2 

REGISTRATION REVIEW 

PROBLEM FORMULATION ______________________________________________________________________________ 

Propargite 

CAS Number 2312-35-8 

US EPA PC CODE 097601 

Prepared by: 

Robin Sternberg, Ph.D., Wildlife Biologist 

Stephen Wente, Ph.D., Biologist 

Environmental Risk Branch 1 

Reviewed by: 

Meghan Radtke, Ph.D., Biologist 

Harry Zhong, Ph.D., Biologist 

Environmental Risk Branch 1 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Pesticide Programs 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division 

Environmental Risk Branch I 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Mail Code 7507P 

Washington, DC 20460 

O S O

O

O

C

CH

CH3

CH3

H3C
3 

1 Executive Summary 

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary problem 

formulation for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and drinking water 

assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of propargite. The problem 

formulation describes the methods planned to be used during the completion of drinking water 

and ecological risk assessments in support of Registration Review and provides an overview of 

the environmental fate, ecological effects, and potential risks associated with the use of 

propargite as well as uncertainties unique to risk assessment of propargite. This document also 

identifies additional studies that would be beneficial to the conduct of an ecological risk 

assessment. 

Major findings include the following data needs for propargite and degradate TBPC and the 

uncertainty described below: 

Propargite 

 OCSPP 850.6100: Independent laboratory validation (ILV) for the environmental 

chemistry method (ECM) used in the soil analyses (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.6100: ECM and ILV for the ECM used in the water analyses (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.1500: Fish life cycle toxicity test, freshwater (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.2100: Acute oral toxicity test, passerine species (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.4100: Seedling emergence and seedling growth, sorghum, ryegrass, onion, 

carrot, radish, tomato, and soybean (TEP) 

 OCSPP 850.4150: Vegetative vigor, ryegrass, sorghum, and radish (TEP) 

 Non-guideline chronic whole sediment invertebrate toxicity tests, freshwater and marine 

(TGAI) 

 Non-guideline honey bee acute oral toxicity test (TGAI) 

TBPC 

 OCSPP 850.1010: Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.1075: Fish acute toxicity test, rainbow trout (TGAI) 

 OCSPP 850.4500: Algal toxicity, marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) (TGAI) 

Justifications for these data needs as well as assumptions that will be made in the absence of 

these data are provided in Section 11. 

There is uncertainty as to whether TBPC should be considered a stressor of concern in the 

aquatic assessment. There are no toxicity data available for TBPC. Based on ECOSAR 

analyses, TBPC may be only slightly less toxic to aquatic organisms than propargite, but it 

appears to be more persistent. The above data needs for TBPC will be used to determine 

whether TBPC should be considered an aquatic stressor of concern. In the absence of toxicity 

data for TBPC, the stressors of concern for aquatic organisms will be propargite and TBPC; a 

conservative method of considering the stressors of concern in total, i.e., the total toxic residue 

(TTR) approach, will be used; and exposure to propargite and TBPC will be estimated from the 

existing fate data for propargite and TBPC. 
4 

 

2 Introduction 

Propargite is an organosulfite insecticide (acaricide/miticide) used to control mites on a variety 

of field, fruit, and vegetable crops, as well as ornamentals. Propargite inhibits oxidative 

phosphorylation via disrupting ATP formation. 

EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk assessments for propargite in association with 

updated toxicity, exposure, and usage information to determine if sufficient data are available 

and if further updates are needed to support Registration Review. Recent risk assessments by 

EFED include a 2008 litigation assessment for the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora 

draytonni) (USEPA, 2008)1 and the EFED chapter (DP 231322, 250220, 265823) for the 

Reregistration Eligibility Document (RED) (original RED signed in 2001; revised/amended 

versions issued in 2005 and 2007; addendum issued in 2008)2. In addition, EFED considered the 

latest Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies. The structure of propargite, 

as well as the chemical names and other identifiers can be found in Table 5-2. 

3 Use Characterization 

Propargite is registered for a large number of agricultural and nursery uses (Table 3-1). 

Propargite is formulated as an emulsifiable concentrate and wettable powder. Treatment 

equipment includes airblast, aircraft, boom sprayer, and sprinkler irrigation. 

EFED will use application scenarios that result in maximum exposure scenarios for a given use 

for the risk assessment. Table 3-1 lists the maximum single application rate, the maximum 

number of applications per crop cycle, the annual maximum rate allowed (lb a.i./yr), and the 

minimum application interval for each registered use that occurs on any registration. This 

information is necessary for both the pesticide applicator as well as the EFED risk assessor. Any 

missing information indicated by “NS” in Table 3-1 will result in conservative assumptions 

(higher application rates, more applications, shorter re-application intervals) being made in the 

risk assessment. To help registrants work with the Agency to clarify the label application 

information, Appendix A provides the same information as Table 3-1 broken out by registration 

number, which summarizes the information present and absent from each registered label. 

Table 3-1. Propargite Label Application Restrictions 

Site Description Max Single App 

Rate (Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps per 

Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year (Lbs./A) 

Minimum 

Retreatment 

Interval (Days) 

Alfalfa 2.50 NS NS NS 

Almond 3.2 2 NS 21 

Apple 1.92 2 NS 21 

Beans, dried-type 2.50 NS 4.57 21 

Carrot (including tops) 2.50 NS NS NS 

Cherry 1.92 2 NS 21 

Christmas tree plantations 2.4 2 NS 7 

 

1

 http://epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/index.html

2 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/propargite/
5 

Site Description Max Single App 

Rate (Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps per 

Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year (Lbs./A) 

Minimum 

Retreatment 

Interval (Days) 

Citrus 1.92 2 NS 21 

Clover 2.50 NS NS NS 

Conifers (plantations/nurseries) 2.4 2 NS 7 

Corn (unspecified) 2.57 NS 2.57 21 

Corn, field 2.60 1 2.60 NA

Corn, pop 2.57 NS 2.57 21 

Corn, sweet 2.57 2 2.57 21 

Cotton (unspecified) 1.71 2 3.34 21 

Currant 1.92 2 NS 21 

Date 1.92 2 NS 21 

Fig 1.92 2 NS 21 

Filbert (hazelnut) 1.92 2 NS 21 

Grapefruit 3.36 1 5.76 28 

Grapes 2.88 2 NS 21 

Hops 1.56 2 NS 21 

Jojoba 1.67 2 NS 10 

Macadamia nut (bushnut) 1.92 2 NS 21 

Mint 2.28 2 4.23 14 

Nectarine 2.88 2 NS 21 

Orange 3.36 1 5.76 28 

Ornamental herbaceous plants 0.48 3 NS 14 

Ornamentals (unspecified) 0.32 3 NS 14 

Peanuts (unspecified) 1.71 2 NS 14 

Pear 1.92 2 NS 21 

Pecan 1.92 2 NS 21 

Persimmon 1.92 2 NS 21 

Pistachio 1.92 2 NS 21 

Potato, white/Irish 2.28 2 4.23 14 

Quince 1.92 2 NS 21 

Rose 1.6 3 NS 14 

Small fruits 1.92 2 NS 21 

Sorghum 1.71 1 NA NA

Stone fruits 1.92 2 NS 21 

Walnut (English/black) 4.61 2 6.92 21 

NA = Not Applicable; NS = Not Specified. 

4 Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments 

4.1 Ecological Risk Assessments 

EFED has conducted ecological risk assessments on propargite that serve as a basis for this 

problem formulation, including the RED (original RED signed in 2001; revised/amended 

versions issued in 2005 and 2007; addendum issued in 2008)3 and a 2008 litigation assessment 

for the California red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana aurora draytonni)

4

. Risk concerns identified in 

the RED are provided in Table 4-1. The following environmental fate and ecological studies for 

conventional chemicals were identified as data gaps and called in as a result of the RED: 

 

3 http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/reregistration/propargite/

4 http://epa.gov/espp/litstatus/effects/redleg-frog/index.html
6 

Environmental fate studies: 

 OPPTS 835.1410: Laboratory volatilization from soil 

 OPPTS 835.2370: Photodegradation of parent and degradates in air 

 OPPTS 835.6200: Aquatic field dissipation 

 OPPTS 835.6400: Combination products and tank mixes dissipation 

 OPPTS 835.8100: Field volatility from soil 

 OPPTS 835.7200: Surface drinking water monitoring study 

Ecological effects studies: 

 OPPTS 850.1350: Mysid chronic toxicity test 

 OPPTS 850.1500: Fish life cycle toxicity 

 OPPTS 850.2150: Avian feeding study 

 OPPTS 850.3030: Honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage 

For the environmental fate studies, a waiver request was submitted for the laboratory 

volatilization, photodegradation in air, and field volatility studies based on the low vapor 

pressure of propargite. EFED agreed to this waiver request (DP234284). The aquatic field 

dissipation data were needed because propargite had one aquatic use on cranberries. However, 

the cranberry use was subsequently removed from propargite labels. Therefore, these data were 

no longer required. The surface drinking water monitoring study was submitted (MRID 

47314101) and classified as “acceptable.” No data were submitted in regard to the “combination 

products and tank mixes dissipation” data gap.

For the ecological effects studies, a mysid chronic study (MRID 46335701) was submitted and 

classified as “acceptable.” No studies have been submitted to fulfill the remaining ecological 

effects data gaps. 

Table 4-1. Ecological Risk Concerns as Identified in the RED for Propargite 

Taxon Acute LOC Exceedance? Chronic LOC Exceedance? 

Listed Non-Listed Listed and Non-Listed 

Birds Yes Yes 

Yes 

(except strictly seed-eating 

birds) 

Mammals 

Yes 

(small herbivorous/ 

insectivorous mammals 

[up to 35 g] 

and large herbivorous 

mammals [1000 g]) 

Yes 

(small herbivorous/ 

insectivorous mammals) 

Yes 

(herbivorous/insectivorous 

mammals) 

Terrestrial plants No 

(aside from concerns for phytotoxicity to certain plant species as clearly stated on labels) 

Honey bees No 

Freshwater fish Yes No* Yes 

Estuarine/marine fish Yes Yes 

Risk from chronic exposure 

not assessed due to lack of 

chronic toxicity data 

Freshwater invertebrates Yes No* Yes 

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates Yes No* Risk from chronic exposure 

not assessed due to lack of 
7 

Taxon Acute LOC Exceedance? Chronic LOC Exceedance? 

Listed Non-Listed Listed and Non-Listed 

chronic toxicity data 

Aquatic plants Yes** 

LOC = Level of Concern 

* The assessment noted that although the LOC was not exceeded, adverse effects could occur in shallow bodies of 

water that are not represented by standard modeling scenarios for exposure. 

** Based on exceedance using most sensitive aquatic nonvascular plant endpoint. 

For the litigation assessment, the Agency made a Likely to Adversely Affect (LAA) 

determination for the CRLF from the use of propargite. Additionally, the Agency determined 

that there is the potential for modification of CRLF designated critical habitat from the use of 

propargite. These determinations were based on: 1) direct effects to the CRLF and 2) adverse 

effects expected to the prey base of aquatic and terrestrial-phase CRLF for all the modeled uses. 

4.2 Drinking Water Exposure Assessments 

A comprehensive drinking water exposure assessment was performed for propargite as part of 

the RED in 2000 (DP 265823). No record was found of a more recent drinking water 

assessment. Exposure estimates of propargite from currently labeled uses that produce 

maximum exposure (cotton) were 34.3 μg/L (1-in-10-year peak), 8.7 μg/L (1-in-10-year annual 

mean), and 4.8 μg/L (30-year mean) for surface water and 0.006 μg/L for ground water. 

According to the Health Effects Division’s Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (DP 

256182), the parent is the only drinking water residue of concern. 

