### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

OFFICE OF PREVENTION, PESTICIDESAND TOXIC SUBSTANCES PC Code: 147500 DP Barcode: DP No. 299583 Date: 1/28/05



### MEMORANDUM : 

### Drinking Water Assessment for pinoxaden use on wheat and barley.

TO: 

### P.V. Shah, Senior Scientist Registration Action Branch I Health Effects Division (7509C)

Mohsen Sahafeyan, Chemist Registration Action Branch I Health Effects Division (7509C)

FROM: 

# A Ibrahim Abdel-Saheb/~gronomist

# .-k

Environmental Risk Branch I1 

### Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

PEER REVIEW: Dana Spatz/Senior Chemist Environmental Risk Branch I1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)

THRU : 

### Tom Bailey, Branch Chief Environmental Risk Branch I1 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507C)



## Conclusions:

The Propanoic acid, 2,2-dimethyl-,8-(2,6-diethyl-4-methy1pheny1)-1,2,4,5-tetrahydro-7-oxo-7Hpyrazolo[l,4,5]oxadiazepin-9-yl 

### ester (pinoxaden) use on wheat and barley is represented by this memorandum,, Wheat, as a representative scenario for the above crops, is used in this
assessment.

Pinoxaden is a new postemergence herbicide for control of grass weeds in wheat (including durum) and barely. Pinoxaden is

### - 

### applied foliarly by ground or aerial application. It is a systemic herbicide which is rapidly absorbed and translocated. Its mode of action is to inhibit the acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase)enzyme.

EFED currently has no monitoring data for pinoxaden in surface or groundwater. EFED has conducted a Tier I1 

### drinking water assessment for pinoxaden and its major transformation products (NOA-407854, and NOA-447204) using The Tier I1 screening models 

### PRZM' and EXAMS*with the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area adjustment (IR-PCA PRZM/EXAMS), to determine estimated surface water concentrations of pinoxaden from its use wheat in North Dakota (availablescenario). According to U.S. Department of Agriculture, in 2004, North Dakota's wheat production is ranked second in the Nation, behind
Kansas. Human exposure to the total toxic residues of pinoxaden through ingestion of drinking water from use on wheat was assessed through modeling. The Health Effects Division (HED)has determined that the degradates (NOA-407854, and NOA-447204) are of toxicological concern. To estimate potential human exposure to pinoxaden and degradates of concern through ingestion of drinking
water the Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) used the total toxic residue approach. The total toxic residue approach provides a single estimated exposure concentration (EEC) for all residues of concern (i.e.parent pinoxaden plus degradates) using data contained in the environmental fate studies submitted for parent pinoxaden.

The Screening Concentration in Groundwater 

## (SCI- GROW^)model was used to estimate groundwater concentrations for pinoxaden. Modeling results are shown in Table 

### 1.

### The IR-PCA PRZM/EXAMSmodeling results indicate that pinoxaden has the potential to contaminate surface waters by spray drift, and runoff in areas with large amounts of annual rainfall.

use(s) modeled 1 application @ 

### 0.0624



## Environmental Fate and Transport Assessment

PCA

Hydrolysis of pinoxaden ispH dependent and faster under basic conditions. Aqueous photolysis of pinoxaden is not a major dissipation route when exposed to sunlight. In soil, photolysis is also not a significant pathway for degradation for pinoxaden without hydrolytic degradation. lb ai/acre, aerial application

0.56

Acceptable laboratory studies showed that pinoxaden degrades rapidly under aerobic soil metabolism conditions with half-lives ranges from 2-3 days forming the major degradate (NOA-407854)

# , which degrades further to form the degradate NOA-447204.

Under aerobic aquatic conditions, pinoxaden degrades rapidly to (half-life

## < 1 day). Major transformation product (NOA-407854) with maximums of 96.6%, 16.7% and 103.5% of the applied in water layer, sediment and total system, respectively. NOA-407854 was the major product detected in the treated water-sediment systems under both anaerobic and aerobic. Minor identified transformation product

(NOA-447204) with maximums of O.3%, 0.1% and 0.4% in water, sediment and total system, respectively. Under aerobic aquatic conditions, More than 86% of applied activity remains (in total system) in form of the major degradate NOA-407854 (MRID#46203015)



# .

1 

### Volatility is not a significant route of dissipation. Pinoxaden major degradates (NOA-407854, and NOA-447204) are considered to be mobile based on Freundlich

### K,,, values ranging from 0.06-128 ml/g, and 0.28-0856 ml/g, respectively, in three test soils (loamy sand, loam, silty clay loam textures).

