### 2 Guideline MRID Study Type Study

Classification 1 

### Remarks

835.1230 48612101 Adsorption/ Desorption (Batch Equilibrium) Supplemental OECD Guidelines for Te sting of Chemicals, Guideline 121: Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient (K

oc 

### ) on Soil and on Sewage Sludge using High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) (adopted 22 nd 

### January 2001) was used to

estimate K

oc 

### values for profenofos. The maximum single label application rate for profenofos is 1 lb ai/acre. It is unclear why rapid degradation of profenofos occurs in this study and not in similar studies (MRID 41627311).

835.4300 48934901 Aerobic aquatic

metabolism U nacceptable Material balances were incomplete with up to 26.5% and 41.8% of the applied unaccounted for in the loamy sand (GA) and sand (NC) sediment systems, respectively. Th e limit of detection for the HPLC analyses was not reported. The pesticide

use histories for the source sites for the sediments and waters were not reported, and the sediments and waters were not analyzed for pesticides to establish that they were not contaminated prior to treatment. Redox potential, dissolved oxygen and pH were monitored in two designated untreated ("control") systems, per system type, at each sampling interval, rather than in the treated systems taken for analysis. All samples from a given treatment were connect ed to the same set of volatiles traps.

The study is classified as unacceptabl e due to serious guideline deviations and cannot be upgraded. EFED recommends the study be repeated in order to obtain valid data for use in risk

assessment.

### 3 Guideline MRID Study Type Study

Classification 1 

### Remarks

1 OPPIN Classifications: Acceptable; Acceptable/Guideline; Ac ceptable/Non-Guideline; Cited; Con firmatory; Decision Deferred; Extraneous submission; Guideline; In Review; minimum; No Deci sion; Partially Acceptable; Satisfactory; Screened- acceptable for review; Screened-not acceptable; Supp lemental; Supplemental/Non-Guideline; Unacceptable ; Unacceptab le/Guideline; Unacceptable/Non-Guideline; Upgradeable

.

### O



### 7HVW0DWHULDO 3URIHQRIRV

05,' 

7LWOH .HHQDQ'-3URIHQRIRV>  

### &@3URIHQRIRVDGVRUSWLRQDQG GHVRUSWLRQSURSHUWLHVLQVRLOV)LQDO5HSRUW

(3$3&&RGH 

2&633*XLGHOLQH 

)RU&'06PLWK

3ULPDU\5 HYLHZHU .LQGUD%R]LFHYLF K 6LJQDWXUH  'DWH 

6HFRQGDU\ 5HYLHZHU -RDQ+DUOLQ 6LJQDWXUH



### 'DWH 

4&4$0DQDJHU -RDQ*DLGRV 6LJQDWXUH

'DWH 

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### 5HVXOWV6\QRSVLV

7DEOH6XPPDU\RI$GVRUSWLRQ'HVRUSWLRQ5HVXOWV

6RLO 6HGLPHQW

2& S+ 5HJUHVVHG. G /NJVRLO 5DQJHRI. G /NJ

 VRLO 5HJUHVVHG

. 2& /NJ 2& . ) /NJVRLO Q QIRU DGVRUSWLRQ . )2& /NJ

 2& 

Q  &HT 5DQJH PJ/ 9DOXH

6( U  S YDOXH 9DOXH6( 9DOXH

6( U  S YDOXH 9DOXH6( 9DOXH6(

$GVRUSWLRQ

1RWGHWHUPLQHG

'HVRUSWLRQ

1RWGHWHUPLQHG

$EEUHYLDWLRQV6( VWDQGDUG HUURURIUHJUHVVLRQ

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### ,0DWHULDODQG0HWKRGV

$0DWHULDOV

 7HVW0DWHULDO >3KHQ\O8  

### &@ODEHOHGSURIHQRIRV&*$S  %DWFK/RWQXPEHU5'5; 6SHFLILFUDGLRDFWLYLW\ P &LPJ   5DGLRFKHPLFDOSXULW\)LJXUHVSS   &KHPLFDOSXULW\1RWUHSRUWHG   6ROXELOLW\LQZDWHUPJ/DW q &S$SSHQGL[S

  6WUXFWXUH   

 5HIHUHQFH  &RPSRXQGV 3URIHQRIRV&*$S$SSHQGL[S

/RWQXPEHU$06?  3XULW\

 &*$

 /RWQXPEHU*$1;,  3XULW\

 6RLOV6HGLPHQW 7KHVWXG\ZDVFRQGXFWHGXVLQJILYH86VRLOVS7DEOHV SS 6RLOVZHUHFROOHFWHGDWGHSWKVXSWRFP7KHUHZHUHQRSHVWL FLGHVXVHGDWWKH.DQVDV 0RQWDQDDQG1RUWK&DUROLQDFROO HFWLRQVLWHV*O\SKRVDWHZDVXV HGLQWKHODVW\HDUVDWWKH

$UNDQVDVDQG2KLRFROOHFWLRQVLWHV7KHVRLOVZHUHDLUGULHGDQ GVLHYHGPPWKHQVWRUHGDW DPELHQWWHPSHUDWXUH$VXPPD U\RIWKHSK\VLFDODQGFKHPLFDOSUR SHUWLHVRIWKHVRLOVXVLQJ 86'$6RLO7D[RQRP\LVSURYLGHGLQ7DEOH7KHVRLOVZHUHUHSUH VHQWDWLYHRIXVHVLWHV

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### 7DEOH'HVFULSWLRQRI6RLO6HGLPHQW

6RLO1DPH

2ULJLQ -DFNVRQ

-DFNVRQ$5 &UDZIRUG

&UDZIRUG.6 %XWOHU

%XWOHU02 /HQRLU

/HQRLU1& 8QLRQ

8QLRQ2+

86'$7H[WXUDO&ODVV 6DQG\ORDP /RDP /RDP\VDQG /RDP\VDQG &OD\ORDP

6DQG     

6LOW      &OD\     

2& $      &(&PHTJ      S+ZDWHU      S+0&D&O        PRLVWXUHEDU      6RLO7D[RQRP\ 15 15 15 15 15

&D&2  HTXLYDOHQFH 15 15 15 15 15 'DWDZHUHREWDLQHGIURP7DEOHSRIWKHVWXG\UHSRUW $'HWHUPLQHGE\WKHUHYLHZHUDVRP 15 QRWUHSRUWHG



### %6WXG\GHVLJQ

 ([SHULPHQWDOFRQGLWLRQV 3UHOLPLQDU\WHVWVZHUHFRQGXFWHGWRGHWHUPLQHWKHRSWLPDO

FRQGLWLRQVWREHXVHGLQWKHGHIL QLWLYHVWXG\S$SSHQGL[ SS$GVRUSWLRQWRWKH WHVWFRQWDLQHUVZDVH[DPLQHGDWQRPLQDOFRQFHQWUDWLRQVRI DQGJP/1R VLJQLILFDQWDGVRUSWLRQWRWKHWHVWFRQWDLQHUVZDVREVHUYHG7R GHWHUPLQHWKHVRLOVROXWLRQUDWLR