4.3 Clean Water Act Programs 

Propargite is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired 

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. No Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria 

have been developed for propargite. Aquatic benchmarks have been established for propargite 

and are available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm. 

Any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the registration review process may be used to 

update aquatic life benchmarks, if applicable. 

5 Environmental Fate and Transport 

Propargite [2-(4-tert-butylphenoxy)cyclohexyl prop-2-ynyl sulphite; CAS No. 2312-35-8; PC 

code 097601] is moderately persistent (metabolism half-lives = 38-168 days) and immobile (Kd

ranged from 113 to 427 L/kg, while KOC ranged from 5293 to 95,918 L/KgOC). Its vapor 

pressure and Henry’s law constant indicate that propargite has a low potential to volatilize under 

field conditions. It degrades rapidly under alkaline hydrolytic conditions (half-life = 2.2 days) 

and is moderately persistent to persistent under neutral (half-lives = 75 days) and acid (pH 5 halflife = 120 days) hydrolytic conditions. Soil and aquatic photolysis and aerobic and anaerobic 

metabolism occur at moderate rates (half-lives = 39-168 days). Major degradates are carbon 

dioxide, unextracted residues, and TBPC (tert-butylphenoxy cyclohexanol). Minor degradates 

are BGES (bis-[2-(4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenoxy) cyclohexyl] sulfite), OMT-B (2,2-dimethyl4-(2-hdroxy-cyclohexoxy) phenylethanol), OGE-acid, and PTBP (p-t-butylphenol) (see Table 
8 

5-2 for structures). Because of its high affinity for soil and sediment, propargite has the potential 

to move off the site of application during rainfall/irrigation by erosion/runoff on soil particles 

and by drift. Given the moderate to slow degradation rates for metabolism and photolysis, and 

the high KOC values, propargite will probably be predominantly adsorbed to sediments and 

organic material if transported to surface waters. 

Propargite might be expected to bioconcentrate in fish based on its log KOW of 5.7. A log KOW of 

5.7 indicates that propargite has a concentration in octanol (a non-polar solvent) that is over 

500,000× higher than in water (a polar solvent) at equilibrium. However the highest 

bioaccumulation factor in the registrant-submitted fish bioconcentration study is 1550× (nonedible tissue). There is potential for progargite’s major degradate, TBPC, to leach to ground 

water in vulnerable aquifers, such as those with coarse-textured soils low in organic matter due 

to TBPC’s higher mobility. However, the Health Effects Division’s Metabolism Assessment 

Review Committee (DP 256182) did not consider TBPC to be a residue of concern for drinking 

water. A selection of environmental fate and transport properties of propargite is summarized in 

Table 5-1. 

Table 5-1. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Propargite

Parameter Value Description Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters 

Molecular mass (molecular 

formula) 

350.47 g/mol (C19H26O4S) -- Calculated 

Vapor pressure (25°C) 4.49 x 10-8 torr Limited volatility MRID 41003603 

Aqueous solubility (25C) 0.215 mg/L Limited solubility MRID 45905508 

Henry’s Law Constant (25°C) 3.28 x10-8 atm-m3/mol Limited volatility MRID 41003603

Log octanol-to-water partition 

coefficient (log KOW) 

5.7 Hydrophobic MRID 45905507 

Persistence

Hydrolysis half-life (25C) 120 days @ pH 5 

75 days @ pH 7 

2.2 days @ pH 9 

Rapid degradation 

pathway only under basic 

conditions 

MRID 40358401 

Aqueous photolysis half-life (25C) 134 - 140 days @ pH 5 Stable (same as dark 

control; slower than 

hydrolysis @ pH 5) 

MRID 40358401 

Soil photolysis half-life (25C) 91 days Stable (similar to aerobic 

soil half-lives) 

MRID 40358401 

MRID 42319301 

MRID 42319307 

Aerobic soil metabolism half-life 

(25°C) 

53.3 days (In review)A

168 days 

Less than twice as fast as 

abiotic hydrolysis for all 

metabolism studies other 

than the 168 day soil 

metabolism half-life. 

MRID 43851401 

MRID 43851402 

Anaerobic soil metabolism half-life 

(25°C) 

64.4 days MRID 41003602 

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism halflife (25C) 47 days MRID 43139401 

Aerobic aquatic metabolism halflife (25C) 38 days MRID 42688801 
9 

Parameter Value Description Source

Mobility

Propargite soil-water partition 

coefficients (Kd); organic carbonnormalized coefficients (KOC) 

113,162, 165, 172, 318, 427 

L/kg; 

5293, 23415, 39344, 48853, 

90125, 95918 L/kgOC

Hardly mobile MRID 42908402 

Degradate TBPC soil-water 

partition coefficients (Kd); organic 

carbon-normalized coefficients 

(KOC) 

0.65, 0.66, 6.7, 1.17, 1.47, 

8.39 L/kg; 

187, 215, 284, 418, 460, 

551, L/kgOC

Moderately mobile MRID 42908401

Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation half-life Florida citrus – 67 days -- MRID 41307301 

California citrus – 87 days -- MRID 41731501 

California cotton – 94 days -- MRID 41325901 

California bare-ground – 78 

and 99 days 

-- MRID 40969501 

Fish Bioconcentration

Fish bioconcentration factors 

(steady-state); depuration rate 

260 (edible), 1550 (nonedible), 775 (whole); 82% 

depuration in 14 days 

High bioconcentration 

potential based on log kOW

of 5.7 

MRID 40494001 / 

40916601 

A Studies are in review. The results are provisional pending the review. 

5.1 Transformation Products (Degradates) 

The only major degradate of propargite (other than CO2 and unextracted residues) in submitted 

environmental fate studies was TBPC. This degradate was a major degradate in the hydrolysis 

(max. 86%), soil photolysis (max. 21%), anaerobic soil (max. 18%), aerobic aquatic (max. 28%), 

and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (max. 62%) studies. Only in the aquatic photolysis and 

aerobic soil metabolism studies was it a minor degradate. However in those studies in which 

TBPC was a major degradate, it tended to be persistent. For example, in the propargite 

anaerobic aquatic metabolism study, TBPC was greater than 50% of applied radioactivity in one 

replicate on day 30 and was measured at 42% in one replicate on day 365. A single fate study 

(adsorption/desorption) was submitted for TBPC. Comparison of this study with the parent batch 

equilibrium study indicates that TBPC is much more mobile than the parent. A variety of minor 

degradates (BGES, OMT-B, OGE-acid, and PTBP) were observed in the photolysis and 

metabolism studies. Table 5-2 summarizes the transformation products of propargite and the 

maximum amounts formed. 
10 

Table 5-2. Propargite and Its Major Environmental Degradates 

Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Reference (MRID) Maximu

(da

PARENT

Propargite (Omite) SMILES Code: O=S(OCCC)OC2CCCCC2Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C

2-(4-tert-butylphenoxy) cyclohexyl prop-2-ynyl sulphite CAS No.: 2312-35-8 Formula: C19H26O4S 

MW: 350.47 g/mol 

MAJOR TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS 

BGES SMILES Code: O=S(OC2CCCCC2Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C)OC2CCCCC2Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C

bis-[2-(4-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-phenoxy) cyclohexyl] sulfite Formula: C32H46O5S 

MW: 542.78 g/mol 

Soil photolysis 40358402 0.72% 

Anaerobic 

aquatic 43139401 1.72% 

OMT-B SMILES Code: OC2CCCCC2Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)CO

2,2-dimethyl-4-(2-hdroxy-cyclohexoxy) phenylethanol Formula: C16H24O3

MW: 264.37 g/mol 

Soil photolysis 40358402 0.38% 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 0.26% 

Anaerobic 

aquatic 43139401 4.72% 

OGE-Acid 

OGE-Acid Formula: C16H22O4

MW: 278.35 g/mol 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 1.54% 

PTBP SMILES Code: Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C

p-t-butylphenol Formula: C10H14O 

MW: 150.22 g/mol 

Aquatic 

photolysis 40358401 4.2% 

Soil photolysis 40358402 0.53% 

Anaerobic soil 41003602 0.6% 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 0.89% 

Anaerobic 

aquatic 43139401 1.57% 

O S O

O

O

C

CH

CH3

CH3

H3C

O S O

CH3

CH3

H3C O O

CH3

CH3

CH3

O

O OH

CH2

CH3

H3C

HO

O OH

CCH3

H3C

HO

O

OH

CH3

CH3

H3C
11 

Code Name/ Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Reference (MRID) Maximu

(da

TBPC (Omite Glycol ether) SMILES Code: OC2CCCCC2Oc1ccc(cc1)C(C)(C)C 

tert-butylphenoxy cyclohexanol Formula: C16H24O2

MW: 248.37 g/mol

Hydrolysis 40358402

pH 5 – 

(69 d, 0.5 

pH 7 – 

(47 d, 0.00

pH 9 – 

(6 d, 0.00

Aquatic 

photolysis 40358401 8.0% 

Soil photolysis 40358401 21.3% (

42319307 20.8% (

Aerobic soil 40358402 2.33% 

Anaerobic soil 41003602 18.2% 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 27.66% 

Anaerobic 

aquatic 43139401 62.44% 

Terrestrial field 

dissipation 

40969501 0.35ppm 

41225601 0.0

0.073pp

41307301 <0.1041325901 0.10ppm 41432501 0.22ppm 41731501 0.113pp

Unextracted Residues NA NA 

Soil photolysis 42319307 6% (

Aerobic soil 45382402 25.79% 

40358402 37.49% 

Anaerobic soil 41003602 14.9% 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 6.53% 

Anaerobic Aq. 43139401 39.75% 

Carbon Dioxide CO2 O – C – O 

Soil photolysis 42319307 34.17% 

Aerobic soil 45382402 41.85% 

40358402 34.13% 

Anaerobic soil 41003602 1.1% 

Aerobic aquatic 42688801 0.68% 

Anaerobic 

aquatic 43139401 7.19% 

A Bolded values indicates the value exceeds 10% of the applied radioactivity. 

O OH

CH3

CH3

H3C
12 

6 Receptors 

6.1 Propargite 

Summaries of the most sensitive endpoints used to characterize the toxicity of propargite to 

aquatic and aquatic organisms are provided in Tables 6-1 and 6-2, respectively. Summaries of 

all submitted propargite toxicity data can be found in Appendix B. 

For propargite, no data is available for the following: 

 acute toxicity to mysid shrimp; 

 life cycle toxicity to fish; 

 toxicity to benthic invertebrates; 

 acute oral toxicity to a passerine species; and 

 dietary (oral) toxicity to adult honey bees. 

Propargite is classified as highly to very highly toxic to fish; up to very highly toxic to aquatic 

invertebrates; practically non-toxic to birds on an acute oral basis; up to slightly toxic to birds on 

a sub-acute dietary basis; and practically non-toxic to honey bees on an acute contact basis. 

6.2 Degradate TBPC 

TBPC is the only major degradate of propargite. There are no toxicity data available for TBPC. 

In the absence of toxicity data, predicted acute and chronic toxicity values for TBPC were 

generated using EPA’s ECOSAR tool (v 1.11) which is based on quantitative structure activity 

relationships (QSAR) for effects on fish, daphnids, mysid shrimp, and green algae. Predicted 

toxicity values were also generated for propargite and compared to observed endpoints from 

registrant-submitted studies to assess confidence in the ability of ECOSAR to predict the toxicity 

of TBPC. ECOSAR-predicted and observed toxicity values for propargite and TBPC are 

provided in Table 6-3. 