Surface Water Monitorinq

The EFED currently has no monitoring data on the concentrations of pinoxaden in surface water.



### Modelinq

### Tier I1 surface water modeling was conducted using the Index Reservoir (IR) scenario and Percent Crop Area (PCA) factor applied after modeling. The Index Reservoir represents a potentially vulnerable drinking water source based on the geometry of an actual Reservoir and its watershed in 

### a specific area (Illinois), using regional specific cropping patterns, weather, soils, and other factors. The PCA is a generic watershed-based adjustment factor which represents the portion of a watershed planted to a crop or crops. The PCA will be applied to pesticide concentrations estimated for the surface water component of the drinking water exposure assessment using PRZM/EXAMS with the Index Reservoir scenario.

The IR-PCA PRZM/EXAMS model use and fate input parameters for pinoxaden in surface water are shown in Table 

### 2. Table 1 

### above shows the results of the IR-PCA PRzM/EXAMS modeling. The IR-PCA PRZM/EXAMS model output file for pinoxaden is shown in Appendix I.

Table 2: IR-PC PRZM/EXAMS input parameters for pinoxaden use onwheat in North Dakaota.

Input variable (Units)

Crop name
application rate (lb ai/acre)

Interval between appl. (d)

Application efficiency

Spray drift fraction

Application method

DWRATE (day-')



### & m/g)

Henry's Law Const. (ah. m3/mole)

KBACW (h-') Input value & calculations

wheat

0.0624

N/A

0.95; 0.99

0.16; 0.064

Aerial, Ground

0.02

0.16

4.27X10-I'

0.001 Source/Quality of data

MRID# 46224801

MRID# 46224801.

MRID# 46224801

For aerial application, and ground

application, respectivley; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .

For aerial application, and ground

application,respectivley; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002).

EPA Reg. No. 62719-308

MRID # 46203011-13; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002).Upper90th percentile of aerobic soil total residue half lives



## .
Average of four values (NOA-407854);

MRID# 46203017; Inputparameters guideline (2/28/2002)



### .
(NOA-407854);MRID# 46203006.

MRID # 46203015; Inputparameters

guideline (2/28/2002).Upper 90th percentile of aerobic soil total residue half lives

### Assumptions and uncertainties7

Index Reservoir The Index Reservoir represent potential drinking water exposure from a specific area (Illinois) with specific cropping patterns, weather, soils, and other factors. Use of the Index Reservoir for areas with different climates, crops, pesticides used, sources of water (e. g. rivers instead of Reservoirs, etc)

# , and hydrogeology creates uncertainties. In general, because the Index Reservoir represents a fairly vulnerable watershed, the exposure estimated with the Index Reservoir will likely be higher than the actual exposure for most drinking water sources. However, The Index Reservoir is not a worst case scenario, communities that derive their drinking water from smaller bodies of water with minimal outflow, or with more runoff prone soils would likely get higher drinking water exposure than estimated using the Index Reservoir. Areas with a more humid climate that use a similar Reservoir and cropping patterns may also get more pesticides in their drinking water than predicted using this scenario. Stable. No Anaerobic aquatic data available; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .
(NOA-407854);MRID# 46203008; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .
(NOA-407854);MRID#46203005; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .
Average of four values (NOA-407854);MRID# 46203017; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .
MRID# 46203006 (parent); Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



## .
MRID# 46203006 (NOA-407854);multiplied by 10.Inputparameters guideline (2/28/2002).

(NOA-407854);MRID# 46203006. KBACS (h-l)

WP (h-l)

KAH, KNH, KBH (h-l)

KPS (mL/g)

(g/mole)

Solubility @ 25 OC (mg/L)

Vapor pressure (torr)



### PRZM/EXAMS uses the characteristics of a single soil to represent the soil in the basin. In fact, soils can vary substantially across even small areas, and this variation is not reflected in these simulations. 0

Stable

stable

0.16

400.5

3800

3.