WREHXVHGLQWKHGHILQLWLYHWHV WDOLTXRWVRIDLUGULHGVRLOV ZHUHDGGHGWR0&D&O  

### VROXWLRQ DQGWUHDWHGZLWK>SKHQ\O8  

### &@SURIHQRIRVDWDQRPLQDOWHVWF RQFHQWUDWLRQRIJP/7KH

VRLOVROXWLRQUDWLRVWHV WHGZHUHDQG ZY7KHVDPSOHVZHUHVKDNHQLQ

WKHGDUNDW q &IRUKRXUV)ROORZLQJHTXLOLEUDWLRQWKHVDPSOHVZHUHFHQWU LIXJHGDQG DOLTXRWVRIWKHVXSHUQDWDQWVZHUHDQDO\]HGXVLQJ/6&DQG+3/& 3KHQRPHQH[6\QHUJL +\GUR53$FROXPQJUDGLHQWPRELOHSKDVHRI$+3/&JUDGHZD WHUZLWKDFHWLF DFLGDQG%DFHWRQLWULOHZLWK89QPDQGUDGLRDFWLYHIOR ZGHWHFWLRQS$SSHQGL[ SS,WZDVGHWHUPLQHGWKDW>  

### &@SURIHQRIRVZDVVWDEOHLQ0&D&O  

### VROXWLRQ ZLWKRXWVRLOEXWZDVXQVWDEOHLQDOOVRLOVOXUULHVS7DE OHS)LJXUHS7KH SHUFHQWRIGHJUDGDWLRQUDQJHGIURP ca EDVHGRQ+3/&DQDO\VLV)LJXUHVSS 

,QDQDWWHPSWWRHOLPLQDWHDQ\ELRWLFSUHPDWXUHGHJUDGDWLRQDO OVRLOVZHUHVWHULOL]HGE\ JDPPDLUUDGLDWLRQPLQXWHVDWN*\DQGUHDQDO\]H GXQGHUWKHVDPH SUHOLPLQDU\WHVWFRQGLWLRQVS$SSHQGL[S>  

### &@3URIHQRIRVZDVVWLOOXQVWDEOHLQDOO VRLOVOXUULHV7DEOHS) LJXUHS7KHSHUFHQWR IGHJUDGDWLRQUDQJHGIURP ca  EDVHGRQ+3/&DQDO\VLV)LJXUHVSS

'XHWRLQVWDELOLW\RI>  

### &@SURIHQRIRVLQDOOVRLOVOXUULHVDF\DQRSURS\O+3/&FROXPQE HDULQJ OLSRSKLOLFDQGSRODUPRLHWLHVZLW KDQLVRFUDWLFPRELOHSKDVHZ DVXVHGWRJHQHUDWHD FDOLEUDWLRQFXUYHXVLQJVHYHQUHIHUHQFHVWDQGDUGVZLWKGLIIHUHQ WDQGNQRZQDGVRUSWLRQ

FRHIILFLHQW.
RF 

### YDOXHVSS$SSHQGL[S$SSHQGL[SS 7KHIROORZLQJ

UHIHUHQFHVWDQGDUGVZHUHXVHG

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### 7DEOH5HIHUHQFH6WDQGDUGV

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### ,QGLYLGXDOLQMHFWLRQVRIHDFKUHIHUHQFHVWDQGDUGDQGWKHWHVWV XEVWDQFHSURIHQRIRVZHUHPDGH XVLQJ+3/&89WRGHWHUPLQHUHWHQWLRQWLPHV7KHUHIHUHQFHFRPSR XQGVZHUHLQMHFWHGEHIRUH

DQGDIWHUWKHWHVWVXEVWDQFHWRH QVXUHV\VWHPVWDELOLW\7KHDG VRUSWLRQFRHIILFLHQW.
RF 

### RI SURIHQRIRVZDVGHWHUPLQHGE\LQWHUSRODWLRQIURPWKHFDOLEUDWLRQ FXUYH7KH.
RF 

### YDOXHRI DQRWKHULQVHFWLFLGHVXOSURIRVEHDULQJVRPHVWUXFWXUHVLPLODULW LHVWRSURIHQRIRVZDVDOVR

GHWHUPLQHG

 $QDO\WLFDOSURFHGXUHV 5DGLRDFWLYLW\LQWKHDTXHRXVVXSHUQDWDQWVZDVGHWHUPLQHGE\/L TXLG 6FLQWLOODWLRQ&RXQWLQJ/6& S6XSHUQDWDQWVZHUHDQDO\]HG XVLQJ+3/&3KHQRPHQH[ /XQD&1FROXPQLVRFUDWLFPRELOHSKDVHRI$+3/&JUDGHZDWHU DQG%DFHWRQLWULOHZLWK 89QPDQGUDGLRDFWLYHIO RZGHWHFWLRQS$SSHQGL[ S7KH/LPLWRI 'HWHFWLRQ/2'IRU/6&DQDO\VLVZDVGSP$SSHQGL[S )RUWKH/LPLWRI 4XDQWLILFDWLRQ/24LWZDVGH WHUPLQHGWKDWDSHDNFRQWDLQLQJ GSPZDV ca RIWKH DSSOLHGUDGLRDFWLYLW\

,,5HVXOWVDQG'LVFXVVLRQ

$0DVV%DODQFH 1RWDSSOLFDEOH

%7UDQVIRUPDWLRQRI3DUHQW&RPSRXQG 1RWDSSOLFDEOH

& )LQGLQJV $GVRUSWLRQ.
RF 

### YDOXHVZHUHGHWHUPLQHGWREHORJ.
RF 

###  IRUSURIHQRIRVDQG ORJ.
RF 

###  IRUVXOSURIRVS7DEOHS)LJXUHVS S%DVHGRQ 0F&DOOHWDOSURIHQRIRVZDVFODVVLILHGDVKDYLQJDVOLJKWPRE LOLW\SRWHQWLDOWROHDFKLQVRLOVZKLOH VXOSURIRVZDVFRQVLGHUHGLPPRELOH

,,,6WXG\'HILFLHQFLHVDQG5HYLHZHU¶V&RPPHQWV

 2(&'*XLGHOLQHVIRU7HVWLQJRI&KHPLFDOV*XLGHOLQH(VWL PDWLRQRIWKH$GVRUSWLRQ &RHIILFLHQW.
RF 

### RQ6RLODQGRQ6HZDJH6OXGJHXVLQJ+LJK3HUIRUPDQFH/LTXLG &KURPDWRJUDSK\+3/&DGRSWHG QG 

### -DQXDU\ZDVXVHGWRHVWLPDWH.
RF 

### YDOXHVIRU SURIHQRIRVS

 7KHPD[LPXPVLQJOHODEHODSSOLFDWLRQUDWHIRUSURIHQRIRVLV OEDLDFUHS

 ,WLVXQFOHDUZK\UDSLGGHJUDGDWLRQRISURIHQRIRVRFFXUVLQW KLVVWXG\DQGQRWLQVLPLODU VWXGLHV05,' 



### 

,95HIHUHQFHV

 