ECOSAR exactly predicts the chronic toxicity of propargite to mysid shrimp (i.e., the observed 

and predicted toxicity values are equal). For all other taxa, ECOSAR-predicted toxicity values 

for propargite are greater than observed toxicity endpoints implying that ECOSAR underpredicts toxicity to propargite. With the exception of acute toxicity to daphnids where ECOSAR 

under-predicts toxicity to propargite by an order of magnitude, ECOSAR-predicted values are 

less than an order of magnitude greater (range: two to six times greater) than observed toxicity 

endpoints for propargite. 

TBPC-predicted toxicity values are greater than propargite-predicted toxicity values, but only by 

less than an order of magnitude (range: two to nine times greater) implying that TBPC may be 

only slightly less toxic to aquatic organisms than propargite. Given the uncertainty associated 

with the ability of ECOSAR to predict toxicity (based on the comparison of observed and 

predicted toxicity values for propargite), aquatic toxicity data for TBPC are needed to determine 

whether TBPC should be considered a stressor of concern in the Registration Review ecological 

risk assessment (see Section 11). 
13 

Table 6-1. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Propargite 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians) 

21-day flow-through exposure Propargite (88.4) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: 96-hr (4-day) LC50 (95% C.I.) = 43 (38-49) μg a.i./L (mm) 

21-day LC50 (95% C.I.) = 24 (21-32) μg a.i./L (mm) 

21-day NOAEC = 14 μg a.i./L (mm) 21-day LOAEC = 21 μg a.i./L (mm) Very highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr flowthrough exposure Propargite (90.2) 

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: LC50 = 81 μg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 40 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 60 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on sublethal effects) Very highly toxic 

Early life stage: 35-day flow-through exposure Propargite (86.3) 

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

NOAEC = 16 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 28 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reduced post-hatch survival, length, and wet weigh

Estuarine/ marine fish 

Acute: 96-hr, static exposure Propargite (87.4) 

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 55 (32-100) μg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 32 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 60 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on no mortality at 32 μg a.i./L) Very highly toxic 

Early life stage (chronic) 

Estuarine/marine fish No data 

Aquatic invertebrates 

Acute: 48-hr flow through exposure Propargite (90.2) 

Water flea (Daphnia magna)

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: 

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 14 (11-19) μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 4 μg a.i./L LOAEC = 13 μg a.i./L Very highly toxic 
14 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Life cycle (chronic): 21-day flow through exposure Propargite (86.3) 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna) 

NOAEC = 9 μg a.i./L (m) LOAEC = 14 μg a.i./L (m) (based on growth [length]) 

Estuarine/ marine invertebrates 

Acute Mysid shrimp No data 

Acute toxicity may be characterized using toxicity data for freshwater invertebrates (i.e., D. magna). For example: Estimated acute LC50(mysid)

= Chronic NOAEC(mysid) * Acute-to-Chronic Ratio(D. magna)

= 0.46 μg/L * 1.6 = 0.74 μg/L Where: Acute-to-Chronic Ratio(D. magna)

= Acute LC50(D. magna)/ Chronic NOAEC(D. magna)

= 14 μg/L /9 μg/L = 1.6 

Acute: 48-hr flowthrough exposure Propargite (87.4) 

Quahog clam embryo larvae (Mercenaria mercenaria) 

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 81.0 (41.8-infinity) μg a.i./L (m & 

estimated)b

NOAEC < 7.3 μg a.i./L (m & estimated)a

LOAEC = 7.3 μg a.i./L (m & estimated)a

Very highly toxic 

Life cycle (chronic) Propargite (91.9) 

Mysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)

NOAEC = 0.46 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 0.85 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in reproductive output) 

Benthic invertebrates 

Sediment acute/chronic Sediment-dwelling 

invertebrate 

No data 

Aquatic vascular plant 

Tier II, 14-day static renewal exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

EC50 = 75 mg a.i./L (mm)b

NOAEC = 28 mg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in frond number) 
15 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Aquatic nonvascular plant Tier II, 5-day static exposure 

Propargite (76.2) 

Marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) 

EC50 = 19.4 μg a.i./L (mm)b

NOAEC = 1.27 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in cell number) 

Abbreviations: m = measured; mm = mean measured; NA = not applicable a Concentrations were measured at exposure initiation. Results of preliminary stability analysis indicated a 42% reduction of test mater

concentrations were estimated based on a half-life of 57 hrs (42% reduction 48 hrs). Concentration estimates. Concentrations used for endpoints are based on the mean of the 0-hr measured concentration and the 48-hr estimated concentration. 

b The raw data for this study may be subjected to new statistical analysis because the present EC50 was determined using probit analysis 

regression analysis. 

Table 6-2. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Propargite 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrialphase amphibians) 

Acute oral: single dose, 14-day observation Propargite (87.6) 

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

LD50 > 4640 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom) 

NOAEL = 2150 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom) (no mortality; NOAEL based on a reduction in feed consumption and body weight gain at 4640 mg/kg-bw) Practically non-toxic 

Acute oral Passerine species No data Sub-acute dietary: 5-day exposure; 3-day postexposure observation Propargite (87.5) 

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 3401 (2494-4639) mg/kg-diet (nom) 

NOAEC: Not specified (concentration-dependent reduction in body weight gain doto the lowest test concentration, 464 mg/kg-diet) Slightly toxic 

Sub-acute dietary: 5-day exposure; 3-day postexposure observation Propargite (90)

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

LC50 > 4640 mg a.i./kg-diet (nom) 

NOAEC: Not specified (no mortality; reduction in body weight gain at ≥ 2150 mg/

diet) At most slightly toxic 
16 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Reproduction (chronic) Propargite (85)

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

NOAEC = 84.7 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) LOAEC = 288 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) (based on reductions in adult body weight, eggs laid/femalviable embryos, live 3-week emrbyos, hatchlings, 14-day surviving chicks, and weight of 14-day surviving chicks) 

Reproduction (chronic) Propargite (85) 

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

NOAEC = 84.7 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) LOAEC = 288 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) (based on most senstive endpoint of reduction in hatchling weight; female adult body weight, eggs laid/female, and 14surviving chicks also affected) 

Terrestrial invertebrates 

Acute contact: single dose, 48-hr observation Propargite (88.3) 

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

LD50 (95% C.I.) = 15 (13-18) μg/bee (m) 

NOAEC = 9.8 μg/bee (m) LOAEC = 17 μg/bee (m) (NOAEC based on sublethal effect of lethargy) Practically non-toxic 

Acute dietary (oral) Adult honey bee 

(Apis mellifera) 

No data 

Acute dietary (oral) Comite 3W (30) 

Larval honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

LD50 > 100 μg/larva 

(age groups of larvae tested: 1-2 days, 3-4 days, 5-6 days) 

Terrestrial plants 

Seedling emergence: limit test Propargite (76.2) 

Most sensitive monocot: Sorghum 

EC/IC25 = 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on weight) Also, NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A for ryegrass and onion baseemergence and weight, respectively. 

Most sensitive dicot: Carrot, radish, tomato, soybean 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on emergence for carrot, radish, and tomato and lenfor soybean) 

Vegetative vigor: limit test Propargite (76.2) 

Most sensitive monocot: Ryegrass , sorghum 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on length and weight for ryegrass and sorghum, respectively) 
17 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Most sensitive dicot: Radish 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on weight) 

Abbreviations: NA = not applicable; nom = nominal; NS = not specified; m = measured Table 6-3: Comparison of ECOSAR-Predicted and Observed Toxicity 

Taxon Exposure 

Duration 

Endpoint Propargite TBPC 

Predicted* Observed Predicted* 

(mg/L) 

Fish 96-hr LC50 0.180 0.043 0.744 30-day Chronic value or NOAEC 0.026 0.016 0.098 Daphnid 48-hr LC50 or EC50 0.142 0.014 0.543 Chronic Chronic value or NOAEC 0.035 0.009 0.106 Green algae 96-hr 96-hr 0.413 0.066 1.140 Chronic Chronic value or NOAEC 0.225 No data 0.522 Saltwater fish 96-hr LC50 0.231 0.055 0.952 Chronic Chronic value or NOAEC 0.222 No data 0.542 Mysid shrimp 96-hr LC50 0.015 No data 0.112 Chronic Chronic value or NOAEC 0.00046 0.00046 0.004 

* based on ECOSAR class neutral organics 
18 

6.3 Ecological Incidents 

A preliminary review on March 5, 2014, of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, 

version 2.1), which is maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, and the Avian 

Monitoring Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird 

Conservancy, indicates a total of 3 reported ecological incidents associated with the use of 

propargite. This total excludes incidents classified as ‘unlikely’ or ‘unrelated’ and only includes 

those incidents with certainty categories of ‘possible’, ‘probable’, and ‘highly probable’ (for 

EIIS) and ‘possible’, ‘probable’, ‘likely’, ‘highly likely’ and ‘certain’ (for AIMS). These 

incidents are summarized in Table 6-4. All of the propargite incidents occurred between 1997 

and 2001 and were classified as “possible” to have been caused by propargite. One incident 

affected honey bees and the other two involved plants. The two plant incidents involved 

additional chemicals besides propargite. In the risk assessment, these incidents will be further 

evaluated to determine if the reported incidents represent current patterns of use for propargite. 

In addition to the incidents recorded in EIIS and AIMS, additional incidents have been reported 

to the Agency in aggregated incident reports. Pesticide registrants report certain types of 

incidents to the Agency as aggregate counts of incidents occurring per product per quarter. 

Ecological incidents reported in aggregate reports include those categorized as ‘minor fish and 

wildlife’, ‘minor plant’, and ‘other non-target’ incidents. ‘Other non-target’ incidents include 

reports of adverse effects to insects and other terrestrial invertebrates. For propargite, registrants 

have reported no minor fish and wildlife incidents, minor plant incidents, or other non-target 

incidents as of March 5, 2014. 
19 

Table 6-3. Ecological Incidents Associated with Propargitea

Incident Number 

Taxa Involved 

Effects Route of 

Exposure 

Magnitude Year Location Use Legality of 

Use 

Certainty Category

I007740-001 Plants 

(cotton) 

Bronzing Not 

specified 

Not reported 1997 CA Cotton Registered use Possible 

I012366-001 Plants 

(corn, potato) 

Plant damage 

Direct application 

9000 A (corn) 65 A (potato) 

2001 CA Not 

reported 

Undetermined Possible 

I020627-034 Terrestrial 

animals (bees) 

Mortality Not 

specified 

2 hives 2001 WA Corn Undetermined Possible 

a ‘Minor’ incidents aggregately reported by the registrant(s) are not included in this table. b Incidents classified as ‘unrelated’ and ‘unlikely’ are excluded. 
20 

7 Exposure Pathways of Concern 

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of propargite indicate that direct spray, spray 

drift, runoff, and erosion of pesticide-laden soil particles represent potential transport 

mechanisms of propargite to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. 

Drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways were screened using the SIP (Screening 

Imbibition Program) and STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk) screening methods and were 

found to be exposure pathways of low concern (no LOC exceedances are expected; see 

Appendix C). SIP and STIR are described in detail at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm. 

8 Analysis Plan 

8.1 Stressors of Concern 

8.1.1 Ecological Risk Assessment 

The stressors of concern for aquatic organisms are propargite and, pending results of requested 

ecotoxicity studies, the degradate TBPC. If TBPC is found to be much less toxic than 

propargite, the stressor of concern for aquatic organisms will be propargite alone. If TBPC is 

found to be similar in toxicity to propargite, the stressors of concern for aquatic organisms will 

be propargite and TBPC. In at the absence of toxicity data for TBPC, the stressors of concern for 

aquatic organisms will be propargite and TBPC, and a conservative method of considering the 

stressors of concern in total, i.e., the total toxic residue (TTR) approach, will be used. For the 

latter two scenarios, exposure to propargite and TBPC will be estimated from the existing fate 

data for propargite and TBPC. 