9-lo



### PRZM/EXAMS does not consider tile drainage. Areas that are prone to substantial runoff are often tile drained. Tile drainage contributes additional water and in some cases, additional pesticide loading to the Reservoir. This may cause either an increase or decrease in the pesticide concentration in the Reservoir. Tile drainage also causes the surface soil to dry out

### faster. This will reduce runoff of the pesticide into the Reservoir. The watershed used as themodel for the Index Reservoir

(Shipman City Lake) does not have tile drainage in the cropped

areas.

EXAMS is unable to easily model spring and fall turnover.
Turnover occurs when the temperature drops in the fall and the thermal stratification of the Reservoir is removed. Turnover occurs again in the spring when the Reservoir warms up. This results in complete mixing of the chemical through the water column at these times. Because of this inability, the Index Reservoir has been simulated without stratification. There is data to suggest that Shipman City Lake, upon which the Index Reservoir is based, does indeed stratify in the deepest parts of the lake at least in some years. This may result in over or underestimation of the concentration in drinking water depending upon the time of the year and the depth the drinking water intake is drawing from.

Percent Crop Area Correction Factor

The PCA is a watershed-based modification. Implicit in its application is the assumption that currently-used field-scale models reflect basin-scale processes consistently for all pesticides and uses. In other words, we assume the field scale processes simulated by the coupled PRZM and EXAMS models are a reasonable approximation of pesticide fate and transport within a watershed that contains a drinking water Reservoir. If the models fail to capture pertinent basin-scale fate and transport processes consistently for all pesticides and all uses, the application of a factor that reduces the estimated concentrations predicted by modeling could, in some instances, result in inadvertently passing a chemical through the screen that may actually pose a risk. Some preliminary assessments made in the development of the PCA suggest that PRZM/EXAMS may not be realistically capturing basin-scale
processes for all pesticides or for all uses. A preliminary survey of water assessments which compared screening model estimates to readily available monitoring data suggest uneven model results. In some instances, the screening model estimates are more than an order of magnitude greater than the highest concentrations reported in available monitoring data; in other instances, the model estimates are less than monitoring concentrations. Because of these concerns, the Science Advisory .Panel (SAP) recommended using the PCA only for "majorffcrops in the Midwest. For other crops, development of PCAf s will depend on the availability of relevant monitoring data that could be used to evaluate the result of the PCA adjustment.

The spatial data used for the PCA came from readily-available

### sources and have a number of inherent limitations:

The size of the 8-digit HUC [mean = 

### 366,989 ha; range = 

### 6.7- 2,282,081 ha; n = 

### 2,1111 may not provide reasonable estimates of actual PCAf s for smaller watersheds. The watersheds that drain into drinking water Reservoirs are generally smaller than the 8-digit HUC and may be better represented by watersheds defined for drinking water intakes. The conversion of the county level data to watershed-based percent crop areas assumes the distribution of the crops within a county is uniform and homogeneous throughout the county area. Distance between the treated fields and the water body is not addressed. The PCAtswere generated using data from the 1992 Census of Agriculture. However, recent changes in the agriculture sector from farm bill legislation may significantly impact the distribution of crops throughout the country. The methods described in this report can rapidly be updated as more current agricultural crops data are obtained. The assumption that yearly changes in cropping patterns will cause minimal impact needs to be evaluated.

The PCA adjustment is only applicable to pesticides applied to agricultural crops. Contributions to surface waters from nonagricultural uses such as urban environments are not well-modeled. Currently, non-agricultural uses are not included in the screening model assessments for drinking water.

The PCA does not consider percent crop treated because detailed pesticide usage data are extremely limited at this time. Detailed pesticide usage data are currently available for only 

### a few states.



## Groundwater

Monitorinq

The EFED has no monitoring data on the concentrations of pinoxaden in groundwater at the present time. The SCI-GROTmodel was used to estimate potential groundwater concentrations of pinoxaden



# . Table 3 shows the input parameter values used in SCI-GROWmodeling. I I 

# ITable 3. Input parameters for 

### pinoxaden used in the SCI-GROW model. 

# I 

# I Input variable Source/Quality of data 

# I I
calculations

# I

Wheat 

# I

### Groundwater EECs predicted using the SCI-GROW screening model

are substantially less (0.094ppb)than those estimated for surface water using PRZM and EXAMS. However, pinoxaden major degradateNOA407854), should persist longer in groundwater than in surface
water.

