

short grass when flupyradifurone is applied in two or more crop cycles. Conversely, dose-based 

chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk LOC for multiple dietary items and size classes for all 

proposed uses evaluated. 

Table 40. Acute and chronic RQ values for birds exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of the proposed uses. 

Food Type

Acute Dose Based RQs1

Chronic 

Dietary Based RQs Small 2 

(15 g) 

Medium 

(100 g) 

Large 

(1000 g) 

Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), 

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval)

Short grass 0.55 0.25 0.08 0.27 

Tall grass 0.25 0.11 0.04 0.12 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.31 0.14 0.04 0.15 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.02 

Arthropods 0.22 0.10 0.03 0.10 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A 

Foliar: Cotton, Non-grass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, 

Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval) 

Short grass 0.54 0.24 0.08 0.26 

Tall grass 0.25 0.11 0.03 0.12 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.30 0.14 0.04 0.15 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.02 <0.01 0.02 

Arthropods 0.21 0.09 0.03 0.10 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A 

Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval) 

Short grass 0.52 0.23 0.07 0.25 

Tall grass 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.12 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.29 0.13 0.04 0.14 
95 

Food Type

Acute Dose Based RQs1

Chronic 

Dietary Based RQs Small 2 

(15 g) 

Medium 

(100 g) 

Large 

(1000 g) 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.03 0.01 <0.01 0.02 

Arthropods 0.20 0.09 0.03 0.10 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A 

Foliar: Hop 

(0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application) 

Short grass 0.23 0.10 0.03 0.11 

Tall grass 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.05 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.13 0.06 0.02 0.06 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 

Arthropods 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.04 

Seeds (granivore) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 N/A 

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean 

Seeds 

(0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application)

Short grass 0.61 0.27 0.09 0.29 

Tall grass 0.28 0.12 0.04 0.13 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.34 0.15 0.05 0.17 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.02 

Arthropods 0.24 0.11 0.03 0.12 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 

20 day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 0.83 0.37 0.12 0.40 

Tall grass 0.38 0.17 0.05 0.19 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.47 0.21 0.07 0.23 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.03 

Arthropods 0.33 0.15 0.05 0.16 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 

20 day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 0.99 0.45 0.14 0.48 

Tall grass 0.46 0.20 0.06 0.22 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.56 0.25 0.08 0.27 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.06 0.03 0.01 0.03 

Arthropods 0.39 0.17 0.06 0.19 

Seeds (granivore) 0.01 0.01 <0.01 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 

20 day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.09 0.49 0.15 0.53 

Tall grass 0.50 0.22 0.07 0.24 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.61 0.27 0.09 0.30 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 

Arthropods 0.43 0.19 0.06 0.21 

Seeds (granivore) 0.02 0.01 <0.01 N/A 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 

20 day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.13 0.51 0.16 0.55 

Tall grass 0.52 0.23 0.07 0.25 
96 

Food Type

Acute Dose Based RQs1

Chronic 

Dietary Based RQs Small 2 

(15 g) 

Medium 

(100 g) 

Large 

(1000 g) 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.64 0.29 0.09 0.31 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.07 0.03 0.01 0.03 

Arthropods 0.44 0.20 0.06 0.22 

Seeds (granivore) 0.02 0.01 <0.01 N/A 

N/A = Not applicable. 

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) for acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.1) and/or non-listed 

(RQ > 0.5) birds or chronic risk to birds (RQ > 1). 

1

 Acute dose-based RQ values are based on the bobwhite quail LD50 value of 232 mg ai/kg bw. 2

 Chronic RQ values are based on the bobwhite quail NOAEC value of 302 mg ai/kg diet. 

Table 41. Chronic dietary and dose-based RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone as a result of 

the proposed uses.

Food Type

Dietary Based 

RQs 

Dose Based RQs 

Small 

(15 g) 

Medium 

(35 g) 

Large 

(1000 g) 

Foliar: Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables, Leafy Vegetables (except Brassica), 

Brassica (Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 7-day interval)

Short grass 0.81 4.55 3.89 2.08 

Tall grass 0.37 2.09 1.78 0.96 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.45 2.56 2.19 1.17 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.28 0.24 0.13 

Arthropods 0.32 1.78 1.52 0.82 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 

Foliar: Cotton, Non-grass Animal Feeds, Peanut, Root Vegetables (except Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, 

Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 10-day interval) 

Short grass 0.79 4.43 3.78 2.03 

Tall grass 0.36 2.03 1.73 0.93 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.44 2.49 2.13 1.14 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.28 0.24 0.13 

Arthropods 0.31 1.74 1.48 0.79 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 

Foliar: Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 applications; 14-day interval) 

Short grass 0.76 4.28 3.65 1.96 

Tall grass 0.35 1.96 1.67 0.90 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.43 2.41 2.06 1.10 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.05 0.27 0.23 0.12 

Arthropods 0.30 1.68 1.43 0.77 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.06 0.05 0.03 

Foliar: Hop 

(0.14 lbs ai/A; 1 application) 

Short grass 0.34 1.89 1.62 0.87 

Tall grass 0.15 0.87 0.74 0.40 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.19 1.06 0.91 0.49 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.02 0.12 0.10 0.05 

Arthropods 0.13 0.74 0.63 0.34 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.03 0.02 0.01 

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds 

(0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 application) 

Short grass 0.89 5.00 4.27 2.29 
97 

Food Type

Dietary Based 

RQs 

Dose Based RQs 

Small 

(15 g) 

Medium 

(35 g) 

Large 

(1000 g) 

Tall grass 0.41 2.29 1.96 1.05 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.50 2.81 2.40 1.29 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.06 0.31 0.27 0.14 

Arthropods 0.35 1.96 1.67 0.90 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.07 0.06 0.03 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 2 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 

day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.22 6.88 5.87 3.15 

Tall grass 0.56 3.15 2.69 1.44 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.69 3.87 3.30 1.77 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.08 0.43 0.37 0.20 

Arthropods 0.48 2.69 2.30 1.23 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.10 0.08 0.04 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 3 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 

day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.46 8.23 7.03 3.77 

Tall grass 0.67 3.77 3.22 1.73 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.82 4.63 3.95 2.12 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.09 0.51 0.44 0.24 

Arthropods 0.57 3.22 2.75 1.48 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.11 0.10 0.05 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 4 crop cycles 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 day 

interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.59 8.97 7.66 4.11 

Tall grass 0.73 4.11 3.51 1.88 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.90 5.05 4.31 2.31 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.10 0.56 0.48 0.26 

Arthropods 0.62 3.51 3.00 1.61 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.12 0.11 0.06 

Foliar: Root Vegetables 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 10 applications representing 5 crop cycles; 10-day interval between 2 applications per cycle; 20 

day interval between cycles) 

Short grass 1.67 9.38 8.01 4.30 

Tall grass 0.76 4.30 3.67 1.97 

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.94 5.28 4.51 2.42 

Fruits/pods/(seeds, dietary only) 0.10 0.59 0.50 0.27 

Arthropods 0.65 3.68 3.14 1.68 

Seeds (granivore) N/A 0.13 0.11 0.06 

N/A = Not applicable. 

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s Level of Concern (LOC) for chronic risk to wild mammals (RQ > 1). 1

 Chronic RQ values are based on the rat 2-generation NOAEC value of 7.7 mg ai/kg bw/day. 

RQ values for acute risk to birds and chronic risk to birds and mammals based on the use of 

flupyradifurone on soybean seeds were calculated as follows: 

Avian Acute RQ #1 = mg ai /kg-bw/day/LD50 

Avian Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2/(LD50*bw) 

Avian Chronic RQ = mg/kg-seed/NOAEL 
98 

Mammalian Chronic RQ = mg ai/kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL

Just as for foliar uses, RQ values are not calculated for acute risk to mammals because the 

toxicity endpoint needed for these calculations is non-definitive. 

The resulting RQ values for seed treatment uses on soybeans exceed the Agency’s acute risk to 

listed (RQ>0.1) and non-listed (RQ>0.5) species LOCs for birds depending on the size class of 

birds (Table 42). The chronic LOC (RQ>1) was exceeded for birds and mammals. 

Table 42. Chronic dietary RQ values for mammals exposed to flupyradifurone following the proposed seed 

treatment uses.

Crop 

Risk Quotients 

Avian (20 g) Mammalian (15 g) 

Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic 

Soybean 0.68 0.12 1.49 5.63 

 Avian (100 g) Mammalian (35 g) 

Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic 

Soybean 0.31 0.02 1.49 4.81 

 Avian (1000 g) Mammalian (1000 g)

Acute (# 1) Acute (# 2) Chronic Chronic 

Soybean 0.10 <0.01 1.49 2.58 

Acute RQ #1 = mg ai /kg-bw/day/LD50 

Acute RQ #2 = mg ai ft-2 /(LD50*bw) 

Avian Chronic RQ = mg kg-1 seed/NOAEL 

Mammalian Chronic RQ = mg ai/kg-bw/day/adjusted NOAEL 

Bolded values exceed the Agency’s LOC for acute risk to listed (RQ > 0.1) and/or non-listed (RQ > 0.5) birds. 

DFA is also considered a residue of concern for terrestrial organisms in this assessment since 

toxicity data indicate adverse effects at similar doses as compared to the parent compound based 

on 90-day rat oral toxicity data. However, a 2-generation rat study, which is typically used to 

estimate chronic risk to mammals, is not available for DFA. Therefore, for purposes of 

characterization, estimated exposure to DFA from applications of flupyradifurone are compared 

to the available 90-day rat oral toxicity data for DFA in this assessment. EECs for residues of 

DFA on terrestrial food items are determined by multiplying the application rate for the parent 

by the ratio of the molecular weight of DFA (96.03 g/mole) divided by the molecular weight of 

parent (288.68 g/mole). This is a conservative methodology of estimating possible DFA residues 

because not all of the parent is expected to degrade to DFA. Based on this approach, single spray 

applications at 0.14 lbs ai/A (hops), 0.18 lbs ai/A (most foliar uses), and 0.37 lbs ai/A (drench 

applications) would result in DFA application rates of 0.05, 0.06, and 0.12 lbs DFA/A, 

respectively. Upper-bound dose-based EECs for mammals based on these application rates as 

calculated in T-REX are presented in Table 43. When the available 90-day oral toxicity endpoint 

for body weight (12.70 mg/kg bw) is adjusted for 15, 35, and 1000 g body weight classes of 

mammals, the resulting adjusted NOAELs are 9.77, 22.58, and 27.91 mg/kg bw, respectively 

(Table 43). Based on comparison of estimated exposure and chronic effects to mammals for 

DFA, EECs range from several orders of magnitude lower to just below the adjusted NOAEL 

values. The ratio of exposure (EECs) and effects (NOAELs) only approach (but do not exceed) 

the chronic mammal LOC of 1.0 for the soil drench uses. 
99 

Table 43. Comparison of EECs (foliar and soil drench) and body-weight adjusted NOAELs for DFA 

(degradate). 

Application 

Rate (Use) 

EECs for Mammal (mg DFA/kg bw) 

15 g 35 g 1000 g 

0.05 (hops) 0.15-10.75 0.10-7.43 0.02-1.72 

0.06 (most foliar 

uses) 0.19-13.73 0.13-9.49 0.03-2.20 

0.12 (soil 

drench uses) 0.38-27.46 0.26-18.98 0.06-4.40 

Bodyweightadjusted 

NOAELs 

(mg/kg bw) 

27.91 22.58 9.77 

Honeybees 

In this assessment, initial screening level acute and chronic RQs are calculated for honeybees 

using conservative contact and dietary exposure estimates (Table 44). On a dietary exposure 

basis, all proposed foliar uses exceed the acute risk and chronic risk LOCs of 0.4 and 1.0, 

respectively. Conversely, neither acute nor chronic LOCs are exceeded for foliar uses on a 

contact exposure basis or for soil drench and soybean seed treatment uses on an oral exposure 

basis. 

Since LOCs are exceeded at the Tier I generic exposure level, a refinement step was 

subsequently conducted using empirical residue data from pollen and nectar from multiple crop 

types (Table 45). Refined EECs are generated based on measured residues using known food 

consumption rates for bees. When nectar residue data are available, EECs are calculated for 

foraging worker bees since this group consumes the largest amount of nectar. When pollen and 

nectar data are available, EECs are also calculated for nurse bees, since this group consumes 

substantial amounts of both pollen and nectar. EECs for worker and nurse bees were estimated as 

follows: 

EECs for worker bees: maximum daily nectar residue (μg/g) * forager worker bee nectar 

consumption rate (0.292 μg/day of nectar) 

EECs for nurse bees: maximum daily nectar residue (μg/g) * nurse bee nectar consumption 

rate (0.167 μg/day of nectar) + maximum daily pollen residue (μg/g) * nurse bee pollen 

consumption rate (0.012 μg/day of pollen) 
100 

EECs for larval worker bees: maximum daily nectar residue (μg/g) * larval worker bee nectar 

consumption rate (0.12 μg/day of nectar) + maximum daily pollen residue (μg/g) * larval 

worker bee pollen consumption rate (0.0036 μg/day of pollen) 

EECs and resulting RQ values vary widely depending on matrix and crop type. In general, 

residues in whole flower blossoms were the highest and exceeded honeybee acute (RQ≥0.4) and 

chronic (RQ≥1) LOCs for multiple crop types. In addition both acute and chronic LOCs are 

exceeded for worker bees feeding on nectar and nurse bees feeding on pollen and nectar for at 

least one crop type for which residues were measured. There are only chronic risks of concern to 

larval worker bees based on cotton residues. LOCs are only exceeded based on residues 

measured following foliar applications of flupyradifurone, not drench applications. 

Table 44. Screening level RQ values for insect pollinators. 

Use Single Maximum 

Application Rate Life-stage Exposure Route Acute RQ Chronic RQ 

Cereal Grains (except Rice), Tuberous 

and Corm Vegetables, Leafy 

Vegetables (except Brassica), Brassica 

(Cole) Leafy Vegetables, Fruiting 

Vegetables, Cucurbits, Bushberries, 

Cotton, Nongrass Animal Feeds, 

Peanut, Root Vegetables (except 

Sugarbeet), Legume Vegetables, 

Citrus, Pome Fruit, Low Growing 

Berries, Small Fruit Vine Climbing, 

Tree Nut, Prickly Pear/Cactus Pear 

0.18 lbs ai/A 

Adults Contact <0.011 ND 

Adults Diet 4.82 12.53 

Brood Diet ND 5.64

Hops 0.14 lbs ai/A 

Adults Contact <0.011 ND 

Adults Diet 3.82 9.73

Brood Diet ND 4.34

Soil/Drench/Chemigation: Fruiting 

Vegetables, Cucurbits, Citrus, Small 

Vine Climbing Fruit, Soybean Seeds 

0.37 lbs ai/A 

Adults Diet 0.01 0.04 

Brood Diet ND 0.02 

Soybean Seeds 0.365 lbs ai/A Adults Diet 0.242 0.633

Brood Diet ND 0.284

ND = No Data Available 

Bold values indicate that acute (RQ≥0.4) and/or chronic (RQ≥1) LOCs are exceeded 1

 LD50 = 122.8 μg ai/bee based on acute contact toxicity data for TGAI 2

 LD50 = 1.2 μg ai/bee based on acute oral toxicity data for TGAI 3

 NOAEC = 0.464 μg ai/bee/day based on 10-day chronic toxicity data for TGAI 

4

 NOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/bee/day based on 21-day toxicity data for TGAI 
101 

Table 45. Refined Tier I RQ values for honeybees based on empirical residue data from pollen and nectar. 

MRID Crop 

Number of 

Applications 

at Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

Application 

Type Matrix 

Maximum 

Residue 

(mg/kg) 

Worker Bees (adult) 

Refined 

EEC

(μg/bee/day) 

Refined 

Acute 

RQ4 

Refin

Chro

RQ

48844521 Tomato 1 at 0.18 Drench Pollen 0.107 0.051 0.04 0.12 

Flower 0.315 0.09 0.08 0.20 

48844523 Watermelon 1 at 0.18 Drench 

Pollen 0.002 <0.011 <0.01 <0.0

Nectar 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0Flowers 0.017 <0.01 <0.01 0.0

48844522 Watermelon 3 at 0.134 Drench 

Pollen 0.006 <0.011 <0.01 <0.0

Nectar 0.001 <0.01 <0.01 <0.0Flowers 1.56 0.46 0.38 0.98 

48844524 Citrus 2 at 0.18 Foliar 

Pollen, Traps 1.8 0.061 0.05 0.12 

Nectar 0.2 0.06 0.05 0.13 Blossoms 2 0.58 0.49 1.26 

48844524 Citrus 1 at 0.365 Foliar 

Pollen, Traps 1.1 0.061 0.05 0.14 

Nectar 0.31 0.09 0.08 0.20 Blossoms 5.1 1.49 1.24 3.21 

48844525 Melon 1 at 0.365 Drench 

Pollen 0.5 0.131 0.11 0.29 

Nectar 0.76 0.22 0.18 0.48 Blossoms 0.38 0.11 0.09 0.24 

48844525 Melon 2 at 0.18 Foliar 

Pollen 1.5 0.081 0.07 0.17 

Nectar 0.36 0.11 0.09 0.23 Blossoms 2.8 0.82 0.68 1.76 

48844527 Cotton 2 at 0.18 Foliar 

Pollen 0.432 3.651 3.04 7.87 

Nectar, Total 21.83 6.37 5.31 13.7Nectar, Floral 0.386 0.11 0.09 0.24 Nectar, inner-bracteal 12.2 3.56 2.97 7.68 Nectar, sub-bracteal 15.9 4.64 3.87 10.0Nectar, pink floral 0.311 0.09 0.08 0.20 Blossoms 12.1 3.53 2.94 7.61 

48844528 Blueberry 2 at 0.363 Foliar 

Pollen 67.6 0.921 0.77 1.98 

Nectar 0.64 0.19 0.16 0.40 Blossoms 6.49 1.90 1.58 4.08 

48844529 Apple 2 at 0.18 Foliar 

Pollen (Highest Trial Max) 26.2 0.511 0.43 1.11 

Nectar (Highest Trial Max) 1.2 0.35 0.29 0.76 
102 

MRID Crop 

Number of 

Applications 

at Rate 

(lbs ai/A) 

Application 

Type Matrix 

Maximum 

Residue 

(mg/kg) 

Worker Bees (adult) 

Refined 

EEC

(μg/bee/day) 

Refined 

Acute 

RQ4 

Refin

Chro

RQ

Blossoms (Highest Trial Max) 27.7 8.09 6.74 17.4Pollen (Lowest Trial Max) 8.3 0.151 0.12 0.32 Nectar (Lowest Trial Max) 0.3 0.09 0.07 0.19 Blossoms (Lowest Trial Max) 20.1 5.87 4.89 12.6

48844530 Apple 2 at 0.18 Foliar 

Pollen, Legs 39 0.72 0.60 1.55 

Nectar 1.5 0.44 0.37 0.94 Blossoms 113 33.00 27.50 71.1

Bold values indicate that acute (RQ≥0.4) and/or chronic (RQ≥1) LOCs are exceeded 1 Represents EECs for nurse bees; EECs were calculated for nurse bees based on a combination of pollen and nectar consumption rate o

respectively. 

2 EECs were calculated for larval bees based on a combination of pollen and nectar consumption rate of 0.0036 and 0.120 g/day, respec3 Twice the proposed application rate was accidentally used in this study; therefore residues are likely to be overestimated. 4 LD50 = 1.2 μg ai/bee based on acute oral toxicity data for TGAI 5 NOAEC = 0.464 μg ai/bee/day based on highest concentration tested in 10-day chronic toxicity data for TGAI 6 NOAEC = 0.44 μg ai/bee/day based on highest concentrations tested in 21-day toxicity data for TGAI 
103 

The refined tier I RQs for honeybees indicates that foliar applications of flupyradifurone are the 

major concern at the screening level (Table 45). This analysis is based on the highest daily 

average flupyradifurone residue value recorded in each of the various crop residue studies. 

However, the highest daily average residue value does not necessarily reflect the potential for 

exposure over multiple days following application. In order to further characterize how changes 

in residues over time affect the potential for exposure and effects to actively foraging honeybees 

in the field, average daily residues measured over the time course of empirical residue studies is 

displayed relative to the acute risk LOC for honeybees (Figure 6). This analysis focused 

specifically on acute risk to honeybees foraging on nectar because the oral route is considered to 

be the most sensitive. The data indicate that residues for most crops were at their daily maximum 

immediately following the bloom application and declined thereafter. Residues taken from whole 

flowers are substantially higher than nectar residues obtained from flowers or honeybee 

stomachs. Moreover, flower residue data for most crops exceed the residue value at the LOC 

threshold for acute risk to honeybees (RQ≥0.4), while nectar-specific residues are below the 

LOC. One exception to this pattern is that extra-floral nectar in cotton is up to an order of 

magnitude higher than the LOC. Cotton is the only crop in which extra-floral nectar residues 

were evaluated. For some crops, residues that exceed the LOC following bloom declined below 

the LOC during the later days of the study. However, the majority of studies were not carried out 

long enough following the bloom application to interpret whether flower residue declines would 

be substantial enough to fall below the LOC. 
Figure 6. Measured flupyradifurone residues on various crops over time after foliar application. 

Note: y-axis is plotted on log 10 scale. *Acute LOC converted to residue value as follows: [1.2 μg ai/bee (acute oral toxicity endpoint) * 0.4 (Acute LOC for hone

(nectar consumption rate for foraging worker bees) = 1.6 (residue value for acute LOC)Bloom = time-point (Day 0) in which bloom application was made. For studies with 1 application, only a bloom foliar applstudies with 2 applications, the first application was at early bloom and the second application was at full bloom. Apps=Applications; Stomachs = bee honey stomachs; NC = North Carolina; NY = New York; OR= Oregon; WA = Washi
105 

Terrestrial Plants 

For terrestrial plants, RQ values could only be calculated for listed monocots, since IC25 values 

from both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were non-definitive (i.e., greater than 

the single concentration tested: 0.365 lbs ai/A), and since NOAEC values for dicots from both 

seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies were non-definitive (i.e., significant effects 

were observed at the single concentration tested: 0.365 lbs ai/A). For listed monocots, RQ 

values for non-target plants are as follows: plants receiving spray drift are <0.1 across uses, 

plants occupying dry areas are <0.1 across uses, and plants occupying semi-aquatic areas range 

from 0.21 to 0.50 across uses; all RQs are below the risk to listed terrestrial plants LOC (RQ≥1). 

The implications of the lack of definitive terrestrial plant toxicity data on risk conclusions is 

discussed in the Risk Description (Section 4.2). 

Risk Description and Conclusions 

4.2.1. Aquatic Organisms 

Flupyradifurone is characterized as persistent to very persistent and is expected to be mobile; 

therefore, it can move to surface water through run-off, erosion, and spray drift where it may be 

present in the water column for extended periods of time. Although a large portion of the 

compound is not expected to partition to sediment and/or bioaccumulate in aquatic organisms, 

the compound is likely to be present in sediment pore water as well as the water column. 

Therefore, exposure of aquatic organisms to flupyradifurone residues is considered likely from 

the proposed foliar, soil drench, and seed treatment uses. There is uncertainty regarding the 

magnitude of residues in water depending on the nature of unextracted residues. While the 

compound is estimated to persist in surface water/benthic sediments for extended periods, there 

is uncertainty regarding the extent to which this will occur and would likely depend on the extent 

to which water exchanges within the body of water as well as the extent to which sedimentation 

ultimately renders residues in sediment pore water no longer accessible. While flupyradifurone is 

resistant to hydrolysis and anaerobic metabolism, in clear, shallow waters, the compound can 

undergo relatively rapid aqueous photolysis and hasten its dissipation. 

Based on available information, flupyradifurone is categorized as slightly to practically non-toxic 

to aquatic vertebrates and general exhibits low toxicity to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians; no 

acute or chronic risks of concern were identified for these groups in this assessment. Although 

acute RQ values were not calculated for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish because existing 

acute toxicity endpoints are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentration tested), 

estimated peak exposure concentrations in surface water for all proposed uses are several orders 

of magnitude lower than the highest concentration tested in available fish acute toxicity studies. 

Therefore, the likelihood for adverse effects (i.e., mortality and sublethal effects) from acute 

exposures is considered low. 

Available freshwater fish chronic toxicity data on the fathead minnow do not provide sufficient 

information to characterize effects of flupyradifurone to early life stages since only slight effects 

on fry survival were observed at the lowest and highest test concentrations (only effects at the 

highest concentration were considered biologically significant). However, given that the NOAEC 
106 

for the fathead minnow early life stage study (NOAEC=4.41 mg ai/L) is several orders of 

magnitude above modeled exposure values, the likelihood for adverse effects on fish (and 

aquatic-phase amphibians for which fish serve as surrogates) from chronic exposure to 

flupyradifurone from the proposed uses is considered low based on available data. 

The likelihood for adverse effects to listed and non-listed vascular and nonvascular aquatic 

plants is also considered low. RQ values for non-listed species could not be calculated since 

available EC50 values are non-definitive (i.e., greater than the highest concentrations tested); 

however, EC50 values for both duckweed and green algae are at least two orders of magnitude 

higher than peak surface water EECs. 

Although flupyradifurone is characterized as only slightly toxic to the freshwater invertebrate, D. 

magna, on an acute exposure basis and resulted in a non-definitive toxicity value (EC50 >77.6 mg 

ai/L), the freshwater non-biting midge (C. riparius) is several orders of magnitude more sensitive 

(EC50 = 0.0639 mg ai/L); therefore, flupyradifurone is categorized as very highly toxic to 

freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. As noted earlier, even though 

flupyradifurone is not expected to preferentially partition into benthic sediments, the mobility of 

the compound and its potential persistence in surface water from the proposed uses represent a 

route of exposure to benthic invertebrates, including midges. Similarly, while flupyradifurone is 

categorized as only slightly toxic to the estuarine/marine Eastern oyster and resulted in a nondefinitive endpoint (LC50 >29 mg ai/L), the compound is categorized as highly toxic to the mysid 

shrimp (A. bahia; LC50 = 0.25 mg ai/L). Based on the most sensitive endpoints, the major 

concern for aquatic organisms in this assessment is for freshwater and estuarine/marine 

invertebrates inhabiting both the water column and benthic environments. Acute risk to listed 

species and chronic risk LOCs for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates were exceeded 

for the majority of proposed uses evaluated in this assessment. Since flupyradifurone is mobile 

and persistent in the aquatic environment, there is the potential for both short-term and long-term 

exposure and potential adverse effects to aquatic invertebrates with sensitivities similar to C. 

riparius and A. bahia. After the contribution of spray drift was removed from exposure 

estimates, many proposed uses still exceeded the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk 

LOCs. Therefore, the spatial proximity of foliar applications from a water body may not 

substantially change the likelihood for adverse effects to these aquatic invertebrates. While any 

buffer between an application and aquatic water body is expected to reduce exposure and risk, a 

methodology is not available to estimate the reduction in EECs due to transport in runoff because 

channelized runoff may occur. In this assessment, the influence of multiple crop cycles on 

aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradifurone was also considered. In 

general, the use of single crop cycle (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of 

concern to non-listed freshwater invertebrate species; conversely, multiple crop cycles (≥2) did 

lead to risks of concern to this group. 

Transformation products and formulations of flupyradifurone resulted in higher (less sensitive) 

aquatic toxicity values as compared to flupyradifurone TGAI. Therefore, the potential for effects 

of the parent compound alone, rather that transformation products or other formulation ingredients, 

is considered to be the primary stressor in the aquatic assessment. 
107 

4.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms 

As discussed earlier, flupyradifurone is expected to be persistent and mobile in the environment. 

Although the compound is stable to hydrolysis and soil photolysis, it can undergo relatively rapid 

aqueous photolysis (DT50=2.5 days). Aerobic metabolism studies resulted in a range of DT50

values (37.5-3793 days) depending on the soils tested; however, the terrestrial field dissipation 

studies conducted resulted in dissipation half-lives (DT50) ranging between 8.3-304 days. The 

extent to which DT50 values would be affected by foliar interception and/or uptake by plants is 

uncertain though since the dissipation studies were conducted on bare ground. For example, the 

crop canopy could reduce the amount of photolysis by reducing the amount of sunlight the 

compound is exposed to. The mobility of the compound also influences the extent to which the 

compound may represent a route of exposure and flupyradifurone is classified as moderately 

mobile to mobile and the extent to which the compound is subject to runoff/erosion/leaching will 

likely impact the extent of exposure to terrestrial organism. However, based on this screeninglevel assessment, exposure of terrestrial organisms is considered likely from the proposed uses of 

flupyradifurone. 