The stressor of ecological concern for terrestrial organisms is propargite. 

8.1.2 Drinking Water Exposure Assessment 

The drinking water assessment conducted to support the Registration Review human health risk 

assessment of propargite will incorporate model estimates of propargite, which is the only 

residue of concern (DP 256182), in surface and ground waters. The propargite residues of 

concern may be reevaluated pending receipt and review of additional environmental fate and 

toxicity data for propargite and its degradates. 

8.2 Measures of Exposure 

EFED will use standard available models to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm. 

8.2.1 Available Monitoring Data 
21 

The Agency is aware of monitoring conducted by federal and state agencies and this route of 

exposure will be considered in the assessment to the extent that data on propargite are available. 

8.3 Measures of Effect 

Toxicity data presented in Section 6 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk 

quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature 

prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be considered. The open literature studies are 

identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX5

), which employs a literature 

search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. 

The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects 

of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the chemicals and 

from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected communities. 

9 Endangered Species Assessments 

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

Agency will evaluate risks to federally listed threatened and/or endangered (listed) species from 

registered uses of pesticides in registration review. The process for evaluating potential risks to 

listed species is further described at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/riskasses.htm. 

10 Endocrine Disruptors Screening Program 

Propargite is on List 1 for which EPA has received all the required Tier 1 assay data. The 

Agency is currently reviewing all of the assay data received for the appropriate List 1 chemicals 

and planning to make the conclusions of those reviews available in early 2015. For additional 

information the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/. 

11 Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

11.1 Environmental Fate 

Tables 11-1 and 11-2 identify environmental fate studies that offer data for each guideline 

requirement and whether or not further data are needed to support the ecological risk assessment. 

Table 11-1. Environmental Fate Data for Propargite 

OCSPP 

Guideline 

Data 

Requirement 

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

835.2120 Hydrolysis 40358402 Acceptable No -- 

835.2240 Aqueous 

photolysis 

40358401 Acceptable No -- 

835.2410 Soil photolysis 40358401 Acceptable No -- 

 

5 http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
22 

OCSPP 

Guideline 

Data 

Requirement 

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

42319301 Supplemental 

42319307 Supplemental 

835.4100 Aerobic soil 

metabolism 

41003601 Unacceptable No MRID 43851402 is acceptable. 

Therefore even if MRID 43851401 (in 

review) were to be found unacceptable, 

it would not result in a data gap. 

42786301 Supplemental 

43851401 In review 

43851402 Acceptable 

835.4200 Anaerobic soil 

metabolism 

00068368 Supplemental No -- 

41003602 Acceptable 

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism 

42688801 Acceptable No -- 

835.4400 Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism 

43139401 Acceptable No -- 

835.1230 

835.1240 

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching 

00112414 Acceptable Yes2 This is an un-aged leaching study that 

partially fulfills the data requirements. 

42908402 Upgradeable1 MRID 42908402 (parent batch 

equilibrium study) is not acceptable 

because the solubi1ity of propargite may 

have been exceeded in this experiment 

(i.e., propargite adsorbed to surfaces in 

study). In order to clarify the results, the 

solubi1ity of propargite in 0.01 M 

calcium acetate solution at 25oC should 

be measured and reported.1

835.1410 Volatility – 

laboratory 

Waived – low vapor pressure. No -- 

835.6100 Terrestrial field 

dissipation 

(TFD) 

40969501 Supplemental Yes3 The maximum length of time that the 

soil samples were stored frozen prior to 

analysis was not reported. The irrigation 

regime was not typical of normal 

agricultural practice. 

41307301 Acceptable -- 

41325901 Acceptable -- 

41432501 Supplemental The registrant’s re-examination of the 

data from this propargite TFD study 

indicates that the detections of 

propargite and its degradate TBPC 

below the 6 inch depth are more likely 

to be the results of contamination of 

deeper samples with propargite-treated 

soil from the surface layer than leaching 

of propargite. 

41731501 Acceptable -- 

41966001 Acceptable Freezer storage stability study. 

Environmental 

chemistry 

44968601 In review If MRID 44968601was found to be 

unacceptable, we would need a new 
23 

OCSPP 

Guideline 

Data 

Requirement 

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

method (ECM) 

in soil 

No Independent Laboratory 

Validation (ILV) has been 

submitted. 

-- 

835.6200 Aquatic field 

dissipation 

Waived – cranberry use 

removed from label(s). 

No --

Environmental 

chemistry 

method (ECM) 

in water 

No Environmental chemistry 

method (ECM) or Independent 

Laboratory Validation (ILV) 

has been submitted.

Yes4 -- 

850.1730 Fish 

bioconcentration 

40494001 Acceptable No -- 

40916601 Acceptable 

Nonguideline Terrestrial Field 

Runoff and 

Spray Drift 

Monitoring 

Studies 

40969501 Supplemental (Not 

41057402 Supplemental applicable) 

41057401 Supplemental 

41153201 Supplemental 

41153205 Supplemental 

41225601 Supplemental 

41184001 Supplemental 

41663201 Supplemental 1 In MRIDs 40431602, 41449202, 41449203, 41449204, and 41449205, the soil was autoclaved. Autoclaving is 

known to change a soil's chemical and physical properties. In MRID 41449206, the study design was not adequately 

described; it could not be determined if the study was conducted according to sound scientific practices and 

guidelines. Therefore, all of these studies are unacceptable. 

2 The EFED science chapter for the Propargite RED lists MRID 42908402 as acceptable. However, EFED has no 

record of this change in classification from upgradeable to acceptable. If the data requested or documentation of 

classification change can be provided to EFED, the data requirement may be fulfilled. 

3 For soil, no acceptable ILV has been submitted. 

4 For water, no acceptable ECM and ILV have been submitted. 

In the soil method document (MRID 44968601), the registrant argues: 

...An ILV is suggested by the USA EPA. This has not been done in a formal sense. 

However, four field dissipation studies for propargite in different USA locations (two for 

California, one each for Florida and Georgia) have been done at various times. Although 

the same laboratory analyzed the samples, the fact that these analyses were done 

successfully over a number of years suggests that the method in this report can be 

considered as having been independently lab validated. (p. 23 of MRID 44968601) 

However, an independent laboratory validation study needs to be performed at an independent

laboratory using different laboratory personnel to determine if the method description is 

sufficient as written for other laboratories to perform the analyses at the specified levels of 

accuracy. Therefore, EPA does not consider the requirements of an independent laboratory 

validation study to be fulfilled. 
24 

Only a single fate study has been submitted for any of the propargite degradates (Table 11-2). No 

additional fate studies for TBPC are needed at this time. 

Table 11-2. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for the Degradate TBPC 

OCSPP 

Guideline 

Data 

Requirement 

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID) 

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

835.1230 

835.1240 

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching 

42908401 Acceptable No This is a batch equilibrium study of the 

TBPC degradate. 

11.2 Ecological Effects 

Tables 11-3 and 11-4 identify ecological effects studies that offer data for each guideline 

requirement and whether further data are needed to support the ecological risk assessment. 

There are no toxicity data available for TBPC, a major degradate of propargite. Based on 

ECOSAR analyses, TBPC may be only slightly less toxic to aquatic organisms. Therefore, 

aquatic toxicity data for TBPC are needed to determine whether TBPC should be considered an 

aquatic stressor of concern in the ecological risk assessment. The following acute toxicity data 

for TBPC are needed to establish whether TBPC should be considered an aquatic stressor of 

concern: 

 OCSPP 850.1010: Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity test, freshwater daphnids 

 OCSPP 850.1075: Fish acute toxicity test, rainbow trout 

 OCSPP 850.4500: Algal toxicity, marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) 

In at the absence of toxicity data for TBPC, the stressors of concern for aquatic organisms will be 

propargite and TBPC; a conservative method of considering the stressors of concern in total, i.e., 

the total toxic residue (TTR) approach, will be used; and exposure to propargite and TBPC will 

be estimated from the existing fate data for propargite and TBPC. 
25 

Table 11-3. Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Propargite 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

Gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA WData 

 850.1010 Freshwater 

invertebrate acute toxicity 

46015901 In review No No -- 

43759002 Acceptable 00068752, 00112402 

Acceptable 

850.1025 850.1035 850.1045 850.1055 

Saltwater invertebrate acute toxicity 

40431601, 41449201 (mollusk) 

Acceptable No No -- 

 (mysid) NA Yes No Acute toxicity to mysids may be characte

chronic ratio derived from toxicity data f(i.e., D. magna; see Table 6-1 for details

 850.1075 Freshwater fish 

acute toxicity 

41458301 (cold water) 

In review No No 

00066498 (cold water) 

Acceptable 

43759001 (cold water) 

Acceptable 

00043552 (cold water) 

Supplemental 

46073301 (warm water) 

In review No 

00003059, 00076405, 00112368, 00029174, 00009733 (warm water) 

Supplemental 

00066498 Acceptable 
26 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

Gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA WData 

(warm water) 

 850.1075 Saltwater fish 

acute toxicity 

40514001 Acceptable No No -- 

 850.1300 Freshwater 

invertebrate life cycle 

00142594 Acceptable No No -- 

 850.1350 Saltwater 

invertebrates life cycle 

46335701 Acceptable No No -- 

 850.1400 Freshwater fish 

early life stage 

00126739 Acceptable No No 

 850.1400 Saltwater fish 

early life stage 

No data NA Yes Yes Chronic toxicity to estuarine/marine fish 

an acute-to-chronic ratio derived from toxfish . 

 850.1500 Freshwater fish 

life cycle 

No data NA Yes 

(RED) 

Yes This study was identified as a data gap in 

DCI for this study was issued. According to 40 CFR Part 158, data are rproduct is intended to be applied directly be transported to water from the intended the following conditions apply: 

i. If the estimated environmental con

of the no-observed effect level in tinvertebrate life cycle test; 

ii. If studies of other organisms indic

physiology of fish may be affected

Propargite is expected to be transported tuse site. In the 2008 CRLF litigation assEECs of propargite were up to 5.26 μg/L NOAEC in the fathead minnow fish early μg/L; MRIDs 00126739 and 00132605). 
27 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

Gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA WData 

reproductive studies with propargite (MR41041702) showed effects on multiple reTable 6-2). Therefore, a fish life cycle sspecies used in the fish life cycle test is dused for the freshwater fish acute toxicity 

species used in the fish early life stage te

Nonguideline Whole sediment: 

chronic invertebrates freshwater and marine 

No data NA Yes Yes Chronic sediment invertebrate toxicity da

CFR Part 158 if: 

i. the estimated environmental conce

is > 0.1 of the acute LC50/EC50 val

ii.the half-life of the pesticide in sed

the aerobic soil or aquatic metabothe following exist: A. The soil partition coefficient (

B. The log Kow is ≥ 3. C. The Koc is ≥ 1,000. 

Modeling via PRZM/EXAMSa indicates 

3.76 μg/L which is approximately 0.27of 

magna (MRID 46015901); the 90th perce

propargite in the aerobic soil metabolism metabolism studies are 168 and 38 days, Kow and Koc of propargite are 5.8 and 2Therefore, chronic sediment tests with thdilutus, freshwater amphipod Hyalella az

estuarine/marine amphipod Leptocheirus 

tiered approach using toxicity data from ssediment toxicity tests with the three specdetermine which species should undergo In the absence of these data, sediment-dwtoxicity data for surrogate pesticides – starelated pesticides and proceeding to data 
28 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

Gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment? 

Justification and Assumptions EPA WData may be used to characterize the chronic tsediment-dwelling invertebrates. 

