UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

AUG 0 8 2014 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

Characterization ofFlutolanil Use and Usage on Major Crops (Peanuts, Potatoes 

and Rice), Turf and Ornamentals (PC Code # 128975) 

Tara Chandgoya1, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Leonard Yourman, Ph. D., Plant Pathologist 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Jihad Alsadek, Ph.D., Economist ~ r 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Economic 

Biological 

Stephen Smearman, 

Analysis 

and Econom

Branch 

Economist 

ic Anal

.

ys

fl.A.Ilf'-w· 

~ 

is 

.L_. 

Div

_}~ 

ision 

, .-.,. 

'

(7503P) 

. 

~ 

Amet Jones, Chief 

Biological Analysis Branch 

Diann Sims, Chief 

Science Information and Analysis Branch 

Timo

Economic 

thy Kiely

Analys , Chiis 

ef 

Branch 

Q ~ ~ 

Biological and Economic Analysi ivision (750 

TO: Kevin Costello, Chief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Product Review Panel date: July 30, 2014 

Page I of8 
SUMMARY 

Flutolanil is a fungicide registered for the control of fungal diseases on peanuts, potatoes, rice 

and other crops (such as leafy vegetables, cole crops, cotton and sugar beets), turf, and 

ornamentals. In this document we have focused on use and usage characteristic of flutolanil on 

three agricultural crops (peanuts, potatoes and rice), turf, and ornamentals. When compared with 

other registered fungicide alternatives, flutolanil is a viable alternative for control of white mold, 

(caused by Sclerotium sp.) & limb/pod rot (caused by Rhizoctonia sp.) on peanuts, Rhizoctonia 

diseases (scurf and blight) on potatoes (seed and foliar treatment), and Rhizoctonia diseases on 

turf and ornamentals. 

According to private pesticide market research, flutolanil use on potatoes and peanuts has 

increased while the use on rice has decreased during the 2008-2012 time period. The data show 

that during 2008-2012, the average percent crop treated (PCT) with flutolanil for peanuts and 

potatoes (foliar) treated with flutolanil was 15% and 10%, respectively, while for potato seed 

treatment PCT was 5% percent and rice PCT was less than 1%. EPA Propriety Data (2008-

20 12) showed that on peanuts 95% of the applied flutolanil was via ground application and 5% 

was via aerial application. Similar data for potatoes and rice was not collected. An average of 2 

applications per year of flutolanil was applied on peanut and 1 application each for potatoes and 

rice over the five year period. The average application rate for peanuts is 0.4 pounds of active 

ingredient (lbs a.i.) per acre, 0.5 lbs. a.i. for potatoes (foliar and seed) and 0.3 lbs. a.i. for rice 

(2008-20 12, EPA Proprietary Data). Flutolanil use on turf and ornamentals is typically limited to 

treatment for Rhizoctonia diseases and as such highly dependent on disease pressure in a given 

season as well as typical use patterns that involve spot treatments where pockets of disease may 

be observed or anticipated. 

BACKGROUND 

FIFRA Section 3(g) mandates that EPA periodically review the registrations of all pesticides to 

insure that they do not pose unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the environment. 

This periodic review is necessary in light of scientific advancements, changes in policy, and 

changes in use patterns that may alter the conditions underpinning previous registration 

decisions. In determining whether effects are unreasonable, FIFRA requires that the Agency 

consider the risks and benefits of any use of the pesticide. 

BEAD is providing a description of flutolanil in pest management on peanuts, potatoes, rice, turf 

and ornamentals as well as information on use and usage to support risk assessment and risk 

management for the chemical. These sites account for the majority of the usage of flutolanil. 

Page 2 of8 
FLUTOLANIL USE AND USAGE CHARACTERIZATION 

Peanuts, Potatoes and Rice 

Among these three agricultural crops (peanuts, potatoes and rice), peanuts and potatoes 

accounted for more than 99% of the flutolanil usage in the United States during 2008-2012. The 

average a.i. application rates for peanuts, potatoes (foliar), potatoes (seed) and rice were 0.45, 

0.47, 0.50 and 0.35 lbs a.i., respectively (Table 1). Based on the available data, two applications 

of flutolanil were typically applied on peanuts whereas potatoes and rice received one per year. 

T a e bl 1 . Fl uoam t I ·1 T op C rops: c ompanson o f usage d urmg 2008 2012 - 2008-2012 

A vg Annual Lbs A. I. Applied = 285,000 

Crop Proportion of Total Lbs A vg. A. I. Rate of #of 

A. I. of Flutolanil Applied Application (lb Apps 

a. i./acre) 

Peanuts 75 0.4 2.0 

Potatoes (foliar) 25 0.5 1.0 

Potatoes (seed) 3 0.5 1.0 

Rice < I 0.3 1.0 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data, 2008-2012 

Flutolanil Percent of Crop Treated: Peanuts, Potatoes and Rice (2008-2012) 

Available data show that during 2008-2012, the average percent crop treated with flutolanil for 

peanuts and potatoes (foliar) was 15 and 10%, respectively, while potato seed treatment was 5% 

and rice was less than 1% (Table 2). 