Birds and Mammals 

Flupyradifurone is categorized as being moderately to practically non-toxic to birds on an acute 

oral exposure basis and slightly to practically non-toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure 

basis, and toxicity endpoints exceeded the highest dietary exposure levels for both bobwhite 

quail (LD50>4,876 mg ai/kg diet) and mallard ducks (LD50>4,741 mg ai/kg diet). The subacute 

toxicity studies with birds did indicate that exposure to flupyradifurone affected the willingness 

of birds to consume the chemical in the diets provided. Flupyradifurone is also categorized as 

being practically non-toxic to mammals on an acute exposure basis and resulted in a nondefinitive endpoint (LD50>2,000 mg ai/kg bw) with no mortalities observed at the highest dose 

tested. 

In this assessment, RQ values exceeded the acute risk to listed birds LOC for all of the proposed 

foliar and soil drench uses of flupyradifurone. In addition, RQ values exceeded the acute risk 

LOC for non-listed birds for all foliar or soil drench uses except for hops. The modeling of 

multiple crop cycles generally increased the number of dietary items for which the acute risk to 

non-listed species was exceeded. However, the extent to which multiple cropping seasons are 

applicable to various uses is uncertain. 

RQ values were not calculated for acute dietary-based risk to birds or acute risk to mammals 

because the toxicity endpoints needed for these calculations (LC50/LD50) were determined to be 

greater than the highest dose tested in the submitted studies. Although flupyradifurone is 

classified as practically non-toxic to birds and mammals on subacute dietary and acute oral 

exposure bases, respectively, the nature and potential dose-response relationship of any effects of 

flupyradifurone at exposure levels above the highest concentrations/doses tested are unknown. 

For the proposed foliar and drench uses of flupyradifurone, the potential for acute risk to birds 

and mammals is characterized using the conservative assumption that the maximum 

concentrations/doses tested in the submitted oral toxicity studies (i.e., 4,741 mg ai/kg diet for 

birds and 2,000 mg/kg bw for mammals) represent the toxicity endpoint. Employing these 
108 

assumptions, the proposed foliar and drench uses of flupyradifurone are not expected to result in 

acute risk of mortality to listed or non-listed species of birds (and reptiles and terrestrial-phase 

amphibians for which birds serve as surrogates) or mammals because the resulting RQ values are 

all less than the Agency’s acute risk LOC for non-listed species (RQ<0.5) and listed species 

(RQ<0.1). 

As noted, several of the avian acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity studies indicated effects on 

feed consumption, body weight, or body weight gain. These effects occurred at doses ≥200 mg 

ai/kg and dietary concentrations ≥1133 mg ai/kg-diet. Given that the acute RQs calculated for 

birds in this assessment were based on median lethal doses in bobwhite quail at 232 mg ai/kg bw, 

observed sublethal effects to feed consumption and body weight in birds would not result in 

substantially more sensitive risk estimates for birds on an acute oral exposure basis. It is also 

possible that the reductions in food consumption by birds exposed to flupyradifurone in their diet 

may further limit exposure. 

Although chronic toxicity studies with mallard ducks did not detect effects on survival, growth 

or reproduction at dietary concentrations up to 845 mg ai/kg diet, effects on growth were 

reported at dietary concentrations greater than 1,175 mg ai/kg diet in the subacute dietary 

exposure study. In a similar study with bobwhite quail, a range of effects considered to be both 

biologically and statistically significant were detected at dietary concentrations exceeding 302 

mg ai/kg diet. Based on chronic exposure estimates though, both dose-based and dietary-based 

RQ values for birds are less than the chronic risk LOC for all of the uses evaluated. 

In the chronic toxicity study with rats where animals were exposed over multiple generations to 

flupyradifurone residues in their diet, significant effects on food consumption and growth were 

reported at exposure levels ≥ 7.7 mg ai/kg bw/day. In this assessment, chronic dietary-based RQ 

values for mammals only exceeded the chronic risk LOC (RQ≥1) for short grass when 

flupyradifurone is applied as a foliar spray in two or more crop cycles. However, dose-based 

chronic RQs exceeded the chronic risk LOC for multiple dietary items and size classes for all 

proposed uses evaluated. Chronic dietary and dose-based RQ values in this assessment were 

calculated based on the NOAEC (100 mg ai/kg diet) and NOAEL (7.7 mg ai/kg bw) from the rat 

two-generation toxicity study (MRID 48844119). If the LOAEC (38.7 mg ai/kg bw) and LOAEL 

(500 mg ai/kg diet) from the same study were used to calculate RQs, the chronic risk LOC 

(RQ≥1) would not be exceeded for any proposed use or number of crop cycles based on dietary 

exposure, but would be exceeded for small (15 g) mammals feeding on short grass (RQ=1.0) 

following soil drench applications as well as for multiple dietary categories when 

flupyradifurone is applied as a foliar spray for ≥2 crop cycles. As noted previously though, the 

extent to which multiple cropping seasons are used for the various uses evaluated is uncertain. 

The potential for risk to birds and mammals from proposed foliar and soil chemigation uses were 

evaluated in this assessment using the default foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days, since no 

additional data was available to determine the decline in flupyradifurone residues in dietary 

items. However, since LOCs for acute risk to listed (RQ≥0.05) and non-listed (RQ≥0.1) birds 

and chronic risk (RQ≥1) to mammals were exceeded in this assessment, the impact of different 

half-lives on RQs was examine for purposes of characterization (Table 46). Based on this 

analysis, at proposed foliar application rates, both acute risk to birds and chronic risk to mammal 
109 

LOCs are exceeded even when a half-life of 1 days is considered. In addition, the number of 

days that LOCs are exceeded is still approximately 2-3 weeks, even when half-lives as low as 7 

days are considered for both foliar and soil drench uses. Therefore, potential risks of concern to 

birds and mammals from proposed foliar and soil drench uses would not be precluded based on 

refinements to the default foliar dissipation half-life. 

Table 46. Impact of different foliar dissipation half-lives on terrestrial vertebrate RQs. 

Use 

Foliar 

Dissipation 

Half Life 

Avian Acute 

Dose-Based 

RQs (Short 

Grass) 

Number of Days 

LOC is 

Exceeded 

(Avian Acute) 

Mammalian 

Chronic DoseBased RQs (Short 

Grass) 

Number of Days 

LOC is Exceeded 

(Mammal 

Chronic) 

Foliar 

(0.18 lbs ai/A; 2 

apps.; 7 day 

interval) 

1 0.3 4 2.45 4 

7 0.44 22 3.65 21 

15 0.51 43 4.19 39 

35 0.55 561 4.55 561

Soil Drench 

(0.37 lbs ai/A; 1 

app.) 

1 

0.61 

3 

5.00 

3 

7 19 17 

15 39 35 

35 561 561

1

 The analysis is only carried out to a maximum of 56 days based on limitations in T-REX.

For the proposed seed treatment use on soybeans, RQ values exceed the LOC for acute risk to 

listed and non-listed birds and chronic risk to birds and mammals. 

Honeybees and Terrestrial Invertebrates 

Since flupyradifurone is proposed for use at bloom, a large number of studies were submitted to 

evaluate potential exposure and effects to bees. Exposure studies examined residue levels in 

pollen, nectar and whole flowers following applications at maximum proposed rates and 

subsequent to both soil and foliar applications at full bloom that would presumably reflect 

residues transported to these plant matrices through systemic uptake and through direct contact. 

Effects studies examined both acute and chronic effects to individual bees and also examined 

potential colony level effects over protracted periods including overwintering. Acute toxicity 

testing with young adult bees indicates that flupyradifurone is practically non-toxic to honeybees 

on an acute contact exposure basis; however, the compound is categorized as highly toxic to bees 

on an acute oral exposure basis. Repeated exposure of individual adult bees over 10 days to 

sucrose solutions containing up to 10 mg ai/L (equivalent to a dose of 0.464 μg ai/bee/day) did 

not result in an adverse effect; repeated exposure to bee larvae to flupyradifurone to diets 

containing 10 mg ai/L (equivalent to a dose of 0.44 μg ai/bee/day) did not result in an adverse 

effect on survival or adult emergence. 

Based on initial screening-level exposure estimates (model-generated) and refined (measured 

residues in pollen and nectar), Tier I RQ values for bees exceeded the acute and chronic risk 

LOCs of 0.4 and 1.0, respectively, on an oral exposure basis, but no risks of concern were 

identified on an acute contact exposure basis. The screening-level analysis, therefore, indicates 

that the primary concern for bee pollinators is through the consumption of residues in their diet 

based on maximum residues detected in these diets rather than through contact. These risks of 

concern apply to both foraging worker bees, nurse bees, and developing eggs, larvae and pupae 

(i.e., brood). It should be noted that LOCs were only exceeded based on residues measured 
110 

following foliar applications of flupyradifurone, but not drench applications. In addition, risks of 

concern were not indicated for seed treatments based on generic screening-level exposure 

estimates. It should also be noted that the NOAEC values used to estimate chronic dietary risks 

to larval bees and young adult honeybees were based on the highest concentrations tested, since 

no adverse effects were observed in their respective studies; therefore, these endpoints and the 

resulting RQs are likely to be conservative. Overall, the results indicate that consideration of 

higher tiered honeybee studies are critical to evaluating potential adverse effects of 

flupyradifurone foliar applications at the colony or population level, as laid out in the SAP White 

Paper (USEPA, 2012d). 

As discussed in the SAP White Paper (USEPA, 2012d) on assessing risks to bees, when the Tier 

I screen indicates a potential risk to individual bees, higher tier studies conducted with bee 

colonies should be used to qualitatively characterize potential risks to colonies. Based on 

available semi-field and field studies consisting of studies where flupyradifurone was fed directly 

to colonies or bees were allowed to forage on residues following multiple applications of the 

compound at the maximum label rate, including foliar applications at full bloom while bees were 

actively foraging, there were some transitory effects to honeybee mortality and foraging activity, 

particularly at periods following applications at full bloom. Based on the laboratory data on 

individual bees in combination with the colony-level studies, the available evidence suggests that 

foliar application during bloom during active foraging did not adversely affect the forager bees. 

This is consistent with the laboratory data indicating that the compound is practically non-toxic 

to bees on an acute contact exposure basis. The available data also indicate that the majority of 

flupyradifurone residues measured in plants were in pollen as opposed to nectar (although cotton 

is an exception) and forage bees do not tend to consume much pollen and the extent to which 

they will consume raw nectar likely depends on their energy needs since processed honey is a 

more concentrated form of carbohydrates for bees. The increase in bee mortality and behavioral 

effects reported following applications at bloom may reflect where sufficient quantities of nectar 

were consumed and would be consistent with the high toxicity of flupyradifurone to adult bees 

on an oral basis. In addition, there were some slight indications of effects to food storage and 

brood cells in the colony feeding study, but these effects were not statistically different from 

control colonies. Although the colony-level studies were limited in their ability to detect 

statistically significant effects owing to the few replicates used in the studies and/or high 

variability in measurement endpoints, the logistics of conducting such studies can be 

challenging; however, the methods used for the semi-field and full-field colony-level studies 

were consistent with methods described in the open literature and through European and 

Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization (EPPO) and adhered to the tiered testing process 

identified in the SAP White Paper. 

The greatest area of uncertainty surrounding the potential risk to bee pollinators is for foliar 

applications at full bloom, which is proposed for a range of crops. Residue data for bee-relevant 

matrices (i.e., pollen, nectar) from crop residue and field studies generally indicate that the 

highest residues occur immediately after foliar applications, especially at full bloom, when bees 

are most likely to be visiting the treated area. This is also the time period when transitory effects 

to mortality and foraging were identified in some of the higher tiered honeybee studies. Given 

the potential lack of statistical power due to low replication for many of the semi-field studies, it 

is not absolutely certain that higher-tiered studies were of sufficient quality to detect significant 
111 

mortality events or other effects resulting from applications at bloom. Nevertheless, there is little 

evidence from the available studies that any of these transitory effects resulted in detectable 

effects to colony strength or overwintering success based on the full suite of studies provided. 

One possible explanation for the lack of sustained effects to mortality observed in the higher 

tiered studies, even though the acute risk to honeybees LOC was exceeded at the refined Tier I 

screening level, is that there was much higher flupyradifurone residues observed in whole 

blossoms versus nectar-specific samples from flowers of honeybee stomachs in the crop residue 

studies. In all cases, floral nectar and honeybee stomach nectar residues were below the acute 

risk to honeybees LOC, while flower residues for most crops were above the LOC. These 

findings, combined with the observation that residues in bee matrices were typically highest 

immediately after the bloom application, suggest that floral nectar residues are much lower than 

whole flower residues because the nectar may be protected from direct spray. And since 

honeybees are foraging on nectar, the floral nectar and honeybee stomach nectar residues are 

more illustrative of exposure in the field. One uncertainty in this distinction between whole 

flowers versus nectar residues is that extra-floral nectar residues of flupyradifurone in cotton 

exceeded the LOC for multiple days and were much higher than honeybee stomach nectar 

residues recorded during the same study. This may indicate that extra-floral nectaries, which are 

also a food source for honeybees, may receive higher flupyradifurone residues either through 

direct spray or systemic translocation in the plant. Therefore, exposure via nectar may be higher 

in crops with extra-floral nectaries. 

Many of the semi-field and field studies suffered from a range of deficiencies including unequal 

starting sizes of control and treatment colonies and lack of reporting of the variability associated 

with measurement endpoints. An additional source of uncertainty is the extent to which 

flupyradifurone residues will accumulate in flowering plants or in bee hives. Although submitted 

crop residue studies indicate that pollen, nectar, and flower residues were generally highest in the 

hours or several days following foliar applications, one study evaluating foliar application to 

citrus (MRID 48844524) did indicate that pollen residues continued to rise until around the last 

sampling date (5-7 days after application). This indicates that at least in certain flowering plants, 

pollen residues might continue to increase throughout the time period in which pollination is 

likely to occur. In addition, pollen, nectar, and wax residue data from one of the full field studies 

with flupyradifurone (MRIDs 48844517) indicate that average residues did not reach their 

maxima until up to several months after the pesticide was applied; however, these results directly 

conflict with those of a second field study in which pollen, nectar, and wax residues reached their 

peak during the same month as the application at full bloom (MRIDs 48844516). One possible 

cause for this discrepancy is the level in which bees from either study were foraging on treated 

versus untreated crop areas. Generally, there was not enough information on measured hive 

residues in the submitted package to determine if biologically relevant levels of flupyradifurone 

are expected to occur in the hive in the weeks, months, or seasons following foliar applications. 

However, effects measured at the colony level over a number of months including overwintering 

did not indicate any significant effects on flupyradifurone-treated bee colonies relative to 

untreated controls. 

The semi-field and field honeybee studies utilized a range of application scenarios in terms of the 

adjuvant used, the application rate, the number of applications, and the retreatment interval 
112 

between applications. Ostensibly, the most conservative scenario in terms of highest potential 

exposure occurred in the two field studies (MRIDs 48844516 and 48844517) in which oil-seed 

rape seeds were treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G seed treatment, sown into soil treated with 

(0.28 lbs ai/A) BYI 02960 SL 200 G, and then plants were later treated with two foliar 

applications (0.18 lbs ai/A each) of BYI 02960 SL 200 G, including one application at full 

bloom. These studies generally did not indicate adverse effects related to a range of endpoints. 

However, as mentioned above, bees in these studies were foraging on alternative (non-treated) 

food sources based on pollen analysis which may have lowered the level of exposure (which 

would not be conservative), but is possible for bees under any application scenario. 

As described previously in this assessment, the toxicity of formulated product BYI 02960 SL 

200 G to young adult honeybees increases by 116-fold and 6.1-fold via the contact and oral 

exposure routes, respectively, when mixed with the tebuconazole formulation EW 250C G (17% 

tebuconazole). The rationale for mixing the two formulations in the particular ratio tested was 

not provided. But, it does suggest that the combination of the two actives can enhance the 

toxicity of flupyradifurone and that a similar effect may be possible when flupyradifurone is used 

in combination with other fungicides utilizing similar mechanistic pathways. Currently, the 

proposed label for SivantoTM SL 200 indicates that the product should not be tank mixed with 

azole fungicides during bloom period. 

Additional non-guideline toxicity data were submitted for terrestrial arthropods exposed to 

formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) that is useful for evaluating potential effects 

to non-target arthropods exposure through contact. In the majority of studies, survival effects 

were observed at concentrations lower than the proposed label application rate for 

flupyradifurone, in some cases several orders of magnitude lower. The lowest (most sensitive) 

toxicity endpoint reported for non-target arthropods was for survival effects to the parasitoid 

wasp. These data, which are only used for characterization purposes, indicate potential for effects 

of flupyradifurone to other non-target terrestrial arthropods. 

Terrestrial Plants 

Since definitive toxicity data were only available for monocotyledonous plants at the no effect 

level (i.e., NOAEC), RQ values representing non-target terrestrial plants could only be calculated 

for listed monocots. If non-definitive toxicity data are used in risk estimation (i.e., IC25 > 0.365 

lbs ai/A and NOAEC < 0.365 lbs ai/A), RQ values for non-target dicot plants are as follows: 

plants receiving spray drift are < 0.1 across uses, plants occupying dry areas are <0.1 across uses, 

and plants occupying semi-aquatic areas range from 0.21 to 0.50 across uses, which are all below 

the LOC (RQ≥1) for risk to terrestrial plants. Given that only a single application rate was tested 

in both seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies (i.e., the maximum seasonal rate of 

0.365 lbs ai/A), and given that statistically significant effects in shoot dry weight and/or shoot 

length were observed for dicots in both studies, there is uncertainty regarding the potential for 

adverse effects to listed dicots. For foliar and chemigation applications of flupyradifurone, in 

order to exceed the LOC for listed dicots (RQ≥1) receiving spray drift, inhabiting dry areas, and 

inhabiting semi-aquatic areas, significant adverse effects on plants would have to occur at 0.009 

(foliar only), 0.018, and 0.18 lbs ai/A, respectively. Given that inhibition to the most sensitive 

dicot endpoints at 0.365 lbs ai/A were <25% in seedling emergence and vegetative vigor studies, 
113 

the potential for significant adverse effects at 0.18 lbs ai/A are possible, while significant effects 

at ≤0.018 appear unlikely. Therefore, the main uncertainty for terrestrial plants in this assessment 

applies to listed dicots inhabiting semi-aquatic areas. 

Residues of flupyradifurone in surface or groundwater that is used for irrigation of plants are not 

expected to result in potential injury to terrestrial plants. Assuming an acre of land is irrigated 

with one inch of contaminated water, the 96 μg ai/L peak groundwater EEC is equivalent to an 

application rate of 0.022 lbs ai/A (Appendix F). The most sensitive of the available endpoints, 

the NOAEC and EC25 for cabbage from the vegetative vigor study is >0.410 kg/ha (equivalent to 

0.37 lbs ai/A). The resulting non-definitive RQs are <0.07 (EEC/highest level tested = 0.0265 

lbs ai/A /<0.37 lbs ai/A= 0.07). Both of these non-definitive RQs are far below the Agency’s 

LOC of 1.0 for terrestrial plants. EECs would need to exceed 1,632 μg/L to have a risk concern 

to terrestrial plants (NOAEC × 1 conversion factor/226,625 lbs water per acre20 = EEC; see 

Appendix F for explanation of the calculation). 

4.2.3. Conclusions 

The environmental fate assessment indicates that depending on soil conditions and weather, 

flupyradifurone may persist in soil and it may be transported through a range of dissipation 

routes (i.e., runoff, erosion, leaching) to surface or groundwater, where the compound may also 

persist. Since this is a new chemical, monitoring data are not available to gauge the extent to 

which the compound will be mobile and/persist in the terrestrial and aquatic environments; 

however, available field dissipation studies conducted on bare ground indicate dissipation rates 

that are generally lower than what might be estimated through the combination of degradation 

pathways for which data are available. 

On an acute exposure basis, flupyradifurone ranges from being slightly toxic to very highly toxic 

to aquatic invertebrates depending on the species tested. Based on the most sensitive species, the 

primary risks of concern in this assessment are for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates 

inhabiting both the water column and benthic environments. Acute risk to listed species and 

chronic risk concerns for freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates were identified for the 

majority of proposed uses in this assessment. After the contribution of spray drift was removed 

from exposure estimates, many proposed uses still exceeded the acute risk to listed species and 

chronic risk LOCs. Therefore, the spatial proximity of foliar applications from a water body are 

not likely to substantially change the potential for risks of concern to aquatic organisms. In this 

assessment, the influence of multiple crop cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar 

applications of flupyradifurone was also considered. In general, the use of single crop cycle (2 

applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed freshwater 

invertebrates; however, multiple crop cycles (≥2) did lead to risks of concern to this group. 

In this assessment, acute risks of concern to listed birds were identified for all proposed foliar 

and drench uses, as well as the seed treatment use of flupyradifurone. In addition, acute risks of 

 

20 One acre has 6,272,640 cubic inches of water on the field. The one acre field with one inch of water has 3,630 

cubic ft of water (6,272,640 × 0.00058 cubic ft/cubic inch). The field has 27,156 gallons of water (3,630 cubic ft × 

7.481 gallons/cubic ft). Therefore, one inch of water on the one acre field weighs 226,625 lbs (27,156 gallons × 

8.3453 lbs/gallon of water). 
114 

concern to non-listed birds were identified for the seed treatment use and all foliar and soil 

drench uses, except for hops. The modeling of multiple crop cycles generally increased the 

number of dietary items for which the acute risk to non-listed species are exceeded. In addition, 

chronic risks of concern were identified for mammals for multiple dietary items and size classes 

for all proposed uses evaluated. 

Flupyradifurone is proposed for use at full bloom and laboratory and field-based studies of 

individual bees as well as colonies were evaluated based on both conservative model-generated 

values as well as measured exposure values in pollen, nectar and flowers. Based on available 

semi-field and field studies of honey bee colonies, there were some transitory acute effects to 

honeybee mortality and foraging activity, particularly following applications at full-bloom while 

bees were actively foraging. In addition, there were some slight indications of effects to food 

storage and brood cells in a colony feeding study where exposure to the test material was more 

assured, but these effects were not statistically significant. Although many of the studies had 

limited numbers of replicates, which likely impacted the power of the studies to detect potential 

treatment effects, and variability in measurement endpoints was not well characterized, the 

methods used in the studies were consistent with those that have been used to identify effects of 

pesticides on colonies. The studies did evaluate the effects of multiple applications at the 

maximum proposed application rates and did demonstrate exposure through measured residues 

in pollen/nectar collected by bees as well as within the comb (bee bread, honey and wax). As 

such, the colony-level studies provided a means of examining both short- and long-term effects 

of exposure. Based on the available studies and acknowledging the uncertainties associated with 

them, there is no evidence that exposure to flupyradifurone under the conditions tested had any 

significant effect on colony strength, overwintering, or the capacity of the colony to successfully 

lay down brood in the Spring. Toxicity of residues on foliage studies with honey bees also 

suggest that contact toxicity is not a primary concern given that the RT25 is less than 3 hours for 

the compound; as such, the compound does not have an extended residual toxicity. 

This assessment does not evaluate risk potential risk to non-target terrestrial invertebrates other 

than bees especially given that flupyradifurone is intended as an insecticide likely targeting 

sucking insect pests. However, in non-guideline toxicity studies submitted for terrestrial 

arthropods exposed to formulated flupyradifurone (BYI 02960 SL 200 G) via contact exposure, 

survival effects were observed at concentrations lower than the proposed maximum label 

application rate for flupyradifurone, in some cases several orders of magnitude lower. The lowest 

(most sensitive) toxicity endpoint reported for non-target arthropods was for survival effects to 

the parasitoid wasp. These data indicate that potential for effects of flupyradifurone to non-target 

terrestrial arthropods at or below proposed application rates. 

5. Additional Description of Assumptions, Limitations, Uncertainties, 

Strengths 

Label Uncertainties 

SivantoTM 200 SL 

 The label should specify the formulation on the label. 
115 

 The label should specify a maximum number of applications for each crop. In the risk 

assessment, we estimated the maximum number of applications by dividing the maximum 

seasonal application rate by the maximum single application rate. 

 Retreatment intervals are not specified for soil applications to fruiting vegetables, foliar 

applications to hops, and soil applications to the “small fruit climbing” group. While a 

minimum retreatment interval was not specified on the label for these use patterns, the 

maximum single application rate and the maximum seasonal rate were the same; therefore, a 

minimum retreatment interval was not needed in modeling and a single application was 

assumed to occur in the risk assessment. 

 As the maximum application rates are provided on a seasonal basis, the label should specify 

the maximum number of seasons per year that the chemical may be applied to crops that have 

more than one growing cycle per year. Alternatively, the maximum application rates on a 

yearly basis could be provided. When multiple crop cycles per year were expected to be 

possible for a crop, risk was evaluated for a single crop cycle per year and for multiple crop 

cycles per year. Surface water EECS increased by two to four times, depending on the 

number of crop cycles per year assumed. In this assessment, the influence of multiple crop 

cycles on aquatic invertebrates from multiple foliar applications of flupyradifurone was 

considered. In general, the use of single crop cycle (2 applications at 0.18 lbs ai/A) did not 

lead to acute risks of concern to non-listed freshwater invertebrates; however, multiple crop 

cycles (≥2) did lead to risks of concern for this group. 

Aquatic Exposure 

Fate data gaps are discussed in the data gaps Section 2.7.2. Additional uncertainties are discussed 

below. 

5.2.1. Unextracted residues 

Unextracted residues did occur in fate studies and it is uncertain whether those residues are 

residues of concern or not. Therefore, modeling was conducted with and without unextracted 

residues. The unextracted residues had an influence on the estimated groundwater EECs but had 

little impact on the surface water results. As there was not a risk concern identified due to 

exposure to residues in groundwater, additional data are not needed at this time to better 

understand the identity of the unextracted residues. The presence of the unextracted residues in 

the fate studies will not impact the risk conclusions at this time. 

5.2.2. Soybean Seed Planting Depth and Application Rate 

The depth of planting was assumed to be 0.5 inches, the minimum of the range of planting 

depths reported for soybean (see Table 18), and the minimum planting depth listed on the label. 

This will maximize the residues available for runoff as residues are only available for runoff in 

the top two centimeters of soil in PRZM (Carsel et al., 1997). If the typical planting depth were 

assumed (1-2 inches or 2.54-5.08 cm), none of the residues would be available for runoff and the 

resulting EEC would be zero. Even when a one inch planting depth were used, it is likely that 

not all seed would be placed at the target depth, and a portion of residues would be available for 

runoff (the zero EEC would likely underestimate risk). Also, the maximum application rate 
116 

allowed on the label for soybean seed treatment was used for modeling (0.365 lbs 

ai/Acre/season). The label also recommends a product rate of 0.068 mg ai/seed, assuming a 

seeding rate of 250,000 lbs seed per acre (USEPA, 2011) results in an application rate of 0.04 lbs 

ai/Acre (about ten times lower than the rate modeled). Using this estimated application rate 

would result in EECS about 10x lower than the EECs estimated for 0.365 lbs ai/Acre. 

5.2.3. Model Input Values 

Metabolism and physico-chemical properties of flupyradifurone are used as inputs into the 

aquatic models use to estimate concentrations of flupyradifurone in surface water and 

groundwater. Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the 

overall uncertainty of the modeled concentrations. Metabolism input values are chosen to be 

conservative in simulating degradation, e.g., by employing half-life values that err on the high 

side of the mean of the observed. 

Laboratory studies indicated that flupyradifurone was stable hydrolysis in aerobic and anaerobic 

aquatic environments. The hydrolysis stability assumption was based on a study conducted for 5 

days at 50oC. Since hydrolysis is generally the only transformation pathway considered at soil 

depths greater than one meter, it can have a large impact on the PRZM-GW EECs (Baris et al., 

2013; USEPA, 2013a). A chemical may be assumed to be stable to hydrolysis based on minimal 

transformation in the guideline hydrolysis study (OCSPP 835.2120); however, reevaluation of 

the hydrolysis study may be completed if there is a risk concern. Currently EECs in groundwater 

do not result in a risk concern, and the assumption of stability for hydrolysis is not an influence 

on the risk conclusions for groundwater. As the aerobic aquatic metabolism value does show 

degradation, which is used to represent degradation in the water column in the surface water 

models, the assumption of stability for hydrolysis is not as much of a concern for surface water 

modeling. 