Application rate (lbai/acre)

Maximum No. of Applications



## a, (a/g)

Aerobic Soil metabolism t,,,



### . (day



## REFERENCES

1. Carsel, R.F., J.C. Imhoff, P.R. Hummel, J.M. Cheplick and J.S. Donigian, Jr. 1997. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0; Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. 0.0624

1

4.2

29.4



### 2. Burns, L.A. March 1997. Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMSII) Users Guide for Version 2.97.5, Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA. MRID# 46224801

MRID# 46224801

MRID# 46203017 (NOA- 407854); Lowest value; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)

ID# 46203011-13; Mean; Input parameters guideline (2/28/2002)



### 3. Barrett, M., 1997, Proposal For a Method to Determine Screening Concentration Estimates for Drinking Water Derived from Groundwater Studies, EFED/OPP.

4. Effland, W., N. Thurman, 

### I. Kennedy, R.D. Jones, J. Breithaupt, J. Lin, J. Carleton, L. Libel. R. Parker, and 

### R. Matzner


# . 2000. " 

### Guidance for use of the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area Factor in drinking water exposure assessment

s. Office of Pesticide Programs.

5. Guidance for Chemistry and Management Practice Input Parameters For Use in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. Version 2. December 10, 2001. U.S. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and

### Effects Division.

6. 

### Jones. R.D


# . 2002. Chemical properties of the pyrethroid insecticides to support surface water modeling. EPA Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

7. Carsel, R.F., J.C. Imhoff, P.R. Hummel, J.M. Cheplick and J.S. Donigian, Jr. 1997. 

### PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide I 

### and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root and Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.0; Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.



### 8. 

### U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington Agricultural Statistics Service. A t http:??www.nass.usda.gov/wa/press/whtprdO9.pdf.



# APPENDIX I

IR-PCA PRZM/EXAMS INPUT & 

## OUTPUT FILE FOR THE USE OF PINOXADEN ON Wheat IN NORTH DAKOTA

Aerial Application

stored as PnxwtRDr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: NDwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12

### October EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29

### August Metfile: w14914.dvf 

### modified Wedday, 3

### July 2002 

### Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96

### hr 1961 0.4088 1962 1.523 1963 1.368 1964 0.9245 1965 0.7668 1966 0.7311 1967 0.7808 1968 0.7841 1969 0.981 3 1970 0.831 1971 1.167 1972 0.8721 21

### Day 60

### Day 90

### Day Yearly 0.4056 0.3942 0.3726 0.3614 0.1879

1.513 1.473 1.386 1.323 0.7414

1.36 1.336 1.257 1.199 0.8568 0.9186 0.8936 0.8632 0.8402 0.661 0.7622 0.7519 0.7145 0.6834 0.5112 0.7267 0.714 0.6803 0.651 0.4595 0.7758 0.7552 0.7103 0.6872 0.4781 0.7793 0.7606 0.7182 0.6965 0.4922

0.977 0.9525 0.9018 0.8623 0.5781 0.8258 0.8075 0.7696 0.7391 0.5431 1.16 1.13 1.064 1.015 0.6557 0.8667 0.8438 0.7959 0.761 9 0.5771Sorted results Prob. Peak

0.032258 2.274 0.064516 1.523 0.096774 1.368 0.129032 1.262

0.16129 1.196 0.193548 1.187 0.225806 1.167 0.258065 1.031 0.290323 1.009 0.322581 0.9813 0.354839 0.9294 0.387097 0.9245 0.419355 0.8775 0.451613 0.8721 0.483871 0.831 0.516129 0.8276 0.548387 0.81 52 0.580645 0.7917 0.612903 0.7841 0.645161 0.7808 0.67741 9 0.7754 0.709677 0.7668 0.741 935 0.7541 0.7741 94 0.7362 0.806452 0.7333

0.83871 0.731 1 0.870968 0.7177 0.903226 0.6873 0.935484 0.6661 0.967742 0.4088 0.7528 1.159 0.9982 0.7663 0.6938