T a e bl 2 . Fl uoam t I ·1 P ercen tC rop T rea t e d , 2008 2012 - Crop 2008-2012 

Avera2e PCT MaxPCT 

Peanuts 15 25 

Potatoes (foliar) 10 20 

Potatoes (seed treatment) 5 10 

Rice <I <2.5 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data 2008-2012 and USDA NASS (2014) 

Tables 3 through 4 identify the states with the most use in terms of the total pound applied of 

flutolanil for peanuts, potatoes and rice for the years 2008-2012. The total pounds applied for 

each state was averaged over the five year period. A rank is provided to show the states with the 

highest use over the five year period. For peanuts the total pounds applied has been steadily 

increasing over the five year period of2008 through 2012. Georgia's use offlutolanil accounted 

for almost 82% of the 212,400 total pounds used over the five year period (Table 3). For 

potatoes (Table 4), the total pounds applied have been relatively steady for the five years from 

2008 through 2012 averaging 72,770 lb a.i. per year. Idaho accounted for nearly 50% of the use 

over that time period. 

Flutolanil use on rice has declined significantly over the five year period from 2008 to 2012. 

There is a 3 mile buffer restriction when using flutolanil on rice grown near any marine/estuarine 

Page 3 of8 
waterway or watershed due to flutolanil's high toxicity to shrimp. This may have impacted rice 

growers use of flutolanil and may explain the significant use decline in rice. 

T a bl e 3 . Fl uoam t I 'I U se on p eanu t b s ~y St a e t 

Flutolanil Use on Peanuts by State 

State 5 Year Averae:e ofTotal Pounds Applied Rank 

Georgia 173,400 I 

South Carolina 18,200 2 

Alabama 16,600 3 

North Carolina 3,580 4 

Florida 660 5 

Total Pounds 212,440 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data 2008-2012 

T a bl e 4 . Fl uoam t I ·1 U se on p o t t a oes b 'Y St ae t 

Flutolanil Use on Potatoes by State 

State 5 Year Average of Total Pounds Applied Rank 

Idaho 34,300 I 

North Dakota 12,000 2 

Minnesota 8,000 3 

Nebraska 3,000 5 

Oregon 5,000 4 

Washington 2,700 6 

Others* 7,000 

Total Pounds 72,700 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data 2008-2012 

*Others includes the states of California, Maine, Michigan, Montana, New York, Texas and Wisconsin. 

FLUTOLANIL ALTERNATIVE FUNGICIDES (2008-2012) ON PEANUTS, POTATOES 

AND RICE (2008-2012) 

Available data (2008-20 12) showed that the number of acres of peanuts treated with 

tebuconazole and chlorothalonil were greater than the number of acres treated with flutolanil 

(Table 5) for the control of white mold (Sclerotium sp.) and limb/pod rot (Rhizoctonia sp.). 

Similarly, the number of acres of potatoes treated with azoxystrobin, mancozeb and fludioxonil 

each were greater than the number of acres of peanuts treated with flutolanil (Table 6) for 

controlling black scurf disease. Flutolanil is on average slightly more expensive than the 

alternatives. However, given that the acreage treated for peanuts and potatoes is significant it is 

an indication that growers find flutolanil beneficial. 

On rice flutolanil ranked sixth among the fungicides used to control sheath blight disease caused 

by Rhizoctonia (Table 7). The average number flutolanil applications applied per year on 

peanuts, potatoes and rice for these diseases were 2.5, 1, and 1, respectively. 

Page 4 of8 
Table 5. Top Fungicides Used on Peanuts to Control White Mold (Sclerotium sp.), 

Limb/Pod Rot and (Rhizoctonia) (2008-2012). 

Active ln2redient Total Area Treated Avg. Num of Apps per year? 

Tebuconazole 6,408,483 3.0 

Chlorothalonil 2,318,773 3.4 

Flutolanil 2,276,983 2.5 

Source: EPA Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

Table 6. Top Fungicides Used on Potatoes to Control Black Scurf caused by Rhizoctonia 

(2008-2012) 

Active lntzredient Total Area Treated Avg. Num of Apps per year 

Azoxystrobin 1,179,689 1.1 

Mancozeb 758,114 1.0 . 