Measured aerobic soil metabolism DT50 values had a wide range (38 to 401 days in 10 soils). 

Terrestrial field dissipation DT50 also had a wide range (8.3 to 310 days). The persistence of 

flupyradifurone is expected to vary widely in the different soils and environments where it is 

used. The representative model input aerobic soil metabolism half-life used in surface water 

modeling was 265 days for flupyradifurone alone, and 525 days for flupyradifurone plus 

unextracted residues. These values are considered conservative and thus generate conservative 

EECs. The cause of the variability in DT50 was not identified, as no examined variables were 

found to correlate with the differences in the aerobic soil metabolism. 

Adsorption/desorption data are only available on ten soils. Typically, sorption data are also 

required for a sediment as well. It is uncertain whether the sorption coefficients used in 

modeling reflect sorption to benthic sediments. Sorption coefficients measured in sediment tend 

to be a factor of one to two times as great as those measured in soil (Allen-King et al., 2002). To 

determine the possible impact that this data deficiency could have on risk conclusions, EECs 

were calculated assuming double the mean Koc based sorption measured on soils. Acute and 

chronic EECs calculated assuming a 274 L/kg Koc value were approximately 93% of EECs 

calculated based on a 137 L/kg Koc value. This indicates that the lack of a sediment sorption 

coefficient is a minor source of uncertainty because it is likely to have a low impact on 
117 

calculated RQs. 

Freundlich sorption coefficients to soils indicate that the equilibrium concentration will influence 

the degree of sorption (1/n values range from 0.81 to 0.92). Figure 7 shows this phenomenon 

well. For the Argissolo soil, Koc values for the lowest equilibrium concentrations in water are 

approximately 670 L/kg-oc while the Koc measured at higher equilibrium concentrations in water 

are 2.7 fold lower (246 L/kg-oc). 

Figure 7. Relationship between the measured Koc and the flupyradifurone equilibrium concentration in 

water in the Argissolo soil (1/n =0.81) 

Sorption coefficients were measured over an appropriate range of equilibrium flupyradifurone 

concentrations (e.g., equilibrium concentrations range from 3 – 953 μg/L and encompass the 

predicted EECs). While nonlinear sorption was not simulated in modeling, simulations were 

completed using the highest (779 L/kg-oc measured at 2.3 μg/L in the Gleissolo soil) and lowest 

(78.7 L/kg-oc measured at 506 μg/L in the Dollendorf II soil) measured Koc measured at a single 

equilibrium concentration in water in the adsorption component of the batch equilibrium studies. 

EECs using the Koc of 779 L/kg-oc are 63 to 70% of EECs simulated using a mean Koc. EECs 

using the lowest Koc of 78.7 L/kg-oc were essentially the same as the EECs simulated using the 

mean Koc. This provides some information on the degree of uncertainty in the EECs due to 

variability that may be observed in sorption coefficients and due to assuming linear sorption 

rather than nonlinear sorption. 

5.2.4. EPA Pond 

The standard ecological water body scenario (EXAMS pond) used to calculate potential aquatic 

exposure to pesticides is intended to generate conservative exposure estimates, which avoid 

underestimating most aquatic concentrations. The standard scenario involves application of 

chemical to a 10-hectare field that drains to a 1-hectare, 2-meter deep (20,000 m3

) pond with no 

outlet. Exposure estimates generated using this pond are intended to generically represent 

exposures in vulnerable water bodies; however, there are water bodies that could at times be 

more vulnerable. Low-order streams may for example exhibit peak concentrations (e.g., during 

storm flow runoff) that exceed those simulated in the EXAMS pond, but that pass quickly as 

pesticides are transported downstream. As watershed size increases, it becomes increasingly 

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80

Measured KOC (L/kg‐OC)

Flupyradifurone Concentration in Water mg/L
118 

unlikely that the entire area is planted with a single crop that is all treated with a given pesticide. 

5.2.5. Dilution of Sediment 

The EXAMS model estimates of water concentration are based on an assumption that sediment 

mass in the benthic zone of the pond is fixed. In real farm ponds, eroded sediments from the 

watershed are presumably added on an ongoing basis. Over time, benthic sediments with sorbed 

pesticide may become buried by newer sediments settling out of the water column, rendering a 

fraction of the older sediment with sorbed pesticide less available for exchange with the water 

column. 

5.2.6. A Well-Mixed Pond 

Because the EXAMS model assumes instantaneous equilibrium and mixing, it does not consider 

the potential for higher short-term concentrations in the areas of the pond initially receiving 

pesticide runoff (e.g., the shallow, near-shore areas of the pond) and drift (e.g., the near-surface 

layer of the pond). Complete mixing is a convenient approximation. Concentrations 

immediately following introduction of runoff or drift will be higher in some areas of the pond 

than average concentrations based on the assumption of complete mixing throughout the water 

column. That such spatial inhomogeneities in concentration might persist at ecologically 

meaningful levels for longer than 1 day (i.e., the limit of resolution of the model) seems unlikely, 

though perhaps plausible. 

5.2.7. Lack of Averaging Time for Exposure 

For an acute risk assessment, there is no averaging time for exposure, beyond that represented by 

the (daily) limit of resolution of the model. An “instantaneous” (daily mean) peak concentration, 

with a 1 in 10 year return frequency, is assumed. The use of the instantaneous peak assumes that 

24 hour exposure is of sufficient duration to elicit acute effects comparable to those observed 

over more protracted exposure periods tested in the laboratory, typically 48 to 96 hours. In the 

absence of data regarding time-to-toxic event analyses and latent responses to instantaneous 

exposure, the degree to which risk may be overestimated cannot be quantified. 

Terrestrial Exposure 

Exposure from seed treatment uses is likely to be overestimated for scenarios where seeds are 

incorporated. Seed incorporation > 1 inch would reduce the likelihood of runoff to non-target 

plants and surface water and would further reduce the likelihood of seed consumption by birds 

and mammals. 

Effects Assessment Uncertainties 

Effects uncertainties and data gaps are discussed in the data gaps Sections 2.7.2 and 4.2. 
119 

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

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

Agency evaluates risks to Federally-listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) species from 

registered uses of flupyradifurone. This assessment is conducted in accordance with the 

Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the 

Services’ Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998). 

Action Area 

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected 

directly or indirectly by flupyradifurone use and not merely the immediate area where 

flupyradifurone is applied. At the initial screening-level, the risk assessment considers broadly 

described taxonomic groups and conservatively assumes that listed species within those broad 

groups are co-located with the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and 

wildlife are assumed to be located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are 

assumed to be located in a surface water body adjacent to the treated site. The assessment also 

assumes that the listed species are located within an assumed area, which has the relatively 

highest potential exposure to the pesticide, and that exposures are likely to decrease with 

distance from the treatment area. Section 6.2 of this risk assessment presents the proposed 

pesticide use sites that are used to establish initial co-location of species with treatment areas.

Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk 

If the assumptions associated with the screening-level action area result in RQs that are below 

the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed 

species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action area is necessary. Furthermore, RQs 

below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect 

effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated. 

However, in situations where the screening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed 

species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and 

may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may 

extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a 

resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of 

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 organism. 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. 

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing the proposed new 

flupyradifurone uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the 

flupyradifurone screening-level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3. The assessment endpoints 

used in the screening-level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced 

survival and reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival, 

reproduction, and growth of non-target aquatic and terrestrial plant species from exposure via 
120 

spray drift and runoff. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the 

Endangered Species Act requiring federal agencies to ensure that any action it authorizes does 

not appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the 

wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQ 

values) integrating exposure and effects are calculated for broad-based taxonomic groups in the 

screening-level risk assessment and are presented in Section 4.

Both acute and chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered in the screening-level risk 

assessment to identify direct and indirect effects to taxa of listed species. This section identifies 

direct and indirect effect concerns, by taxa, that are triggered by exceeding listed species LOCs 

in the screening-level risk assessment (Table 47). 

Table 47. Potential effects to federally listed taxa associated with the proposed uses of flupyradifurone. 

Listed Taxon 

Direct Effects Indirect Effects from Risk to Other Taxa 

Yes/No Acute/Chronic Yes/No Through ... 

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants – 

 monocots and dicots 

Uncertain 

(dicots 

only) 

NA Yes 

Acute effects on birds, terrestrial-phase 

amphibians, and chronic effects on 

mammals, when required for pollination or 

seed dispersal. 

Birds Yes 

Acute (foliar, drench, seed 

treatment uses) 

Chronic (seed treatment only) 

Yes 

Chronic effects on mammals that serve as 

prey; acute effects on reptiles and 

amphibians that serve as prey. 

Terrestrial-phase 

amphibians Yes 

Acute (foliar, drench, seed 

treatment uses) 

Chronic (seed treatment only) 

Yes Chronic effects on mammals which provide 

habitat (e.g., burrows) and serve as prey. 

Reptiles Yes 

Acute (foliar, drench, seed 

treatment uses) 

Chronic (seed treatment only) 

Yes 

Chronic effects on mammals that serve as 

prey; acute effects on birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians that serve as prey. 

Mammals Yes Chronic (all uses) Yes 

Acute effects on birds, reptiles, and 

amphibians that serve as prey; chronic 

effects on mammals that serve as prey. 

Aquatic plants No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates. 

Freshwater fish No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as 

prey 

Aquatic-phase 

amphibians No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as 

prey 

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Acute (all uses) 

Chronic (most uses)1 Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that serve as prey 

Mollusks No NA Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that 

serve as prey 

Marine/estuarine fish No NA Yes Effects on aquatic invertebrates that serve as 

prey 

Marine/estuarine 

invertebrates Yes Acute (most uses)1

Chronic (most uses)1 Yes Effects on other aquatic invertebrates that 

serve as prey 1

 See Table 38 and Table 39 for list of specific uses that exceed listed species LOC for aquatic invertebrates 
121 

7. References 

Literature Cited 

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

sorption of hydrophobic organic chemicals to heterogenous carbonaceous matter in soils, 

sediments, and rocks. Advances in Water Resources, 25, 985-1016. 

Armitage, J. M., & Gobas, F. A. P. C. 2007. A terrestrial food-chain bioaccumulation model for 

POPs. Environmental Science and Technology, 41, 4019-4025. 

Baris, R., Barrett, M., Bohaty, R. F. H., Echeverria, M., Villaneuva, P., Wolf, J., et al. 2013. 

Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. December 11, 

2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm

(Accessed April 11, 2014). 

Carsel, R. F., Imhoff, J. C., Hummel, P. R., Cheplick, J. M., & Donigian Jr., J. S. 1997. PRZM-3, 

A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil 

Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0. Memorandum From to Environmental Research 

Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

FAO. 2000. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. In FAO 

Information Division Editorial Group (Ed.), Pesticide Disposal Series 8. Assessing Soil 

Contamination. A Reference Manual. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO). Available at 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E06.htm (Accessed July 10, 2009). 

Fletcher, J. S., Nellessen, J. E., & Pfleeger, T. G. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the 

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on 

plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 13(9), 1383-1391. 

Gobas, F. A. P. C., Kelly, B. C., & Arnot, J. A. 2003. Quantitative structure activity 

relationships for predicting the bioaccumulation of POPs in terrestrial food-webs. QSAR 

Comb. Sci, 22, 329-336. 

Hoerger, F., & Kenaga, E. E. 1972. Pesticide Residues on Plants: Correlation of Representative 

Data as a Basis for Estimation of their Magnitude in the Environment. In F. Coulston & 

F. Korte (Eds.), Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and 

Technology (Vol. 1, pp. 9-28). New York: Academic Press. 

IRAC. 2012. IRAC MoA Classification Scheme. Version 7.2. April 2012. Insecticide Resistance 

Action Committee (IRAC). IRAC International Mode of Action Working Group. 

Available at http://www.irac-online.org/content/uploads/MoA-classification.pdf

(Accessed January 10, 2012). 

NAFTA. 2012. Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in 

Environmental Media. December 2012. NAFTA Technical Working Group on 

Pesticides. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/international/naftatwg/guidance/degradation-kin.pdf

(Accessed April 11, 2014). 

SAP. 2009. SAP Minutes No. 2009-01. A set of Scientific Issues Being Considered by the 

Environmental Protection Agency Regarding: Selected Issues Associated with the Risk 
122 

Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic 

Characteristics. October 28-31, 2008. January 29, 2009. FIFRA Scientific Advisory 

Panel. Office of Science Coordination and Policy. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/scipoly/sap/meetings/2008/102808_mtg.htm (Accessed July 9, 

2009). 

Staton, M. 2013. Michigan State University Extension. Planting soybean seed at the proper 

depth will produce more uniform stands and higher yields. Available at 

http://msue.anr.msu.edu/news/soybean_planting_depth_matters (Accessed April 11. 

2014). 

USDA. 2008. Crop Profile for Radish in Florida. April 2008. United States Department of 

Agriculture. Available at http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/FLradish.pdf

(Accessed April 25, 2014). 

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-95/002F. Risk 

Assessment Forum. Office of Research and Development. U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. Available at http://www.epa.gov/raf/publications/guidelinesecological-risk-assessment.htm (Accessed November 7, 2012). 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf (Accessed June 19, 2009). 

USEPA. 2006. (P)RZM (E)XAMs Model Shell, Version 5.0. November 15, 2006. Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pe5_user_manual.htm (Accessed April 18, 

2013). 

USEPA. 2008. Fate, Transport, and Transformation Guidelines. OPPTS 835.6100 Terrestrial 

Field Dissipation. EPA 712-C-08-020. October 2008. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, 

and Toxic Substances. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/opptsfrs/publications/835_6100.pdf (Accessed July 30, 2009). 

USEPA. 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate 

and Transport of Pesticides, Version 2.1. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

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

June 22, 2014). 

USEPA. 2010. Guidance for Reporting on the Environmental Fate and Transport of the 

Stressors of Concern in the Problem Formulation for Registration Review, Registration 

Review Risk Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk 

Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk Assessments. January 25, 2010. Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

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

pecies_reregistration_workgroup/esa_reporting_fate.htm (Accessed July 5, 2012). 

USEPA. 2011. Acres Planted per Day and Seeding Rates of Crops Grown in the United States. 

March 24, 2011. Memorandum From J. Becker & S. Ratnayake to P. Deschamp & D. 

Spatz. Biological and Economic Analysis Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. 

Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. United States Environmental 
123 

Protection Agency. 

USEPA. 2012a. Criteria Used by the PBT Profiler. September 4, 2012. Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

Available at http://www.pbtprofiler.net/criteria.asp (Accessed September 7, 2012). 

USEPA. 2012b. Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate 

Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation. November 

30, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/degradation_kinetics/NAFTA_Degradation_

Kinetics.htm (Accessed December 16, 2013). 

USEPA. 2012c. User's Guide: T-REX version 1.5. Memorandum From to Environmental Fate 

and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Progams. Office of Chemical Safety and 

Pollution Prevention. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/trex/t_rex_user_guide.htm (Accessed 

April 29, 2013). 

USEPA. 2012d. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees. 

September 11-14, 2012. September 11, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Pest Management Regulatory Agency. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-

0543-0004 (Accessed June 22, 2014). 

USEPA. 2013.D415161. Data on Flupyradifurone and Its Environmental Transformation 

Products in Support of the ROCKS. D415161. Memorandum From S. Glaberman & K. 

White to C. Olinger & E. Scollon. October 23, 2013. Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA. 2013a. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. 

December 11, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm

(Accessed January 22, 2013). 

USEPA. 2013b. Guidance on Modeling Offsite Deposition of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for 

Ecological and Drinking Water Assessment. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2013-0676 (Accessed 

April 11, 2014). 

USEPA. 2013.D408685. Reduced Risk Analysis: Flupyradifurone Use on Pome Fruit, Citrus, 

Cotton, and Vegetables. D408685. February 5, 2013. Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention. 

USEPA. 2014. Flupyradifurone: Human Health Risk Assessment for the First Food Use on: 

Root Vegetables Except Sugar Beet (Subgroup 1B), Tuberous and Corm Vegetables 

(Subgroup 1C), Bulb Vegetables (Group 3-07), Leafy Vegetables (Except Brassica) 

(Group 4), Taro Leaves, Turnip Tops; Head and Stem Brassica Vegetables (Subgroup 

5A), Leafy Brassica Greens Vegetables (Subgroup 5B), Edible-Podded Legume 

Vegetables (Subgroup 6A), Succulent Shelled Pea and Bean (Subgroup 6B), Died 
124 

Shelled Pea and Bean (except Soybean) (Subgroup 6C), Foliage of Legume Vegetables 

(except Soybean) (Subgroup 7A), Soybean (Seed), Fruiting Vegetables Except Cucurbits 

(Group 8-10), Cucurbit Vegetables (Group 9), Citrus Fruits (Group 10-10), Pome Fruits 

(Group 11-10), Bushberry (Subgroup 13-07B), Small Fruit Vine Climbing (Except 

Fuzzy Kiwifruit) (Subgroup 13-07F), Low Growing Berry (Subgroup 13-07G), Tree 

Nuts (Group 14-12), Cereal Grains Except Rice (Crop Group 15, Except Rice), Forage, 

Fodder and Straw of Cereal Grains (Crop Group 16), Nongrass Animal Feeds (Forage, 

Fodder, Straw and Hay) (Group 18), Cottonseed (Subgroup 20C), Coffee, Hops, Peanuts, 

Prickly Pear Cactus, and Pitaya. D407063. Health Effects Division. Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

USEPA, & Health Canada. 2012. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling 

Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model. Version 

1.0. October 15, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Assessment 

Directorate. Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency. Health Canada. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.pd

f (Accessed January 29, 2014). 

USEPA, & Health Canada. 2013. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling 

Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model. Version 

1. October 15, 2012. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide 

Programs. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.ht

m (Accessed February 28, 2013). 

USFWS/NMFS. 1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting 

Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. 

Final Draft. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine 

Fisheries Service (NMFS). Available at 

http://sero.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/esa/pdf/Sec%207%20Handbook.pdf (Accessed November 7, 

2012). 

Submitted Fate Studies 

830.7050 UV/Visible absorption 

48843628 Peters, S. (2009) Spectral Data Set of BYI 02960 A.I: Reference Material. Project Number: 

15/600/2439/OCR, M/345761/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 24p. 

830.7370 Dissociation constants in water 

48843634 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960), Pure Substance: Dissociation Constant in 

Water. Project Number: PA10/048/OCR, M/414102/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience AG. 17p. 

48843635 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Dissociation Constant in Water. 

Project Number: PA11/021/OCR, M/415757/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience 

AG. 18p. 

48843636 Winkler, S. (2011) Difluoro Acetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Determination of the Dissociation Constant in 

Water: Final Report. Project Number: 20100366/02, M/418626/01/2/OCR. Unpublished study prepared 

by Siemens AG. 19p. 
125 

48843637 Miya, K. (2001) Dissociation Constant of IC-0: Final Report. Project Number: NCAS/01/140/OCR, 

M/203097/01/2, RD/II01190. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co., Ltd. 

16p. 

830.7550 Partition coefficient (n-octanol/water), shake flask method 

48843640 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2011) BCS-CR74729 (BYI 02960-succinamide): Partition Coefficient 1-Octanol / 

Water at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/079/OCR, M/416883/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 32p. 

48843641 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2011) BCS - CU93236 (BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide Na-salt): Partition 

Coefficient 1-Octanol / Water at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: 

PA11/093/OCR, M/416656/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 33p. 

48843642 Eyrich, U.; Ziemer, F. (2011) Difluoroacetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Partition Coefficient 1-Octanol / 

Water at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Shake Flask Method). Project Number: PA10/043/OCR, M/416624/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 35p. 

48843643 Higashida, S. (2001) Partition Coefficient (n-Octanol/Water) of IC-0. Project Number: 

NCAS/01/127/OCR, M/204285/01/2, C/017442. Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical 

Analysis Service Co.,Ltd. 19p. 

830.7840 Water solubility: Column elution method, shake flask method 

48843644 Wiche, A.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) BYI 02960, Pure Substance: Solubility in Distilled Water (pH 7), at pH 4 

and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA09/003/OCR, M/409513/01/2. Unpublished study prepared 

by Bayer CropScience AG. 25p. 

48843645 Bogdoll, B.; Strunk, B. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Water Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 and 

pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/018/OCR, M/415753/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience AG. 28p. 

48843646 Wiche, A.; Ziemer, F. (2011) BCS-CR74729 (BYI 02960-succinamide): Water Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 

and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/078/OCR, M/416651/01/2. Unpublished study prepared 

by Bayer CropScience AG. 24p. 

48843647 Ziemer, F.; Strunk, B. (2011) BSC-CU93236 (BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide Na-salt): Water 

Solubility at pH 5, pH 7 and pH 9 (Flask Method). Project Number: PA11/094, M/417069/01/2/OCR. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 17p. 

48843648 Bogdoll, B.; Strunk, B. (2011) Difluoroacetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Miscibility with Distilled Water and 

Solubility in Water in a pH Range of 1.6 to 13. Project Number: PA10/042/OCR, M/418554/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 16p. 

48843649 Miya, K. (2001) Solubility of IC-0 in Water. Project Number: NCAS/01/129/OCR, M/202871/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Nisso Chemical Analysis Service Co.,Ltd. 19p. 

830.7950 Vapor pressure 

48843650 Smeykal, H. (2008) BYI 02960, Pure Substance: Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project Number: 

20080615/01/OCR, M/309853/01/3. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 14p. 

48843651 Dornhagen, J. (2011) BCS-CC98193 (BYI 02960-DFEAF): Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project 

Number: 20110091/01/OCR, M/420457/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 16p. 

48843652 Smeykal, H. (2011) Difluoroacetic Acid (BCS-AA56716): Vapour Pressure: Final Report. Project 

Number: 20100366/01/OCR, M/418553/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Siemens AG. 15p. 

835.0001 Background for Environmental Fate, Transport, and Drift 

48844234 Desmarteau, D.; Tang, J. (2012) Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for Flupyradifurone TC Resulting 

from Proposed Crop Uses in the United States. Project Number: MERVP089, M/435213/01/1. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 46p. 

835.1230 Sediment and soil absorption/desorption for parent and degradates 

48843662 Menke, U.; Telscher, M. (2008) [Pyridinylmethyl-(Carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Adsorption to and Desorption 

from Soils. Project Number: 1659/6/OCR, M/327492/01/2, M131/1659/6. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience. 80p. 
126 

48843663 Stroech, K. (2010) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Adsorption/Desorption on Two Soils. 

Project Number: MERVP017, M/363541/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 78p. 

48843664 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) Adsorption/Desorption of [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in Brazilian 

Soils: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/AD/343/11, M/426755/02/3. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 66p. 

48843665 Menke, U. (2011) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-AB60481): Adsorption to and Desorption from 

Five Soils. Project Number: M131/1964/5, MEF/10/538, M/413836/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience. 79p. 

835.1240 Soil column leaching 

48843666 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) Mobility of [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in Brazilian Soils - Soil 

Columns Leaching Method: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/LIX/344/11, M/424966/02/3. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 54p. 

835.2120 Hydrolysis of parent and degradates as a function of pH at 25 C 

48843667 Mislankar, S.; Woodard, D. (2011) BYI-02960: Hydrolytic Degradation. Project Number: MERVP019, 

M/398952/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 57p. 

835.2210 Direct photolysis rate in water by sunlight 

48843668 Heinemann, O. (2011) BYI 02960: Determination of the Quantum Yield and Assessment of the 

Environmental Half-Life of the Direct Photo-Degradation in Water. Project Number: MEF/11/554, 

M1432048/2, M/414756/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 44p. 

835.2240 Direct photolysis rate of parent and degradates in water 

48843669 Hall, L. (2012) Phototransformation of [(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 in Aqueous pH 7 Buffer. Project 

Number: MERVP042, MERVP042/1, M/418426/02/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 104p. 

48843670 Hall, L. (2011) Phototransformation of [(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 in Natural Water. Project Number: 

MERVP020, M/415368/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 105p. 

835.2370 Photodegradation of parent and degradates in air 

48843671 Hellpointner, E. (2010) BYI02960: Calculation of the Chemical Half-Life in the Troposphere. Project 

Number: MEF/10/896, M/398741/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 18p. 

835.2410 Photodegradation of parent and degradates in soil 

48843672 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960 and [Furanone-4-(carbon 

14)]BYI 02960: Phototransformation on Soil. Project Number: MEF/10/351, M113/1808/2, 

M/405776/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 103p. 

835.3180 Sediment/water microcosm biodegradation test 

48843673 Bruns, E. (2012) Fate of BYI 02960 (tech.) in Outdoor Microcosm Ponds Simulating Actual Exposure 

Conditions in Agricultural Use. Project Number: EBRVP109, M/427167/01/2. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p. 

835.4100 Aerobic soil metabolism 

48843674 Menke, U. (2011) [Pyridinylmethyl-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism/Degradation and 

Time-Dependent Sorption in Soils. Project Number: MEF/07/334, M125/1634/2, M/414615/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 131p. 

48843676 Menke, U. (2011) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism/Degradation. Project 

Number: MEF/10/804, M125/1758/9, M/411625/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 119p. 
127 

48843677 Ripperger, R. (2012) [Furanone -4-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. 

Project Number: MERVP037, MERVP037/2, M/405497/03/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 99p. 

48843679 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism. Project 

Number: MEF/10/858, M125/1888/3, M/414981/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 121p. 

48843681 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2011) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism. Project 

Number: MEF/10/880, M125/1952/5, M/411693/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 86p. 

48843682 Shepherd, J. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Soil Metabolism in Two US Soils. 

Project Number: MERVP038, MERVP038/1, M/413425/02/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 112p. 

48843683 Tasso de Souza, T. (2012) BYI 02960: Rate of Degradation of [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]-BYI 02960 in 

Brazilian Soils: Final Report. Project Number: 2301/BS120/342/11, M/432044/01/3. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bioensaios Analises e Consultoria Ambiental Ltda. 72p. 

835.4200 Anaerobic soil metabolism 

48843686 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)] and [Pyridine-2,6-

(carbon 14)] BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/11/514, M126/1933/5, 

M/421504/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 129p. 

48843687 Mislankar, S.; Woodard, D. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6 (carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism. 

Project Number: MERVP094, M/421993/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, 

Thorsten Leicher and Agvise, Inc. 90p. 

48843688 Woodard, D. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6 (carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism in Springfield, 

Nebraska (USA) Soil. Project Number: MERVL006, M/424987/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience, and Agvise, Inc. 66p. 

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

48843673 Bruns, E. (2012) Fate of BYI 02960 (tech.) in Outdoor Microcosm Ponds Simulating Actual Exposure 

Conditions in Agricultural Use. Project Number: EBRVP109, M/427167/01/2. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 75p. 

48843689 Xu, T. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two 

Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: MERVP027, M/422616/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience. 75p. 

48843690 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. 

Project Number: MEF/11/907, M1512007/6, M/422359/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 141p. 

48843691 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-A B60481): Aerobic Aquatic 

Degradation. Project Number: MEF/11/996, M1512008/7, M/422371/01/1. Unpublished study prepared 

by Bayer CropScience. 128p. 

48843692 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic 

Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/730, M1511908/5, M/426504/01/1. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p. 

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism 
128 

48843689 Xu, T. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism in Two 

Water/Sediment Systems. Project Number: MERVP027, M/422616/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience. 75p. 

48843690 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [Pyridine-2,6-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. 

Project Number: MEF/11/907, M1512007/6, M/422359/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 141p. 

48843691 Hellpointner, E.; Unold, M. (2012) [1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960-DFA (BCS-A B60481): Aerobic Aquatic 

Degradation. Project Number: MEF/11/996, M1512008/7, M/422371/01/1. Unpublished study prepared 

by Bayer CropScience. 128p. 

48843692 Menke, U.; Unold, M. (2012) [Furanone-4-(carbon 14)] and [Ethyl-1-(carbon 14)]BYI 02960: Aerobic 

Aquatic Metabolism. Project Number: MEF/10/730, M1511908/5, M/426504/01/1. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 171p. 

835.6100 Terrestrial field dissipation 

48843693 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in California Soil. Project Number: 

MERVY001, M/432355/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, 

Inc. and Research for Hire. 216p. 

48843694 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in Florida Soil. Project Number: 

MERVY002, M/432358/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, 

Inc. and Southeast Ag Research, Inc. 214p. 

48843695 Lenz, M. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 in Idaho Soil. Project Number: MERVP028, 

M/432354/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Agvise Laboratories, Inc. and Miller 

Research, Inc. 225p. 