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́0:PHDQV3PROHFXODUZHLJKW ́1$PHDQVQRWDSSOLFDEOH

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### $WWDFKPHQW6WDWLVWLFV6SUHDGVKHHWVDQG*UDSKV

### 3URIHQRIRV3&  05,'

RI 

### $WWDFKPHQW&DOFXODWLRQV

&DOFXODWLRQVZHUHSHUIRUPHGE\WKHUHYLHZHUXVLQJ([FHODQGWKH IROORZLQJHTXDWLRQV

&HTUDQJHLVWKHUDQJHRIWHVWFRQFHQWUDWLRQVLQZDWHUDWHTXLO LEULXP &VLVWKHWHVWFRQFHQWUDWLRQVVRUEHGWRVRLORUVHGLPHQWDWHTX LOLEULXP

. G 

### ±'LVWULEXWLRQ&RHIILFLHQWIRU$GVRUSWLRQ &
V 

### & HT    

### HT

x 5HJUHVVHG. G 

### LVFDOFXODWHGXVLQJOLQHDUU HJUHVVLRQRI&VYHUVXV&HTZLWKD IRUFHG]HUR LQWHUFHSWRYHUWKHUDQJHRIPHDV XUHG&HTIRUHDFKVRLOVHGLPHQW



x 5DQJHRI. G 

### UHIOHFWVWKHUDQJHRIHDFK. G 

### PHDVXUHGDWDVSHFLILFFRQFHQWUDWLRQLQD

VRLOVHGLPHQW

. 2& 

### 2UJDQLF&DUERQ1RUPDOL]HG$GV RUSWLRQ&RHIILFLHQW UHJUHVVHG . G 

### 2&HT

6WDQGDUG(UURU6(RI. 2& 

### . G 

### 6(
2&     H T

. ) 

### )UHXQGOLFK$GVRUSWLRQ&RHII LFLHQWDQGWKH)UHXQGOLFKH[SRQHQW QZHUHFDOFXODWHGXVLQJ QRQOLQHDUUHJUHVVLRQRI&
V 

###  . ) 

### [&HT Q 

### &VVKRXOGEHH[SUHVVHGLQPJNJDQG&HTVKRXOGEH H[SUHVVHGLQPJ/LQWKHUHJUHVVLRQ   HT

. )2& 

### ±2UJDQLF&DUERQ1RUPDOL]HG$GVRUSWLRQ&RHIILFLHQW . ) 

### 2& HT

6WDQGDUG(UURU6(RI. )2& 

### . ) 

### 6(
2&     H T

. '(6 

### ±$SSDUHQW'HVRUSWLRQ&RHIILFLHQW &
V 

### & HT 

### ZKHUH&
V 

### DQG& HT 

### DUHPHDVXUHGDIWHUDQLQLWLDO VRUSWLRQPHDVXUHPHQWDQGWKHVRLOVHGLPHQWLVSODFHGLQDQHZV ROXWLRQDQGDOORZHGWRHTXLOLEUDWHVR WKDWDQ\PDWHULDOLQVROXWLRQGHVRUEHGIURPWKHVRLOVHGLPHQW HT

x 5HJUHVVHG. '(6 

### LVFDOFXODWHGXVLQJOLQHDUUHJUHVVLRQRI&VYHUVXV&HTRYHUWK HUDQJHRI &HTPHDVXUHGZLWKDIRUFHG]HURLQWHUFHSWIRUHDFKVRLOVHGLPHQ W

x 5DQJHRI. '(6 

### UHIOHFWVWKHUDQJHRIHDFK. '(6 

### PHDVXUHGDWDVSHFLILFFRQFHQWUDWLRQLQD

VRLOVHGLPHQW

. 2&'(6 

### 2UJDQLF&DUERQ1RUPDOL]HG$SSDUHQW'HVRUSWLRQ&RHIILFLHQW U HJUHVVHG. '(6 

### 
2&           H T

6WDQGDUG(UURURI.RF '(6 

###  . '(6 

### 6(
2&     H T

. )'(6 

### )UHXQGOLFK'HVRUSWLRQ&RHIILFLH QWDQGWKH)UHXQGOLFK'HVRUSWL RQH[SRQHQWQZHUH FDOFXODWHGXVLQJQRQOLQHDUUHJUHVVLRQRI&
V 

###  . )'(6 

### [&HT Q 

###    HT

. )2&'(6 

### 2UJDQLF&DUERQ1RUPDOL]HG)UHXQGOLFK'HVRUSWLRQ&RHIILFLHQW  . )'(6 

### 2&          H T

6WDQGDUG(UURURI. )2&'(6 

###  . ) 

### 6(
2&     H T

### Test Material: Profenofos

MRID: 48934901

Title: Walsh, K.J. and K.M. Campbell. 2012. Profenofos. 14 

### C-Profenofos - aerobic aquatic-sediment metabolism. Final report.

EPA PC Code: 111401

OCSPP Guideline: 835.4300

For CDM Smith

Primary Reviewer: Lynne Binari Signature:

Date: 11/25/13

Secondary Reviewer: Kathleen Ferguson Signature:

Date: 11/25/13

QC/QA Manager: Joan Gaidos Signature:

Date: 11/25/13Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 3 of 31 

### Observed DT 50 

### values, calculated half-lives, and infor mation on transformation products are listed

in Table 1 . Dissipation of profenofos and product profiles were comparable between the two sediment types. Two maj or products were detected; minor products were not identified. Analysis of labware extracts detected pare nt profenofos and product CGA55960.

In the loamy sand sediment, extractable radioactiv ity increased from 0.9-1.1% of the applied at time 0 to a maximum 23.6% at 28 days , and was 3.0-4.0% at 100 days. Unextracted radioactivity increased to a maximum 16.3% of the applied at 71 days and was 13.5-14.2% at 100 days. Organic matter fractionation (48-100 days) found 3.00-4.9 1%, 2.28-9.74% and 0.76- 2.15% of the applied associated with the fulvic acids, humic ac ids and humin, respectively. Total evolved 14 

### CO 2 

### and other volatile compounds amounted to 29.1% and 3.0% of the applied, respectively. Radioactivity adsorbed to the incubation apparatus rubber st opper/connective tubing totaled 15.5-17.7% of the applied at 48-100 days (only intervals analyzed).