Fludioxonil 687,836 1.0 

Flutolanil 421 ,730 1.0 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data, 2008-2012 

Table 7. Top Fungicides Used on Rice to Control Sheath Blight (caused by Rhizoctonia sp), 

2008-2012 

Active Ingredient Total Area Treated Avg. Num of Apps per year 

Azoxystrobin 6,156,301 1.2 

Propiconazole 4,464,338 1.0 

Trifloxystrobin 1,502,363 1.0 

Pyraclostrobin 79,868 1.0 

Bacillus Pumilis 12,387 1.0 

F1utolanil 1,613 1.0 

Source: EPA Propnetary Data, 2008-2012 

TURF AND ORNAMENTALS 

Turf 

Flutolanil is used to manage Rhizoctonia diseases on turfgrass (e.g., brown patch, large patch, 

yellow patch, and red thread) (e.g., NCSU, 2007; Tredway et al., 2005). BEAD proprietary data 

from 2007, indicated that in 2006, on average, not quite half of golf courses nationally used some 

fungicides to manage brown patch (only a small portion was used in the western U.S.). Fairy 

ring was responsible for use of fungicides on average on approximately 10% of golf courses 

nationally. According to BEAD proprietary data from 2012, on average 66,000 lb a.i. ofProStar 

70WP was used on golf course turfgrass in the U.S. annually over the past five years. This 

represented less than 1% of the total pounds of fungicides used on golf course turf grass. The low 

usage may be due to flutolanil being used primarily only where and when Rhizoctonia diseases 

are prevalent while other more heavily used fungicides, such as chlorothalonil (2 million pounds 

Page 5 of8 
were used on golfturf in 2006), have a broader range oftarget pathogens and thus are more 

widely used throughout a season. California Pesticide Use Reporting database for nonagricultural crops reported some use of flutolanil for landscape maintenance, greenhouse use and 

turf/sod, but data lacked reliable reporting of area treated (Cal PUR, 20 12). 

In North Carolina State University experimental trials for brown patch control, 28 days control 

was the target interval, with an application (equivalent to 4.3 and 5.7 lb ai per acre) in 3 gallons 

fungicide suspension per 1000 sq ft (Tredway et al., 2005). Both rates provided good control. 

Again spot treatments, rather than broadcast of. large areas of a golf course, would be likely 

although BEAD does not currently have supporting information to describe how much area 

would typically be treated per acre or per course. 

According to the label, treatment for fairy ring would not exceed 10,000 sq ft per acre; therefore, 

the maximum treatment would be approximately 2lb ai per acre at the max use rate of 4.5 oz 

product per 1000 sq ft. Fairy rings would typically be treated with flutolanil as a preventative in 

areas of turf with a history of infestation (Fidanza et al., 2000). Greens or tees would be the 

likely use site as these are the most intensively cultivated portion of a golf course. 

Ornamentals 

Flutolanil can be used in nurseries to manage Rhizoctonia rots on ornamental plants and are 

sometimes used to manage rust diseases (LSU, 2012). According to the ProStar 70WP label, a 

maximum of four applications per year may be made to ornamental plantings. If the maximum 

12 oz product were used (for foliar application), then 0.525lb ai would be added to 100 gallons 

water (assumed 100 gallons per acre, which would vary depending on the nursery stock and 

sprayer type) for foliar sprays. If four applications are made, then a maximum annual 

application would be 2.1 lb. 

For container nurseries, one gallon containers (6" diameter x 7", actually holds 3 quarts soil) are 

a standard nursery size for container planting ("#1" pots) (WSU, 2004). One acre will hold 

20,000-22,000 1-gallon containers (Halcomb and Fare, 2009). According to the ProStar 70WP 

label, for 6" pots there could be 2.93 lb ai per acre if all pots were treated (6.5 fl oz. 

suspension- at 0.2625 lb ai per 100 gal) into 22,000 pots per acre= 143,000 fl oz. per acre; 

143,000/12800=11.17 x 0.2625 lb per 100 gal=2.93 lb). · 

BIOLOGICAL ANALYSIS 

Flutolanil is effective in controlling various fungal diseases on peanuts, potatoes, rice, turf and 

ornamentals. The Fungicide Resistance Action Committee (FRAC, 2014) has designated 

flutolanil as FRAC Code 7. Flutolanil is in the phenyl-benzamides group of succinate 

dehydrogenase inhibiting (SDHI) fungicides. Flutolanil is considered medium to high risk for 

resistance-development by fungal pathogens. FRAC (2014) recommends resistance management 

when this fungicide is used. Fungicide resistance can be managed by rotating or tank-mixing 

fungicides with different modes of action. 

Page 6 of8 
The available data suggest that flutolanil is one of many fungicides used for controlling fungal 

diseases on peanuts, potatoes and rice. This can be due to many factors such as efficacy, a 

grower's choice, market availability and pricing. EPA Proprietary Data (2008-20 12) showed 

that on average less than 1% of the rice crop was treated with flutolanil (for sheath blight 

control). 