48843696 Harbin, A. (2012) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of BYI 02960 200 SL in Three Canadian Soils. Project 

Number: MERVP055, M//432672/01/2. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience, Bayer 

CropScience, Atlantic AgriTech Inc. and Bayer CropScience Canada. 357p. 

48843697 Heinemann, O. (2013) Determination of the Residues of BYI 02960 in/on Soil After Spraying of BYI 

02960 SL 200 in the Field in Germany, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom. Project Number: 09/2702, 

M/414245/01/2, MERVP012. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 274p. 

835.6200 Aquatic field dissipation 

48844235 Desmarteau, D.; Tang, J. (2012) Aquatic Ecological Exposure Assessment for Flupyradifurone TC 

Resulting from Proposed Crop Uses in the United States. Project Number: MERVP088, M/433353/01/2. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 40p. 

860.1380 Storage stability data 

48843840 Netzband, D.; Stoughton, S. (2012) Stability of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites 6-Chloronicotinic Acid (6-

CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil During Frozen Storage, 2010 (Reported Through 381 Days 

of Storage). Project Number: RARVP070, M/428408/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer 

CropScience. 38p. 

48843841 Timberlake, B.; Harbin, A. (2012) Storage Stability of BYI 02960, Difluoroacetic Acid, and 

Difluoroethyl-Amino-Furanone in Plant Matrices. Project Number: RARVP046, M/428412/01/1. 

Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 223p. 

48977401 Netzband, D.; Timberlake, B.; Harbin, A. (2012) Storage Stability of BYI 02960, Difluoroacetic Acid, 

and Difluoroethyl-amino-furanone in Plant Matrices (18-Month Data). Project Number: 

M/428412/02/1/OCR, RARVP046/1, RARVP046. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience 

LP. 266p. 
129 

Analytical Methods 

48843836 Netzband, D. (2012) In House Laboratory Validation of an Analytical Method for the Determination of 

Residues of BYI 02960 and its Metabolites Difluoroacetic Acid, BYI 02960-Succinamide and BYI 

02960-Azabicyclosuccinamide in Water Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RARVP010, 

M/433268/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 96p. 

48844224 Nuesslein, F.; Hellpointner, E.; Thomas, J.; et al. (2012) Tier 2 Summary of the Analytical Methods and 

Validation for the Flupyradifurone TC. Project Number: 102000025488, M/435597/01/1. Unpublished 

study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 95p. 

48843829 Brumhard, B.; Reineke, A. (2009) Analytical Method 01074 for the Determination of BYI 02960 in Soil 

Using LC/MS//MS. Project Number: 01074, MR/07/337, P601071824. Unpublished study prepared by 

Bayer CropScience AG. 45p. 

48843830 Netzband, D. (2010) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960, 6-

Chloronicotinic Acid (6-CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil and Sediment Using LC/MS/MS. 

Project Number: RV/002/S10/01, M/401212/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 

22p. 

48843831 Netzband, D. (2011) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960, 6-

Chloronicotinic Acid (6-CNA) and Difluoroacetic Acid (DFA) in Soil and Sediment Using LC/MS/MS. 

Project Number: RV/002/S10/02, M/428409/01/1. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 

27p. 

48843834 Fargeix, G.; Rosati, D. (2012) Analytical Method (Number) 01213 for the Determination of Residues of 

BYI 02960 in Drinking and Surface Water By HPLC-MS/MS. Project Number: 01213, MR/12/022, 

11/04. Unpublished study prepared by Aventis Cropscience, Centre de Recherche de La Dargoire. 50p. 

48843835 Netzband, D. (2012) Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 and its 

Metabolites Difluoroacetic Acid, BYI 2960-Succinamide and BYI 2960- Azabicyclosuccinamide in 

Water Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/005/W12/01, M/435207/01/1. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 28p. 

48843838 Heinz, N. (2011) BYI 02960: Analytical Method for Determination in Air. Project Number: P/2419/G, 

P605117520, RARVP011. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe Gmbh. 35p. 

48843827 Li, Y.; Moore, S. (2012) An Analytical Method for the Determination of Residues of BYI 02960 and its 

Metabolites BYI02960-Hydroxy, BYI 02960-Acetyl-AMCP, and Difluoroacetic Acid in Animal Matrices 

and Biota Using LC/MS/MS. Project Number: RV/004/A11/05, M/429871/01/1. Unpublished study 

prepared by Bayer CropScience. 64p. 

Other Studies 

48843656 Eyrich, U.; Bogdoll, B. (2011) Flupyradifurone (BYI 02960): Solubility in Organic Solvents. Project 

Number: PA09/005, M/414064/01/2/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience AG. 25p. 

48843769 Leicher, T. (2011) BYI 02960: Effects on Soil Litter Degradation After Spray Application. Project 

Number: E/427/3905/0, EBRVP082, M/413408/01/3. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience. 

62p. 
130 

Submitted Effects Studies 

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 to Daphnia magna under static conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, 

Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP032; Document No.: M-357476-01-1; October 14, 2009; Pages: 42 850.1010 MRID

48843701 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BCS-AB60481 to the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static laboratory test system - limit test-; Bayer

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP079; Document No.: M-409326-01-3; June 10, 2011; Pages: 51 

850.1010 MRID 48843702 

Gallagher, S. P.; Kendall, T. Z.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960: A 96-hour shell deposition test with the eastern oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica); Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP023; Document No.: M-361668-01-1; December 

01, 2009; Pages: 62 850.1025 MRID 48843703 

Gallagher, S. P.; Kendall, T. Z.; Krueger, H.O.; BYI 02960: A 96-hour static acute toxicity test with the saltwater mysid 

(Americamysis bahia); Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: 149A-236; Document No.: M-364620-01-1; 

December 08, 2009; Pages: 59 850.1035 MRID 48843704 

Matlock, D.: Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static 

conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP041; Document No.: M-390611-01-1; September 27, 

2010; Pages: 44 850.1075 MRID 48843705 

Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under static 

conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP035; Document No.: M-392560-01-1; October 21, 

2010; Pages: 45 850.1075 MRID 48843706 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 (tech.) to fish (Cyprinus carpio) under static conditions (limit test); Bayer CropScience 

AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP186; Document No.: M-420407-01-3; December 19, 2011; Pages: 58 850.1075 

MRID 48843707 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 succinamide (tech.) to fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions (limit test); 

Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP203; Document No.: M-414293-01-3; September 21, 2011; 

Pages: 49 850.1075 MRID 48843708 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of sodium difluoro acetate (BCS AB60481, tech.) to fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static 

conditions (limit test); Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP080; Document No.: M-413889-01-3; 

September 12, 2011; Pages: 53 850.1075 MRID 48843709 

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) under 

static conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP034; Document No.: M-357479-01-1; October 

14, 2009; Pages: 44 850.1075 MRID 48843710 

Riebschlaeger, T.; Effects of BYI 02960 (techn.) on development and reproductive output of the waterflea Daphnia magna in a 

static-renewal laboratory test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP209; Document No.: M414066-01-2; September 15, 2011; Pages: 89 850.1300 MRID 48843711 

Riebschlaeger, T.; Influence of BYI02960-succinamide (tech.) on development and reproductive output of the waterflea Daphnia 

magna in a static-renewal laboratory test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP185; 

Document No.: M-424700-01-2; February 10, 2012; Pages: 83 850.1300 MRID 48843712 

Claude, M. B.; Kendall, T. Z.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960: A flow-through life-cycle toxicity test with the saltwater mysid 

(Americanysis bahia); Wildlife International Ltd., Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP038; Document No.: M-420783-01-2; 

September 08, 2011; Pages: 125 850.1350 MRID 48843713 

Matlock, D.; Lam, C. V.; Early life stage toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) under 

flow-through conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP033; Document No.: M-409339-01-1; 

June 14, 2011; Pages: 106 850.1400 MRID 48843714 

Fredricks, T. B.; Stoughton, T. L.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acute oral LD50 with the northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP022; Document No.: M-386036-01-1; July 

14, 2010; Pages: 40 MRID 48843715 
131 

Christ, M. T.; Fredricks, T. B.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acute oral LD50 with the canary (Serinus canaria); 

Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP036; Document No.: M-408514-01-1; May 25, 2011; Pages: 45 

MRID 48843716 

Barfknecht, R.; Wilkens, S.; Acute oral toxicity of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with BYI 2960 (tech.), according to OECD

223 - limit test-; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: BAR/LD 141; Document No.: M-420519-01-3; 

December 19, 2011; Pages: 33 850.2100 MRID 48843717 

Stoughton, T. L.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acute dietary LC50 with the northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP021; Document No.: M-394535-01-1; 

November 10, 2010; Pages: 42 850.2200 MRID 48843718 

Fredricks, T. B.; Lam, C. V.; Stoughton, T. L.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical during an acute dietary LC50 with the mallard 

duck (Anas platyrhynchos); Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP020; Document No.: M-388718-01-

1; August 26, 2010; Pages: 41 850.2200 MRID 48843719 

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical on reproduction to the northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP019; Document No.: M-424704-01-2; 

February 09, 2012; Pages: 73 850.2300 MRID 48843720 

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical on reproduction to the mallard duck (Anas 

platyrhynchos); Bayer CropScience LP, RTP, NC, USA; Report No.: EBRVP018-1; Document No.: M-412917-02-1; August 25, 

2011; Pages: 64 850.2300 MRID 48843721 

Schmitzer, S.; Revised final report no.: 1 - Effects of BYI 02960 (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the 

laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 41121035; Document No.: M-308904-02-2; August 20, 2008; 

Pages: 35 850.3020 MRID 48843722 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of BYI02960 - difluoroethyl - amino - furanone (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) 

in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 60291035; Document No.: M-398557-01-3; December 21, 

2010; Pages: 34 850.3020 MRID 48843723 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of BYI 02960 - hydroxy (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; 

IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 63901035; Document No.: M-409606-01-3; June 15, 2011; Pages: 34 

850.3020 MRID 48843724 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of difluoroacetic acid (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; 

IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 56331035; Document No.: M-367915-01-3; April 29, 2010; Pages: 34 

850.3020 MRID 48843725 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of 6-chloronicotinic acid (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; 

IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: EBRVL009; Document No.: M-395279-01-3; November 19, 2010; Pages: 34 

850.3020 MRID 48843726 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of 6-chloro-picolylalcohol (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory;

IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 50911035; Document No.: M-361234-01-3; January 11, 2010; Pages: 31 

850.3020 MRID 48843727 

Porch, J. R.; Krueger, H. O.; BYI 02960 200 SL: A foliage residue toxicity study with the honeybee; Wildlife International Ltd., 

Easton, MD, USA; Report No.: EBRVP044; Document No.: M-413084-01-1; July 13, 2011; Pages: 38 850.3030 MRID

48843728 

Gosch, H.; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L - Effects on the seedling emergence and growth of eleven species of non-target terrestrial 

plants (Tier 1); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: SE10/001; Document No.: M-397727-01-2; 

December 14, 2010; Pages: 73 850.4100 MRID 48843729 

Gosch, H.; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L - Effects on the vegetative vigour of eleven species of non-target terrestrial plants (Tier 1);

Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: VV 10/002; Document No.: M-397734-01-2; December 14, 

2010; Pages: 65 850.4150 MRID 48843730 

Banman, C. S.; Alexander, T. M.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to duckweed (Lemna gibba G3) under static-
132 

renewal conditions; Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP043; Document No.: M-398376-01-1; 

December 21, 2010; Pages: 54 850.4400 MRID 48843731 

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 technical to the green alga Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata; Bayer 

CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP030; Document No.: M-397552-01-1; December 10, 2010; Pages: 55 

850.5400 MRID 48843732 

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata growth inhibition test with BCS-AB60481 - limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP077; Document No.: M-409118-01-3; June 10, 2011; Pages: 63 850.5400 MRID

48843733 

Sobczyk, H.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata growth inhibition test with BYI 02960 - succinamide - limit test; Bayer 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP184; Document No.: M-414090-01-3; September 23, 2011; Pages: 59 

850.5400 MRID 48843734 

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata growth inhibition test with 6 - chloronicotinic acid; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP242; Document No.: M-424145-01-3; February 01, 2012; Pages: 100 850.5400 MRID

48843735 

Caspers, N.; Activated sludge, respiration inhibition test with BYI 02960 (tech.); Currenta GmbH & Co. OHG, Leverkusen, 

Germany; Report No.: 2010/0089/01; Document No.: M-377311-01-2; June 21, 2010; Pages: 27 850.6800 MRID 48843736 

Banman, C. S.; Lam, C. V.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 to Xenopus laevis under flow-through conditions; Bayer CropScience 

LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP187; Document No.: M-417822-01-1; November 18, 2011; Pages: 49 850.SUPP 

MRID 48843737 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 (tech.) to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static laboratory test system; Bayer 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP026; Document No.: M-414739-01-3; September 26, 2011; Pages: 55 

850.SUPP MRID 48843738 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960-succinamide to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static laboratory test system; 

Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP202; Document No.: M-417386-01-3; November 17, 2011; 

Pages: 52 850.SUPP MRID 48843739 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960-azabicyclosuccinamide (BCS-CS64875) to larvae of Chironomus riparius in a 48 h static 

laboratory test system; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: M-424404-01-2; Document No.: M-424404-

01-2; February 02, 2012; Pages: 59 850.SUPP MRID 48843740 

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with BYI 02960 (tech.) in a water-sediment system using spiked 

water; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: M-401792-01-3; Document No.: M-401792-01-3; February 14, 

2011; Pages: 90 850.SUPP MRID 48843741 

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with Sodium difluoroacetate in a water-sediment system using spiked

water - limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP181; Document No.: M-415913-01-3; 

October 06, 2011; Pages: 69 850.SUPP MRID 48843742 

Bruns, E.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with 6-Chloronicotinic acid in a water-sediment system using spiked

water - limit test; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP183; Document No.: M-416604-02-3; 

October 18, 2011; Pages: 73 850.SUPP MRID 48843743 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the parasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEPHANI-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) using a 

laboratory test; BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L; Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/079; 

Document No.: M-366965-01-3; April 15, 2010; Pages: 37 850.SUPP MRID 48843744 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri SCHEUTEN (Acari, Phytoseiidae) using a laboratory test; BYI 

02960 SL 200 g/L; Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/073; Document No.: M-366957-

01-2; April 15, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP MRID 48843745 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 (tech.): Acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG-A-131/09; Document No.: M-363742-01-2; February 18, 2010; Pages: 27 850.SUPP 

MRID 48843746 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960-difluoroacetic acid: acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil; Bayer 
133 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG-A-135/10; Document No.: M-368835-01-2; April 12, 2010; Pages: 

24 850.SUPP MRID 48843747 

Wetton, P. M.; Acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia foetida) IC-0; Safepharm Lab. Ltd., Derby, United Kingdom; Report No.: 

282/575; Document No.: M-196591-01-2; August 25, 1999; Pages: 30 850.SUPP MRID 48843748 

 Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Effects on survival, growth and reproduction on the earthworm Eisenia fetida tested in 

artificial soil; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT-RG-R-76/09; Document No.: M-392964-01-4; 

October 21, 2010; Pages: 45 850.SUPP MRID 48843749 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 Difluoroacetic acid: Effects onsurvival, growth and reproduction on the earthworm Eisenia fetida tested 

in artifical soil with 10 % peat; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT-RG-R-81/10; Document No.: M398061-01-3; December 16, 2010; Pages: 37 850.SUPP MRID 48843750 

Kling, A.; BYI 02960-hydroxy - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous 

laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: 

S11-01960; Document No.: M-425212-01-2; February 15, 2012; Pages: 83 850.SUPP MRID 48843764 

Kling, A.; Difluoroacetic acid - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous 

laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: 

S11-01939; Document No.: M-425105-01-2; February 13, 2012; Pages: 82 850.SUPP MRID 48843765 

Kling, A.; 6-chloronicotinic acid - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous 

laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: 

S11-01957; Document No.: M-425155-01-2; February 13, 2012; Pages: 82 850.SUPP MRID 48843766 

Kling, A.; 6-chloropicolyl alcohol - Assessment of chronic effects to the honey bee, Apis mellifera L., in a 10 days continuous

laboratory feeding limit test; Eurofins Agroscience Services~~EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: 

S11-01958; Document No.: M-425159-01-2; February 13, 2012; Pages: 84 850.SUPP MRID 48843767 

Nikolakis, A.; Theis, M.; Przygoda, D.; BYI 02960 tech.: Effects of exposure to spiked diet on honeybee larvae (Apis mellifera 

carnica) in an in vitro laboratory testing design; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: E 318 3897-9; 

Document No.: M-406645-01-3; May 02, 2011; Pages: 89 850.SUPP MRID 48843768 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960: Effects on soil litter degradation after spray application; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; 

Report No.: LRT-SLD-45/11; Document No.: M-413408-01-3; September 06, 2011; Pages: 62 850.SUPP MRID 48843769 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960: Effects on soil litter degradation if applied as seed treatment; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, 

Germany; Report No.: LRT-SLD-46/11; Document No.: M-413416-01-3; September 06, 2011; Pages: 66 850.SUPP MRID

48843770 

Nikolakis, A.; Krieg, V.; Aumeier, P.; Gladbach, D.; Honey bee colony feeding study, evaluating the effects of BYI 02960-

fortified sugar- and pollen diet on the development of honey bee colonies under confined semi-field conditions, followed by a 

post-exposure field observation period; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: E 319 4111-0; Document No.: 

M-438748-01-1; September 24, 2012; Pages: 523 850.SUPP MRID 48843771 

Riebschlaeger, T.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to the waterflea Daphnia magna in a static laboratory test system; 

Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP097; Document No.: M-393738-01-3; October 28, 2010; 

Pages: 57 850.1010 MRID 48844509 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to fish (Oncorhynchus mykiss) under static conditions-limit test; Bayer 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP098; Document No.: M-398721-02-3; December 20, 2010; Pages: 57 

850.1075 MRID 48844510 

Bruns, E.; Acute toxicity of BYI 02960 SL 200 G to fish (Cyprinus carpio) under static conditions (limit test); Bayer 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP199; Document No.: M-420485-01-3; December 19, 2011; Pages: 55 

850.1075 MRID 48844511 

Stoughton, T. L.; Christ, M. T.; Toxicity of BYI 02960 sl 200 during an acute oral LD50 with the Northern bobwhite quail 

(Colinus virginianus); Bayer CropScience LP, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP093; Document No.: M-424312-01-1; 

February 03, 2012; Pages: 36 850.2100 MRID 48844512 
134 

Barfknecht, R.; Wilkens, S.; Acute oral toxicity of chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus) with BYI 02960 SL 200, according to 

OECD 223 - limit test-; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: BAR/LD 142; Document No.: M-423043-01-

3; January 06, 2012; Pages: 31 850.2100 MRID 48844513 

Schmitzer, S.; Revised final report no.: 1 - Effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 G (acute contact and oral) on honey bees (Apis mellifera 

L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 52331035; Document No.: M-359920-02-2; December 

03, 2009; Pages: 35 850.3020 MRID 48844514 

Schmitzer, S.; Effects of a test item mix of BYI 02960 SL 200 G + tebuconazole EW 250C G (acute contact and oral) on honey 

bees (Apis mellifera L.) in the laboratory; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 52531035; Document No.: M363120-01-2; February 08, 2010; Pages: 38 850.3020 MRID 48844515 

Rexer, H. U.; Assessment of side effects on the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.), exposed to winter oil-seed rape, grown from seeds

treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G and sequentially sprayed with BYI 02960 SL 200 G during immediate pre- and full flowering 

in a long-term field study in Northern Germany; Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, 

Germany; Report No.: S10-03261; Document No.: M-438818-01-2; September 27, 2012; Pages: 402 850.3040 MRID 48844516 

Rexer, H. U.; Assessment of side effects on the honeybee (Apis mellifera L.), exposed to winter oil-seed rape, grown from seeds

treated with BYI 02960 FS 480 G and sequentially sprayed with BYI 02960 SL 200 G during immediate pre- and full flowering 

in a long-term field study in France; Eurofins Agroscience Services GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-

03262; Document No.: M-438819-01-2; July 24, 2012; Pages: 384 850.3040 MRID 48844517 

Bruns, E.; Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata growth inhibition test with BYI 02960 SL 200 G; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, 

Germany; Report No.: EBRVP095; Document No.: M-397244-01-3; December 20, 2010; Pages: 61 850.5400 MRID 48844518 

Silke, G.; Chironomus riparius 28-day chronic toxicity test with BYI 02960 SL 200 G in a water-sediment system using spiked 

water; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EBRVP182; Document No.: M-416145-01-3; October 17, 

2011; Pages: 79 850.SUPP MRID 48844519 

Sur, R.; Ellerich, C.; Statement on residue dissipation of flupyradifurone in treated foliage of lettuce and spinach: kinetic 

evaluation of US data; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: EnSa-12-0361; Document No.: M-434405-01-

2; July 09, 2012; Pages: 36 850.SUPP MRID 48844520 

 Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in tomato in the semi-field; Eurofins 

Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03818; Document No.: M-424683-

01-2; February 10, 2012; Pages: 108 850.SUPP MRID 48844521 

Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in watermelon in the semi-field; Eurofins 

Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S09-01391; Document No.: M-424666-

01-2; February 09, 2012; Pages: 173 850.SUPP MRID 48844522 

Bocksch, S.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 applied via drench application in watermelon in the semi-field; Eurofins 

Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03825; Document No.: M-424675-

01-2; February 08, 2012; Pages: 117 850.SUPP MRID 48844523 

Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied 

via Foliar Spray to early blooming citrus under semi-field conditions in Florida; eurofins agroscience services, Mebane, NC, 

USA; Report No.: RARVP017; Document No.: M-435033-01-1; July 24, 2012; Pages: 229 850.SUPP MRID 48844524 

Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied 

via soil drench and Foliar Spray to melon under semi-field Conditions in North Carolina; eurofins agroscience services, Mebane,

NC, USA; Report No.: RARVP019; Document No.: M-435037-01-1; July 24, 2012; Pages: 209 850.SUPP MRID 48844525 

Uceda, L.; Determination of the residues of BYI 02960 in/on barley and wheat after spray application of BYI 02960 SL 200 in 

the field in Germany, Southern France and Italy; Bayer S.A.S., Bayer CropScience, Lyon, France; Report No.: 11-2958; 

Document No.: M-427494-01-2; March 22, 2012; Pages: 96 850.SUPP MRID 48844526 

Gould, T. J.; Harbin, A. M.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of the residue in bee food items, cotton; California Agricultural 

Research, Inc., Kerman, CA, USA; Report No.: EBRVP110; Document No.: M-435848-01-1; August 02, 2012; Pages: 200 

850.SUPP MRID 48844527 

Gould, T. J.; Harbin, A. M.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of the residue in/on bee relevant blueberry matrices; California 
135 

Agricultural Research, Inc., Kerman, CA, USA; Report No.: RARVP020; Document No.: M-436312-01-1; August 14, 2012; 

Pages: 188 850.SUPP MRID 48844528 

Netzband, D.; Dallstream, K. A.; BYI 02960 200 SL - Magnitude of the residue in/on bee relevant apple matrices; Bayer 

CropScience LP, Environmental Science, Stilwell, KS, USA; Report No.: EBRVP218; Document No.: M-438422-01-1; 

September 18, 2012; Pages: 208 850.SUPP MRID 48844529 

 Gould, T. J.; Lawrence, J.; Harbin, A. M.; Determination of residues of BYI 02960 in blossoms, nectar, and pollen when applied

via foliar spray to early blooming apple under semi-field conditions in North Carolina; Eurofins Agroscience Services, Mebane, 

NC, USA; Report No.: RARVP018; Document No.: M-437208-01-2; August 27, 2012; Pages: 221 850.SUPP MRID 48844530 

Schnorbach, H. J.; Evaluation of the effects of BYI 02960 SL 100 on honey bees (Apis mellifera) in a semifield tunnel test in 

full-flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: IA08DVG048G001; Document 

No.: M-427040-01-2; March 15, 2012; Pages: 57 850.SUPP MRID 48844531 

Schnorbach, H. J.; Evaluation of the effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 on honey bees (Apis mellifera) in a semifield tunnel test in 

full-flowering Phacelia tanacetifolia; Bayer CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: IA09DVG051K619; Document 

No.: M-427046-01-2; March 15, 2012; Pages: 55 850.SUPP MRID 48844532 

Rentschler, S.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-field study in Germany 2009 to evaluate effects of spray applications in Phacelia 

tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidea); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, 

Niefern-Öschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S09-00854; Document No.: M-425576-01-2; February 17, 2012; Pages: 139 

850.SUPP MRID 48844533 

Proebsting, A.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-field study in Denmark 2010 to evaluate effects of spray applications in Phacelia 

tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, 

Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-01954; Document No.: M-423156-01-2; January 19, 2012; Pages: 143 

850.SUPP MRID 48844534 

Proebsting, A.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: A semi-field study in Italy 2011 to evaluate effects of spray applications in Phacelia 

tanacetifolia on the honeybee Apis mellifera L. (Hymenoptera, Apidae); Eurofins Agroscience Services EcoChem GmbH, 

Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-01955; Document No.: M-423172-01-2; January 18, 2012; Pages: 142 

850.SUPP MRID 48844535 

Rentschler, S.; Determination of side-effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 G on honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) brood under semi-field 

conditions; Eurofins Agroscience Services, EcoChem GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03819; 

Document No.: M-427438-01-2; March 19, 2012; Pages: 198 850.SUPP MRID 48844536 

Rexer, H. U.; A field study to determine residues of BYI 02960 in guttation liquid from winter oil-seed rape (OSR) plants in 

Northern Germany in 2010/2011; Eurofins Agroscience Services GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-

03312; Document No.: M-438826-01-2; September 27, 2012; Pages: 107 850.SUPP MRID 48844537 

Rexer, H. U.; A field study to determine residues of BYI 02960 in guttation liquid from winter oil-seed rape (OSR) plants in 

France in 2010/2011; Eurofins Agroscience Services GmbH, Niefern-Oeschelbronn, Germany; Report No.: S10-03313; 

Document No.: M-438829-01-2; September 27, 2012; Pages: 106 850.SUPP MRID 48844538 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the parasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEPHANI-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) using an 

extended laboratory test on barley BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: 

CW09/083; Document No.: M-366970-01-2; April 13, 2010; Pages: 40 850.SUPP MRID 48844539 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the predatory mite Typhlodromus pyri SCHEUTEN (Acari, Phytoseiidae) using an extended laboratory test 

on Phaseolus vulgaris BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW09/076; 

Document No.: M-366968-01-2; April 13, 2010; Pages: 35 850.SUPP MRID 48844540 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the ladybird beetle Coccinella septempunctata L. (Coleoptera, Coccinellidae) using an extended laboratory

test on Phaseolus vulgaris; BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: 

CW09/074; Document No.: M-384754-01-3; June 30, 2010; Pages: 41 850.SUPP MRID 48844541 

Jans, D.; Chronic toxicity (ER50) of BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L) to the rove beetle Aleochara bilineata Gyll. (Coleoptera: 

Staphylinidae) under extended laboratory conditions; Bayer CropScience AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: 

CW09/072; Document No.: M-384433-01-2; June 30, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP MRID 48844542 
136 

Jans, D.; Toxicity to the parasitoid wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (DESTEPHANI-PEREZ) (Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in an 

extended laboratory test (under semi-field conditions aged residues on Zea mays) BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L); Bayer CropScience 

AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany; Report No.: CW10/018; Document No.: M-396372-01-3; November 30, 2010; Pages: 74 

850.SUPP MRID 48844543 

Schwarz, A.; Effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 (g/L) on the predatory bug Orius laevigatus extended laboratory study - aged residue 

test; IBACON GmbH, Rossdorf, Germany; Report No.: 58691053; Document No.: M-394033-01-3; October 28, 2010; Pages: 56 

850.SUPP MRID 48844544 

Aldershof, S.; Bakker, F.; A field study to assess the effects of BYI 02960 SL 200 g/L on the non-target, surface- and 

plantdwelling, arthropod fauna of a grassland habitat (off-crop) in The Netherlands during summer; MITOX Consultants, 

Amsterdam, Netherlands; Report No.: B154FFN; Document No.: M-425092-01-3; February 17, 2012; Pages: 209 850.SUPP 

MRID 48844545 

Aldershof, S.; Bakker, F.; A field study to assess the effects of BYI 02960 (SL 200 g/L) on the non-target, surface- and plantdwelling arthropod fauna of a grassland habitat (off-crop) in SW France during summer; MITOX Consultants, Amsterdam, 

Netherlands; Report No.: B153FFN; Document No.: M-425080-01-3; February 17, 2012; Pages: 201 850.SUPP MRID

48844546 

Leicher, T.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: acute toxicity to earthworms (Eisenia fetida) tested in artificial soil with 5 percent peat; Bayer 

CropScience AG, Monheim, Germany; Report No.: LRT/RG-A-143/10; Document No.: M-397720-01-3; December 14, 2010; 

Pages: 25 850.SUPP MRID 48844547 

Menke, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Effects on the earthworm fauna of a grassland area within one year; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: MNU/RG-F-8/12; Document No.: M-426607-01-2; March 07, 2012; Pages: 182 850.SUPP 

MRID 48844548 

Frommholz, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G : Determination of effects on carbon transformation in soil; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: FRM-C-116/10; Document No.: M-395469-01-3; November 23, 2010; Pages: 35 850.SUPP 

MRID 48844549 

Frommholz, U.; BYI 02960 SL 200 G: Determination of effects on nitrogen transformation in soil; Bayer CropScience AG, 

Monheim, Germany; Report No.: FRM-N-148/10; Document No.: M-396112-01-3; November 29, 2010; Pages: 29 850.SUPP 

MRID 48844550 
137 

Appendix A. Fate Data Table for Flupyradifurone 

Table A1. Summary of the new chemical screen of the environmental fate data for 

flupyradifurone 

Guideline Test 

Substance Comments Classification 

Additional Data Needed? MRID 

Citation 

Hydrolysis 

835.2120 

Parent 50oC, 5 days, sterility lost in one 

chamber at one time point 

Fully 

Reliable 

No 48843667 

(Mislankar 

and 

Woodard, 

2011) 

Photodegradation 

in Water 

835.2240 

Parent Only furanone ring labeled. Fully 

Reliable 

Yes, degradates associated 

with unlabeled ring are 

unknown. Additional data 

are needed to understand 

the possible degradates 

associated with the 

pyradine ring. 