In the sand sediment, extractable radioactivity incr eased from 1.4-1.6% of the applied at time 0 to a maximum 32.7% at 14 days, and was 2.2-2.7% at 100 da ys. Unextracted radioactivity increased to a maximum 18.1% of the applied at 48 days and was 8.7-11.9% at 100 days. Organic matter fractionation (48-100 days) found 2.99-5.93%, 0.77-6.68% and 0.87-3.06% of the applied associated with the fulvic acids, humic ac ids and humin, respectively. Total evolved 14 

### CO 2 

### and other volatile compounds amounted to 36.5% and 2.7% of the applied, respectively. Radioactivity adsorbed to the incubation apparatus rubber st opper/connective tubing totaled 7.4-13.4% of the applied at 48-100 days (only intervals analyzed).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 4 of 31 

### Table 1. Results Synopsis: Aerobic Aquatic Me tabolism of Profenofos in the Total System

Total System Observed

DT 50 (days) Calculated

Half-life

(days) Model

Parameters and

Statistics 1 Transformation Products Common Name (maximum % of applied observed, associated interval)

Major Minor

Georgia pond water:loamy sand sediment (20oC, water pH 6.1, sediment pH 5.1) Profenofos

ca . 3.5 3.34 C 0 = 98.7

k 0 = 0.809

k 1 = 0.0335

f = 0.477

Slow t 1/2 = 20.7 (DFOP) CGA55960 (52.2%, 7 days) CGA19941 (19.0%, 48 days)

CO 2 (29.1%, 100 days) Unextracted residues (16.3%,

71 days) Other volatile compounds (3.0%, 71 days)

4-Bromo-2-chlorophenol (CGA55960)

ca . 25 25 C 0 = 62.3

k = 0.134

N = 0.585

t R IORE = 18.5 (IORE) --

4-Bromophenol (CGA19441)

ca . 32 28.2 C 0 = 36

k = 0.0246

S
c = 138

S SFO = 95

(SFO) --

North Carolina pond

water:sand sediment system (20oC, water pH 6.7, sediment pH 5.6) Profenofos

ca . 4 2.78 C 0 = 105

k 0 = 2.41

k 1 = 0.104

f = 0.332

Slow t 1/2 = 6.65 (DFOP) CGA55960 (61.4%, 14 days)

CO 2 (36.5%, 100 days) Unextracted residues (18.1%,

48 days) CGA19941 (7.8%, 28 days) Other volatile compounds (2.7%, 48 days)

4-Bromo-2-chlorophenol (CGA55960)

ca . 24 9.56 C 0 = 151

k 0 = 0.0384

k 1 = 2.03

f = 0.722

Slow t 1/2 = 18.1 (DFOP) --

4-Bromophenol (CGA19441)

ca . 12 9.38 C 0 = 49.7

k = 0.0739

S
c = 13.9

S SFO = 9.1

(SFO) --

1 Calculated half-lives and model para meters in accordance with the NA FTA kinetics guidan ce (USEPA, 2012);

Double First Order in Parallel (DFOP), Indeterminate Order Rate Equation (IORE), and Simple First Order (SFO). -- = Not applicable.Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 5 of 31 

### I. Materials and Methods

A. Materials

1. Test Material: [Phenyl-U- 14 

### C]profenofos (CGA15324, pp. 17-18). Specific activity: 64.0 μ Ci/mg. Radiochemical purity: ≥ 99.0 % (p. 18; Figures 4-6, pp. 55-57). Chemical purity: 97.7%.

Lot/Batch No.: RDR-X-50.

Solubility in water: 28 mg/L at 22°C (p. 17).

2. Reference Compounds: The following compounds were used in the analysis.

Table 2. Reference Compounds

Applicant ’ s Code Name (synonyms) Chemical Name Purity (%) Lot /Batch No.

Profenofos (CGA15324

, CS_13269) IUPAC Thiophosphoric acid O-(4-bromo-2-chloro-phenyl) ester O'-ethyl ester S-propyl ester 98.7 AMS 137/6

CAS Phosphorothioic acid, O-(4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl)-, O-ethyl Spropyl ester

CGA55960 (CS_13266) IUPAC 4-Bromo-2-chlorophenol 99.2 GAN-XI -46 CAS Phenol, 4-bromo-2-chloroCGA19941 (CS_13259) IUPAC 4-Bromophenol 99.6 DAH -XXV -55 CAS Phenol, 4-bromoData obtained from pp. 17, 30; Appendix 1, p. 94 of the study report. -- = Not reported.Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 6 of 31 

### 3. Water:Sediment: Water and sediment collection and ch aracterization are summarized in Table

3 and Tables 4a-4b , respectively.

Table 3. Water:Sediment Collection and Storage

Description Georgia (GA) North Carolina (NC)

Geographic location Private farm pond located in Adel, Georgia; surrounding agricultural

usage cotton. Farm irrigation pond (Rose Pond) located in Pikeville, North Carolina; surrounding agricultural usage corn, cotton and/or soybean.

Global coordinates (approximate) N 31.16872, W -83.334732 N 35.4825 (longitude not reported)

Pesticide use history at the collection site Records not retained. Not reported.

Collection date July 6, 2011. June 28, 2011.

Collection procedures Water: Sampled by container; no additional details were provided.

Sediment: Sampled by shovel; no additional details were provided.

Storage conditions Post-sampling, water and sediment kept outdoors, overnight

at ca . 75-98°F (24- 37°C) prior to shipment to test facility; no additional details were provided. Post-sampling, water and

sediment held at ca . 85°F (29.4°C) for 1 day prior to shipment to test facility; no additional details were provided.

At test facility, water-sediment systems were stored in an incubator (4 ± 2°C) in darkness, in a container with free access to air.

Storage length 1 13 days. 21 days.

P reparation Water: Not reported.

Sediment: 2-mm sieved.
Data obtained from pp. 19-20; Table 1, p. 37 of the study report. 1 Based on collection date and initiation date (July 19, 2011) of pretreatment acclimation interval (Appendix 6, pp. 161- 162).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 7 of 31 

### Table 4a. Parameters for Characterization of Water:Sediment Samples - Georgia 1

Parameter (unit) Field Sampling/Post Handling Stage of Test Procedure 2

Prior to Test 3 During Test End of Test

Water Temperature (oC) 29.6-30.0
pH 5.0 / 6.1 6.20 6.20-6.46 6.41 TOC (mg/L) 26.8

-- -- O 2 (mg/L) 2.12-2.02 / 8.6 4 6.10 1.83-6.95 1.96 (n = 1)

R edox potential (mV) 5 +113.3 +60.8 to

+185.0 +229.0

Sediment

Sampling Depth 3-4 inches ( ca . 7.6-10.2 cm) pH (1:1, sediment:water) 5.1 6.10 5.90-6.21 6.17 Soil Texture (USDA) Loamy Sand

Particle Size Distribution 81% sand (2000-50 μ m) 10% silt (50-2 μ m) 9% clay (<2 μ m) TOC (mg/L)

-- -- -- Organic matter (%) 1.7 Organic carbon (%) 6 1.0 CEC (meq/100 g) 5.8

Field Moisture Capacity (%) At 1/10 bar (pF 2): 12.8 At 1/3 bar (pF 2.5): 9.1 Bulk density, disturbed (g/cm 3 ) 1.27

Microbial biomass ( μ g C/g soil dry wt.) 51.3 -- With ACN:

3.4 7

-- Without ACN:

3 .4 7

R edox potential (mV) 5 +90.0 +87.6 to

+202.0 +218.4

Data obtained from Tables 1-3, pp. 37-40 of the study re port. Soil texture confirmed by the reviewer using USDANRCS technical support tools. -- = Not reported. 1 Water and sediment characterizations performed by Agvise Laboratories, Inc. (Table 2, p. 38). 2 Redox potential, oxygen concentration and pH measured in designated untreated ("control") systems at each

collection interval; "control" systems received an equivalent amount (47 μ L) of the test solution vehicle (acetonitrile) used for the [ 14 C]profenofos treated systems (p. 20). 3 Day 0 posttreatment interval. 4 Determined using YSI Model 55A DO meter; non-GLP (Table 2, p. 39). 5 Reference electrode used was not reported. 6 Determined by reviewer: organic ca rbon (%) = organic matter (%) ÷ 1.72. 7 Initial not reported. At End of Test (100 days), determined in sediments from systems with and without test solution

vehicle (acetonitrile).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 8 of 31 

### Table 4b. Parameters for Characterization of Water:Sediment Samples - North Carolina 1

Parameter (unit) Field Sampling/Post Handling Stage of Test Procedure 2

Prior to Test 3 During Test End of Test

Water Temperature (oC) 27-28
pH 6.5 / 6.7 4 / 7.2 7.00 5.85-7.00 6.06 TOC (mg/L) 9.2

-- -- O 2 (mg/L) 6.18-6.20 / 7.3 6.40 2.51-7.15 1.58 Redox potential (mV) 5 +112.1 +66.3 to

+194.0 +225.0

Sediment Sampling Depth 5-10 cm pH (1:1, sediment:water) 5.6 6.80 5.94-6.80 6.35 Soil Texture (USDA) Sand

Particle Size Distribution 97% sand (2000-50 μ m) 3% silt (50-2 μ m) 0% clay (<2 μ m) TOC (mg/L)

-- -- -- Organic matter (%) 3.5 Organic carbon (%) 6 2.0 CEC (meq/100 g) 3.6

Field Moisture Capacity (%) At 1/10 bar (pF 2): 8.5 At 1/3 bar (pF 2.5): 5.5 Bulk density, disturbed (g/cm 3 ) 1.00

Microbial biomass ( μ g C/g soil dry wt.) 72.2 -- With ACN:

3.4 7

-- Without ACN:

24.0 Redox potential (mV) 5 +68.9 +68.0 to

+204.0 +232.9

Data obtained from Tables 1-3, pp. 37-40 of the study re port. Soil texture confirmed by the reviewer using USDANRCS technical support tools. -- = Not reported. 1 Water and sediment characterizations performed by Agvise Laboratories, Inc. (Table 2, p. 38). 2 Redox potential, oxygen concentration and pH measured in designated untreated ("control") systems at each

collection interval; "control" systems received an equivalent amount (47 μ L) of the test solution vehicle (acetonitrile) used for the [ 14 C]profenofos treated systems (p. 20). 3 Day 0 posttreatment interval. 4 An "earlier" determination not conducted under GLP (Table 2, p. 39). 5 Reference electrode used was not reported. 6 Determined by reviewer: organic ca rbon (%) = organic matter (%) ÷ 1.72. 7 Initial not reported. At End of Test (100 days), determined in sediments from systems with and without test solution

vehicle (acetonitrile).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 9 of 31 

### B. Study Design

Preliminary experiments were conducted to determin e parameters for the definitive study, including 0-7 day incubations and analyses of treated systems which yielded total mass balances of >90% of the applied radioactivity; no additional details regarding preliminary work were provided (p. 16).

1. Experimental Conditions: Table 5 summarizes the experimental conditions.

Table 5. Experimental Design

Experimental Design Georgia (GA) Loamy Sand North Carolina (NC) Sand

Duration of the test 100 days

Water:

Type and size of filter used None reported.
Amount of sediment and water per treatment:

Water ca . 180 mL

Sediment 80 g dry wt. 50 g dry wt.

Water/sediment ratio mL:g dry wt. ca . 2.3:1 ( ca . 180 mL:80 g dry wt.) ca . 3.6:1 ( ca . 180 mL:50 g dry wt.)

cm:cm 3:1 ( ca . 7.5 cm water layer: ca . 2.5 cm sediment layer)
Application rates:

Nominal 0.374 mg a.i./L
Actual (Appendix 2, p. 221) 0.372 mg a.i./L (67 μ g a.i./180 mL water).
Number of replicates:

Control, if used Sterile controls were not used.

Treated Sufficient water:sediment systems were treated to allow for duplicate systems, per system type, at each sampling interval.

Test apparatus:

Type/material/volume Wide-mouth, glass bottles (8 oz., i.d. 5.5 cm), sealed with rubber stoppers partially wrapped with Teflon tape , connected to a continuous

flow -through (humidified air, flow rate not reported) volatiles trapping

system (Figure 1, p. 52). Glass and Tygon (or PVC) tubing were us ed to connect incubation flasks and volatiles traps. All incubation vessels per system type (loamy sand, sand) were connected to the same set of volatiles traps.

Details of traps for CO 2 and organic volatile, if

any Polyurethane foam plug and ethylene glycol (one trap) to collect organic volatiles and 1.0N NaOH solution (two traps) to collect CO 2 ; trapping solution volumes not reported. At 22 days posttreatment, activated carbon traps and/or an in -line combustor (catalytic converter) were added (Figure 1, p. 52).
If no traps were used, is the system closed? Volatiles traps were used.
Identity and final concentration (based on water volume) of co-solvent Aceton itrile; 0.03% by volume (47 μ L test solution/180 mL water

Test material application method:

Volume of the test solution used/treatment 47 μ L

Application method ( i.e. , mixed/not mixed) The test solution was applied to the water using a 50- μ L Hamilton glass syringe

Any indication of the test material adsorbing to the walls of the test apparatus? Yes; decreasing mass balances at 14-100 days posttreatment attributed

to adsor ption of radioactivity to the rubber stoppers, used to seal the incubation flasks, and the Tygon (or PVC) connective tubing.
Microbial biomass/population of control (units): Sterile controls were not used.

Water
--Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 10 of 31 Experimental Design Georgia (GA) Loamy Sand North Carolina (NC) Sand

Sediment

-- Microbial biomass/population of treated (units): Not determined in treated systems

Water
-- Sediment

-- Experimental conditions:

Temperature 20 ± 2oC
Continuous darkness (yes/no) Yes

Other details (if any) The water:sediment systems were acclimated to test conditions for 14-

19 days prior to treatment.

Water volumes of the test systems were maintained during

pre treatment acclimation and posttreatment by gravimetric

determination.

U ntreated ("control") systems (number not specified), per system type, were prepared and maintained for system parameter (redox potential,

dissolved oxygen, pH) measurements and biomass determinations. "Control" systems received an equivalent amount (47 μ L) of the test solution vehicle (acetonitrile) used for the [ 14 C]profenofos treated

systems.

The nominal application rate of 0.374 mg a.i./L used in this study was reported as equivalent to a single maximum field application rate of 1 lb a.i./A ( ca . 1,121 g a.i./ha. Data obtained from pp. 17, 20-23, 27; Table 2, p. 38; Tables 3- 5, pp. 40-42; Figure 1, p. 52; Appendix 4, p. 106 of the study report.



### 2. Sampling during Study Period: Table 6 summarizes sampling during the study period.

Table 6. Sampling during Study Period

Parameter Details

Sampling intervals (duration) 0, 0.5, 1, 3, 7, 14, 28, 48, 71 and 100 days posttreatment.