850.4400 Aquatic plant 

toxicity test using Lemna

spp. 

43885805 Acceptable No No -- 

850.4500 Algal toxicity 43885804 

(green alga) 

Acceptable No No -- 

43885806 (marine diatom) 

Acceptable No 

43885807 (freshwater diatom) 

Acceptable No 

850.4550 Cyanobacteria 

toxicity 

43885803 Acceptable No No -- 

Abbreviations: NA = not applicable a PRZM/EXAMS scenario alfalfa; first application date: June 27; last application date: July 17; broadcast aerial application modeled as 

efficiency and 5% spray drift; 2 applications @ 2.456 lb a.i./acre; 20-day application interval 

Table 11-4. Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Propargite

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA Will MData 

 850.2100 Avian oral 

toxicity 

00082632  (waterfowl) 

Acceptable No No -- 
29 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA Will MData 

No data (passerine) 

NA Yes Yes Acute oral toxicity data for a passerine specie

new 40 CFR Part 158. A study has not been srequirement. A guideline-compliant passerine acute oral toAcute oral toxicity data are only available for 

mallard duck). Passerine birds may utilize medifferent from larger birds and therefore be mpropargite. Furthermore, passerines exhibit bpesticide dosing that are potential indicators ofield (e.g., regurgitation of contaminated diet) 

biochemically-mediated lethal toxicity is not In the absence of these data, passerine toxicity pesticides – starting with data for closely relatproceeding to data for less related pesticides – characterize the acute toxicity of propargite to 

850.2150 Avian feeding 

study 

No data NA Yes 

(RED) 

No This study was identified as a data gap in the 

DCI for this study was issued. This study is nRegistration Review ecological risk assessme

 850.2200 Avian dietary 

toxicity 

00052454 (upland game) 

Acceptable No No -- 

00076407, 00112367 (upland game) 

Acceptable 

00113471  (waterfowl) 

Acceptable No No -- 

 850.2300 Avian 

reproduction 

41041702 (upland game) 

Acceptable No No -- 
30 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA Will MData 

41041701 (waterfowl) 

Acceptable No No -- 

 850.3020 Honey bee acute 

contact toxicity 

43185001 Acceptable No No -- 

850.3030 Honey bee 

toxicity of residues on foliage 

00060628, 00091656, 00132711 

Acceptable Yes 

(RED) 

No This study was identified as a data gap in the 

DCI for this study was issued. According to t158, this study is required only when a formumore active ingredients having an LD50 < 11 

the honey bee acute contact study and the use honey bees may be exposed to the pesticide. 

of propargite is >11 μg/bee, and formulations contain one active ingredient. This study is nRegistration Review ecological risk assessme

Nonguideline Honey bee acute oral toxicity No data NA NA Yes The “White Paper in Support of the Proposed 

for Bees” as submitted to the FIFRA Scientifi

proposes a screening-level risk assessment prcontact and oral toxicity tests with adult bees test with larval bees. Honey bee acute oral toavailable. In the absence of these data, honey bee oral topesticides – starting with data for closely relatproceeding to data for less related pesticides – characterize the oral toxicity of propargite to h

Nonguideline Honey bee acute larval toxicity 00074486 Acceptable No No 

6 www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2012-0543-0004
31 

OCSPP Guideline 

Data Requirement 

Source MRID 

Classification Data 

gap? 

Are Data Needed to Conduct the Risk Assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA Will MData 

850.4100 Seedling 

emergence and seedling growth 

43885801 Supplemental Yes Yes, 

for sorghum, ryegrass, onion, carrot, radish, tomato, and soybean 

Acceptable data are not available. The submi“supplemental” because a definitive NOAEC 

a.i./A) could not be determined for sorghum, radish, tomato, and soybean. A study that def

concentration that is not statistically different for all assessed endpoints) for these species is 

850.4150 Vegetative 

vigor 

43885802 Supplemental Yes Yes, for 

ryegrass, sorghum, and radish 

Acceptable data are not available. The submi“supplemental” because a definitive NOAEC 

a.i./A) could not be determined for ryegrass, sstudy that defines a NOAEC (i.e., a concentrastatistically different from the negative controendpoints) for these species is needed. 

Abbreviations: NA = not applicable
32 

12 References 

DP 231322, 250220, 265823. EFED Risk Assessment for Re-registration Eligibility of 

Propargite (Omite, Comite, Ornamite). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of 

Pesticides Programs. 89p. 

USEPA. 2008. Risks of Propargite Use to Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog 

(Rana aurora draytonii). Pesticide Effects Determination. Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. June 16, 2008. 

DP 256182. Propargite. HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee Meeting on 5/18/99. 

Residues of Concern in Plants, Animals, and Water. (DP Barcode # D256182). U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticides Programs. 2p. 

Cited Environmental Fate Studies 

00061415 Uniroyal Chemical (1976) Environmental Fate: Omite. (Reports by various 

sources; unpublished study received Mar 5, 1976 under 400-82; CDL:226761-A) 

00065743 Wong, D.T.L.; Girouard, D.M.; Meck, R.D. (1978) Hydrolysis Study of 

Omite^(R)I-^14IC in Aqueous Solution: Project No. 7641. (Unpublished study 

received Sep 29, 1978 under 400-89; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, 

Conn.; CDL:241988-A) 

00068368 Meck, R.D.; Campbell, C.R. (1977) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of Omite^(R)I at 1 

and 10 ppm: Project No. 7526. (Unpublished study received Jul 11, 1977 under 

400-104; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:231080-A) 

00100290 Dannals, L.E.; Kucharczyk, N.; Smith, A.E. (1972) Fate of Omite^(R)I in the 

Environment. Status rept. no. 1. (Unpublished study received Sep 28, 1972 under 

3F1305; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:094120-A) 

00100291 Sleight, B.H., III (1972) Exposure of Fish to ^14IC-labeled Omite: Accumulation, 

Distribution, and Elimination of Residues. (Un- published study received Oct 4, 

1972 under 3F1305; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, 

Bethany, Conn.; CDL:094120-B) 

00112406 Uniroyal Chemical (1975) Environmental Chemistry of Omite, Including 

Experimental Data. (Compilation; unpublished study received Mar 5, 1976 under 

400-89; CDL:233085-A) 

00112411 Tortora, N.; Smilo, A.; Fuller, G.; et al. (1979) Photochemical Fate of Omite in 

Solution: Project No. 7644. (Unpublished study received Mar 8, 1979 under 400-

82; submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL:241269-A) 

00112412 Kuc, W. (1979) 14C-Omite Channel Catfish Bioconcentration Study: UCES Project 

No. 11506-97. (Unpublished study received Mar 8, 1979 under 400-82; prepared by 

Union Carbide Corp., sub- mitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; 

CDL:241269-B) 
33 

00112414 Caplan, J. (1979) Absorption--Desorption of 14C-Omite: Laboratory No. 9PL-30-

S. (Unpublished study received Mar 8, 1979 under 400-82; prepared by 

Biospherics, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL:241269-D) 

40358401 Nowakowski, M. (1987) Aqueous and Soil Photolysis of [Carbon 14] Omite: 

Project No. 8766, 87101. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., 

Inc. 43 p. 

40358402 Nowakowski, M. (1987) Omite Hydrolysis: Project No. 8731. Unpublished study 

prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 33 p. 

40431602 Spare, W. (1987) Determination of the Adsorption/Desorption Constants of Omite: 

Agrisearch Project No. 1909: Uniroyal Project No. 8791. Unpublished study 

prepared by Agrisearch, Inc. 26 p. 

40494801 Bioconcentration and Elimination of 14C-Residues by Bluegill Exposed to Omite, 

D.C. Suprenant, Jan, 1988 

40916601 McManus, J. (1988) Information and Data on Purity of ?Carbon 14|- Propargite 

Used in the Study: "Bioconcentration and Elimination of ?Carbon 14|-Residues by 

Bluegill Exposed to Omite". Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical 

Co., Inc. 6 p. 

40969501 Lengen, M. (1989) Field Dissipation of Propargite on Two Sites in California: 

Uniroyal Project 8661. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 

in cooperation with California Agricultural Research and Morse Laboratories, Inc. 

54 p. 

40969502 Harned, W. (1989) Omite Residue Level Monitoring Runoff Study (Terrestrial 

Runoff) from a Missouri Corn Field: Project No. 8718-B: Project Nos. 87015-01, 

03, 04, 06, 09, 11. Unpublished study prepared by Stewart Agricultural Research 

Services, Inc. in cooperation with Biospherics, Inc. 156 p. 

41003601 Dzialo, D. (1988) Omite Aerobic Soil Metabolism: Project No. 8723. Unpublished 

study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 20 p. 

41003602 Dzialo, D. (1988) Omite Anaerobic Soil Metabolism: Project No. 8853. 

Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 29 p. 

41087400 Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. (1989) Submission of Aquatic Monitoring Data in 

Support of Propargite Registration Standard. Transmittal of 2 studies. 

41087401 Harned, W. (1989) Omite Residue Level Monitoring Runoff Study (Terrestrial 

Runoff) from a Missouri Corn Field: (Revised March 21, 1989). Unpublished study 

prepared by Stewart Agriculture Research Services, Inc. in cooperation with 

Biospherics, Inc. 160 p. 

41087402 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Residue Level Monitoring Runoff Study (Terrestrial 

Runoff) From a Georgia Cotton Field. Unpublished study prepared by Landis 

Associates, Inc. in cooperation with Biospherics, Inc. 308 p. 
34 

41153201 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Residue Level Monitoring Runoff Study (Terrestrial 

Runoff) in a Corn Field in Texas: Project No. SARS-88-TX-84: Project No. 88014-

03, -07, -17. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics, Inc. 43 p. 

41153202 Johnson, D. (1989) Corn Comite (Propargite) Aquatic Residue Monitoring Study: 

Project No. 88-43: Test No. SARS-88-TX-84. Unpublished study prepared by 

Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. 36 p. 

41153204 Brunk, J. (1989) Analysis of Propargite and Omite Glycol Ether Residues in Pond 

Water-Texas Study: Laboratory Project ID 88014-17. Unpublished study prepared 

by Biospherics, Inc. 30 p. 

41153205 Brunk, J. (1989) Analysis of Propargite and Omite Glycol Ether Residues in Pond 

Sediment-Texas Study: Laboratory Project ID 88014-03. Unpublished study 

prepared by Biospherics, Inc. 13 p. 

41184001 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Residue Level Monitoring Study (Terrestrial Runoff) 

in a Citrus Grove in Water Garden, Florida: Project Nos. 88014-01, -05, -12; 

SARS-88-FL-83C. Unpublished study prepared by Biospherics, Inc., and Others. 

160 p. 

41225601 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Residue Level Monitoring Study (Terrestrial Runoff) 

in a Citrus Grove in Plant City, Florida: Proj. No. 8841. Unpublished study 

prepared by Biospherics, Inc. 52 p. 

41307301 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Terrestrial Field Dissipation Citrus in Winter 

Garden, Florida: Project Number 8844; SARS-88-FL-82; ML88-0018-UNI. 

Unpublished study prepared by Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc., 

Florida Pesticide Research Inc. and Morse Laboratories, Inc. 110 p. 

41325901 Harned, W. (1989) Propargite Terrestrial Field Dissipation on Cotton in Kerman, 

California: Lab Project Number: ML88/0016/ UNI: CAR/20/88: 8820. Unpublished 

study prepared by Morse Laboratories in association with California Agricultural 

Re- search, Inc. 41 p. 

41432501 Harned, W. (1990) Propargite Terrestrial Field Dissipation, Cotton in Winterville, 

Georgia: Lab Project Number: SARS-88-GA-81: ML 88-0019-UNI: 8845. 