48843669 

(Hall, 2011) 

Parent Only furanone ring labeled Fully 

Reliable 

48843670 

(Hall, 2011) 

Parent Nonguideline quantum yield study Not 

Reviewed 

48843668 

(Heinemann, 

2011) 

Photodegradation 

on Soil 

835.2410 

Parent -- Fully 

Reliable 

No 48843672 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2011) 

Photodegradation 

in Air 

835.2370 

Parent No laboratory data. Estimates 

based on computer modeling. 

Not classified No, volatilization and 

atmospheric transport is 

expected to be a minor 

transport pathway. 

48843671 

(Hellpointner

, 2010) 

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism 

835.4100 

Parent 120 day experiment 24 to 50% 

present as parent at study 

termination. Unextracted residues 

reached 17%. All German soils. 

Pyridinylmethyl group labeled. 

Reliable with 

restrictions2

No, additional data are not 

needed at this time because 

the unextracted residues 

did not impact the risk 

conclusions at this time. 

 

48843674 

(Menke, 

2011) 

48843675 

(Sur and 

Dorn, 2012) 

Parent 120 day experiment 20 to 45% 

present as parent at study 

termination. Furanone ring 

labeled. Unextrcted residues up to 

34%. German soils. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843676 

(Menke, 

2011) 

48843678 

(Sur and 

Dorn, 2012) 

Parent Furanone labeled. Study 

terminated at 120 days and 30 and 

67% remained as parent. 16-30% 

unextracted residues formed. U.S. 

soils. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843677 

(Ripperger, 

2011) 

Parent German soils. 120 day 

experiment 23 – 40% remained as 

parent at end of study. 

Unextracted residues reached 

18%. Ethyl group labeled. Rings 

not labeled. German soils. 

Pyridine ring labeled also. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843679 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2011) 

48843680 

(Sur and 

Dorn, 2012) 
138 

Guideline Test 

Substance Comments Classification 

Additional Data Needed? MRID 

Citation 

 Parent 120 day experiment, 23% 

remained as parent. German soil. 

Unextracted residues reached 

17%. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

 48843681 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2011) 

48843684 

(Sur and 

Dorn, 2012) 

 Parent U.S. soils. Unextracted residues 

reached maximum of 11-25%. 

120 day experiment, 40-67% 

remained as parent at end of 

study. 

Yes 48843682 

(Shepherd, 

2011) 

 Parent Brazilian soils. Pyridine ring 

labeled. 120 day experiment, 54 – 

72% remained as parent. 

Yes 48843683 

(de Souza, 

2012) 

 6-CNA U.K soils. Unextracted residues 

up to 21% 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

No 48843685 

(Sur and 

Dorn, 2012) 

Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism 

835.4200 

(162-2) 

Parent Unextracted residues reached a 

maximum of 30% in one soil. 3 

different labels. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

No, data indicates that 

flupyradifurone is 

relatively stable to 

anaerobic soil metabolism. 

48843686 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2012) 

Parent U.S. soil. Unextracted residues 

reached 19% and remained 

constant through anaerobic phase. 

~10% loss of parent during 

anaerobic phase, 1 soil. Pyridine 

labeled. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843687 

(Mislankar 

and 

Woodard, 

2012) 

Parent U.S. soil. Pyridine labeled. Only 

followed for 60 days under 

anaerobic conditions. 

Unextracted residues reached 

15%. 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843688 

(Woodard, 

2012) 

Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 

845.4300 

(162-4) 

Parent Pyridine ring labeled only. 

Sediments from Germany. 

Unextracted residues reached 

25%. 64 and 71% remained as 

parent at end of 120 day study. 

Reliable with 

restrictions1

No. These studies should 

have been extended to one 

year to fully characterize 

the formation and decline 

curve. Additionally, a 

range of polar and 

nonpolar solvents should 

have been used to 

determine whether 

unextracted residues could 

be better characterized. 

The unextracted residue 

uncertainty is not currently 

having an affect on risk 

conclusions. 

48843690 

(Hellpointner 

and Unold, 

2012) 

Parent Furanone ring labeled, ethyl group 

labeled. Systems from Germany. 

Unextracted residues reached 

27%. >67% remaining as parent 

at end of 120 day experiment. 

Reliable with 

restrictions1

48843692 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2012) 

DFA Unextracted residues were high 

(16%) in one test system. Both 

systems had a couple of 

unextracted residue outliers at 40 

and 55%. 

Reliable with 

restrictions1

48843691 

(Hellpointner 

and Unold, 

2012) 

Anaerobic Parent Unextracted residues reached 12% Reliable with No. Evidence indicates 48843689 
139 

Guideline Test 

Substance Comments Classification 

Additional Data Needed? MRID 

Citation 

Aquatic 

Metabolism 

835.4400 

(162-3) 

in one system. Two U.S. pond 

systems. Pyridine ring labeled. 

Loss of parent in one sediment 

could be due to presence of 

unextracted residues. Studies 

were only conducted for 102 days. 

restrictions that compound is relatively 

stable to anaerobic 

metabolism. Therefore, 

additional data are not 

recommended at this time. 

(Xu, 2012) 

 Adsorption/ 

Desorption 

835.1230 

And Leaching 

Studies 

835.1240 

Parent 4 German soils. Identity 

confirmed at highest test 

concentration only. 

Fully reliable No, data are recommended 

for measurement in one 

aquatic sediment. As this 

data item is expected to 

have a low impact on the 

risk conclusions, 

additional data are not 

requested at this time. 

48843662 

(Menke and 

Telscher, 

2008) 

Parent 2 U.S. soils. Identity of test 

substance not confirmed. Aerobic 

soil half-lives suggest minimal 

loss in 24 hours. 

Fully reliable 48843663 

(Stroech, 

2010) 

Parent 4 brazilian soils. Fully reliable 48843664 

(de Souza, 

2012) 

DFA 5 German soils. Fully reliable 48843665 

(Menke and 

Unold, 2011) 

Parent Soil column leaching study Fully reliable 48843666 

(de Souza, 

2012) 

Laboratory 

Volatility 

835.1410 (163-2) 

-- -- -- No, volatilization and 

atmospheric transport is 

expected to be a minor 

transport pathway. 

-- 

Field volatilty 

835.8100 (163-3) 

-- -- -- -- 

Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation 

835.6100 

(164-1) 

BYI 

02960 200 

SL 

Bare ground Tulare County, CA Reliable with 

restrictions 

Yes, terrestrial field 

dissipation studies are 

recommended on cropped 

plots when plants may be 

an important route of 

dissipation as well as bare 

ground sites. Field 

dissipation studies should 

be completed on 

48843693 

(Lenz, 2012) 

BYI 

02960 200 

SL 

Bare ground, Florida Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843694 

(Lenz, 2012) 
140 

Guideline Test 

Substance Comments Classification 

Additional Data Needed? MRID 

Citation 

BYI 

02960 200 

SL 

Bare ground, Blained County, 

Idaho 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

representative use sites for 

the range of proposed uses 

in the United States. 

Currently, studies are only 

available for bare ground 

sites. Additionally, the 

degradates BYI-02960-

succinamide and BYI 

02960- 

azabicyclosuccinamide 

were major degradates 

observed in aquaous 

photolysis studies. These 

degradates should be 

followed in the terrestrial 

field dissipation studies. 

48843695 

(Lenz, 2012) 

BYI 

02960 200 

SL 

3 bare ground plots in Canada Reliable with 

restrictions 

48843696 

(Harbin, 

2012) 

BYI 

02960 200 

SL 

Bare ground sites in United 

Kingdom, France, Italy, Spain, 

and two sites in Germany. Sites 

were planted with grass. 

Yes 48843697 

(Heinemann, 

2011) 

Aquatic Sediment 

Dissipation 

835.6200 

(164-2) 

Parent Microcosm studies, 6 

polycarbonate cylinders treated in 

pond. Germany 

Reliable with 

restrictions 

No, a terrestrial/aquatic 

field dissipation study 

would be needed to 

support use on cranberries. 

However, it is planned that 

the use on cranberries will 

not be included on the 

final label. 

48843673 

(Bruns, 

2012) 

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods 

Soil and 

sediment 

HPLC/MS/MS method used in 

U.S. terrestrial field dissipation 

studies. Examined residues of 

parent, DFA, 6CNA. LOQ was 5 

ng/g and method detection limits 

ranged were 1.6, 1.1, and 0.6 for 

parent, 6CNA, and DFA, 

respectively. 

Fully reliable No 48843830, 

48843831, 

48843832, 

and 

48843833 

(ILV) 

Water Direct injection with 

HPLC/MS/MS method examining 

residues of parent and DFA (LOQ 

=1 ng/mL), BYI 02960-

succinamide (LOQ 1.0 ng/mL), 

and BYI-zazbicyclosuccinamide 

(LOQ 51.0 ng/mL). 

Fully reliable No 48843835, 

48843836, 

48843837 

(ILV) 

Storage Stability Soil Parent, DFA, and 6CNA Fully reliable No 48843840 

Forestry 

Dissipation 

835.6300 

-- -- -- No 

Fish 

Bioconcentration 

850.1730 

 No 

NA: Not applicable; DFA=Sodium dilfluoracetate [sodium salt]/difluoroacetci acid [free acid]; 6CNA=6-

chloronicotinic acid; LOQ=limit of quantitation; 

1

 This study was considered reliable with restrictions due to the presence of unextracted residues at greater than 10% 

applied radioactivity, uncertainty in the quality of the extraction procedure, and because studies were terminated 

before the DT50 was established and were not carried out for 1 year. 
141 

2

 Studies were classified as reliable with restrictions due to the presence of unextracted residues at greater than 10% 

applied radioactivity and a range of polar and nonpolar solvents were not explored to determine whether the 

unextracted residues could be further characterized. Studies were also classified as reliable with restrictions because 

they were terminated after 120 days and when a significant portion of the residues remained parent. 
142 

Appendix B. Effects Data Table for Flupyradifurone 

Table B1. Summary of the new chemical screen of effects data for flupyradifurone (see 

Appendix J for study rating crosswalk with OPP classification systems) 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

850.2100 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, waterfowl None N/A N/A N/A 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, upland 

game bird species, 

TGAI 

48843715 

(Fredericks and 

Stoughton, 

2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Northern Bobwhite 

Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Fully reliable 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, passerine 

species, TGAI 

48843716 

(Christ and 

Fredericks, 

2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Canary 

(Serinus canaria) Reliable with restrictions 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, additional 

species, TGAI 

48843717 

(Barfknecht 

and Wilkens 

2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Chicken 

(Gallus gallus) Reliable with restrictions 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, TEP 

48844512 

(Stoughton and 

Christ, 2012) 

BYI 02960 

SL200 

(17.1%) 

Northern Bobwhite 

Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Fully reliable 

Avian acute oral 

toxicity, TEP 

48844513 

(Barfknecht 

and Wilkens 

2012) 

BYI 02960 

SL200 

(17.1%) 

Chicken 

(Gallus gallus) Reliable with restrictions 

850.2200 

Avian dietary 

toxicity, waterfowl 

species, TGAI 

48843719 

(Fredericks et 

al., 2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

Fully reliable 

Avian dietary 

toxicity, upland 

game bird, TGAI 

48843718 

(Stoughton and 

Lam, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Northern Bobwhite 

Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Fully reliable 

850.2300 

Avian reproduction, 

waterfowl species, 

TGAI 

48843721 

(Stoughton et 

al., 2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos) 

Reliable with restrictions 

Avian reproduction, 

upland game bird 

species, TGAI 

48843720 

(Stoughton et 

al., 2012) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Northern Bobwhite 

Quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus) 

Fully reliable 

850.2400 Wild mammal 

toxicity None N/A N/A N/A 
143 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

850.2500 Simulated or actual 

field testing None N/A N/A N/A 

850.1010 

Freshwater 

invertebrate, acute 

toxicity, TGAI 

48843701 

(Banman and 

Lam, 2009) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Water Flea 

Daphnia magna Fully reliable 

850.1010 

Freshwater 

invertebrate, acute 

toxicity, TEP 

48844509 

(Riebschlaeger, 

2010) 

BYI 02960 

SL200G 

(17.1%) 

Water Flea 

Daphnia magna Fully reliable 

850.1025 

Estuarine/Marine 

Mollusk acute 

toxicity, TGAI 

48843703 

(Gallagher et 

al., 2009) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Eastern Oyster 

Crassostrea 

virginica 

Fully reliable 

850.1035 

Estuarine/Marine 

crustacean acute 

toxicity, TGAI 

48843704 

(Gallagher et 

al., 2009) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Mysid Shrimp 

Americamysis bahia Fully reliable 

850.1035 

Estuarine/Marine 

crustacean acute 

toxicity, TEP 

None N/A N/A 

N/A (No data needed: 

direct application to 

estuarine/marine 

environment is not 

indicated on labels, and 

TEP is unlikely to move to 

the estuarine/marine 

environment) 

850.1075 

Freshwater fish, 

acute toxicity, TGAI 

48843706 

(Matlock and 

Lam, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Fathead Minnow 

Pimephales 

promelas 

Fully reliable 

Freshwater fish, 

acute toxicity, TGAI 

48843707 

(Bruns, 2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Common Carp 

Cyprinus carpio Not reliable 

Freshwater fish, 

acute toxicity, TEP 

48844511 

(Bruns, 2011) 

BYI 02960 

SL200G 

(17.1%) 

Common Carp 

Cyprinus carpio Fully reliable 

Freshwater fish, 

acute toxicity, cold 

water species, TGAI 

48843705 

(Matlock and 

Lam, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Rainbow Trout 

Oncorhunchus 

mykiss 

Fully reliable 
144 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

Freshwater fish, 

acute toxicity, TEP 

48844510 

(Bruns, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

SL200G 

(17.1%) 

Rainbow Trout 

Oncorhunchus 

mykiss 

Fully reliable 

Estuarine/Marine 

fish acute toxicity, 

TGAI 

48843710 

(Banman and 

Lam, 2009) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Sheepshead 

Minnow 

Cyprinodon 

variegatus 

Fully reliable 

850.1300 

Freshwater 

invertebrate, 

reproduction test, 

TGAI 

48843711 

(Riebschlaeger, 

2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Water Flea 

Daphnia magna Fully reliable 

850.1350 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrate, 

reproduction test, 

TGAI 

48843713 

(Claude, 2011)

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Mysid Shrimp 

Americamysis bahia Reliable with restrictions 

850.1400 

Freshwater fish, 

early life stage test, 

TGAI 

48843714 

(Matlock and 

Lam, 2011) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Fathead Minnow 

Pimephales 

promelas 

Fully reliable 

Saltwater fish, early 

life stage test, TGAI None N/A N/A 

N/A (No: flupyradifurone 

is not a major concern for 

fish based on available 

data) 

850.1500 

Freshwater fish life 

cycle test, TGAI None N/A N/A N/A 

Estuarine/marine 

Fish life cycle test None N/A N/A N/A 

850.1735 

Whole sediment 

10-d freshwater 

invertebrate 

None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd 

<50; Koc <1000) 

850.1740 

Whole sediment 10-

d estuarine/marine 

invertebrate 

None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd 

<50; Koc <1000) 

Agencywide 

guideline 

Whole sediment 

chronic freshwater 

and/or marine 

invertebrate 

None N/A N/A N/A (No: Kow <3; Kd 

<50; Koc <1000) 

850.1950 

Simulated or actual 

field testing for 

aquatic organisms 

None N/A N/A N/A 

850.3020 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, TGAI 

48843722 

(Schmitzer, 

2008) 

BYI 02960 

(99.5%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 
145 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, Degradate 

48843723 

(Schmitzer, 

2010) 

BYI0296 - 

difluoroethylaminofuranone 

(99.2%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, Degradate 

48843724 

(Schmitzer, 

2011) 

BYI 02960- 

hydroxy 

(95.5%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, Degradate 

48843725 

(Schmitzer, 

2010) 

Difluoroaceti

c acid 

(95.8%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, Degradate 

48843726 

(Schmitzer, 

2010) 

6-

chloronicotin

ic acid - AE 

F161089,

(98.8%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity, Degradate 

48843727 

(Schmitzer, 

2010) 

6-chloropicolylalcoho

l 

(98.95) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity—TEP 

48844514 

(Schmitzer, 

2009) 

BYI 02960 

SL200G 

(17.0%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity—TEP 

48844515 

(Schmitzer, 

2010) 

BYI 02960 

SL 200 G 

(17.0%) + 

Tebuconazol

e EW 250C 

G (25.4%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

Honeybee acute 

contact and oral 

toxicity—TEP 

48844711 

Schmitzer, 

2011) 

BYI 02960 

FS480G 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Fully reliable 

850.3030 

Honeybee toxicity 

of residues on 

foliage, TEP 

48843728 

(Porch and 

Krueger, 2011)

BYI 02960 

SL 200 

(39.9%) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions 

850.3040 Field testing for 

pollinators, TEP 

48844516 

(Rexer, 2012) 

BYI 02960 

FS480G and 

SL200G 

(sequentially) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions 

48844517 

(Rexer, 2012) 

BYI 02960 

FS480G and 

SL200G 

(sequentially) 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera Reliable with restrictions 
146 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

850.4100 Seedling emergence, 

TEP 

48843729 

(Gosch, 2010)

BYI 02960 

200 SL 

(17%) 

Beta vulgaris

(Sugar beet), 

Brassica napus 

(Oilseed rape), 

Cucumis sativus

(Cucumber), 

Fagopyrum 

esculentum

(Buckwheat), 

Glycine max

(Soybean), 

Lactuca sativa

(Lettuce), 

Lycopersicon 

esculentum

(Tomato), Allium 

cepa (Onion), 

Avena 

sativa (Oat), Lolium 

perenne (Ryegrass), 

Zea mays (Corn) 

Reliable with restrictions 

(Yes: statistically 

significant effects on dry 

weight and shoot length in 

the limit test; definitive test 

needed for dicot plants) 

850.4150 Vegetative vigor, 

TEP 

48843730 

(Gosch, 2010)

BYI 02960 

200 SL 

(17%) 

Beta vulgaris

(Sugar beet), 

Brassica napus 

(Oilseed rape), 

Cucumis sativus

(Cucumber), 

Fagopyrum 

esculentum

(Buckwheat), 

Glycine max

(Soybean), 

Lactuca sativa

(Lettuce), 

Lycopersicon 

esculentum

(Tomato), Allium 

cepa (Onion), 

Avena 

sativa (Oat), Lolium 

perenne (Ryegrass), 

Zea mays (Corn) 

Reliable with restrictions 

(Yes: statistically 

significant effects on dry 

weight in the limit test; 

definitive test needed for 

dicot plants) 

850.4400 

Aquatic plant, 

vascular plant, 

TGAI 

48843731 

(Banman et al., 

2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Duckweed 

Lemna gibba Reliable with restrictions 

850.4500 

Aquatic Plant, 

freshwater green 

alga species, TGAI 

48843732 

(Banman and 

Lam, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

(96.2%) 

Green algae 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata 

Fully reliable 
147 

Guideline Description MRID(s) Test 

Substance 

Common Name 

(Species) 

Classification 

(Additional Data 

Needed?) 

850.4500 

Aquatic Plant, 

freshwater green 

alga species, TGAI 

48844518 

(Bruns, 2010) 

BYI 02960 

SL200G 

(17.1%) 

Green algae 

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata 

Fully reliable 

850.4500 

Tier II Aquatic 

Plant, freshwater 

diatom, TGAI 

None N/A N/A 

N/A (Yes: data are 

generally requested for a 

freshwater diatom, marine 

diatom, and cyanobacteria)

850.4500 

Tier I Aquatic Plant, 

marine diatom, 

TGAI 

N/A N/A N/A 

N/A (Yes: data are 

generally requested for a 

freshwater diatom, marine 

diatom, and cyanobacteria)

850.4550 

Tier II Aquatic 

Plant, 

cyanobacterium, 

TGAI 

N/A N/A N/A 

N/A (Yes: data are 

generally requested for a 

freshwater diatom, marine 

diatom, and cyanobacteria)
148 

Appendix C. Summary of Aquatic Modeling Completed 

Table C1. Estimated Concentrations of Flupyradifurone Plus Unextracted Residues (FLUUN) and Flupyradifurone alone (FLU) in Surface Water 

Values with an asterisk were calculated for flupyradifurone alone. Values without an asterisk were calculated for 

flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. Purple values were the highest across scenarios. Bold values were the 

highest value for the use site. Use Site Single App. Rate lbs. ai/Aa (kg ai/ha) # of App 

Ret. Int. 

days 

App. Type 

Scenario 

Application 

Date 

(DD-MM) 

EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L 

EECs for parent alone in μg/L* 

Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 60-day 

average 

Peak 21-day 

average 

Crop Group 

15: Cereal 

Grains (except 

Rice) 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

IAcornSTD (01-06) 7.90 7.51 6.92 5.77 5.77 

ILcornSTD (01-06) 11.0 10.5 9.77 8.42 8.41 

INcornSTD (01-06 8.05 7.66 7.06 5.80 5.80 

KSSorghumSTD (01-

06) 11.7 

11.2 

10.3 8.82 8.81 

MNcornSTD (01-07) 14.4 13.7 12.6 11.3 11.3 

MScornSTD (10-04) 15.6 14.8 13.6 10.8 10.8 

NCcornESTD (01-06) 10.3 9.84 8.98 7.80 7.96+ 

NEcornSTD (02-09) 

22.4 

23.5* 

19.4s* 

21.7 

22.8* 

18.8s* 

20.6 

21.6* 

18.0s* 

17.9 

18.9* 

15.5s* 

18.0+ 

19.0+* 

15.6s*+ 

NDwheatSTD (01-06) 11.0 10.5 9.84 9.00 9.09+ 

OHcornSTD (01-05) 7.86 7.52 7.14 5.91 5.91 

PAcornSTD (01-07) 11.5 11.0 10.5 9.01 9.00 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, G NEcornSTD (02-09) 22.2* 

20.2s* 

21.6* 

19.6s* 

20.5* 

18.8s* 

17.9* 

16.2s* 

17.9 

16.3s* 

Cotton 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

CAcotton_WirrigSTD 

(01-01) 7.54 

7.21 

6.66 5.27 5.27 

MScottonSTD (10-05) 8.54 8.15 7.52 6.98 7.08+ 

NCcottonSTD (20-09) 

19.1 

19.6* 

16.2s* 

18.4 

19.0* 

15.6s* 

17.5 

18.1* 

15.1s* 

15.4 

15.9* 

13.3s* 

15.4 

15.9* 

13.3s* 

F, G NCcottonSTD (20-09) 

18.1 

18.6* 

16.9s* 

17.5 

17.9* 

16.3s* 

16.6 

17.2* 

15.7s* 

14.7 

15.1* 

138.s* 

14.7 

15.1* 

13.8s* 

Peanut 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A NCpeanutSTD (25-09) 

10.5 

10.9* 

7.31s* 

10.0 

10.4* 

6.97s* 

9.52 

9.81* 

6.69s* 

7.72 

8.11* 

5.44s* 

7.71 

8.10* 

5.44s* 

F, G NCpeanutSTD (25-09) 

9.09 

10.9* 

9.13s* 

8.62 

10.4* 

8.95s* 

8.36 

10.1* 

8.59s* 

6.67 

8.46* 

7.14s* 

6.66 

8.47* 

7.15s*+ 

Root Veg. 

(except 

Sugarbeet) 

and 

Tuberous and 

Corm Veg. 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

FLcarrotSTD (01-11) 

18.0 

18.9* 

16.0s* 

39.3a* 

43.0b* 

45.8c* 

63.8d* 

17.5 

18.3* 

15.3s* 

37.6a* 

41.7b* 

44.5c* 

62.1d8 

15.8 

16.6* 

13.8s* 

34.0a* 

38.4b* 

41.1c* 

62.1d* 

12.3 

13.0* 

10.7s* 

27.9a* 

32.1b* 

35.1c* 

56.2d* 

12.2 

12.9 

10.6s* 

26.8a* 

30.8b* 

33.8c* 

55.9d* 

IDpotato_wirrigSTD 

(01-06) 4.92 

4.71 

4.39 

3.73 3.72 

MEpotatoSTD (01-06) 8.12 7.89 7.61 7.00 6.99 

MIasparagusSTD (01-

09) 6.02 

5.87 

6.20+ 5.70 5.70 

MNsurgarbeetSTD (01-

06) 10.8 

10.3 

9.61 8.68 8.67 
149 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate 

lbs. ai/Aa 

(kg ai/ha) 

# of App 

Ret. Int. 

days 

App. Type 

Scenario 

Application 

Date 

(DD-MM) 

EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L 

EECs for parent alone in μg/L* 

Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 60-day 

average 

Peak 21-day 

average 

ORmintSTD (15-04) 4.11 3.93 3.68 3.13 3.13 

NCsweetpotatoSTD 

(01-06) 9.43 

9.01 

8.25 7.42 7.47+ 

F, G FLcarrotSTD (01-11) 

17.4 

18.2* 

16.7s* 

16.7 

17.4* 

15.9s* 

15.1 

15.8* 

14.4s* 

11.6 

12.3* 

11.1s* 

11.5 

12.2* 

11.0s* 

Legume Veg. 