Sampling meth od Per system type, duplicate samples were collected at each sampling

interval.

Method of collection of CO 2 and organic volatile compounds Respective volatiles traps were co llected at each sampling interval after day 0.

Sampling Intervals/Times

Redox potential in water layer

M easured in designated untreated ("control") system s, per system type, at each collection interval, excluding day 0.5. Methods/equipment used to measure system parameters were not reported. Dissolved oxygen in water layer

pH in water layer

Redox potential in sediment

pH in sediment

Other details, if any Water and sediment were separated and the sediment extracted the day of collection . Day 0-48 water layer and sediment extract samples were analyzed by HPL C within 48 hours of collection . Day 71 and 100 samples were analyzed by HPLC 36 -37 days and 7- 8 days, respectively, after collection

. Samples were stored frozen until analysis. Reanalysis of day 0 loamy sand (GA) system water layer and sediment extract samples after ca . 1 year of frozen storage detected only parent profenofos ; quantitative results were not provided.Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 11 of 31 Data obtained from pp. 21, 23-24; Tables 3-5, pp. 40-42; Appendix 6, pp. 161-162; Appendix 8, pp. 166-168 of the study report.



### 3. Analytical Procedures:

Separation of the Water and Sediment: The water layer was separated from the sediment by decanting "and/or after centrifugation"; method not further described (p. 23).

Extraction/Clean Up/C oncentration Methods: Water layer samples were analyzed directly; aliquots were analyzed by LSC and HPLC (p. 23).

An aliquot (10 mL) of day 14 loamy sand (GA) system Rep 1 water layer was partitioned twice with methylene chloride (20 mL x 2); ca . 5.9% remained in aqueous phase (p. 24; Appendix 2, p. 100). Organic phases were combined, concentrat ed (method not reported, procedural recovery ca

. 97.9%), and analyzed by TLC.

Sediment was sequentially extrac ted once with acetonitrile followed by once with acetonitrile:water (50:50, v:v); extraction solvent volumes were 200 mL (p. 23; Figure 2, p. 53). Extraction method and separation of extract and sediment were not described. Extracts were combined and concentrated by rotary evaporation (35°C, 28 inches Hg); procedural recoveries were reported as 90.0-105.7% (p. 29). Aliquots were analyzed by LSC and HPLC.

An aliquot (10 mL) of day 14 loamy sand (GA) sys tem Rep 1 pooled extract was diluted with water (10 mL), concentrated to ca . 9 mL (method not reported), then partitioned twice with methylene chloride (20 mL x 2); ca . 5.9% remained in aqueous phase (p. 24; Appendix 2, p. 100). The initial organic phase was concentrated (met hod not reported, procedural recovery ca . 99.9%) and analyzed by TLC.

Determination of Unextracted Residues: Extracted sediment was anal yzed for total radioactivity by LSC following combustion (p. 19; Appendix 2, p. 95). Oxidizer efficiency was reported as

≥ 96.4% (Appendix 2, p. 95).

Organic matter fractionation. Day 48-100 extracte d sediment samples were characterized using standard organic matter fractionation techniques (p. 24; Figure 3, p. 54). Fulvic acid and humic acid fractions were analyzed for total radioactivity by LSC and the humin by LSC following combustion.

Determination of Volatile Residues: Aliquots of the ethylene glycol and NaOH trapping solutions were analyzed for total radioactivity using LSC (p. 24). Foam plugs were extracted (method not described) and the extract analyzed using LS C (Appendix 4, p. 110). Solid adsorbent (activated carbon) was analyzed either directly by LSC or LSC following combustion; no additional details were provided (p. 24).

Day 28-71 NaOH trapping solutions were analyzed for dissolved 14 

### CO 2 

### using standard barium chloride precipitation techniques (p. 24).

Determination of Residues Ads orbed to Incubation Apparatus: Rubber stoppers, Teflon tape used on the stoppers, and connective tubing from day 48-100 systems were separately extracted (method not reported) with acetonitr ile followed by methylene chloride; extraction solvent volumes were 20-100 mL (Appendix 3, p. 103). Extracts were separately analyzed using LSC. ExtractedProfenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 12 of 31 

### stoppers and tubing were cut into pieces and analyzed either directly by LSC or LSC following combustion; no additional details were provided (Appendix 3, p. 105).

Total Radioactivity Measurement: Total [ 14 

### C] residues were determined by summing the

concentrations of residues measured in the water la yer, sediment extracts, extracted sediment and trapping materials (Appendix 4, p. 111). Due to declining mass balances, day 48-100 total recoveries were recalculated to include [ 14 

### C] residues recovered from the incubation apparatus stoppers/connective tubing (Tables 4-5, pp. 41-42).

Derivatization Method: None reported.

Identification and Quantification of Parent Compound: Water layer, sediment extract, and apparatus extract samples were analyzed by HPLC using a Synergi Hydro RP column (4.6 x 250 mm, 4 μ , 80Å) eluted with a gradient mobile phase of (A) aqueous 0.1% acetic acid and (B) acetonitrile (p. 19; Appendix 2, pp. 95-98). The eluent was monitored with radioactivity and UV (254 nm) detectors. Column recoveries for day 0 lo amy sand (GA) Rep 1 water layer and sediment extract samples were 92.3% and 93.5%, re spectively (Appendix 2, p. 98). Parent [ 14 

### C]profenofos was identified by co-chromatography with and comparison to the retention time of unlabeled profenofos (Figures 9-26, pp. 60-85). HPLC was the primary quantification method (p. 19).

Identification of parent was confirmed in da y 14 GA Rep 1 water laye r and sediment extract samples using one-dimensional TLC developed with chloroform:petroleum ether (70:30, v:v; p. 24; Appendix 2, pp. 99-102). Following development, radi oactive areas were detected using a Bioscan System AR2000 Imaging Scanner. Parent [ 14 

### C]profenofos in the samples was identified by cochromatography with unlabeled reference compound which was visualized under UV light (254 nm).

Identification and Quantification of Transformation Products: Transformation products were separated and quantified using HP LC, with identifications confirmed by TLC, as described for parent (pp. 19, 24; Figures 10-17, pp. 62-73; Figu res 19-26, pp. 76-85; Appendix 2, pp. 95-102).

Detection Limits (LOD, LOQ) for the Paren t Compound and Transformation Products: The limit of quantitation (LOQ) for HPLC analyses was 0.004% of the applied ( ca . 0.003 μ g); the limit of detection (LOD) was not reported (Appendix 2, p. 98). For LSC analyses, LOD was twice background radioactivity ( ca . 32 dpm), and the LOQ was 64 dpm ( ca . 0.00045 μ g; Appendix 2, p. 95).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 13 of 31 

### II. Results and Discussion

A. Data:

Study results, including total mass balances and distribution of radioactivity, are presented in

Tables 7a and 7b . The incubation temperature (20 ± 2oC) was maintained, except at 12-13 days posttreatment when the temperature reache d 27°C (p. 21; Appendix 7, pp. 163-164). System parameters (redox potential, dissolved oxygen, pH) were not measured in the treated systems taken for analysis, but in designated untreated system s. Sediment (loamy sand, sand) microbial biomass

decreased from 51.3-72.2 μ g C/g soil dry wt. prior to start of the experiment to 3.4 μ g C/g soil dry wt. (n = 2) after 100 days in se diments from systems treated with the test solution vehicle (acetonitrile; Table 2, p. 38).