0.709 0.6678 0.6449

2.206

1.15 0.8017 0.7901

1.224 0.8505 0.9001 0.71 35 0.7296 0.9754

21Day 2.206 1.473 1.336 1.224 1.159 1.15 1.13 0.9982 0.9754 0.9525 0.9001 0.8936 0.8505 0.8438 0.8075 0.801 7 0.7901 0.7663 0.7606 0.7552 0.7528 0.7519 0.7296 0.714 0.7135 0.709 0.6938 0.6678 0.6449 0.3942

1.3248 0.7109 1.091 0.9369 0.7203 0.6637 0.6687 0.6574 0.6101

2.079 1.098 0.7574 0.7437

1.154 0.8344 0.851 1 0.6751 0.6896 0.9171

60Day 2.079 1.386 I .257 1.154 1.098 1.091 1.064 0.9369 0.9171 0.901 8 0.8632 0.851 1 0.8344 0.7959 0.7696 0.7574 0.7437 0.7203 0.7182 0.7145 0.7109 0.7103 0.6896 0.6803 0.6751 0.6687 0.6637 0.6574 0.6101 0.3726

1.2467 90Day 1.984 1.323 1.199 1.103 1.053 1.042 1.015 0.894 0.8747 0.8623 0.8402 0.814 0.8073 0.7619 0.7391 0.7244 0.7189 0.6965 0.6872 0.687 0.6834 0.6794 0.6597 0.6542 0.651 0.6448 0.6381 0.6371 0.5827 0.3614 Yearly 1.115 0.9046 0.8568 0.7414 0.7025 0.6683 0.661 0.6564 0.6557 0.628 0.5781 0.5771 0.5732 0.569 0.5657 0.5431 0.529 0.5112 0.507 0.4922 0.4874 0.4802 0.4781 0.4612 0.4595 0.4578 0.4576 0.4527 0.4184 0.1879Average of yearly averages: 0.579203

Inputs generated by pe4.pl 

## - 8-Aug-03

Data used for this run: Output File: PnxwtRDr Metfile: w14914.dvf PRZM scenario: NDwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Descriptio Variable Name Value Units Comment
n 

### s Molecular weight mwt 400.51glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13atm-mA31mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10torr Solubility sol 3800mg/L Kd Kd 0.16mglL Koc Koc mg1L Photolysis half-life kd

### P 0days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937days

.Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4days Halfife Hydrolysis pH 7 0days Half-life

Method: CAM lncorporatiDepth: DEPl
on Applicatio Rate: TAPP
n Applicatio Efficiency: APPEFF
n Spray Drift DRFT Applicatio Date Date


### n Record 17:OOFILTRA IPSCND UPTKF Record 18:OOPLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC Flag for Index Flag for runoff 2 integer See PRZM manual 0cm

0.07 kglha

0.95fraction

0.16fraction of application 20-05 ddlmm or ddlmmm

0.5 Res. Run IR IR calc. RUNOFF total none,



## Ground Application

stored as PnxwtRDr.out Chemical: pinoxaden PRZM environment: NDwheatC.txt modified Satday, 12October EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday, 29 August Metfile: w14914.dvf modified Wedday, 3July 2002 Water segment concentrations (ppb)Year Peak 96 hr 1961 0.1635 1962 I .24 1963 

### I .058 1964 0.6087 1965 0.41 02 1966 0.3707 1967 0.4362 1968 0.441 1 1969 0.6396 1970 0.4813 1971 0.823 1972 0.5146 1973 0.4148 1974 0.849 1975 0.7134 1976 0.4285 1977 0.365 1978 0.3991 1979 0.3551 1980 0.2979 1981 1.978 1982 1.002 1983 0.4646 1984 0.476 1985 0.931 1986 0.5508 1987 0.5778 1988 0.3727 1989