Unpublished study prepared by Morse Laboratories in co-operation with LFH, Inc. 

and Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. 55 p. 

41449202 Spare, W. (1987) Determination of the Adsorption/Desorption Constants of Omite: 

Agrisearch Project No. 1909; Uniroyal Project No. 8791. Unpublished study 

prepared by Agrisearch, Inc. 26 p. 

41449203 Spare, W. (1987) Determination of the Adsorption/Desorption Constants of Omite 

Clycol Ether: Agrisearch Project No. 1912; Uniroyal Project No. 8798. 

Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch, Inc. 27 p. 

41449204 Korpalski, S.; Nowakowski, M. (1988) Adsorption/Desorption of Propargite 

(Omite): Lab Project No.: 88136. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal 

Chemical Co., Inc., Crop Protection Dept. 108 p. 
35 

41449205 Korpalski, S. (1989) Corrected Kd Values of Adsorption/Desorption Study for 

Propargite: Project # 1909; Uniroyal # 8791. Unpublished study prepared by 

Agrisearch, Inc. 11 p. 

41449206 Korpalski, S. (1989) Clay Soil Adsorption/Desorption of Omite Glycol Ether: Lab 

Project Number: 8912. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., 

Inc., Crop Protection Dept. 44 p. 

41663201 Harned, W. (1990) Propargite Residue Level Monitoring Study Terrestrial Runoff) 

in a Cotton Field in Hawkinsville, Georgia: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

89020/01.02.03: SARS-89-GA-85. Unpublished study prepared by Biospheric, Inc., 

in cooperation with Stewart Agric., Research Services, Inc. and Henry AgriScientific. 55 p. 

41731501 Harned, W. (1990) Propargite Terrestrial Field Dissipation, Citrus in Fresno, 

California: Lab Project Number: 21-88: ML88-0017-UNI. Unpublished study 

prepared by California Agricultural Research Inc. in association with Morse 

Laboratories. 307 p. 

41966001 Harned, W. (1991) Freezer Storage Stability: Supplement To Propargite Terrestrial 

Field Dissipation on Cotton in Kerman, California: Lab Project Number: 8820: 

ML88-0016-UNI. Unpublished study prepared by Morse Laboratories. 19 p. 

42096501 Harned, W. (1991) Additional Data to Support Field Dissipation Study for 

Propargite on Cotton in Kerman, CA. Unpublished study prepared by Dellaville 

Lab, Inc., and Univ. of California, Fresno. 18 p. 

42319301 Nowakowski, M. (1988) Soil Photolysis of carbon 14-Omite: Lab Project Number: 

8857. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 110 p. 

42319307 Korpalski, S. (1990) Soil Photolysis of carbon 14-Omite: Amended Report: Lab 

Project Number: 9057. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 

49 p. 

42585301 Propargite Review three runoff studies. One concerned citrus in Plant City, Florida, 

the second was for citrus in Winter Garden, Florida and the third 'was for a corn 

site in Texas. Accession 425853-01. Uniroyal Response on the study review 

42688801 Comezoglu, S. (1993) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon 14-U-Phenyl)-

Omite: Lab Project Number: 92038: RPT00112. Unpublished study prepared by 

Xenobiotic Labs, Inc. 132 p. 

42786301 White, C. (1993) Soil Analyses of Sandy Loam Soil from Propargite Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism Study (MRID #41003601). Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal 

Chemical Co., Inc. 7 p. 

42908401 Spare, W. (1993) Adsorption/Desorption of (Carbon 14)-Omite Glycol Ether: Lab 

Project Number: 1922: 9313. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 80 p. 

42908402 Spare, W. (1993) Adsorption/Desorption of (Carbon 14)-Omite: Lab Project 

Number: 1921: 9312. Unpublished study prepared by Agrisearch Inc. 91 p. 
36 

43139401 Comezoglu, S. (1994) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (U-Phenyl-(carbon 14))-

Omite: Lab Project Number: XBL 92039: RPT00141: 9264. Unpublished study 

prepared by XenoBiotic Laboratories, Inc. 165 p. 

43851401 Galicia, H. (1990) Degradation of (carbon 14)-Propargite Technical in Soil Speyer 

2.2 Incubated Under Aerobic Conditions: Lab Project Number: 245946. 

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie AG. 51 p. 

43851402 Comezoglu, S.; Ly, V. (1995) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (U-Phenyl-(carbon 14))-

Omite: Lab Project Number: XBL 94061: RPT00239: 9416. Unpublished study 

prepared by XenoBiotic Labs, Inc. 193 p. 

44968601 Pierce, J. (1999) Analytical Method for Propargite and its Degradates in Soil: Lab 

Project Nos. AC 6006; 99201. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical 

Co., Inc. 48 p. {OPPTS Guideline 850.7100} 

46973201 Balu, K.; Trask, J.; Carver, L. (2006) Progress Update of the Study Entitled: Small 

- Scale Drinking Water Monitoring Study for Propargite. Project Number: 864/08, 

20/089, 2003/081. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. 

(WEI) and North Coast Laboratories, Inc. 44 p. 

47048201 Chepega, J.; Balu, K. (2007) Precipitation Data to Supplement the Progress Update 

of the Study Entitled "Small-Scale Drinking Water Monitoring Study for 

Propargite". Project Number: 2003/081, 864/08, 20/089. Unpublished study 

prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI) and North Coast Laboratories, 

Inc. 10 p. 

47314101 Balu, K.; Trask, J.; Chepega, J.; et al. (2007) Small-Scale Drinking Water 

Monitoring Study for Propargite. Project Number: 2003/081, 20/089, 864/08. 

Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne Environmental, Inc. (WEI) and North 

Coast Laboratories, Inc. 455 p. 

Cited Ecological Effects Studies 

00003059 

00009733 

00029174 

00076405 

00112368 

Weir, R.J.; Rathbun, F. (1966) Final Report: Acute Toxicity in Aqueous Exposure 

to Bluegill Sunfish: Project No. 798-100. (Unpublished study received Apr 10, 

1967 under 400-82; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal 

Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:090718-G) 

00036935 Atkins, E.L.; Greywood, E.A.; Macdonald, R.L. (1075) Toxicity of Pesticides and 

Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey Bees; Laboratory Studies. By University 

of California, Dept. of Entomology.: UC, Cooperative Extension, (Leaflet 2287; 

published study.) 

00043552 McCann, J.A. (1970) Omite 30W: Toxicity to Rainbow Trout: Test No. 264. (U.S. 

Agricultural Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology 

Laboratory, unpublished study; CDL: 104751-A) 
37 

00052454 Fink, R. (1974) Final Report: Eight-Day Dietary LC50-Mallard Ducks: Project No. 

117-101. (Unpublished study received Mar 28, 1975 under 5F1609; prepared by 

Truslow Farms, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal, Inc., Mishawaka, Ind.; CDL:094398-

D) 

00060628 Johansen, C.A. Eves, J. (1965) Bee poisoning Investigations, 1965: report No. G1705; Report No. 17338. (Unpublished study, including letter dated June 12, 1973 

from C.A. Johansen to A.D. Cohick, received March 27, 1974 under 4F1485. 

00060628 

00091656 

Johansen, C.; Eves, J. (1966) Bee Poisoning Investigations, 1965: Report No. G1705; 17338. (Unpublished study received Jan. 18, 1968 under 3125-143; prepared 

by Washington State Univ., submitted by Mobay chemical Corp., Kansas City, Mo 

00066498 Kuc, W.J. (1977) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical, Batch 24 Lot BL 8190 to the 

Bluegill Sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque) and Rainbow Trout (Salmo 

gairdneri Richardson): UCES Project # 11506-29-02. (Unpublished study received 

Dec 29, 1977 under 400-95; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by 

Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:233086-G) 

00068752 

00112402 

Vilkas, A.G. (1977) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical to the Water Flea (Daphnia 

magna Straus): ES Proj. # 11506-29-02. (Unpublished study received Jan 19, 1978 

under 400-89; prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, 

Bethany, Conn.; CDL:232723-A) 

00074486 Atkins, E.L.: Kellum, D. (1980) Effect of Pesticides on Apiculture: Maximizing the 

Effectiveness of Honey Bees as Pollinators; Project No. 1499. 1980 annual rept. 

(Unpublished study received June 8, 1981 under s241-259 

00076406 

00112369 

Tsukasaki, S. (1966) Letter sent to U.S. Rubber dated Sep 20, 1966: D014 35% EC 

fish toxicological test. (Unpublished study received Apr 10, 1967 under 400-82; 

submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, Conn.; CDL:090718-H) 

00076407 

00112367 

Weir, R.J.; Mitterer, K. (1967) Final Report: Acute Dietary Toxicity-Bobwhite 

Quail: Project No. 798-100. (Unpublished study received Apr 10, 1967 under 400-

82; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, 

Bethany, Conn.; CDL:090718-I) 

00082632 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.B. (1977) Final Report: Acute Oral LD50-Mallard Duck: 

Project No. 117-125. (Unpublished study received Dec 29, 1977 under 400-95; 

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, 

Conn.; CDL: 233086-F) 

00107189 McCann, J. (1970) Omite 30W: Goldfish|: Test No. 302. (U.S. Agricultural 

Research Service, Pesticides Regulation Div., Animal Biology Laboratory; 

unpublished study; CDL:130317-A) 

00112367 Weir, R.; Mitterer, K. (1967) Acute Dietary Toxicity--Bobwhite Quail: Omite 57E: 

Project No. 798-100. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Feb 16, 1967 under 
38 

7F0614; prepared by Hazleton Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, 

Bethany, CT; CDL:092906-B) 

00112395 Sleight, B. (1972) Acute Toxicity of Omite to Grass Shrimp ... and Fiddler Crab 

(Uca pugilator). (Unpublished study received Jan 24, 1974 under unknown admin. 

no.; prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; 

CDL:131292-A) 

00112396 Sleight, B. (1972) Acute Toxicity of Omite to Atlantic Oyster Larvae (Crassostrea 

virginica). (Unpublished study received Jan 24, 1974 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared by Bionomics, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemical, Bethany, CT; 

CDL:131292-B) 

00113471 Fink, R.; Beavers, J. (1977) Eight-day Dietary LC50-Bobwhite Quail: Omite 

Technical: Project No. 117-124. Final rept. (Unpublished study received Oct 19, 

1977 under 400-82; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by Uniroyal 

Chemical, Bethany, CT; CDL:232341-A) 

00126739 Forbis, A.; Franklin, L.; Boudreau, P.; et al. (1983) Early Life Stage Toxicity of 

Omite to Fathead Minnows in a Flow-through System: Early Life Stage Final 

Report #29634. (Unpublished study received Apr 8, 1983 under 400-104; prepared 

by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc., submitted by Uniroyal Chemi- cal, 

Bethany, CT; CDL:249886-A) 

00132711 Johansen, C. (1972) Toxicity of field-weathered insecticide residues to four kinds 

of bees. Environmental Entomology 1(3):393- 394. (Also In unpublished 

submission received Nov 2, 1983 under 239-2507; submitted by Chevron Chemical 

Co., Richmond, CA; CDL: 251760-C) 

00142594 Forbis, A.; Franklin, L. (1984) Chronic Toxicity of Omite to Daphnia magna under 

Flow-through Test Conditions: ABC Final Re- port #31133. Unpublished study 

prepared by Analytical Bio-Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 172 p. 

40431601 Surprenant, D. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical to Embryos-larvae of the 

Quahog Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria): Bionomics Report #87-11-2554: 

Bionomic Study #41.0587.6105.514. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Life Sciences, Inc. 28 p. 