(Succulent or 

Dried) 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

MIbeansSTD (25-08) 

16.0 

15.9s 

16.8* 

12.3s* 

15.3 

15.1s 

16.1* 

11.8s* 

14.3 

13.7s 

15.3* 

11.7s* 

14.2 

10.4s 

15.1* 

11.6s* 

14.3+ 

10.4s 

15.2* 

11.7s*+ 

ORsnbeanssSTD (01-

06) 7.56 

7.23 

6.71 5.73 5.73 

F, G MIbeansSTD (25-08) 

17.7 

19.1* 

17.8s* 

17.0 

19.7* 

18.2s* 

15.9 

17.9* 

16.5s* 

14.2 

13.8* 

12.7s* 

14.4+ 

13.7* 

12.5s* 

Fruiting 

Vegetables 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

CAtomato_wirrigSTD 

(01-03) 4.98 

4.79 

4.47 3.58 3.57 

FLtomatoSTD_v2 (22-

05) 

19.1 

15.9s 

19.9* 

16.5s* 

18.1 

15.1s 

18.9* 

15.6s* 

16.4 

13.7s 

17.3* 

14.3s* 

12.6 

10.4s 

13.3* 

11.0s* 

12.5 

10.4s 

13.3* 

11.0s* 

PAtomatoSTD (01-05) 6.63 6.41 6.09 5.08 5.07 

FLpeppersSTD (01-09) 10.9 10.4 10.2 7.78 7.78 

0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- S, G FLtomatoSTD_v2 (01-

03) 

15.9* 

14.8s* 

16.3* 

15.1s* 

16.7* 

15.4s* 

12.7* 

11.7s* 

12.7* 

11.7s* 

Cucurbit 

Vegetables 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

MOmelonSTD (10-04) 7.00 6.64 6.09 4.92 4.91 

FLcucumberSTD (01-

11) 

18.7 

16.3s 

19.8* 

17.1s*

19.6+ 

16.9s 

20.5* 

17.5s*+

17.8 

15.1s 

18.7* 

15.8s*

13.7 

11.5s 

14.5* 

12.1s*

13.5 

11.4s 

14.4* 

12.0s*

NJmelonSTD (01-07) 10.6 10.1 9.45 9.41 9.40 

MImelonSTD (01-07) 9.70 9.19 8.47 6.91 6.91 

F, G FLcucumberSTD (01-

11) 

18.2 

19.1* 

17.8s*

19.0+ 

19.7* 

18.2s*

17.1 

17.9* 

16.5s*

13.0 

13.8* 

12.7*

12.9 

13.7* 

12.5s*

0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- S, G FLcucumberSTD (01-

11) 

18.1 

18.5* 

16.9s* 

18.2 

19.0*+ 

17.6s*+ 

19.3+ 

20.3*+ 

18.8s*+ 

14.2 

14.9* 

13.8s* 

13.6 

14.3* 

13.2s* 

Hops 0.14 

(0.15) 1 

0.14 

(0.1

5) 

F, A ORhopsSTD (29-08) 

5.40 

5.57* 

2.14s* 

5.24 

5.41* 

2.07s* 

5.22 

5.41* 

1.99s* 

4.52 

4.73* 

1.74s* 

4.52 

4.73* 

1.74s* 

F, G ORhopsSTD (29-08) 

3.85 

3.98* 

2.29s* 

3.75 

3.89* 

2.22s* 

3.67 

3.84* 

2.11s* 

3.16 

3.32* 

1.84s* 

3.16 

3.32* 

1.84s* 

Citrus Fruit 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

CAcitrus_WirrigSTD 

(01-01) 4.34 

4.13 

3.84 

3.26 3.26 

FLcitrusSTD (02-10)

22.8 

20.6s 

24.4* 

22.0s* 

3.45∞* 

23.6 

21.3s 

25.1* 

22.5s* 

-- 

22.8 

20.1s 

23.7* 

20.8s* 

-- 

17.2 

15.1s 

18.1* 

15.8s* 

2.38∞* 

17.0 

14.9s 

17.8* 

15.5s* 

-- 

F, 

AB FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 22.2 

23.0+ 

21.9 16.4 16.2 
150 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate 

lbs. ai/Aa 

(kg ai/ha) 

# of App 

Ret. Int. 

days 

App. Type 

Scenario 

Application 

Date 

(DD-MM) 

EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L 

EECs for parent alone in μg/L* 

Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 60-day 

average 

Peak 21-day 

average 

F, G FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 22.6 23.3 22.3 16.8 16.6 

0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- S, G FLcitrusSTD (02-10) 

24.4 

24.6* 

23.1s* 

1.75∞* 

23.3 

23.7* 

22.2* 

-- 

22.3 

22.6* 

21.1s* 

-- 

17.0 

17.4* 

16.2s* 

1.18∞* 

16.9 

17.2* 

16.0s* 

-- 

Pome Fruit 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

CAfruit_WirrigSTD 

(16-01) 3.98 

3.79 

3.51 2.99 2.99 

NCapplesSTD (01-06) 7.31 6.91 6.42 5.70 5.74+ 

ORappleSTD (01-10) 6.24 6.09 5.80 5.19 5.18 

PAappleSTD_V2 (24-

8) 

12.2 

12.5* 

8.73* 

11.5 

11.8* 

8.26s* 

10.5 

10.9* 

7.59s* 

8.98 

9.34* 

6.40s* 

9.00+ 

9.36*+ 

6.39s* 

F, 

AB 

PAappleSTD_V2 (24-

08) 

10.2 

10.5* 

9.60 

9.99* 

8.87 

9.19* 

7.37 

7.72* 

7.37 

7.72* 

F, G PAappleSTD_V2 (24-

08) 

10.7 

11.0* 

9.10s* 

10.1 

10.4* 

8.61s* 

9.28 

9.56* 

7.90s* 

7.81 

8.05* 

6.59s* 

7.81 

8.05* 

6.58s* 

Bushberry 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 

9.30 

9.65* 

6.06s* 

9.05 

9.43* 

6.04s* 

9.11+ 

9.67* 

6.20s* 

9.38 

9.88* 

6.46s* 

9.52+ 

10.0*+ 

6.56s* 

ORberriesOP (07-04) 4.20 4.01 3.79 3.18 3.18 

F, G NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 

7.64 

7.98* 

6.32s* 

7.50 

7.96* 

6.29s* 

7.73+ 

8.18*+ 

6.46s* 

8.03 

8.48* 

6.73s* 

8.16+ 

8.55* 

6.84s* 

Low Growing 

Berry 

(excluding 

Cranberry) 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 

F, A 

Flstrawberry_WirrigST

D (10-11) 

12.9* 

10.2s* 

12.8* 

9.66s* 

11.6* 

8.68s* 

8.78* 

6.39s* 

8.21* 

6.15s* 

ORberriesSTD (07-04) 4.20 4.01 3.79 3.18 3.18 

F, G Flstrawberry_WirrigST

D (10-11) 

14.3* 

10.6s*

16.2* 

10.1s*

15.4*+ 

9.04s*

9.38* 

6.66s*

9.23* 

6.41s*

Small Fruit 

Vine Climbing 

(except Fuzzy 

Kiwifruit) 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

High from bushberry, 

NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 

8.26 

5.71s 

9.65* 

6.06s*

7.97 

5.72s 

9.43* 

6.04s*

7.63+ 

5.89s+ 

9.67* 

6.20s*

6.59 

6.20s 

9.88* 

6.46s*

6.60+ 

6.30s+ 

10.0*+ 

6.56s*

NYgrapesSTD (01-09) 

7.90 

8.28* 

6.31s* 

7.88 

8.14* 

6.03s* 

7.43 

7.64* 

5.66s* 

6.17 

6.38* 

4.67s* 

6.17 

6.39*+ 

4.66s* 

ORberriesOP (07-04) 2.55 2.43 2.28 1.86 1.86 

CAgrapes_WirrigSTD 

(01-02) 2.45 

2.32 

2.14 1.69 1.69 

Tree Nut 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

GApecansSTD (01-06) 

9.52 

9.73* 

6.55s* 

8.98 

9.26* 

6.51s* 

8.21 

8.75* 

6.80s* 

8.49 

8.90* 

6.53s* 

8.60 

8.90* 

6.54s* 

CAalmond_WirrigSTD 

(16-01) 5.61 5.34 4.93 4.00 3.99 

ORfilbertSTD (02-11) 7.55 7.29 7.10 5.96 5.94 

Prickly Pear 0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, G CAcitrus_WirrigSTD 

(01-01) 

2.80 

2.98* 

1.24s* 

2.67 

2.86* 

1.22s* 

2.49 

2.68* 

1.27s*+ 

2.14 

2.22* 

1.04s* 

2.14 

2.22* 

1.04s* 

Nongrass 

Animal Feeds 

(Forage, 

Fodder, Straw, 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 

ILalfalfaNMC (01-07) 10.9 10.4 9.81 8.19 8.18 

MNalfalfaOP (01-06) 8.58 8.21 7.66 6.92 6.91 

NCalfalfaOP (01-06) 9.89 9.36 8.64 7.77 7.82+ 

PAalfalfaOP (01-07) 8.99 8.67 8.02 6.64 6.76+ 
151 

Use Site 

Single App. 

Rate 

lbs. ai/Aa 

(kg ai/ha) 

# of App 

Ret. Int. 

days 

App. Type 

Scenario 

Application 

Date 

(DD-MM) 

EECs for parent plus unextracted residues in μg/L 

EECs for parent alone in μg/L* 

Water Column Pore Water 

Peak 

21-day 

average 60-day 

average 

Peak 21-day 

average 

Hay) 

TXalfalfaOP (09-05) 

23.6 

20.4s 

25.2* 

21.8s* 

3.55∞* 

22.8e* 

17.6f* 

22.4 

19.3s 

24.0* 

20.8s* 

-- 

21.5e* 

15.7f* 

20.5 

17.7s 

22.1* 

19.2s* 

-- 

19.90e* 

13.9f* 

15.7 

13.5s 

17.2* 

14.8s* 

2.47∞* 

15.3e* 

11.5f* 

15.8+ 

13.5s 

17.2* 

14.9s* 

-- 

15.30e* 

11.5f* 

CArangelandhayRLF_

V2 (01-01) 10.3 9.78 8.99 6.91 6.90 

Soybean Seed 

Treatment 

0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- G 

MSsoybeanSTD (14 

days before crop 

emergence) 

6.90 

6.97* 

6.53 

6.61* 

5.93 

6.05* 

4.61 

4.70* 

4.60 

4.70* 

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; Ave=average; Veg.=vegetables; Ret. 

Int.=retreatment interval 

* Results designated with an asterisk are for residues of flupyradifurone alone. All other values reflect residues of 

flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues. 

s Simulation without spray drift. 

a Simulation for two seasons per year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, and 11/9. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario

was used for this simulation. 

b Simulation with three seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, and 12/9. The modified 

FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

c Simulation with four seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, and 01/09. The 

modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

d Simulation with five seasons a year. Applications occurred on 10/1, 10/9, 11/1, 11/9, 12/1, 12/9, 01/01, 01/09, 02/01, and 

02/09. The modified FLcarrotSTD scenario was used for this simulation. 

e Simulation was completed assuming a Koc value of 274 L/kg-oc, double the standard Koc input of 137 L/kg-oc. This simulates 

what a Koc might have been if sediment data were available. 

f Simulation was completed assuming a Koc value of 779 L/kg-oc. This is the highest Koc measured at a 0.0023 mg/L equilibrium 

flupyradifurone concentration in water in the batch equilibrium study conducted on the Gleissolo soil. This simulation provides 

an estimation of the uncertainty in assuming linear sorption when nonlinear sorption is expected to occur. + The 1 in 10 year 21-day average value reported is higher than the 1 in 10 year peak EECs. This may occur because the 21-day 

average calculation may include days from another year but at least one day is in the year of interest, while the calculation of the 

peak concentration is only based on values in that year. 

∞ Simulation was completed assuming 0% application efficiency. This essentially estimates EECs that could result from spray 

drift alone. This value may be used to evaluate the toxicity of end-use products. 
152 

Table C2. Estimated Concentrations of Flupyradifurone plus Unextracted residues (FLUUN) or Flupyradifurone alone (values designated with an asterick) in Groundwater Source 

Irrigation Water 

Bold values were the highest value for the use site.

Use Site (Timing 

of App) 

Single 

App. Rate 

lbs. ai/A

(kg ai/ha) 

# of 

App 

Ret. 

Int. 

Days 

App. 

Type 

EEC for flupyradifurone plus unextracted residues 

EEC for flupyradifurone alone* (μg/L) 

SCIGROW PRZM-GW 

Peak Scenario Daily 

Peak 

Post 

Breakthrough 

Average 

Ave 

Breakthrough 

Time (Days) 

Foliar 

Application 

(10 days post 

emergence) 

0.18 

(0.20) 2 7 F, A 2.10 1.09* WI 

95.7 

63.5* 

190a 

284b 

89.4 

57.7* 

178a 

26b 

4205 

Soil Application 

(10 days postemergence) 0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- G 2.16 WI 

96.0 89.6 4205 

Seed Treatment 

(14 days preemergence) 

0.37 

(0.40) 1 -- G 

2.16 

1.01* 

4.31α

WI 95.7 

63.1* 

89.7 

58.0* 4205 

Abbreviations: App=Application; A=aerial application; AB=airblast application; NJ/DE=Delmarva Sweet Corn; NC=NC cotton; 

WI=Wisconsin Corn; GA=Georgia Peanuts; Ave.=average; Ret. Int.=retreatment interval 

* Results are for residues of flupyradifurone plus M47 plus M48. All other values reflect residues of flupyradifurone plus M47

plus M48 plus unextracted residues. 

a Simulation for two seasons per year. 

b Simulation with three seasons a year. 
153 

Appendix D. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the Groundwater Modeling 

Groundwater Analysis for Flupyradifurone and the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands 

Scenario

Estimated groundwater concentrations and breakthrough times for Enter chemical name or 

descriptive information are presented in Table 1 for the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands 

groundwater scenario. A graphical presentation of the daily concentrations in the aquifer is 

presented in Figure 1. These values were generated with the PRZM-GW (Version 1.07). Critical 

input values for the model are summarized in Tables 2 and 3. 

Table D1. Groundwater Results for Enter chemical name or descriptive information and 

the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands Scenario. 

Peak Concentration (ppb) 95.7 

Post-Breakthrough Mean 

Concentration (ppb) 

 89.4 

Entire Simulation Mean 

Concentration (ppb) 

 57.8 

Average Breakthrough 

Time (days) 

4205.959 

Throughputs 2.605827 

Table D2. Chemical Properties for Groundwater Modeling of Enter chemical name or 

descriptive information. 

Koc (ml/g) 137 

Surface Soil Half Life (days) 371 

Hydrolysis Half Life (days) 0 

Diffusion Coefficint Air (cm2/day) 0 

Henry's Constant 0.0 

Enthalpy (kcal/mol) 0.0 

Table D3. Pesticide application scheme used for Enter chemical name or descriptive 

information. This application scheme was applied every year of the simulation. 

Application Days 

Relative to 

Emergence Date 

(05/01) 

Application Method Application Rate 

(kg/ha) 

10 Above canopy application 0.20 
154 

18 Above canopy application 0.20 

Figure D1. Aquifer Breakthrough Curve for Enter chemical name or descriptive 

information and the Wisconsin Corn - WI Central Sands Scenario 
155 

Appendix E. Example Aquatic Modeling Output for the SWCC 

Florida Citrus – Unextracted Residues 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:11 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 22.8 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 10.7 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 6.00 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.9 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 23.6 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.8 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 20.4 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.0 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.91E+00 4.84E+00 4.67E+00 4.33E+00 3.86E+00 9.64E-01 3.08E+00 2.98E+00 

 2 4.27E+00 4.22E+00 4.03E+00 4.05E+00 4.06E+00 2.56E+00 3.17E+00 3.17E+00 

 3 1.74E+01 1.72E+01 1.68E+01 1.55E+01 1.45E+01 5.28E+00 1.13E+01 1.12E+01 

 4 2.72E+01 2.69E+01 2.58E+01 2.37E+01 2.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.78E+01 1.75E+01 

 5 3.37E+01 3.33E+01 3.20E+01 2.92E+01 2.57E+01 1.53E+01 2.24E+01 2.21E+01 

 6 2.34E+01 2.34E+01 2.43E+01 2.67E+01 2.74E+01 1.44E+01 2.25E+01 2.24E+01 

 7 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.29E+01 1.26E+01 1.27E+01 8.40E+00 1.22E+01 1.24E+01 

 8 1.41E+01 1.39E+01 1.35E+01 1.24E+01 1.17E+01 7.77E+00 1.01E+01 1.01E+01 

 9 1.02E+01 1.02E+01 1.05E+01 1.15E+01 1.17E+01 7.05E+00 1.01E+01 1.01E+01 

 10 7.57E+00 7.60E+00 7.85E+00 8.55E+00 8.59E+00 4.89E+00 7.67E+00 7.66E+00 

 11 5.59E+00 5.55E+00 5.36E+00 5.05E+00 4.82E+00 3.22E+00 4.46E+00 4.51E+00 

 12 1.82E+01 1.80E+01 1.70E+01 1.45E+01 1.09E+01 4.73E+00 1.03E+01 9.67E+00 

 13 1.34E+01 1.34E+01 1.40E+01 1.53E+01 1.43E+01 8.44E+00 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 

 14 1.17E+01 1.16E+01 1.10E+01 1.03E+01 9.68E+00 6.09E+00 8.26E+00 8.18E+00 

 15 8.40E+00 8.43E+00 8.73E+00 9.43E+00 9.80E+00 5.35E+00 8.27E+00 8.25E+00 

 16 7.87E+00 7.79E+00 7.44E+00 7.22E+00 6.66E+00 3.94E+00 5.73E+00 5.65E+00 

 17 6.83E+00 6.77E+00 6.55E+00 6.82E+00 6.87E+00 4.22E+00 5.76E+00 5.75E+00 

 18 7.93E+00 7.87E+00 7.58E+00 7.15E+00 6.83E+00 4.48E+00 5.96E+00 5.89E+00 

 19 7.78E+00 7.69E+00 7.33E+00 7.00E+00 6.87E+00 4.51E+00 5.98E+00 5.97E+00 

 20 6.73E+00 6.65E+00 6.50E+00 6.18E+00 6.31E+00 4.05E+00 5.45E+00 5.44E+00 

 21 1.03E+01 1.02E+01 9.66E+00 8.61E+00 7.15E+00 4.19E+00 6.60E+00 6.35E+00 

 22 1.47E+01 1.45E+01 1.41E+01 1.30E+01 1.14E+01 6.68E+00 1.02E+01 9.93E+00 

 23 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 1.17E+01 1.29E+01 1.22E+01 7.17E+00 1.04E+01 1.04E+01 

 24 1.09E+01 1.07E+01 1.03E+01 9.11E+00 7.65E+00 5.03E+00 7.31E+00 6.95E+00 

 25 8.91E+00 8.95E+00 9.32E+00 9.40E+00 8.88E+00 5.52E+00 7.73E+00 7.73E+00 

 26 8.90E+00 8.83E+00 8.49E+00 7.74E+00 6.90E+00 4.35E+00 6.06E+00 5.98E+00 

 27 1.11E+01 1.10E+01 1.06E+01 1.00E+01 9.14E+00 5.31E+00 7.94E+00 7.80E+00 

 28 9.25E+00 9.15E+00 8.81E+00 9.66E+00 9.57E+00 6.00E+00 8.01E+00 8.00E+00 

 29 7.93E+00 7.84E+00 7.56E+00 8.03E+00 7.95E+00 5.06E+00 7.03E+00 7.02E+00 

 30 5.87E+00 5.87E+00 6.03E+00 6.55E+00 6.75E+00 4.03E+00 5.86E+00 5.86E+00 

*********************************************************************************************
156 

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 850.358306476219 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906 

 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 

 total water col halflife (days) = 170.135908536992 

 

 zero burial 0 

 zero benthic metab 0 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 zero benthic total degradation 0 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.7205 3.899 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0022 0.1215E-01 

 Due to Drift = 0.2772 1.500 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 1118. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 0.000 = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

Florida Citrus Parent Only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 
157 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:20 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 24.4 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 11.5 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 6.66 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.5 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 25.1 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 23.7 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 21.4 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 18.1 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.8 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.92E+00 4.86E+00 4.69E+00 4.39E+00 3.91E+00 9.78E-01 3.11E+00 3.00E+00 

 2 4.47E+00 4.43E+00 4.25E+00 4.13E+00 4.13E+00 2.73E+00 3.32E+00 3.28E+00 

 3 1.78E+01 1.75E+01 1.72E+01 1.59E+01 1.50E+01 5.57E+00 1.17E+01 1.15E+01 

 4 2.79E+01 2.76E+01 2.66E+01 2.46E+01 2.21E+01 1.17E+01 1.86E+01 1.83E+01 

 5 3.49E+01 3.45E+01 3.34E+01 3.07E+01 2.72E+01 1.67E+01 2.36E+01 2.33E+01 

 6 2.51E+01 2.52E+01 2.60E+01 2.83E+01 2.90E+01 1.61E+01 2.38E+01 2.37E+01 

 7 1.48E+01 1.47E+01 1.41E+01 1.42E+01 1.44E+01 9.72E+00 1.37E+01 1.38E+01 

 8 1.50E+01 1.49E+01 1.44E+01 1.34E+01 1.29E+01 8.81E+00 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 

 9 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 1.16E+01 1.25E+01 1.27E+01 7.95E+00 1.10E+01 1.10E+01 

 10 8.43E+00 8.46E+00 8.72E+00 9.42E+00 9.45E+00 5.63E+00 8.44E+00 8.44E+00 

 11 6.05E+00 6.01E+00 5.82E+00 5.52E+00 5.51E+00 3.74E+00 5.08E+00 5.13E+00 

 12 1.84E+01 1.81E+01 1.73E+01 1.48E+01 1.12E+01 5.15E+00 1.06E+01 9.96E+00 

 13 1.39E+01 1.39E+01 1.45E+01 1.57E+01 1.47E+01 9.15E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 

 14 1.24E+01 1.23E+01 1.18E+01 1.11E+01 1.04E+01 6.85E+00 8.92E+00 8.84E+00 

 15 9.19E+00 9.23E+00 9.52E+00 1.02E+01 1.06E+01 6.09E+00 8.93E+00 8.92E+00 

 16 8.37E+00 8.28E+00 7.95E+00 7.73E+00 7.17E+00 4.50E+00 6.19E+00 6.11E+00 

 17 7.24E+00 7.19E+00 6.97E+00 7.34E+00 7.39E+00 4.71E+00 6.22E+00 6.22E+00 

 18 8.38E+00 8.32E+00 8.04E+00 7.63E+00 7.30E+00 4.93E+00 6.37E+00 6.28E+00 

 19 8.25E+00 8.16E+00 7.82E+00 7.49E+00 7.35E+00 5.01E+00 6.39E+00 6.38E+00 

 20 7.19E+00 7.11E+00 6.98E+00 6.71E+00 6.83E+00 4.54E+00 5.90E+00 5.89E+00 

 21 1.06E+01 1.05E+01 1.00E+01 9.00E+00 7.56E+00 4.64E+00 6.95E+00 6.70E+00 

 22 1.52E+01 1.50E+01 1.46E+01 1.36E+01 1.20E+01 7.18E+00 1.07E+01 1.04E+01 

 23 1.19E+01 1.20E+01 1.24E+01 1.35E+01 1.28E+01 7.92E+00 1.09E+01 1.09E+01 

 24 1.13E+01 1.12E+01 1.08E+01 9.64E+00 8.20E+00 5.68E+00 7.79E+00 7.46E+00 

 25 9.46E+00 9.50E+00 9.86E+00 9.93E+00 9.43E+00 6.13E+00 8.22E+00 8.21E+00 

 26 9.34E+00 9.28E+00 8.96E+00 8.26E+00 7.42E+00 4.86E+00 6.50E+00 6.41E+00 

 27 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 1.11E+01 1.06E+01 9.71E+00 5.86E+00 8.42E+00 8.27E+00 

 28 9.88E+00 9.78E+00 9.45E+00 1.02E+01 1.01E+01 6.64E+00 8.50E+00 8.49E+00 

 29 8.54E+00 8.46E+00 8.18E+00 8.70E+00 8.61E+00 5.71E+00 7.60E+00 7.59E+00 

 30 6.49E+00 6.51E+00 6.68E+00 7.20E+00 7.39E+00 4.61E+00 6.43E+00 6.42E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2265.84740160345 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906 
158 

 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 

 total water col halflife (days) = 194.438472623865 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.7184 3.858 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0023 0.1212E-01 

 Due to Drift = 0.2793 1.500 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

Florida Citrus – Parent only – Ground application at 0.40 kg/ha 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:25 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 26.6 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 13.8 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 5.45 ppb 
159 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 26.3 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 25.5 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.3 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.0 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 18.8 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 18.6 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 2.50E+00 2.47E+00 2.35E+00 2.19E+00 1.82E+00 4.54E-01 1.51E+00 1.44E+00 

 2 1.82E+00 1.83E+00 1.90E+00 2.09E+00 2.07E+00 1.20E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 

 3 2.69E+01 2.65E+01 2.57E+01 2.33E+01 2.18E+01 6.18E+00 1.64E+01 1.61E+01 

 4 2.76E+01 2.72E+01 2.63E+01 2.44E+01 2.20E+01 1.43E+01 1.90E+01 1.88E+01 

 5 3.28E+01 3.25E+01 3.15E+01 2.90E+01 2.55E+01 1.63E+01 2.24E+01 2.21E+01 

 6 2.37E+01 2.38E+01 2.45E+01 2.67E+01 2.73E+01 1.47E+01 2.25E+01 2.25E+01 

 7 1.68E+01 1.67E+01 1.60E+01 1.49E+01 1.39E+01 8.64E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 

 8 1.52E+01 1.51E+01 1.47E+01 1.40E+01 1.41E+01 9.26E+00 1.16E+01 1.16E+01 

 9 1.12E+01 1.12E+01 1.16E+01 1.25E+01 1.32E+01 7.38E+00 1.13E+01 1.13E+01 

 10 6.22E+00 6.24E+00 6.42E+00 6.90E+00 6.92E+00 3.90E+00 6.55E+00 6.59E+00 

 11 3.17E+00 3.14E+00 3.03E+00 2.86E+00 2.98E+00 1.96E+00 2.93E+00 2.99E+00 

 12 1.47E+01 1.45E+01 1.37E+01 1.16E+01 8.07E+00 3.22E+00 7.90E+00 7.28E+00 

 13 1.10E+01 1.10E+01 1.14E+01 1.24E+01 1.17E+01 7.38E+00 8.96E+00 8.95E+00 

 14 1.40E+01 1.38E+01 1.35E+01 1.24E+01 1.16E+01 6.49E+00 9.54E+00 9.44E+00 

 15 9.87E+00 9.91E+00 1.02E+01 1.11E+01 1.17E+01 6.01E+00 9.55E+00 9.54E+00 

 16 5.89E+00 5.83E+00 5.59E+00 5.30E+00 4.87E+00 3.22E+00 4.37E+00 4.45E+00 

 17 4.59E+00 4.61E+00 4.76E+00 5.16E+00 5.11E+00 3.06E+00 4.34E+00 4.33E+00 

 18 6.00E+00 5.93E+00 5.68E+00 5.58E+00 5.35E+00 3.12E+00 4.44E+00 4.40E+00 

 19 5.10E+00 5.04E+00 4.83E+00 5.17E+00 5.33E+00 3.31E+00 4.45E+00 4.44E+00 

 20 4.02E+00 3.97E+00 3.87E+00 4.16E+00 4.22E+00 2.73E+00 3.66E+00 3.65E+00 

 21 7.74E+00 7.64E+00 7.28E+00 6.43E+00 4.85E+00 2.82E+00 4.67E+00 4.42E+00 

 22 1.11E+01 1.10E+01 1.07E+01 1.00E+01 9.70E+00 5.45E+00 8.16E+00 8.03E+00 

 23 8.72E+00 8.75E+00 9.05E+00 9.83E+00 9.76E+00 5.53E+00 8.22E+00 8.21E+00 

 24 8.66E+00 8.56E+00 8.21E+00 6.99E+00 5.37E+00 3.54E+00 5.37E+00 5.01E+00 

 25 7.14E+00 7.17E+00 7.45E+00 7.52E+00 7.09E+00 4.25E+00 5.94E+00 5.94E+00 

 26 5.73E+00 5.70E+00 5.52E+00 5.10E+00 4.36E+00 2.86E+00 3.91E+00 3.84E+00 

 27 8.78E+00 8.72E+00 8.40E+00 7.77E+00 7.02E+00 3.86E+00 6.12E+00 5.97E+00 

 28 8.63E+00 8.55E+00 8.21E+00 8.02E+00 7.55E+00 5.25E+00 6.53E+00 6.48E+00 

 29 6.69E+00 6.71E+00 6.92E+00 7.50E+00 7.68E+00 4.49E+00 6.53E+00 6.53E+00 

 30 4.15E+00 4.16E+00 4.26E+00 4.58E+00 4.66E+00 2.77E+00 4.25E+00 4.26E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2265.84740160345 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 212.690322347906 

 volatile halflife (days) = 129273933.836524 

 total water col halflife (days) = 194.438472623865 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 2770.89025983262 
160 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.9966 4.345 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0034 0.1490E-01 

 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

Pennsylvania Apples, parent only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:39 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 8.63 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 5.89 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 4.17 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.58 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.36 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.01 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 7.75 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.95 ppb 
161 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.95 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 5.34E+00 5.28E+00 5.10E+00 4.70E+00 4.44E+00 1.90E+00 3.49E+00 3.48E+00 