Flutolanil is an effective fungicide for managing Rhizoctonia diseases on turf and ornamental 

plants. Along with quinone outside inhibiting (Qol) fungicides (Group 11 , such as azoxystrobin 

and pyraclostrobin) flutolanil is considered effective in successfully managing Rhizoctonia 

diseases (e.g. Tredway et al., 2005). For turf and ornamental uses flutolanil as an SDHI 

fungicide is considered a useful partner that may be alternated with other fungicide chemistries 

(such as DMI and Qol fungicides) to provide effective resistance management as well as 

effective disease control. 

CONCLUSION 

Flutolanil is used on peanuts, potatoes and rice, turf grass, and ornamental plants to control 

fungal diseases. The majority of flutolanil is reported to be used on peanuts and potatoes. The 

percent crop treated with flutolanil on peanuts is 15%, on potatoes (foliar) 10%, 5% for potato 

seed treatment, and less than 1% for rice. Based on PCT and total area treated for peanuts, 

potatoes and rice, flutolanil is a viable alternative for control of fungal diseases especially for 

peanuts and potatoes while the buffer restrictions on rice has severely limited flutolanil's use on 

rice. However, use on rice is currently minimal (Tables 1, 2, and 8). EPA propriety data (2008-

2012) showed that on peanuts 95% of the applied flutolanil was via ground application and 5% 

was via aerial application. Similar data for potatoes and rice were not collected. Flutolanil plays 

a role in resistance management when used on agricultural crops providing a different mode of 

action (SDHI) from other registered fungicides on these crops. This is also the case for flutolanil 

use on turf and ornamental plants. Alternating effective fungicides of different modes of action 

is a standard means of reducing the likelihood of the development of resistance to fungicides by 

target pathogens. Rhizoctonia rots are the major target diseases for flutolanil use in turf and 

ornamental plants and as such it may be important where these rots are prevalent. Comparison 

of total usage with other more broad-spectrum fungicides may underestimate the value of 

flutolanil since it targets a limited number of pathogens for disease control. 

REFERENCES 

Anonymous, 2014. Crop profile: Potatoes in New York. http://pmep.cce.cornell.edu/fqpa/croppro:files/potato.html 

BEAD. 2014. Chemical Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. July 17, 2014. 

Brandenburg, R.L., Jordan, D.L., Shew, B.B., Wilcut, J.W. and Toth, S.J. 2005. Crop Profile for 

Peanuts in North Carolina. Accessed on July 1, 2014. 

Page 7 of8 
http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/ncpeanuts.pdf 

Cal PUR. 2012. California Pesticide Use Reporting Program. 

http://www .cdpr .ca. gov I docs/pur/purmain.htm 

Collum, E. 2005. Crop Profile for Rice in Mississippi. 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/msrice.pdf 

Fidanza, M., Colbaugh, P., and Davis, S. 2000. Fairy ring biology and management in turfgrass. 

Turf Grass Trends. April, 2000. http://archive.lib.msu.edu/tic/tgtre/article/2000apr6.pdf 

FRAC. 2014. Fungicide Resistance Action Committee Fungicides Sorted by Mode of Action. 

(Accessed on July 29, 2014.) 

http://www. frac. info/pub lication/anhang/20 14%2 OFRA C%2 OCode%20 List. pdf 

Halcomb, M and Fare, D. Conventional container production. University of Tennessee 

Extension. 2009. 

http://www.utextension.utk.edu/mtnpi/handouts/Container%20Production/Container Production 

Handout -rev%208-09 .pdf 

LSU. 2012. Diseases of ornamentals and fungicides for control. Louisiana State University 

Extension. http:/ /www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/F512A031-FDF9-46C6-AEE2-

B800409C9FD F /84808/280rnamenta1Fungicides20 12.pdf 

Luper, C., Criswell, JT., Bolin, P., Medlin, C., Mulder, P and Damicone, J. 2007. Crop Profile 

for Peanuts in Oklahoma. Accessed February 10,2014. 

http://www.ipmcenters.org/cropprofiles/docs/OKpeanuts.pdf 

NCSU. 2007. Fungicides for turfgrass disease control. North Carolina State University 

Extension. 

http://www.turffiles.ncsu.edu/PDFFiles/004351/fungicides for turfgrass disease control nov 2 

007.pdf 

Proprietary Data, 2008-2012 

Tredway, L. P., Butler, E. L., and Monroe, J. 2005. Turfgrass- Managing Brown Patch in Tall 

Fescue Landscapes. North Carolina State University Extension. 

http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/plantpath/extension/fact sheets/Turfgrass -

Managing Brown Patch in Tall Fescue Landscapes.htm 

USDA NAAS. 2014. http://www.nass.usda.gov/ 

WSU. 2004. Above ground container production. Washington State University Extension. 

http:/ I gardencenternursery. wsu. edu/ container/ AboveGroundContainerProduction.htm 

Page 8 of 8