40514001 Surprenant, D. (1987) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical to Sheepshead Minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus): Study No. 41.0587.6106.500. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 32 p. 

41041701 Beavers, J. (1988) Omite Technical Agricultural Miticide: A One-Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Project No. 117-153. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 233 p. 

41041702 Beavers, J. (1988) Omite Technical Agricultural Miticide: A One-Generation 

Reproduction Study with the Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): Project No. 117-152. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 234 p. 
39 

41449201 Surprenant, D. (1990) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical to Embryos-larvae of the 

Quahog Clam (Mercenaria mercenaria): Bionomics Report No.: 87-11-2554. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Sciences, Inc. 28 p. 

41458301 Sousa, J. (1990) Omite Technical: Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss): Lab Project Number: 89-6-3010: 41.0289. 6117.108. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 41 p. 

43185001 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1994) Acute Toxicity of Omite Technical to the 

Honey Bee, Apis mellifera: Lab Project Number: 385-UN. Unpublished study 

prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs., Inc. 20 p. 

43371502 Davis, J. (1994) The Effect of Soil Sediment on the Toxicity of Omite Technical to 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Water Flea (Daphnia magna) under 

Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: J9309001. Unpublished study 

prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 53 p. 

43759001 Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Under Flow-Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: J9501010B. 

Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 64 p. 

43759002 Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to Water Flea (Daphnia magna) Under 

Flow-Through Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: J9501010C. Unpublished 

study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 64 p. 

43885801 Aufderheide, J.; Kranzfelder, J. (1995) Comite: Seedling Emergence-Tier I: Lab 

Project Number: J9501011A. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon 

Environmental Sciences. 125 p. 

43885802 Aufderheide, J.; Kranzfelder, J. (1995) Comite: Vegetative Vigor-Tier I: Lab 

Project Number: J9501011B. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon 

Environmental Sciences. 117 p. 

44086801 Dionne, E. (1996) Omite Technical--The Chronic Toxicity to the Fathead Minnow 

(Pimephales promelas) During a Full Life-Cycle Exposure: Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 41.1194.6148.122: 96-2-6379: 081194/FIFRA/122. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 563 p. 

46015901 Knight, B.; Allan, J. (2002) Determination of Acute Toxicity (EC50) of Propargite 

to Daphnia magna (48 h, Continous-Flow). Project Number: 20632, 800052. 

Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 54 p. 

46073301 Knight, B.; Allan, J. (2002) Determination of Acute Toxicity (LC50) of Propargite 

to Bluegill Sunfish (96 h, Continuous-Flow). Project Number: 20480, 800031. 

Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 52 p. 

46335701 Lima, W. (2004) Omite Technical - Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with Mysids 

(Americamysis bahia). Project Number: 41/6181. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Smithers Laboratories. 102 p. 
40 

43885803 Liu, H.; Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Blue-Green 

Alga, Anabaena flos-aquae, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 

J9501011H. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 66 

p. 

43885804 Cunningham, F.; Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Green 

Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project 

Number: J9501011F. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental 

Sciences. 66 p. 

43885805 Cunningham, F.; Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to Duckweed, Lemna 

gibba G3, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: J9501011J. 

Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 60 p. 

43885806 Cunningham, F.; Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to the Saltwater Diatom, 

Skeletonema costatum, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 

J9501011G. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 60 

p. 

43885807 Liu, H.; Davis, J. (1995) Comite: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Diatom, 

Navicula pelliculosa, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number: 

J9501011I. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 69 p. 

 
41 

APPENDIX A: Summary of Propargite Label Application Restrictions

Table A-1. Summary of Propargite Label Application Restrictions by Registration Number 

Reg# Site Description 

Max Single App Rate 

(Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps 

per Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year 

(Lbs./A) 

Max App Ra

Crop Cyc

(Lbs./A) 

400-104 Almond 3.13 2 NS NS 

Apple 1.56 2 NS NS Beans, dried-type 2.50 NS 3.75 NS Citrus 1.56 2 NS NS Conifers (plantations/nurseries) 2.29 2 NS NS Corn (unspecified) 2.50 1 NA NS Corn, field 2.50 1 NA NS Corn, pop 2.50 1 NA NS Corn, sweet 2.50 1 NA NS Cotton (unspecified) 1.67 2 3.34 NS Currant 1.56 2 NS NS Date 1.56 2 NS NS Fig 1.56 2 NS NS Filbert (hazelnut) 1.56 2 NS NS Grapefruit 2.50 NS 4.17 NS Hops 1.56 2 NS NS Jojoba 1.67 2 NS NS Macadamia nut (bushnut) 1.56 2 NS NS Mint 2.09 2 4.17 NS Orange 2.50 NS 4.17 NS Peanuts (unspecified) 1.67 2 NS NS Pecan 1.56 2 NS NS Persimmon 1.56 2 NS NS Pistachio 1.56 2 NS NS Potato, white/Irish 2.09 2 4.17 NS Quince 1.56 2 NS NS Small fruits 1.56 2 NS NS Sorghum 1.67 1 NA NS Stone fruits 1.56 2 NS NS Walnut (English/black) 4.59 2 6.88 NS 

400-154 Beans, dried-type 2.47 NS 4.57 NS 

Corn (unspecified) 2.57 NS 2.57 NS 
42 

Reg# Site Description 

Max Single App Rate 

(Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps 

per Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year 

(Lbs./A) 

Max App Ra

Crop Cyc

(Lbs./A) 

Corn, field 2.57 NS 2.57 NS Corn, pop 2.57 NS 2.57 NS Corn, sweet 2.57 NS 2.57 NS Cotton (unspecified) 1.71 NS 3.33 NS Grapefruit 2.47 NS 4.14 NS Mint 2.28 NS 4 NS Orange 2.47 NS 4.14 NS Peanuts (unspecified) 1.71 2 NS NS Potato, white/Irish 2.28 NS 4 NS Sorghum 1.71 1 NA NS 

400-427 Almond 3.2 2 NS NS 

Apple 1.92 2 NS NS Cherry 1.92 2 NS NS Christmas tree plantations 2.4 2 NS NS Citrus 1.92 2 NS NS Conifers (plantations/nurseries) 2.4 2 NS NS Currant 1.92 2 NS NS Date 1.92 2 NS NS Fig 1.92 2 NS NS Filbert (hazelnut) 1.92 2 NS NS Grapefruit 3.36 1 5.76 NS Grapes 2.88 2 NS NS Macadamia nut (bushnut) 1.92 2 NS NS Nectarine 2.88 2 NS NS Orange 3.36 1 5.76 NS Ornamental herbaceous plants 0.48 3 NS NS Ornamentals (unspecified) 0.32 3 NS NS Peanuts (unspecified) 1.6 2 NS NS Pear 1.92 2 NS NS Pecan 1.92 2 NS NS Persimmon 1.92 2 NS NS Pistachio 1.92 2 NS NS Quince 1.92 2 NS NS Rose 1.6 3 NS NS Small fruits 1.92 2 NS NS Stone fruits 1.92 2 NS NS 
43 

Reg# Site Description 

Max Single App Rate 

(Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps 

per Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year 

(Lbs./A) 

Max App Ra

Crop Cyc

(Lbs./A) 

Walnut (English/black) 4 2 6.4 NS 

400-83 Rose 1.53 NS NS NS 400-89 Almond 3.08 2 NS NS 

Apple 1.54 2 NS NS Citrus 1.54 2 NS NS Conifers (plantations/nurseries) 2.31 2 NS NS Corn, field 2.60 1 2.60 NS Currant 1.54 2 NS NS Date 1.54 2 NS NS Fig 1.54 2 NS NS Filbert (hazelnut) 1.54 2 NS NS Hops 1.54 2 NS NS Macadamia nut (bushnut) 1.54 2 NS NS Mint 2.11 2 4.23 NS Pecan 1.54 2 NS NS Persimmon 1.54 2 NS NS Pistachio 1.54 2 NS NS Potato, white/Irish 2.11 2 4.23 NS Quince 1.54 2 NS NS Small fruits 1.54 2 NS NS Stone fruits 1.54 2 NS NS Walnut (English/black) 4.61 2 6.92 NS 

AR830015 Cotton (unspecified) 1.67 NS NS 3.34 AZ000006 Alfalfa 2.50 NS NS NS CA040013 Clover 1.67 NS NS NS CA830024 Alfalfa 2.50 NS NS NS CA940031 Almond 2.50 NS NS NS 

Walnut (English/black) 2.50 NS NS NS 

CO940006 Corn, sweet 1.71 2 NS NS ID040010 Potato, white/Irish 2.09 NS NS NS ID770005 Carrot (including tops) 2.50 NS NS NS 

Clover 2.50 NS NS NS 

ID960016 Alfalfa 2.09 NS NS NS MS830024 Cotton (unspecified) 1.67 NS NS NS MT890010 Alfalfa 2.09 NS NS NS NV880007 Alfalfa 2.50 NS NS NS 
44 

Reg# Site Description 

Max Single App Rate 

(Lbs./A) 

Max # Apps 

per Crop Cycle 

Max App Rate 

per Year 

(Lbs./A) 

Max App Ra

Crop Cyc

(Lbs./A) 

TX940005 Corn (unspecified) 1.71 NS NS 2.57 

NA = Not Applicable; NS = Not Specified. 
45 

APPENDIX B: Summary of Endpoints from Toxicity Studies 

Table B-1. Summary of the Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Propargite 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Freshwater fish (surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians) 

21-day flow-through exposure Propargite (88.4) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: 96-hr (4-day) LC50 (95% C.I.) = 43 (38-49) μg a.i./L (mm) 

21-day LC50 (95% C.I.) = 24 (21-32) μg a.i./L (mm) 

21-day NOAEC = 14 μg a.i./L (mm) 21-day LOAEC = 21 μg a.i./L (mm) Very highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr Propargite (100) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 118.0 (96.0-146) μg/L 

(sublethal effects: disorientation and erratic swimming behavior at 100.0 μg/L) Highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr flowthrough exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 143 (105-231) μg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 68 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 105 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on no mortality at 68 μg a.i./L) Highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr static exposure Omite 30W (30) – formulated product 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 445 (384-515) μg/L 

Highly toxic 

Acute, sediment: 96-hr static exposure Propargite (88.64) 

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Spiked water: 80% mortality at 73.1 μg/L (m) Sediment + spiked water: 700% mortality at 58.9 μg/L (m) Water + spiked sediment: 0% mortality at 3.65 μg/L (m) 
46 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Acute: 96-hr flowthough exposure Propargite (90.2) 

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: LC50 = 81 μg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 40 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 60 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on sublethal effects) Very highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr static exposure Omite 57E (57) – formulated product 

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

LC 50 (95% C.I.) = 31 (22-43) μg/L 

Very highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr Propargite (88) 

Bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 167.5 (137.7-202.2) μg/L 

(sublethal effects: erratic swimming behavior at 180 μg/L) Highly toxic 

Acute: 48 hrs Omite (35) – formulated product 

Carp LC50 = 330 μg/L 

Highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr static exposure Omite 30W (30) – formulated product 

Goldfish (Carrassius auratus) 

96 hrs: 80% mortality at 3.7 mg/L Highly toxic 

Early life stage: 35-day flow-through exposure Propargite (86.3) 

Fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) 

NOAEC = 16 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 28 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reduced post-hatch survival, length, and wet weigh
47 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Estuarine/ marine fish 

Acute: 96-hr, static exposure Propargite (87.4) 

Sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 55 (32-100) μg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 32 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 60 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on no mortality at 32 μg a.i./L) Very highly toxic 

Early life stage (chronic) 

Estuarine/marine fish No data 

Aquatic invertebrates 

Acute: 48-hr flow through exposure Propargite (90.2) 