In the water column of untreated loamy sand (GA) sediment systems, redox potentials, dissolved oxygen and pH were +60.8 to +229.0 mV, 1.83-6. 95 mg/L and 6.20-6.46, respectively, with redox potentials and pH in the sediment of +87.6 to +218.0 mV and 5.90-6.21, respectively (Table 3, p. 40). In the water column of untreated sand (NC) sediment systems, redox potentials, dissolved oxygen and pH were +66.3 to +225.0 mV, 1.58-7. 15 mg/L and 5.85-7.00, respectively, with redox potentials and pH in the sediment of +68.0 to +232.9 mV and 5.94-6.80, respectively.

B. Mass Balance:

In the loamy sand (GA) sediment system, recoveries ranged from 73.5% to 105.5% of the applied (Table 4, p. 41). Recoveries declined throughout the experiment and were below guideline criteria (>90% - <110%) at 14-100 days. In the water column profenofos decreased from 95.6-104.5% of the applied at time 0 to ≤ 1.7 % at 71 days and was not detected (LOQ = 0.004% of applied) at 100 days (Table 7, p. 44). In the sediment profenofos increased from 3.3% (n = 2) of the applied at 1 day to a maximum 8.3% at 28 days and was not detected at 100 days (Table 8, p. 45).

In the sand (NC) sediment system, recoveries ranged from 58.2% to 107.1% of the applied (Table 5, p. 42). Recoveries declined throughout the experiment and were below guideline criteria (>90% - <110%) at 14-100 days. In the water column profenofos decreased from 102.6-105.5% of the applied at time 0 to ≤ 2.0 % at 28-71 days and was not detected at 100 days (Table 10, p. 47). In the sediment profenofos increased f rom 3.1-4.7% of the applied at 0.5 day to a maximum 17.0% at 7 days and was ≤ 2.4 % at 100 days (Table 11, p. 48).

C. Bound and Extractable Residues:

In the loamy sand (GA) sediment, extractable ra dioactivity increased from 0.9-1.1% of the applied at time 0 to a maximum 23.6% at 28 days, and was 3.0-4.0% at 100 days (Table 4, p. 41). Unextracted radioactivity increased from 0.1% (n = 2) of the applied at 0-3 days to a maximum 16.3% at 71 days and was 13.5-14.2% at 100 days . In day 48-100 extracted sediment, organic matter fractionation found 3.00-4.91%, 2.28-9.74% and 0.76 -2.15% of the applied associated with the fulvic acids, humic acids and humin, respectively (Table 6, p. 43).

In the sand (NC) sediment, extractable radioact ivity increased from 1.4-1.6% of the applied at time 0 to a maximum 32.7% at 14 days , and was 2.2-2.7% at 100 days (Table 5, p. 42). Unextracted radioactivity increased from 0.1-0.2% of the applie d at day 0 to a maximum 18.1% at 48 days and was 8.7-11.9% at 100 days. In day 48-100 extracte d sediment, organic matter fractionation foundProfenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 14 of 31 

### 2.99-5.93%, 0.77-6.68% and 0.87-3.06% of the applied associated with the fulvic acids, humic acids and humin, respectively (Table 6, p. 43).

D. Volatilization:

Volatile 14 

### CO 2 

### totaled 29.1% and 36.5% of the applied at 100 days in the loamy sand (GA) and sand (NC) sediment systems, respectively; identi fication was reportedly confirmed, but quantitative results were not provided (p. 28; Tables 4-5, pp. 41-42). Other volatile compounds were detected at maximums of 3.0% (71 days) and 2.7% (48 days) of th e applied in the loamy sand (GA) and sand (NC) sediment systems, respectively.

Radioactivity adsorbed to the incubation appa ratus rubber stopper/connective tubing totaled 15.5- 17.7% and 7.4-13.4% of the applied at 48-100 days (only intervals analyzed) in the loamy sand and sand sediment systems, respectively (DER Atta chment 2). Analysis of stopper/connective tubing extracts detected parent profenofos and product CGA55960 (Figures 25-26, pp. 83-85).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901Page 15 of 31Table 7a. Transformation of Profenofos, Expressed as Percentage of the Applied Radioactivity, in Aerobic Pond Water:LoamySand Sediment SystemSampling Interval (days)00.513714284871100Replicate Number12121212121212121212Profenofos95.6104.581.275.981.265.652.250.142.243.926.730.021.120.013.511.86.54.2n.d.n.d.CGA55960n.d.n.d.16.217.916.526.944.446.452.248.246.346.029.925.813.112.91.10.6n.d.n.d.CGA19941n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.5.94.716.417.311.119.01.73.73.04.0Unknowns11.10.91.31.0n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.2.52.56.42.911.610.611.48.6Extracted sediment residues1.10.91.31.03.63.71.61.73.92.410.110.719.123.616.220.29.26.83.04.0Unextracted sediment residues0.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.10.30.31.21.34.04.612.58.015.316.313.514.2Fulvic acids3.493.003.994.914.414.11Humic acidsn.p.2.282.958.299.745.665.65Humin1.150.761.502.151.821.47CO22n.p.n.p.n.p.n.p.0.00.00.10.10.30.30.60.62.02.07.97.920.520.529.129.1Other volatile compounds2n.p.n.p.n.p.n.p.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.80.83.03.02.42.4Apparatus (stopper/tubing)17.716.317.115.816.715.5Extractsn.p.15.213.812.810.512.811.7Unextracted on stopper2.52.44.15.13.73.6Unextracted on tubing0.00.10.20.20.20.2Mass balance96.8105.598.894.997.992.696.796.795.192.780.982.677.273.580.879.776.874.676.274.0Data obtained from Table 4, p. 41; Table 6, p. 43; Table 9, p.46 of the study report and DER Attachment 2 (Unknowns, Apparatus); total system summations for parentand products confirmed.n.d. = Not detected.n.p. = Not performed.1 Day 0 and 0.5 = unanalyzed sediment extracts. At remaining intervals, up to nine components, with no individual component detected at >7.8% of applied (Table 9, p.46).2 All samples connected to same set of volatiles traps (p. 21).14CO2identification reportedly confirmed (p. 28).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901Page 16 of 31Table 7b. Transformation of Profenofos, Expressed as Percentage of the Applied Radioactivity, in Aerobic Pond Water:SandSediment SystemSampling Interval (days)00.513714284871100Replicate Number12121212121212121212Profenofos105.5102.682.481.262.453.255.258.330.336.714.615.8n.d.3.02.02.54.73.6n.d.2.4CGA55960n.d.n.d.9.111.130.139.936.435.960.056.161.161.445.439.713.021.61.40.61.40.3CGA19941n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.1.31.34.87.8n.d.2.70.8n.d.0.8n.d.Unknowns11.41.6n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.n.d.2.42.66.55.24.19.12.52.2Extracted sediment residues1.41.63.14.714.916.69.116.429.117.032.729.425.526.58.712.84.14.22.22.7Unextracted sediment residues0.20.20.10.10.50.30.30.61.91.03.33.19.78.418.110.811.411.411.98.7Fulvic acids5.933.763.743.603.382.99Humic acidsn.p.6.684.161.290.772.012.57Humin3.060.872.051.661.961.20CO22n.p.n.p.n.p.n.p.0.00.00.00.00.10.11.01.06.16.117.717.723.223.236.536.5Other volatile compounds2n.p.n.p.n.p.n.p.0.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.00.40.42.72.71.61.60.60.6Apparatus (stopper/tubing)10.413.411.911.612.47.4Extractsn.p.9.011.48.67.99.57.2Unextracted on stopper1.42.03.23.62.80.1Unextracted on tubing0.0n.p.0.10.10.10.1Mass balance107.1104.491.692.593.093.591.994.892.493.881.382.668.768.070.476.759.061.166.258.2Data obtained from Tables 5-6, pp. 42-43; Table 12, p. 49 of the study report and DER Attachment 2 (Unknowns, Apparatus); totalsystem summations for parent andproducts confirmed.n.d. = Not detected.n.p. = Not performed.1 Day 0 = unanalyzed sediment extracts. At remaining intervals, upto five components, with no individual component detected at>4.4% of applied (Table 12, p. 49).2 All samples connected to same set of volatiles traps (p. 21).14CO2identification reportedly confirmed (p. 28).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 17 of 31 