 2 5.41E+00 5.36E+00 5.18E+00 4.85E+00 4.71E+00 3.57E+00 4.28E+00 4.27E+00 

 3 5.51E+00 5.47E+00 5.29E+00 5.12E+00 4.97E+00 3.94E+00 4.50E+00 4.50E+00 

 4 6.61E+00 6.55E+00 6.31E+00 5.89E+00 5.65E+00 4.21E+00 5.00E+00 4.99E+00 

 5 5.49E+00 5.45E+00 5.28E+00 5.16E+00 4.98E+00 3.99E+00 4.51E+00 4.55E+00 

 6 7.53E+00 7.46E+00 7.19E+00 6.70E+00 6.39E+00 4.29E+00 5.67E+00 5.66E+00 

 7 8.64E+00 8.60E+00 8.37E+00 8.06E+00 7.80E+00 5.85E+00 6.97E+00 6.97E+00 

 8 6.63E+00 6.58E+00 6.47E+00 6.10E+00 6.21E+00 5.28E+00 6.22E+00 6.33E+00 

 9 1.10E+01 1.09E+01 1.05E+01 9.76E+00 9.27E+00 5.92E+00 7.83E+00 7.82E+00 

 10 9.84E+00 9.75E+00 9.42E+00 8.94E+00 8.55E+00 6.84E+00 7.75E+00 7.75E+00 

 11 8.17E+00 8.10E+00 7.84E+00 7.38E+00 7.07E+00 5.89E+00 6.71E+00 6.83E+00 

 12 5.94E+00 5.90E+00 5.71E+00 5.62E+00 5.86E+00 4.58E+00 5.86E+00 5.97E+00 

 13 4.91E+00 4.88E+00 4.73E+00 4.49E+00 4.50E+00 3.68E+00 4.27E+00 4.35E+00 

 14 6.80E+00 6.75E+00 6.52E+00 6.10E+00 5.84E+00 4.07E+00 5.13E+00 5.13E+00 

 15 6.38E+00 6.32E+00 6.12E+00 5.70E+00 5.46E+00 4.22E+00 4.86E+00 4.86E+00 

 16 5.92E+00 5.87E+00 5.71E+00 5.35E+00 5.17E+00 3.98E+00 4.63E+00 4.63E+00 

 17 5.18E+00 5.13E+00 4.98E+00 4.68E+00 4.48E+00 3.71E+00 4.12E+00 4.20E+00 

 18 6.32E+00 6.26E+00 6.02E+00 5.62E+00 5.38E+00 3.87E+00 4.68E+00 4.68E+00 

 19 5.14E+00 5.09E+00 4.97E+00 4.81E+00 4.63E+00 3.74E+00 4.21E+00 4.21E+00 

 20 4.70E+00 4.66E+00 4.50E+00 4.18E+00 3.99E+00 3.22E+00 3.69E+00 3.76E+00 

 21 5.70E+00 5.65E+00 5.56E+00 5.25E+00 5.02E+00 3.58E+00 4.42E+00 4.41E+00 

 22 5.40E+00 5.37E+00 5.25E+00 5.03E+00 4.86E+00 3.84E+00 4.40E+00 4.40E+00 

 23 4.69E+00 4.65E+00 4.49E+00 4.22E+00 4.08E+00 3.27E+00 3.88E+00 3.96E+00 

 24 5.19E+00 5.14E+00 4.95E+00 4.60E+00 4.41E+00 3.30E+00 3.88E+00 3.88E+00 

 25 4.59E+00 4.55E+00 4.43E+00 4.25E+00 4.08E+00 3.18E+00 3.64E+00 3.64E+00 

 26 6.04E+00 5.98E+00 5.83E+00 5.50E+00 5.25E+00 3.71E+00 4.59E+00 4.59E+00 

 27 5.03E+00 4.99E+00 4.82E+00 4.61E+00 4.47E+00 3.63E+00 4.15E+00 4.22E+00 

 28 6.59E+00 6.53E+00 6.29E+00 5.83E+00 5.55E+00 3.92E+00 4.87E+00 4.86E+00 

 29 8.49E+00 8.44E+00 8.21E+00 7.63E+00 7.25E+00 4.85E+00 6.19E+00 6.18E+00 

 30 7.23E+00 7.16E+00 6.91E+00 6.46E+00 6.19E+00 4.95E+00 5.62E+00 5.70E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 4429.05217232110 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 289.084753547405 

 volatile halflife (days) = 187228803.611772 

 total water col halflife (days) = 271.371861396606 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 5416.25950445310 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 5416.25950445310 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.3950 0.9873 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0048 0.1203E-01 

 Due to Drift = 0.6002 1.500 
162 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

New York Grapes – Parent Only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:38 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 4.06 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 2.00 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.04 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.20 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.37 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.46 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.56 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 7.68E-01 7.61E-01 7.33E-01 7.10E-01 6.54E-01 1.75E-01 5.72E-01 5.57E-01 

 2 1.53E+00 1.52E+00 1.49E+00 1.44E+00 1.38E+00 7.66E-01 1.18E+00 1.18E+00 
163 

 3 1.23E+00 1.23E+00 1.24E+00 1.31E+00 1.37E+00 9.92E-01 1.21E+00 1.21E+00 

 4 9.01E-01 9.01E-01 9.07E-01 9.35E-01 9.23E-01 7.25E-01 8.89E-01 8.88E-01 

 5 1.45E+00 1.43E+00 1.39E+00 1.35E+00 1.22E+00 7.32E-01 1.26E+00 1.23E+00 

 6 1.22E+00 1.22E+00 1.25E+00 1.31E+00 1.30E+00 9.87E-01 1.23E+00 1.23E+00 

 7 1.55E+00 1.54E+00 1.50E+00 1.45E+00 1.41E+00 9.34E-01 1.31E+00 1.31E+00 

 8 1.26E+00 1.26E+00 1.29E+00 1.36E+00 1.40E+00 1.03E+00 1.30E+00 1.31E+00 

 9 8.22E-01 8.22E-01 8.24E-01 8.51E-01 8.66E-01 7.13E-01 8.82E-01 8.94E-01 

 10 3.80E+00 3.78E+00 3.75E+00 3.61E+00 3.50E+00 1.51E+00 4.36E+00 4.26E+00 

 11 3.09E+00 3.09E+00 3.09E+00 3.23E+00 3.35E+00 2.61E+00 3.45E+00 3.52E+00 

 12 2.41E+00 2.40E+00 2.33E+00 2.27E+00 2.35E+00 1.94E+00 2.36E+00 2.40E+00 

 13 1.96E+00 1.97E+00 1.97E+00 2.04E+00 2.12E+00 1.52E+00 2.04E+00 2.06E+00 

 14 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 1.12E+00 1.18E+00 1.21E+00 9.29E-01 1.22E+00 1.24E+00 

 15 8.70E-01 8.70E-01 8.73E-01 8.91E-01 8.82E-01 7.47E-01 8.95E-01 9.00E-01 

 16 9.64E-01 9.59E-01 9.48E-01 9.12E-01 8.96E-01 6.91E-01 1.07E+00 1.03E+00 

 17 4.94E+00 4.91E+00 4.83E+00 4.58E+00 4.40E+00 1.82E+00 4.25E+00 4.25E+00 

 18 3.91E+00 3.91E+00 3.91E+00 4.05E+00 4.22E+00 3.37E+00 4.09E+00 4.13E+00 

 19 9.32E+00 9.24E+00 8.97E+00 8.49E+00 8.13E+00 4.14E+00 7.30E+00 7.29E+00 

 20 7.20E+00 7.16E+00 7.05E+00 7.32E+00 7.68E+00 6.15E+00 8.63E+00 8.36E+00 

 21 6.11E+00 6.11E+00 6.11E+00 6.32E+00 6.54E+00 4.88E+00 6.69E+00 6.82E+00 

 22 3.70E+00 3.70E+00 3.71E+00 3.89E+00 4.05E+00 3.05E+00 4.02E+00 4.08E+00 

 23 3.97E+00 3.94E+00 3.87E+00 3.70E+00 3.56E+00 2.37E+00 3.20E+00 3.19E+00 

 24 3.29E+00 3.28E+00 3.25E+00 3.32E+00 3.46E+00 2.77E+00 3.69E+00 3.65E+00 

 25 2.58E+00 2.59E+00 2.64E+00 2.76E+00 2.85E+00 2.12E+00 2.94E+00 3.00E+00 

 26 5.63E+00 5.58E+00 5.44E+00 5.09E+00 4.85E+00 2.55E+00 4.09E+00 4.08E+00 

 27 4.09E+00 4.11E+00 4.21E+00 4.47E+00 4.73E+00 3.37E+00 4.09E+00 4.09E+00 

 28 2.93E+00 2.94E+00 3.00E+00 3.15E+00 3.27E+00 2.44E+00 3.26E+00 3.31E+00 

 29 2.70E+00 2.68E+00 2.59E+00 2.49E+00 2.41E+00 1.92E+00 2.25E+00 2.24E+00 

 30 3.37E+00 3.35E+00 3.29E+00 3.14E+00 3.03E+00 2.12E+00 3.19E+00 3.19E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 5258.27312887639 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 330.838274194186 

 volatile halflife (days) = 139177229.656322 

 total water col halflife (days) = 311.254149584418 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 6430.30849563501 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 6430.30849563501 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.8191 0.8484 

 Due to Erosion = 0.1809 0.1873 

 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 
164 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

California Strawberry – Parent plus unextracted residues – aerial application 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:46 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 12.4 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 6.97 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 4.31 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.3 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.8 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.0 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 10.4 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.54 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.53 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.92E+00 4.86E+00 4.62E+00 4.32E+00 4.10E+00 2.63E+00 3.19E+00 3.19E+00 

 2 9.14E+00 9.07E+00 8.71E+00 8.01E+00 7.57E+00 5.06E+00 6.18E+00 6.18E+00 

 3 8.97E+00 8.88E+00 8.52E+00 7.98E+00 7.61E+00 5.31E+00 6.57E+00 6.56E+00 

 4 5.51E+00 5.47E+00 5.28E+00 5.00E+00 4.80E+00 3.53E+00 4.51E+00 4.51E+00 

 5 5.10E+00 5.05E+00 4.86E+00 4.53E+00 4.36E+00 3.13E+00 3.87E+00 3.87E+00 

 6 5.83E+00 5.77E+00 5.68E+00 5.31E+00 5.06E+00 3.51E+00 4.33E+00 4.32E+00 

 7 4.99E+00 4.95E+00 4.84E+00 4.54E+00 4.42E+00 3.24E+00 4.01E+00 4.00E+00 

 8 6.29E+00 6.23E+00 6.00E+00 5.69E+00 5.42E+00 3.77E+00 4.66E+00 4.65E+00 

 9 1.27E+01 1.26E+01 1.21E+01 1.12E+01 1.06E+01 7.08E+00 8.66E+00 8.65E+00 
165 

 10 8.19E+00 8.14E+00 7.95E+00 7.47E+00 7.13E+00 5.15E+00 6.55E+00 6.54E+00 

 11 5.55E+00 5.50E+00 5.35E+00 5.16E+00 5.03E+00 3.72E+00 4.67E+00 4.66E+00 

 12 5.07E+00 5.03E+00 4.84E+00 4.49E+00 4.28E+00 3.05E+00 3.82E+00 3.82E+00 

 13 7.07E+00 7.00E+00 6.79E+00 6.34E+00 6.02E+00 4.11E+00 5.05E+00 5.04E+00 

 14 5.37E+00 5.33E+00 5.16E+00 4.91E+00 4.73E+00 3.41E+00 4.27E+00 4.27E+00 

 15 5.66E+00 5.62E+00 5.42E+00 5.08E+00 4.83E+00 3.38E+00 4.19E+00 4.19E+00 

 16 5.56E+00 5.51E+00 5.32E+00 4.95E+00 4.72E+00 3.39E+00 4.20E+00 4.19E+00 

 17 4.62E+00 4.58E+00 4.43E+00 4.38E+00 4.24E+00 3.05E+00 3.79E+00 3.79E+00 

 18 7.39E+00 7.32E+00 7.02E+00 6.58E+00 6.25E+00 4.25E+00 5.23E+00 5.22E+00 

 19 1.34E+01 1.33E+01 1.29E+01 1.19E+01 1.12E+01 7.41E+00 9.11E+00 9.10E+00 

 20 9.65E+00 9.60E+00 9.33E+00 8.69E+00 8.27E+00 5.92E+00 7.46E+00 7.45E+00 

 21 6.12E+00 6.06E+00 5.89E+00 5.61E+00 5.37E+00 3.92E+00 5.03E+00 5.03E+00 

 22 8.90E+00 8.81E+00 8.45E+00 7.77E+00 7.35E+00 5.00E+00 6.16E+00 6.15E+00 

 23 7.95E+00 7.87E+00 7.72E+00 7.26E+00 6.91E+00 4.83E+00 6.03E+00 6.02E+00 

 24 5.96E+00 5.91E+00 5.69E+00 5.32E+00 5.07E+00 3.63E+00 4.60E+00 4.59E+00 

 25 6.64E+00 6.57E+00 6.31E+00 5.97E+00 5.70E+00 3.94E+00 4.87E+00 4.87E+00 

 26 8.21E+00 8.14E+00 7.88E+00 7.27E+00 6.88E+00 4.71E+00 5.82E+00 5.81E+00 

 27 1.33E+01 1.32E+01 1.26E+01 1.16E+01 1.09E+01 7.28E+00 8.96E+00 8.95E+00 

 28 6.69E+00 6.64E+00 6.43E+00 6.02E+00 5.87E+00 4.53E+00 5.66E+00 5.69E+00 

 29 5.67E+00 5.62E+00 5.42E+00 5.23E+00 5.01E+00 3.59E+00 4.51E+00 4.51E+00 

 30 6.68E+00 6.62E+00 6.37E+00 5.88E+00 5.57E+00 3.88E+00 4.80E+00 4.80E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 1747.83545637332 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 242.285964103120 

 volatile halflife (days) = 114223441.685679 

 total water col halflife (days) = 212.788629569952 

 

 zero burial 0 

 zero benthic metab 0 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 zero benthic total degradation 0 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.5221 1.639 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.2678E-04 

 Due to Drift = 0.4779 1.500 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 1118. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 0.000 = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 
166 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

California Strawberry, Aerial application, with drift, parent only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:48 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 12.6 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 7.31 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 4.61 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.5 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 12.1 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 11.2 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 10.6 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.79 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.78 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.91E+00 4.85E+00 4.62E+00 4.34E+00 4.12E+00 2.70E+00 3.22E+00 3.22E+00 

 2 9.24E+00 9.18E+00 8.82E+00 8.14E+00 7.71E+00 5.25E+00 6.30E+00 6.30E+00 

 3 9.19E+00 9.11E+00 8.76E+00 8.23E+00 7.87E+00 5.60E+00 6.80E+00 6.79E+00 

 4 5.81E+00 5.77E+00 5.58E+00 5.30E+00 5.10E+00 3.83E+00 4.79E+00 4.79E+00 

 5 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.11E+00 4.78E+00 4.62E+00 3.38E+00 4.11E+00 4.10E+00 

 6 6.05E+00 5.99E+00 5.90E+00 5.53E+00 5.29E+00 3.75E+00 4.54E+00 4.53E+00 

 7 5.20E+00 5.17E+00 5.05E+00 4.76E+00 4.64E+00 3.47E+00 4.21E+00 4.20E+00 

 8 6.48E+00 6.42E+00 6.20E+00 5.90E+00 5.64E+00 4.01E+00 4.85E+00 4.85E+00 

 9 1.29E+01 1.28E+01 1.23E+01 1.15E+01 1.09E+01 7.42E+00 8.89E+00 8.89E+00 

 10 8.57E+00 8.51E+00 8.32E+00 7.85E+00 7.52E+00 5.54E+00 6.89E+00 6.89E+00 

 11 5.89E+00 5.85E+00 5.69E+00 5.50E+00 5.37E+00 4.06E+00 4.99E+00 4.98E+00 

 12 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.12E+00 4.77E+00 4.56E+00 3.33E+00 4.09E+00 4.08E+00 

 13 7.29E+00 7.22E+00 7.02E+00 6.58E+00 6.26E+00 4.37E+00 5.27E+00 5.26E+00 

 14 5.61E+00 5.58E+00 5.41E+00 5.16E+00 4.99E+00 3.67E+00 4.50E+00 4.50E+00 

 15 5.89E+00 5.85E+00 5.65E+00 5.31E+00 5.07E+00 3.62E+00 4.41E+00 4.41E+00 

 16 5.76E+00 5.71E+00 5.53E+00 5.16E+00 4.93E+00 3.62E+00 4.40E+00 4.39E+00 
167 

 17 4.83E+00 4.80E+00 4.65E+00 4.59E+00 4.46E+00 3.28E+00 3.99E+00 3.99E+00 

 18 7.59E+00 7.52E+00 7.23E+00 6.80E+00 6.48E+00 4.51E+00 5.43E+00 5.43E+00 

 19 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.31E+01 1.21E+01 1.15E+01 7.77E+00 9.35E+00 9.34E+00 

 20 1.00E+01 1.00E+01 9.73E+00 9.10E+00 8.69E+00 6.35E+00 7.83E+00 7.82E+00 

 21 6.50E+00 6.45E+00 6.27E+00 5.99E+00 5.76E+00 4.29E+00 5.39E+00 5.39E+00 

 22 9.19E+00 9.09E+00 8.74E+00 8.08E+00 7.67E+00 5.33E+00 6.44E+00 6.44E+00 

 23 8.26E+00 8.18E+00 8.04E+00 7.58E+00 7.24E+00 5.18E+00 6.33E+00 6.32E+00 

 24 6.29E+00 6.23E+00 6.02E+00 5.65E+00 5.40E+00 3.95E+00 4.90E+00 4.90E+00 

 25 6.91E+00 6.84E+00 6.58E+00 6.24E+00 5.98E+00 4.23E+00 5.13E+00 5.13E+00 

 26 8.47E+00 8.41E+00 8.15E+00 7.55E+00 7.17E+00 5.03E+00 6.08E+00 6.08E+00 

 27 1.36E+01 1.35E+01 1.29E+01 1.19E+01 1.13E+01 7.68E+00 9.25E+00 9.24E+00 

 28 7.11E+00 7.06E+00 6.85E+00 6.44E+00 6.30E+00 4.95E+00 6.05E+00 6.08E+00 

 29 6.01E+00 5.96E+00 5.77E+00 5.57E+00 5.35E+00 3.93E+00 4.84E+00 4.83E+00 

 30 6.95E+00 6.90E+00 6.64E+00 6.16E+00 5.86E+00 4.18E+00 5.06E+00 5.06E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 4657.24671246521 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 242.285964103120 

 volatile halflife (days) = 114223441.685679 

 total water col halflife (days) = 230.304257398377 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 5695.31714451520 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 5695.31714451520 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.5210 1.632 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.2673E-04 

 Due to Drift = 0.4790 1.500 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 
168 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

Georgia, Pecan, aerial, drift, parent only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:53 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 9.73 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 6.06 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 3.67 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.63 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.26 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.75 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 9.08 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 8.90 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 8.90 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 2.45E+00 2.41E+00 2.32E+00 2.12E+00 1.99E+00 9.51E-01 1.52E+00 1.52E+00 

 2 4.53E+00 4.48E+00 4.38E+00 4.01E+00 3.78E+00 2.19E+00 3.02E+00 3.01E+00 

 3 6.21E+00 6.14E+00 5.88E+00 5.40E+00 5.09E+00 3.18E+00 4.17E+00 4.17E+00 

 4 7.03E+00 6.96E+00 6.79E+00 6.32E+00 5.99E+00 3.89E+00 4.99E+00 4.98E+00 

 5 7.35E+00 7.27E+00 7.04E+00 6.49E+00 6.13E+00 4.15E+00 5.18E+00 5.17E+00 

 6 1.75E+01 1.73E+01 1.65E+01 1.50E+01 1.40E+01 7.85E+00 1.11E+01 1.11E+01 

 7 8.08E+00 8.10E+00 8.30E+00 8.78E+00 9.19E+00 6.16E+00 9.29E+00 9.50E+00 

 8 5.35E+00 5.30E+00 5.14E+00 4.79E+00 4.81E+00 3.68E+00 4.95E+00 5.07E+00 

 9 5.73E+00 5.67E+00 5.44E+00 5.02E+00 4.75E+00 3.24E+00 4.03E+00 4.03E+00 

 10 5.24E+00 5.19E+00 5.01E+00 4.73E+00 4.50E+00 3.15E+00 3.86E+00 3.86E+00 

 11 4.90E+00 4.86E+00 4.72E+00 4.38E+00 4.17E+00 2.95E+00 3.60E+00 3.59E+00 

 12 9.92E+00 9.80E+00 9.37E+00 8.53E+00 8.02E+00 4.62E+00 6.44E+00 6.43E+00 

 13 6.38E+00 6.32E+00 6.19E+00 5.82E+00 5.53E+00 4.33E+00 5.47E+00 5.59E+00 

 14 5.03E+00 4.98E+00 4.78E+00 4.43E+00 4.21E+00 3.19E+00 3.86E+00 3.95E+00 

 15 5.90E+00 5.83E+00 5.58E+00 5.13E+00 4.84E+00 3.20E+00 4.07E+00 4.07E+00 

 16 5.48E+00 5.43E+00 5.27E+00 4.95E+00 4.72E+00 3.29E+00 4.06E+00 4.06E+00 

 17 4.29E+00 4.25E+00 4.12E+00 3.84E+00 3.65E+00 2.76E+00 3.29E+00 3.36E+00 

 18 4.70E+00 4.65E+00 4.45E+00 4.13E+00 3.91E+00 2.65E+00 3.31E+00 3.31E+00 

 19 5.24E+00 5.19E+00 4.99E+00 4.72E+00 4.48E+00 3.00E+00 3.83E+00 3.83E+00 

 20 4.57E+00 4.52E+00 4.39E+00 4.14E+00 3.94E+00 2.87E+00 3.44E+00 3.43E+00 

 21 4.11E+00 4.07E+00 4.02E+00 3.77E+00 3.57E+00 2.55E+00 3.09E+00 3.08E+00 

 22 1.44E+01 1.43E+01 1.36E+01 1.23E+01 1.16E+01 6.09E+00 9.02E+00 9.01E+00 

 23 8.08E+00 8.01E+00 7.77E+00 7.46E+00 7.72E+00 5.80E+00 7.74E+00 7.91E+00 
169 

 24 5.25E+00 5.20E+00 5.08E+00 4.81E+00 4.90E+00 3.73E+00 5.02E+00 5.14E+00 

 25 6.83E+00 6.76E+00 6.47E+00 5.92E+00 5.60E+00 3.65E+00 4.68E+00 4.68E+00 

 26 5.89E+00 5.83E+00 5.64E+00 5.22E+00 4.96E+00 3.56E+00 4.31E+00 4.30E+00 

 27 6.80E+00 6.72E+00 6.47E+00 5.95E+00 5.62E+00 3.74E+00 4.74E+00 4.73E+00 

 28 4.62E+00 4.58E+00 4.41E+00 4.08E+00 3.87E+00 3.04E+00 3.88E+00 3.97E+00 

 29 6.21E+00 6.16E+00 5.94E+00 5.44E+00 5.12E+00 3.25E+00 4.22E+00 4.21E+00 

 30 5.59E+00 5.53E+00 5.31E+00 4.88E+00 4.65E+00 3.29E+00 4.02E+00 4.02E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2901.24491598198 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 221.249282307510 

 volatile halflife (days) = 209980114.624810 

 total water col halflife (days) = 205.572111995484 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.4669 1.321 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0027 0.7551E-02 

 Due to Drift = 0.5304 1.500 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 
170 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

Georgia, Pecan, no drift, parent only, aerial application 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:55 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.55 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 4.07 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 1.73 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.47 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.51 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.80 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 7.11 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 6.53 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.54 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 8.22E-02 8.11E-02 7.69E-02 6.96E-02 6.52E-02 2.91E-02 4.90E-02 4.89E-02 

 2 1.49E+00 1.47E+00 1.41E+00 1.30E+00 1.22E+00 5.83E-01 9.30E-01 9.29E-01 

 3 2.85E+00 2.81E+00 2.69E+00 2.46E+00 2.31E+00 1.33E+00 1.84E+00 1.84E+00 

 4 3.63E+00 3.59E+00 3.49E+00 3.30E+00 3.13E+00 1.95E+00 2.57E+00 2.57E+00 

 5 3.95E+00 3.91E+00 3.75E+00 3.47E+00 3.27E+00 2.18E+00 2.73E+00 2.73E+00 

 6 1.40E+01 1.38E+01 1.31E+01 1.19E+01 1.12E+01 5.86E+00 8.67E+00 8.66E+00 

 7 6.38E+00 6.40E+00 6.55E+00 6.93E+00 7.26E+00 4.17E+00 7.32E+00 7.48E+00 

 8 2.54E+00 2.55E+00 2.61E+00 2.75E+00 2.87E+00 1.69E+00 2.97E+00 3.05E+00 

 9 2.22E+00 2.20E+00 2.11E+00 1.96E+00 1.86E+00 1.24E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00 

 10 1.80E+00 1.78E+00 1.73E+00 1.66E+00 1.60E+00 1.16E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 

 11 1.53E+00 1.51E+00 1.47E+00 1.36E+00 1.29E+00 9.46E-01 1.12E+00 1.14E+00 

 12 6.57E+00 6.48E+00 6.18E+00 5.60E+00 5.24E+00 2.63E+00 4.02E+00 4.02E+00 

 13 3.07E+00 3.08E+00 3.15E+00 3.34E+00 3.50E+00 2.34E+00 3.50E+00 3.57E+00 

 14 1.62E+00 1.63E+00 1.66E+00 1.76E+00 1.84E+00 1.20E+00 1.89E+00 1.94E+00 

 15 2.44E+00 2.41E+00 2.30E+00 2.12E+00 1.99E+00 1.21E+00 1.61E+00 1.61E+00 

 16 2.16E+00 2.14E+00 2.10E+00 1.94E+00 1.84E+00 1.30E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 

 17 1.13E+00 1.14E+00 1.16E+00 1.23E+00 1.28E+00 7.60E-01 1.31E+00 1.34E+00 

 18 1.20E+00 1.19E+00 1.13E+00 1.07E+00 1.01E+00 6.48E-01 8.40E-01 8.39E-01 

 19 1.96E+00 1.95E+00 1.87E+00 1.80E+00 1.71E+00 1.00E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 

 20 1.23E+00 1.22E+00 1.19E+00 1.15E+00 1.20E+00 8.73E-01 1.20E+00 1.23E+00 

 21 7.89E-01 7.82E-01 7.57E-01 7.10E-01 7.43E-01 5.54E-01 7.59E-01 7.77E-01 

 22 1.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.03E+01 9.35E+00 8.75E+00 4.09E+00 6.61E+00 6.61E+00 

 23 5.06E+00 5.07E+00 5.20E+00 5.51E+00 5.78E+00 3.81E+00 5.77E+00 5.89E+00 

 24 2.62E+00 2.62E+00 2.69E+00 2.84E+00 2.96E+00 1.74E+00 3.05E+00 3.12E+00 

 25 3.42E+00 3.38E+00 3.23E+00 2.94E+00 2.76E+00 1.66E+00 2.23E+00 2.23E+00 

 26 2.47E+00 2.45E+00 2.39E+00 2.23E+00 2.11E+00 1.57E+00 1.87E+00 1.91E+00 

 27 3.40E+00 3.36E+00 3.23E+00 2.95E+00 2.78E+00 1.75E+00 2.28E+00 2.28E+00 

 28 1.65E+00 1.66E+00 1.70E+00 1.80E+00 1.88E+00 1.05E+00 1.90E+00 1.95E+00 

 29 2.72E+00 2.68E+00 2.59E+00 2.37E+00 2.22E+00 1.25E+00 1.76E+00 1.76E+00 

 30 2.21E+00 2.18E+00 2.09E+00 1.92E+00 1.82E+00 1.30E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00 
171 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2901.24491598198 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 221.249282307510 

 volatile halflife (days) = 209980114.624810 

 total water col halflife (days) = 205.572111995484 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3547.91380628477 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.9943 1.321 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0057 0.7551E-02 

 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

California Citrus (Prickly Pear), ground, drift 
172 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 10:58 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 2.98 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 1.83 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 1.39 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.95 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.86 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.68 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.56 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 2.22 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 2.22 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 1.24E+00 1.22E+00 1.16E+00 1.06E+00 1.04E+00 6.76E-01 7.68E-01 7.67E-01 