Water flea (Daphnia magna)

Preliminary endpoints as presented in the study report: 

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 14 (11-19) μg a.i./L 

NOAEC = 4 μg a.i./L LOAEC = 13 μg a.i./L Very highly toxic 

Acute: 48-hr flowthrough exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Water flea (Daphnia magna)

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 74.6 (66.1-84.7) μg a.i./L (mm) 

Probit slope (95% C.I.) = 9.1 (5.9-12.3) NOAEC = 23.2 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 40.9 μg a.i./L (mm) (NOAEC based on no mortality at 23.2 μg a.i./L; sublethal effects: lethargy at 23.2 μg a.i./L) Very highly toxic 

Acute: 48-hr exposure Propargite (100) 

Water flea (Daphnia magna)

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 92.5 (79.7-115.2) μg/La

Probit slope (95% C.I.) = 7.6 (3.4-11.8) NOAEC = 32 μg/L LOAEC = 56 μg/L (NOAEC based on no mortality at 32 μg/L) Very highly toxic 

Acute, sediment: 48-hr static exposure Propargite (88.64) 

Water flea (Daphnia magna)

Spiked water: 35% mortality at 48.9 μg/L (m) Sediment + spiked water: 50% mortality at 39.2 μg/L (m) Water + spiked sediment: 0% mortality at 3.68 μg/L (m) 
48 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Life cycle (chronic): 21-day flow through exposure Propargite (86.3) 

Water flea

(Daphnia magna) 

NOAEC = 9 μg a.i./L (m) LOAEC = 14 μg a.i./L (m) (based on growth [length]) 

Estuarine/ marine invertebrates 

Acute Mysid shrimp No data 

Acute toxicity may be characterized using toxicity data for freshwater invertebrates (i.e., D. magna). For example: Estimated acute LC50(mysid)

= Chronic NOAEC(mysid) * Acute-to-Chronic Ratio(D. magna)

= 0.46 μg/L * 1.6 = 0.74 μg/L Where: Acute-to-Chronic Ratio(D. magna)

= Acute LC50(D. magna)/ Chronic NOAEC(D. magna)

= 14 μg/L /9 μg/L = 1.6 

Acute: 48-hr flowthrough exposure Propargite (87.4) 

Quahog clam embryo larvae (Mercenaria mercenaria) 

EC50 (95% C.I.) = 81.0 (41.8-infinity) μg a.i./L (m & 

estimated)b

NOAEC < 7.3 μg a.i./L (m & estimated)b

LOAEC = 7.3 μg a.i./L (m & estimated)b

Very highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr static exposure Propargite (100) 

Grass shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 101 (74.8-137) μg/Lc

NOAEC = 56 μg/L LOAEC = 75 μg/L (NOAEC based on no mortality at 56 μg/L) Highly toxic 

Acute: 96-hr static exposure Propargite (100) 

Fiddler crab (Uca pugilator) 

LC50 > 500 mg/L 

(no mortality; test concentrations: 10, 25, 50, 75, 100, 250, a500 mg/L; Omite insoluble at >100 mg/L) 
49 

Taxon Study Type 

Test chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints*, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Acute: 48-hr static exposure Propargite (100) 

Atlantic oyster larvae (Crassostrea virginica) 

Endpoint as presented in the study report: LC50 (95% C.I.) = 72 μg/L (44-117) 

Very highly toxic 

Life cycle (chronic) Propargite (91.9) 

Mysid shrimp(Americamysis bahia)

NOAEC = 0.46 μg a.i./L (mm) LOAEC = 0.85 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in reproductive output) 

Benthic invertebrates 

Sediment acute/chronic Sediment-dwelling 

invertebrate 

No data 

Aquatic vascular plant 

Tier II, 14-day static renewal exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Duckweed (Lemna gibba) 

EC50 = 75 mg a.i./L (mm)d

NOAEC = 28 mg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in frond number) 

Aquatic nonvascular plant: Tier II, 5-day static exposure 

Propargite (76.2) 

Marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum) 

EC50 = 19.4 μg a.i./L (mm)d

NOAEC = 1.27 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in cell number) 

Tier II, 5-day, static exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Green alga (Selenastrum carpicornutum) 

EC50 = 66.2 μg a.i./L (mm)d

NOAEC = 5 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in cell number) 

Tier II, 5-day static exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa) 

EC50 = 106 μg a.i./L (mm)d

NOAEC = 99 μg a.i./L (mm) (based on reductions in cell number) 

Tier II, 5-day static exposure Propargite (76.2) 

Cyanobacterium (Anabaena flow-aquae) 

EC50 > 101 mg a.i./L (mm) 

NOAEC = 101 mg a.i./L (mm) (no effects) 

Abbreviations: im = initital-measured; m = measured; mm = mean measured; NA = not applicable a The LC50 as calculated by the moving average method (i.e., LC50 = 91 μg a.i./L) was previously reported in the RED and CRLF litigatb Concentrations were measured at exposure initiation. Results of preliminary stability analysis indicated a 42% reduction of test mater

concentrations were estimated based on a half-life of 57 hrs (42% reduction 48 hrs). Concentration estimates. Concentrations used for 

endpoints are based on the mean of the 0-hr measured concentration and the 48-hr estimated concentration. 

c Endpoints as reported by study author; a less conservative endpoint (LC50 = 105 and 107 μg/L, for moving average and probit method

calculated by the reviewer. 
50 

d The raw data for this study may be subjected to new statistical analysis because the present EC50 was determined using probit analysis 

regression analysis. 

Table B-2. Summary of the Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Propargite 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Birds (surrogate for reptiles and terrestrialphase amphibians) 

Acute oral: single dose, 14-day observation Propargite (87.6) 

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

LD50 > 4640 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom) 

NOAEL = 2150 mg a.i./kg-bw (nom) (no mortality; NOAEL based on a reduction in feed consumption and body weight gain at 4640 mg/kg-bw) Practically non-toxic 

Acute oral Passerine species No data Sub-acute dietary: 5-day exposure; 3-day postexposure observation Propargite 

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

LC50 (95% C.I.) = 3401 (2494-4639) mg/kg-diet (nom) 

NOAEC: Not specified (concentration-dependent reduction in body weight gain doto the lowest test concentration, 464 mg/kg-diet) Slightly toxic 

Sub-acute dietary: 5-day exposure; 3-day postexposure observation Propargite (90)

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

LC50 > 4640 mg a.i./kg-diet (nom) 

NOAEC: Not specified (no mortality; reduction in body weight gain at ≥ 2150 mg/

diet) At most slightly toxic 

Sub-acute dietary: 5-day exposure; 3-day postexposure observation Omite 57-E (57) – formulated product

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

LC50 > 5620 mg a.i./kg-diet (nom) 

NOAEC: Not specified (10, 0, 30, 10, 10, 10, and 20% mortality at 31.6, 100, 316, 1000, 1780, 3160, and 5620 mg/kg-diet; sublethal effects reduction in body weight gain at all test concentrations ; reduction in food consumption at 3160 and 5620 mg/kg-diPractically non-toxic 

Reproduction (chronic) Propargite (85)

Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) 

NOAEC = 84.7 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) LOAEC = 288 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) (based on reductions in adult body weight, eggs laid/femalviable embryos, live 3-week emrbyos, hatchlings, 14-day surviving chicks, and weight of 14-day surviving chicks) 
51 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Reproduction (chronic) Propargite (85) 

Bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) 

NOAEC = 84.7 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) LOAEC = 288 mg a.i./kg-diet (m) (NOAEC based on most senstive endpoint of reduction in hatchling weight; female adult body weight, eggs laid/femand 14-day surviving chicks also affected) 

Terrestrial invertebrates 

Acute contact: single dose, 48-hr observation Propargite (88.3) 

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

LD50 (95% C.I.) = 15 (13-18) μg/bee (m) 

NOAEC = 9.8 μg/bee (m) LOAEC = 17 μg/bee (m) (NOAEC based on sublethal effect of lethargy) Practically non-toxic 

Acute contact, limit: single dose, 48-hr observation Propargite 

Honey bee (Apis mellifera)

LD50 > 18.13 μg a.i./bee (nom) 

NOAEL: Not specified (1.85% mortality at 18.13 μg a.i./bee) Practically non-toxic 

Acute dietary (oral) Adult honey bee 

(Apis mellifera) 

No data 

Acute dietary (oral) Comite 3W (30) – formulated product 

Larval honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

LD50 > 100 μg/larva 

(age groups of larvae tested: 1-2 days, 3-4 days, 5-6 days) 

Residues on foliage Omite 8 lb E 

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

1-2% mortality after 24 hrs of exposure to alfalfa treated w1.5 a.i./A Omite and aged for 3 hrs 

Terrestrial plants 

Seedling emergence: limit test Propargite (76.2) 

Most sensitive monocot: Sorghum 

EC/IC25 = 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on weight) Also, NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A for ryegrass and onion baseemergence and weight, respectively. 

Most sensitive dicot: Carrot, radish, tomato, soybean 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on emergence for carrot, radish, and tomato and lenfor soybean) 
52 

Taxon Study Type 

Test Chemical (% a.i.) 

Species Toxicity Endpoints, Effects, & 

Acute Toxicity Classification (If Applicable)

Vegetative vigor: limit test Propargite (76.2) 

Most sensitive monocot: Ryegrass , sorghum 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < 2.45 lb a.i./A (based on length and weight for ryegrass and sorghum, respectively) 

Most sensitive dicot: Radish 

EC/IC25 > 2.45 lb a.i./A 

NOAEC < lb a.i./A (based on weight) 

Abbreviations: NA = not applicable; nom = nominal; NS = not specified; m = measured 
53 

Appendix C: Results of SIP and STIR 

SIP (v 1.0) 

Table 1. Inputs 

Parameter Value 

Chemical name propargite 

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 0.63 

 

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2639 

Mammalian test species laboratory rat 

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian 

species 

 

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 4 

Mammalian test species laboratory rat 

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian 

species 

 

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 4640 

Avian test species mallard duck 

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species 

Mineau scaling factor 1.15 

 

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 43.2 

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 84.7 

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species 

Body weight (g) of other avian species 

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird 

species 

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species 

Table 2. Mammalian Results 

Parameter Acute Chronic 

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.1084 0.1084 

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 2029.8147 3.0766 

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0001 0.0352 

Conclusion* 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals 

Table 3. Avian Results 

Parameter Acute Chronic 

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.5103 0.5103 

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 2409.2059 2.1433 

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0002 0.2381 

Conclusion* 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds 

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds 
54 

 

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. 

Therefore, when aggregated with other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through 

drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals. 

STIR (v. 1.0) 

Welcome to the EFED 

Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk 

This tool is designed to provide the risk assessor with a rapid method for determining 

the potential significance of the inhalation exposure route to birds and mammals in a 

risk assessment. 

 

Input 

Application and Chemical Information 

Enter Chemical Name propargite 

Enter Chemical Use avocados 

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y 

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground 

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 350.5 

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 4.49E-08 

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 4.8 

 

Toxicity Properties 

Bird 

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 4640 

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15 

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 1.58 

Mammal 

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 2639 

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 0.89 

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4 

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35 

 

Output 

Results Avian (0.020 kg ) 

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.47E-04 

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.06E-04 

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 6.29E+00 

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.69E-05

Exposure not Likely 

Significant 

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.07E-01 

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 8.07E-02

Exposure not Likely 

Significant 
55 

 

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg ) 

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.47E-04 

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.34E-04 

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 5.30E+01 

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 2.53E-06

Exposure not Likely 

Significant 

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 6.38E-01 

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 1.20E-02

Exposure not Likely 

Significant