### . 0.3958 1990 0.6703 21Day 60Day 90Day Yearly 0.1623 0.1578 0.1509 0.1503 0.08083

1.232 1.2 1.128 1.077 0.577 1.051 1.032 0.9716 0.9268 0.67 0.6048 0.5884 0.5522 0.538 0.4573 0.4076 0.4033 0.3852 0.3692 0.2958 0.3683 0.3628 0.3477 0.3334 0.24 0.4335 0.422 0.3968 0.3787 0.2586 0.4385 0.4272 0.4034 0.3854 0.2736 0.6364 0.6208 0.5896 0.5646 0.3629 0.4783 0.4673 0.4432 0.4252 0.3272 0.8179 0.7978 0.751 0.717 0.4449 0.5114 0.498 0.4688 0.4499 0.3633 0.4122 0.4015 0.3794 0.3631 0.2694 0.8438 0.8237 0.7754 0.7405 0.4451 0.7089 0.6907 0.6484 0.6187 0.4574 0.4259 0.4148 0.3901 0.3721 0.3138 0.3627 0.3529 0.3331 0.321 1 0.2343 0.3965 0.3858 0.3625 0.3459 0.2425 0.3528 0.3468 0.3278 0.3201 0.2386 0.2961 0.2888 0.2755 0.2636 0.1 982

1.965 1.918 1.808 1.725 0.9238 0.9962 0.973 0.9223 0.8858 0.7035 0.461 9 0.4502 0.427 0.4095 0.3505

0.473 0.461 0.4335 0.4137 0.2905 0.9251 0.9035 0.8527 0.815 0.4931 0.5473 0.5326 0.5082 0.4962 0.4151 0.5742 0.5586 0.5276 0.505 0.3548 0.3703 0.3609 0.3449 0.3305 0.2646 0.3934 0.383 0.3609 0.3451 0.2407 0.6659 0.648 0.6094 0.5812 0.3602

Sorted results Prob. Peak

0.032258 1.978 0.064516 1.24 0.096774 1.058 0.129032 1.002

0.16129 0.931 0.193548 0.849 0.225806 0.823 0.258065 0.7134 0.290323 0.6703 0.322581 0.6396 0.354839 0.6087 0.387097 0.5778 0.419355 0.5508 0.451613 0.5146 0.483871 0.4813 0.516129 0.476 0.548387 0.4646 0.580645 0.4411 21Day 1.918

1.2 1.032 0.973 0.9035 0.8237 0.7978 0.6907 0.648 0.6208 0.5884 0.5586 0.5326 0.498 0.4673 0.461 0.4502 0.4272 60Day 1.808 1.128 0.9716 0.9223 0.8527 0.7754 0.751 0.6484 0.6094 0.5896 0.5522 0.5276 0.5082 0.4688 0.4432 0.4335 0.427 0.4034 90Day 1.725 1.077 0.9268 0.8858 0.815 0.7405 0.717 0.61 87 0.5812 0.5646 0.538 0.505 0.4962 0.4499 0.4252 0.4137 0.4095 0.3854 Yearly 0.9238 0.7035

0.67 0.577 0.4931 0.4574 0.4573 0.4451 0.4449 0.4151 0.3633 0.3629 0.3602 0.3548 0.3505 0.3272 0.3138 0.29580.1 1.0524 

### I .04552 1.0261 0.96667 0.9227 0.6607 Average of yearly averages: 0.371 584

Inputs generated by pe4.pl 

## - 8-Aug-03

Data used for this run: Output File: PnxwtRDr Metfile: w14914.dvf PRZM scenario: NDwheatC.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: pinoxaden Descriptio Variable Name Value Units Comment
n 

### s Molecular weight mwt 400.51glmol Henry's Law Const. henry 4.27E-13atm-mA3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 3.90E-10torr Solubility sol 3800mg1L Kd Kd 0.16mg1L Koc Koc mglL Photolysis half-life kdp 0days Half-life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 937days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 36.4days Halfife Hydrolysis pH 7 0days Half-life

Method: CAM lncorporatiDepth: DEPl
on Applicatio Rate: TAPP
n Applicatio Efficiency: APPEFF


### n Spray Drift DRFT Applicatio Date Date
n Record 17:OOFILTRA IPSCND 

### UPTKF Record 18:OOPLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 2 integer See 0cm

0.07kglha

0.99fraction

0.064fraction 20-05 ddlmm PRZM manual

of application

or ddlmmm~ 1

D Flag for Flag for lndex runoff Res. Run 

### 1R 

### E! calc. RUNOFF total none,



## SCIGRQW VERSION 

## 2.3

SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3 chemica1:pinoxaden time is 2/ 7/2005 9:46:59

Application Number of Total Use KO

### c Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)



### ........................................................................ 0.062 1.0 0.062 4.20E+00 29.4



### ........................................................................ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 1.33E-01



### ........................................................................