 2 2.06E+00 2.04E+00 2.01E+00 1.88E+00 1.78E+00 1.31E+00 1.54E+00 1.54E+00 

 3 3.02E+00 2.99E+00 2.88E+00 2.69E+00 2.58E+00 1.88E+00 2.24E+00 2.24E+00 

 4 2.37E+00 2.35E+00 2.27E+00 2.11E+00 2.01E+00 1.43E+00 1.84E+00 1.83E+00 

 5 2.03E+00 2.01E+00 1.94E+00 1.80E+00 1.81E+00 1.38E+00 1.65E+00 1.65E+00 

 6 2.20E+00 2.18E+00 2.11E+00 2.02E+00 1.96E+00 1.41E+00 1.73E+00 1.73E+00 

 7 2.33E+00 2.31E+00 2.22E+00 2.09E+00 2.00E+00 1.43E+00 1.75E+00 1.75E+00 

 8 2.04E+00 2.02E+00 1.95E+00 1.81E+00 1.74E+00 1.25E+00 1.54E+00 1.54E+00 

 9 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.72E+00 1.64E+00 1.15E+00 1.43E+00 1.43E+00 

 10 1.87E+00 1.85E+00 1.78E+00 1.74E+00 1.68E+00 1.21E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 

 11 2.00E+00 1.98E+00 1.91E+00 1.77E+00 1.68E+00 1.20E+00 1.46E+00 1.46E+00 

 12 1.91E+00 1.89E+00 1.82E+00 1.69E+00 1.60E+00 1.26E+00 1.39E+00 1.39E+00 

 13 2.60E+00 2.58E+00 2.48E+00 2.29E+00 2.19E+00 1.54E+00 1.89E+00 1.88E+00 

 14 2.29E+00 2.27E+00 2.19E+00 2.05E+00 1.96E+00 1.55E+00 1.84E+00 1.84E+00 

 15 2.18E+00 2.16E+00 2.08E+00 1.99E+00 1.91E+00 1.36E+00 1.70E+00 1.70E+00 

 16 1.99E+00 1.97E+00 1.90E+00 1.85E+00 1.78E+00 1.27E+00 1.57E+00 1.57E+00 

 17 1.95E+00 1.93E+00 1.86E+00 1.72E+00 1.66E+00 1.27E+00 1.48E+00 1.48E+00 

 18 5.09E+00 5.03E+00 4.83E+00 4.44E+00 4.20E+00 2.87E+00 3.44E+00 3.43E+00 

 19 2.98E+00 2.96E+00 2.89E+00 2.71E+00 2.60E+00 1.84E+00 2.47E+00 2.47E+00 

 20 2.27E+00 2.25E+00 2.20E+00 2.05E+00 1.95E+00 1.38E+00 1.76E+00 1.76E+00 

 21 2.00E+00 1.98E+00 1.91E+00 1.86E+00 1.78E+00 1.26E+00 1.56E+00 1.56E+00 

 22 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.71E+00 1.63E+00 1.16E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 

 23 2.91E+00 2.88E+00 2.76E+00 2.55E+00 2.43E+00 1.73E+00 2.06E+00 2.06E+00 

 24 2.22E+00 2.20E+00 2.13E+00 1.98E+00 1.88E+00 1.33E+00 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 

 25 1.97E+00 1.95E+00 1.88E+00 1.74E+00 1.66E+00 1.18E+00 1.45E+00 1.45E+00 

 26 1.94E+00 1.92E+00 1.85E+00 1.71E+00 1.63E+00 1.14E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 

 27 2.41E+00 2.39E+00 2.29E+00 2.11E+00 2.01E+00 1.40E+00 1.69E+00 1.69E+00 

 28 2.06E+00 2.04E+00 1.96E+00 1.82E+00 1.74E+00 1.23E+00 1.54E+00 1.53E+00 

 29 2.05E+00 2.03E+00 1.96E+00 1.87E+00 1.82E+00 1.31E+00 1.59E+00 1.59E+00 

 30 1.97E+00 1.95E+00 1.88E+00 1.75E+00 1.66E+00 1.17E+00 1.46E+00 1.45E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2888.72777828107 

 zero hydrolysis 0 
173 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 235.256836094185 

 volatile halflife (days) = 169914019.380742 

 total water col halflife (days) = 217.540151846075 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.2498 0.2478 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0004 0.4072E-03 

 Due to Drift = 0.7498 0.7440 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

California Citrus (Prickly Pear), ground, no drift 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11: 8 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 1.24 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 0.779 ppb 
174 

Simulation Avg = 0.349 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.23 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.22 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.27 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.28 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 1.04 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 1.04 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 2.32E-02 1.26E-02 1.43E-02 1.43E-02 

 2 7.47E-01 7.39E-01 7.06E-01 6.61E-01 6.24E-01 3.96E-01 4.79E-01 4.78E-01 

 3 1.55E+00 1.53E+00 1.46E+00 1.36E+00 1.31E+00 8.75E-01 1.06E+00 1.06E+00 

 4 5.90E-01 5.91E-01 6.04E-01 6.35E-01 6.61E-01 3.86E-01 6.84E-01 7.00E-01 

 5 5.46E-01 5.41E-01 5.19E-01 4.91E-01 4.67E-01 3.26E-01 4.00E-01 4.00E-01 

 6 6.06E-01 6.00E-01 5.77E-01 5.34E-01 5.07E-01 3.55E-01 4.37E-01 4.37E-01 

 7 6.26E-01 6.19E-01 5.95E-01 5.50E-01 5.24E-01 3.68E-01 4.50E-01 4.50E-01 

 8 2.70E-01 2.68E-01 2.60E-01 2.55E-01 2.53E-01 1.93E-01 2.62E-01 2.68E-01 

 9 1.40E-01 1.39E-01 1.35E-01 1.34E-01 1.39E-01 9.59E-02 1.44E-01 1.47E-01 

 10 2.65E-01 2.62E-01 2.50E-01 2.29E-01 2.17E-01 1.55E-01 1.76E-01 1.75E-01 

 11 1.95E-01 1.96E-01 2.03E-01 2.02E-01 1.92E-01 1.46E-01 1.71E-01 1.70E-01 

 12 4.31E-01 4.26E-01 4.07E-01 3.71E-01 3.49E-01 2.03E-01 2.75E-01 2.75E-01 

 13 8.72E-01 8.62E-01 8.26E-01 7.58E-01 7.18E-01 4.88E-01 5.90E-01 5.89E-01 

 14 8.63E-01 8.54E-01 8.19E-01 7.53E-01 7.13E-01 4.92E-01 5.94E-01 5.94E-01 

 15 4.58E-01 4.54E-01 4.42E-01 4.15E-01 4.20E-01 3.00E-01 4.21E-01 4.29E-01 

 16 3.53E-01 3.49E-01 3.37E-01 3.14E-01 2.99E-01 2.14E-01 2.68E-01 2.68E-01 

 17 3.24E-01 3.22E-01 3.10E-01 2.87E-01 2.73E-01 2.20E-01 2.53E-01 2.52E-01 

 18 3.52E+00 3.48E+00 3.32E+00 3.03E+00 2.85E+00 1.82E+00 2.20E+00 2.20E+00 

 19 1.20E+00 1.20E+00 1.22E+00 1.29E+00 1.34E+00 7.91E-01 1.39E+00 1.42E+00 

 20 4.94E-01 4.91E-01 4.81E-01 5.05E-01 5.26E-01 3.25E-01 5.45E-01 5.58E-01 

 21 3.34E-01 3.31E-01 3.20E-01 2.99E-01 2.89E-01 2.10E-01 2.65E-01 2.65E-01 

 22 1.46E-01 1.45E-01 1.41E-01 1.42E-01 1.48E-01 1.04E-01 1.52E-01 1.56E-01 

 23 1.25E+00 1.23E+00 1.18E+00 1.07E+00 1.01E+00 6.67E-01 7.88E-01 7.87E-01 

 24 4.15E-01 4.16E-01 4.25E-01 4.47E-01 4.66E-01 2.69E-01 4.82E-01 4.94E-01 

 25 1.60E-01 1.60E-01 1.64E-01 1.72E-01 1.79E-01 1.18E-01 1.86E-01 1.90E-01 

 26 1.26E-01 1.26E-01 1.30E-01 1.36E-01 1.29E-01 8.21E-02 1.18E-01 1.17E-01 

 27 6.07E-01 6.00E-01 5.72E-01 5.21E-01 4.91E-01 3.41E-01 3.84E-01 3.83E-01 

 28 2.40E-01 2.40E-01 2.46E-01 2.61E-01 2.51E-01 1.75E-01 2.56E-01 2.58E-01 

 29 4.43E-01 4.38E-01 4.19E-01 3.85E-01 3.64E-01 2.46E-01 2.97E-01 2.97E-01 

 30 1.58E-01 1.59E-01 1.62E-01 1.70E-01 1.77E-01 1.05E-01 1.83E-01 1.88E-01 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2888.72777828107 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 235.256836094185 

 volatile halflife (days) = 169914019.380742 

 total water col halflife (days) = 217.540151846075 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 
175 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3532.60667884456 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.9984 0.2478 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0016 0.4072E-03 

 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

TX alfalfa, parent, aerial, drift 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11:11 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 25.2 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 13.1 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 8.79 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.9 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 24.0 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 22.1 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 20.9 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb 
176 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 17.2 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.00E+00 3.97E+00 3.82E+00 3.53E+00 3.33E+00 1.74E+00 2.67E+00 2.67E+00 

 2 1.11E+01 1.09E+01 1.07E+01 9.86E+00 9.29E+00 5.25E+00 7.38E+00 7.37E+00 

 3 6.26E+00 6.21E+00 6.07E+00 5.95E+00 5.98E+00 4.70E+00 6.06E+00 6.20E+00 

 4 1.67E+01 1.65E+01 1.57E+01 1.43E+01 1.34E+01 7.59E+00 1.07E+01 1.07E+01 

 5 2.62E+01 2.59E+01 2.49E+01 2.30E+01 2.16E+01 1.34E+01 1.75E+01 1.75E+01 

 6 1.17E+01 1.17E+01 1.20E+01 1.27E+01 1.33E+01 9.42E+00 1.36E+01 1.39E+01 

 7 1.25E+01 1.24E+01 1.21E+01 1.14E+01 1.08E+01 7.87E+00 9.37E+00 9.36E+00 

 8 1.83E+01 1.81E+01 1.77E+01 1.65E+01 1.57E+01 1.00E+01 1.29E+01 1.29E+01 

 9 1.06E+01 1.05E+01 1.02E+01 9.69E+00 9.76E+00 8.19E+00 9.99E+00 1.02E+01 

 10 1.95E+01 1.92E+01 1.85E+01 1.70E+01 1.62E+01 1.04E+01 1.34E+01 1.34E+01 

 11 1.04E+01 1.03E+01 1.00E+01 9.81E+00 1.03E+01 8.15E+00 1.05E+01 1.07E+01 

 12 1.12E+01 1.11E+01 1.07E+01 1.01E+01 9.62E+00 7.23E+00 8.72E+00 8.71E+00 

 13 1.15E+01 1.14E+01 1.11E+01 1.06E+01 1.01E+01 7.10E+00 8.76E+00 8.75E+00 

 14 1.57E+01 1.56E+01 1.51E+01 1.41E+01 1.33E+01 9.32E+00 1.15E+01 1.15E+01 

 15 2.57E+01 2.54E+01 2.44E+01 2.25E+01 2.12E+01 1.32E+01 1.72E+01 1.72E+01 

 16 1.52E+01 1.50E+01 1.45E+01 1.40E+01 1.34E+01 1.07E+01 1.36E+01 1.39E+01 

 17 8.29E+00 8.23E+00 8.17E+00 8.62E+00 9.00E+00 6.59E+00 9.26E+00 9.48E+00 

 18 1.32E+01 1.30E+01 1.25E+01 1.18E+01 1.12E+01 7.31E+00 9.34E+00 9.33E+00 

 19 3.11E+01 3.08E+01 2.93E+01 2.68E+01 2.55E+01 1.49E+01 2.03E+01 2.03E+01 

 20 1.50E+01 1.48E+01 1.46E+01 1.54E+01 1.62E+01 1.12E+01 1.64E+01 1.68E+01 

 21 2.10E+01 2.08E+01 2.04E+01 1.88E+01 1.78E+01 1.14E+01 1.47E+01 1.47E+01 

 22 1.89E+01 1.87E+01 1.82E+01 1.76E+01 1.69E+01 1.17E+01 1.44E+01 1.44E+01 

 23 1.54E+01 1.53E+01 1.50E+01 1.42E+01 1.35E+01 9.91E+00 1.19E+01 1.19E+01 

 24 8.23E+00 8.16E+00 7.98E+00 8.28E+00 8.66E+00 6.28E+00 8.89E+00 9.10E+00 

 25 1.02E+01 1.01E+01 9.73E+00 9.19E+00 8.78E+00 5.93E+00 7.51E+00 7.50E+00 

 26 1.39E+01 1.38E+01 1.33E+01 1.23E+01 1.17E+01 7.63E+00 9.69E+00 9.68E+00 

 27 1.99E+01 1.96E+01 1.92E+01 1.76E+01 1.66E+01 1.03E+01 1.35E+01 1.35E+01 

 28 1.39E+01 1.38E+01 1.33E+01 1.26E+01 1.20E+01 9.11E+00 1.08E+01 1.10E+01 

 29 1.63E+01 1.61E+01 1.54E+01 1.48E+01 1.40E+01 9.38E+00 1.18E+01 1.18E+01 

 30 1.12E+01 1.11E+01 1.07E+01 1.02E+01 9.93E+00 7.76E+00 9.11E+00 9.33E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 2716.96690609239 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 220.999441902424 

 volatile halflife (days) = 138298143.709545 

 total water col halflife (days) = 204.375139623146 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3322.56140949802 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3322.56140949802 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 0.7797 5.312 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0001 0.4190E-03 

 Due to Drift = 0.2202 1.500 
177 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 

MS soybean, Parent only 

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0 

 

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

Performed on: 4/17/2014 at 11:16 

 

Peak 1-in-10 = 6.97 ppb 

Chronic 1-in-10 = 3.54 ppb 

Simulation Avg = 1.84 ppb 

4-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.91 ppb 

21-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.61 ppb 

60-day avg 1-in-10 = 6.05 ppb 

90-day avg 1-in-10 = 5.71 ppb 

 

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 4.70 ppb 

Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 4.70 ppb 

Benthic Conversion Factor = 5.85 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) 

Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.633E-01 

 

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 

 1 4.71E-01 4.66E-01 4.46E-01 4.15E-01 4.02E-01 2.30E-01 3.18E-01 3.18E-01 

 2 5.86E+00 5.80E+00 5.54E+00 5.03E+00 4.73E+00 2.71E+00 3.64E+00 3.64E+00 
178 

 3 2.29E+00 2.30E+00 2.35E+00 2.48E+00 2.58E+00 1.70E+00 2.66E+00 2.72E+00 

 4 5.27E+00 5.20E+00 5.08E+00 4.67E+00 4.40E+00 2.71E+00 3.49E+00 3.49E+00 

 5 2.13E+00 2.14E+00 2.19E+00 2.31E+00 2.41E+00 1.47E+00 2.48E+00 2.54E+00 

 6 1.39E+00 1.38E+00 1.34E+00 1.24E+00 1.18E+00 8.82E-01 1.06E+00 1.07E+00 

 7 2.03E+00 2.01E+00 1.93E+00 1.78E+00 1.69E+00 1.11E+00 1.42E+00 1.42E+00 

 8 3.85E+00 3.82E+00 3.65E+00 3.36E+00 3.18E+00 2.00E+00 2.56E+00 2.55E+00 

 9 2.69E+00 2.67E+00 2.57E+00 2.38E+00 2.26E+00 1.65E+00 2.01E+00 2.01E+00 

 10 1.36E+00 1.35E+00 1.32E+00 1.27E+00 1.32E+00 9.74E-01 1.37E+00 1.40E+00 

 11 3.16E+00 3.12E+00 3.05E+00 2.80E+00 2.63E+00 1.59E+00 2.09E+00 2.08E+00 

 12 1.34E+00 1.34E+00 1.37E+00 1.45E+00 1.51E+00 9.02E-01 1.55E+00 1.59E+00 

 13 2.85E+00 2.82E+00 2.70E+00 2.47E+00 2.32E+00 1.44E+00 1.87E+00 1.86E+00 

 14 7.33E+00 7.24E+00 6.98E+00 6.40E+00 6.02E+00 3.60E+00 4.72E+00 4.71E+00 

 15 3.08E+00 3.06E+00 3.05E+00 3.22E+00 3.35E+00 2.27E+00 3.45E+00 3.54E+00 

 16 1.44E+00 1.44E+00 1.48E+00 1.55E+00 1.62E+00 1.10E+00 1.68E+00 1.72E+00 

 17 3.95E+00 3.90E+00 3.77E+00 3.49E+00 3.29E+00 2.01E+00 2.60E+00 2.60E+00 

 18 2.07E+00 2.05E+00 1.99E+00 1.89E+00 1.81E+00 1.41E+00 1.85E+00 1.89E+00 

 19 3.62E+00 3.58E+00 3.44E+00 3.20E+00 3.04E+00 1.95E+00 2.47E+00 2.47E+00 

 20 7.10E+00 7.03E+00 6.73E+00 6.16E+00 5.80E+00 3.56E+00 4.60E+00 4.60E+00 

 21 2.84E+00 2.85E+00 2.92E+00 3.07E+00 3.21E+00 1.95E+00 3.31E+00 3.38E+00 

 22 2.68E+00 2.65E+00 2.55E+00 2.35E+00 2.22E+00 1.52E+00 1.88E+00 1.88E+00 

 23 1.09E+01 1.08E+01 1.05E+01 9.57E+00 8.99E+00 5.29E+00 6.97E+00 6.96E+00 

 24 4.66E+00 4.63E+00 4.56E+00 4.68E+00 4.89E+00 3.40E+00 5.03E+00 5.15E+00 

 25 2.19E+00 2.18E+00 2.21E+00 2.33E+00 2.43E+00 1.64E+00 2.52E+00 2.59E+00 

 26 1.03E+00 1.03E+00 1.06E+00 1.11E+00 1.16E+00 7.40E-01 1.21E+00 1.24E+00 

 27 5.40E-01 5.36E-01 5.24E-01 4.98E-01 5.20E-01 3.94E-01 5.39E-01 5.52E-01 

 28 5.02E+00 4.96E+00 4.73E+00 4.46E+00 4.21E+00 2.43E+00 3.23E+00 3.23E+00 

 29 2.31E+00 2.29E+00 2.23E+00 2.18E+00 2.27E+00 1.69E+00 2.34E+00 2.40E+00 

 30 1.35E+00 1.33E+00 1.31E+00 1.25E+00 1.26E+00 9.67E-01 1.31E+00 1.34E+00 

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

******* 

 Effective compartment halflives averaged over simulation duration: 

 

 zero washout 0 

 water col metab halflife (days) = 3098.53925897206 

 zero hydrolysis 0 

 photolysis halflife (days) = 226.307838768034 

 volatile halflife (days) = 170342135.750770 

 total water col halflife (days) = 210.903790226708 

 

 zero burial 0 

 benthic metab halflife (days) = 3789.18379336529 

 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 

 total benthic halflife (days) = 3789.18379336529 

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

 Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg): 

 

 Due to Runoff = 1.0000 1.367 

 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.000 

 Due to Drift = 0.0000 0.000 

 ******* Inputs ******* 

 137.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 

 2979. = water column half Life 

 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 

 3643. = benthic Half Life 

 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 

 2.000 = Q ten value 
179 

 2.500 = photolysis half life 

 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 

 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 

 288.3 = molecular wt 

 0.1300E-07 = vapor pressure 

 3200. = solubility 

 0.1000E+06 = field area 

 0.1000E+05 = water body area 

 2.000 = initial depth 

 2.000 = maximum depth 

 2 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow 

 F T = burial, else no burial 

 0.1000E-07 = mass transfer coefficient 

 0.5000 = PRBEN 

 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 

 0.5000 = benthic porosity 

 1.350 = benthic bulk density 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 

 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 

 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 

 1.190 = DFAC 

 30.00 = SS 

 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 

 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 

 5.000 = DOC in water column 

 0.4000 = biomass in water column 
180 

Appendix F. Estimation of Exposure of Terrestrial Plants to Flupyradifurone and 

Unextracted Residues in Groundwater Used as Irrigation Water 

To estimate exposure to plants when groundwater contaminated by flupyradifurone is applied to 

crops, the following method was used. 

Assume a field is irrigated with one inch of water containing 96.0 μg flupyradifurone plus 

unextracted residues/L water. 

One acre has 6,272,640 cubic inches of water on the field. The one acre field with one inch of 

water has 3,630 cubic ft of water (6,272,640 x 0.00058 cubic ft/cubic inch). The field has 27,156 

gallons of water (3,630 cubic ft x 7.481 gallons/cubic ft). Therefore, one inch of water on the one 

acre field weighs 226,625 lbs (27,156 gallons x 8.3453 lbs/gallon of water). 

 226,625 lb of water/acre x 112 μg/L = 0.0218 lbs ai/A 

 1,000,000,000 

 
181 

Appendix G. Example STIR (v. 1.0) input and output data 
182 

Appendix H. Example T-REX (v. 1.5.2) input and output data. 

 
183 
184 

Appendix I. Toxicity Comparisons of Flupyradifurone and Transformation Products.

Table I1 contains a list of toxicity endpoints for aquatic and terrestrial organisms for which 

parent and transformation product data exist. Based on the available ecotoxicity data, none of the 

transformation products of flupyradifurone tested appear to be more toxic than the parent to 

freshwater fish (rainbow trout, Onchorhynchus mykiss), freshwater aquatic invertebrates 

(Daphnia magna; non-biting midges, Chironomus spp.), terrestrial invertebrates (honeybees, 

Apis mellifera; earthworms, Eisenia fetida) and freshwater aquatic algae (green algae; 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). However, in some cases, toxicity studies with transformation 

products were not carried out at high enough concentrations to definitively conclude that they are 

not of equal or greater toxicity to the organisms tested as compared to the parent compound. 

Table I1. Toxicity Comparison of Flupyradifurone and Transformation Products. 

Test Material 

MW 

(g/mol) Test Species Endpoint 

Toxicity Value 

(95% 

Confidence 

Interval) 

Degradate Toxicity 

Expressed in Parent 

Compound 

Equivalentsb 

Freshwater Fish 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Rainbow trout 

(Onchorhynchus mykiss) 96-hr LC50

>80 mg ai/L N/A 

BYI 02960-

succinamide 306.69 >100c

 mg ai/L >94 mg/L 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 96.03 >10c

 mg ai/L >30 mg/La 

Freshwater Invertebrates 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Daphnia. magna 

48-hr EC50

>77.6c mg ai/L N/A 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 96.03 >10c

 mg ai/L >30 mg/La 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 >95.1 mg ai/L >174 mg/L 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

21-day 

NOAEC 

3.2d

 mg ai/L

(parental body 

length) 

N/A 

BYI 02960-

succinamide 306.69 

43.3 mg ai/L 

(time to first 

brood) 

41 mg/L 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Non-biting midge 

Chironomus riparius 48-hr EC50

0.0617 mg ai/L 

(0.0414-0.109) N/A 

BYI 02960-

succinamide 306.69 >100 mg ai/L >94 mg/L 

BYI 02960-

azabicyclosuccinamide 288.25 >100 mg ai/L >100 mg/L 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 Non-biting midge Chironomus tentans >1c

 mg ai/L >1.8 mg/L 
185 

Test Material 

MW 

(g/mol) Test Species Endpoint 

Toxicity Value 

(95% 

Confidence 

Interval) 

Degradate Toxicity 

Expressed in Parent 

Compound 

Equivalentsb 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Non-biting midge 

Chironomus riparius 

28-day 

NOAEC 

0.010e

 mg ai/L

(emergence rate, 

development 

rate) 

N/A 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 96.03 

100f

 mg ai/L

(emergence rate, 

development 

rate) 

301 mg/L 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 

100f

 mg ai/L

(emergence rate, 

development 

rate) 

183 mg/L 

Aquatic Plants 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Green alga 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata 

96-hr 

NOAEC/ 

EC50

80/>80 mg ai/L N/A 

Sodium 

Difluoroacetate 96.03 

72-hr 

NOAEC/ 

EC50

10/>10c

 mg ai/L 30/>30 mg/La 

BYI 02960-

succinamide 306.69 10/>10c

 mg ai/L 9.4/>9.4 mg/La 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 100/>100 mg ai/L 183/>183 mg/L 

Terrestrial Invertebrates 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Honeybee 

Apis mellifera 

96-hr 

Contact 

LD50

122.8 μg ai/bee 

N/A 

BYI 02960-

difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12 

48-hr 

Contact 

LD50

>100 μg ai/bee 

177 μg/bee 

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 >100 μg ai/bee 95 μg/beea

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >100 μg ai/bee 301 μg/bee 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 >100 μg ai/bee 183 μg/bee 

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 >100 μg ai/bee 201 μg/bee 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

48-hr Oral 

LD50

1.2 μg ai/bee N/A 

BYI 02960-

difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12 >81.5 μg ai/bee 

144 μg/bee 

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 >105.3 μg ai/bee 100 μg/bee 

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >107.9 μg ai/bee 324 μg/bee 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 >107.1 μg ai/bee 196 μg/bee 

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 >106.7 μg ai/bee 215 μg/bee 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 10-day NOAEC 10 mg ai/L N/A 
186 

Test Material 

MW 

(g/mol) Test Species Endpoint 

Toxicity Value 

(95% 

Confidence 

Interval) 

Degradate Toxicity 

Expressed in Parent 

Compound 

Equivalentsb 

BYI 02960-

difluoro-aminofuranone 163.12 10 mg ai/L 

18 mg/L 

BYI 02960-hyroxy 304.68 10 mg ai/L 9.5 mg/La

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 10 mg ai/L 30 mg/L 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 10 mg ai/L 18 mg/L 

6-chloropicolylalcohol 143.57 10 mg ai/L 20 mg/L 

BYI 02960 

(technical) 288.68 

Earthworm 

Eisenia fetida

14-day 

LC50

192.9 mg ai/kg 

dry soil 

N/A 

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 >1,000 mg ai/kg 

dry soil 

3000 mg/kg dry soil 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 >1,000 mg ai/kg dry soil 

1830 mg/kg dry soil 

BYI 02960 (SL 200 

G)g 288.68 

28-day 

NOAEC 

1.5 mg ai/kg dry 

soil 

N/A 

Difluoroacetic acid 96.03 62 mg ai/kg dry 

soil 

186 mg/kg dry soil 

6-chloronicotinic 

acid 157.56 95 mg ai/kg dry 

soil 

174 mg/kg dry soil 

N/A = Not Applicable 

a

 Due to limits determined by the highest concentration tested, it is not possible to determine if the transformation 

product is less, equal, or more toxic than the parent compound. 

b

 Degradate toxicity in parent compound equivalents (mg/L) = (MW parent/MW degradate) x (toxicity endpoint of 

degradate (mg/L)). c

 Based on single concentration limit test 

d

 Endpoint based on comparison to solvent control; endpoints for this study will be recalculated before finalizing 

study review. e

 Spiked water test; endpoint based on nominal concentrations and comparison to pooled controls. 

f

 Spiked water test; endpoint based on nominal concentrations and comparison to pooled controls; only one 

concentration tested (100 mg ai/L) g

 Transformation product endpoint comparisons do not account for any effects of inert ingredients in SL 200 G as 

compared to the technical grade active ingredient alone. 
187 

Appendix J. OECD and OPP Rating System for Data Evaluation Records and/or 

Monographs 

The OECD rating system is outlined on page 22 of the Guidance Document on the Planning and 

Implementation of Joint Reviews of Pesticides; March 2011. 

Table J1. Summary of OPP and OECD Rating Systems 

OECD Rating OPP Rating OECD Definition 

Fully Reliable Acceptable GLP compliant and fully compliant with the 

Test Guideline specified 

Reliable with Restrictions Supplemental GLP compliant but not fully compliant with 

the Test Guideline specified, but 

nevertheless judged to provide a reliable 

basis for regulatory decision making. 

Not Reliable Invalid Not GLP compliant and/or not compliant 

with the Test Guideline specified, and judged 

to not provide a reliable basis for regulatory 

decision-making.