### E. Transformation of Parent Compound: Transformation kinetics of the parent compound are

summarized in Figures 1a and 1b (DER Attachment 2) and Table 8 , with transformation product

information summarized in Table 9

.

Transformation kinetics of profenofos in the systems were calculated by the reviewer using PestDF. The best fit calculated half-life values, shown in Table 8, for profenofos in the total system were 20.7 days and 6.65 days for the loamy sand (GA) and sand (NC) sediment systems, respectively.

Table 8. Transformation Kinetics of Profenofos in Total Aquatic Systems 1, 2

System Observed

DT 50 (days) 3 Observed

DT 90 (days) 3 Calculated

Half- life

(days) Kinetics

Model 4 Model Parameters Model Statistics

Georgia pond

water: loamy s and sediment ( 20oC

, water pH 6.1, sediment pH 5.1 ) ca . 3.5 ca . 56 8.46 SFO C 0 = 83.6, k = 0.082 S
c = 638,

S SFO = 1.8e+03

21.9 IORE C 0 = 96.2, k = 0.000243,

N = 2.57 t R IORE = 21.9

20.7 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = 98.7, k 0 = 0.809,

k 1 = 0.0335,

f = 0.477 Slow t 1/2 = 20.7

North Carolina pond

water: sand s ediment system ( 20oC , water pH 6.7 , sediment pH

5.6 ) ca . 4 ca . 19 4.51 SFO C 0 = 89.2, k = 0.154 S
c = 1.08e+03,

S SFO = 1.34e+03

7.53 IORE C 0 = 98.9, k = 0.00316,

N = 2.05 t R IORE = 7.53

6.65 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = 105, k 0 = 2.41,

k 1 = 0.104,

f = 0.332 Slow t 1/2 = 6.65

1 Kinetics values calculated by the reviewer using R v. xx Deg_0.8.4 and data obtained from Table 9, p. 46; Table 12,

p. 49 of the study report (DER Attachment 2).

2 C alculated half-lives and model param eters in accordance with the NAFT A kinetics guidance (USEPA, 2012), are in

bold

. 3 Based on mean profenofos levels at each interval.

4 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO), Double First Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate Equation (IORE).



### Two products were identified in both systems (p. 30; Appendix 1, p. 94):

x 

### 4-bromo-2-chlorophenol (CGA55960) and

x 

### 4-bromophenol (CGA19441).

CGA55960 was a major product in both systems, while CGA19441 was a major product in the loamy sand (GA) sediment system, but a minor product in the sand (NC) sediment system. Identifications of products were made by co-chro matography with reference standards (p. 29).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 18 of 31 

### Table 9. Transformation Products of Profenofos in Total Aquatic Systems

System Transformation product(s) Maximum

%AR

Observed Associated

Interval

(days) Final %AR

Observed 1 Final Interval (days)

Georgia pond water:loamy sand sediment (20oC, water pH 6.1, sediment pH 5.1) CGA55960 52.2 7 n.d. 100

CGA19941 19.0 48 4.0 100

North Carolina pond

water:sand s ediment system (20oC, water pH 6.7, sediment pH 5.6) CGA55960 61.4 14 1.4 100

CGA19941 7.8 28 0.8 100

Data obtained from Table 9, p. 46; Table 12, p. 49 of the study report. n.d. = Not detected; LOQ = 0.004% of applied (Appendix 2, p. 98).

1 Maximum value.



### Transformation kinetics of CGA55960 are summarized in Figures 2a and 2b (DER Attachment 2)

and Table 10 . Transformation kinetics of CGA19941 are summarized in Figures 3a and 3b (DER Attachment 2) and Table 11 ; although the maximum CGA19941 level detected in the sand sediment system was low (7.8% of applied), there wa s a pattern of decline and half-lives were calculated for comparison to the loamy sand sediment system.

Table 10. Transformation Kinetics of Prof enofos Product CGA 55960 in Total Aquatic Systems 1, 2

System Observed

DT 50 (days) 3 Observed

DT 90 (days) 3 Calculated

Half- life

(days) Kin etics

Model 4 Model Parameters Model Statistics

Georgia pond water:loamy sand sediment (20oC, water pH 6.1, sediment pH 5.1) ca

. 25 ca

. 56 20 SFO C 0 = 68.5, k = 0.0347 S
c = 67.3,

S SFO = 140

18.5 IORE C 0 = 62.3, k = 0.134,

N = 0.585 t R IORE = 18.5

20 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = 131, k 0 = 0.0347,

k 1 = 3.73,

f = 0.523 Slow t 1/2 = 20

North Carolina pond

water:sand sediment system (20oC, water pH 6.7, sediment pH 5.6) ca

. 24 ca

. 50 18.1 SFO C 0 = 109, k = 0.0384 S
c = 125,

S SFO = 203

18.1 IORE C 0 = 91.2, k = 0.152,

N = 0.601 t R IORE = 18.1

18.1 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = 151, k 0 = 0.0384,

k 1 = 2.03,

f = 0.722 Slow t 1/2 = 18.1

1 Kinetics values calculated by the reviewer using R v. xx Deg_0.8.4 and data obtained from Table 9, p. 46; Table 12,

p. 49 of the study report (DER Attachment 2).

2 C alculated half- lives and model parameters for the best fit kinetics model, in accordance with the NAFTA kinetics guidance (USEPA, 2011), are in bold

. 3 Based on mean CGA55960 levels at each interval from interval o f maximum mean detection.

4 K inetics models: Simple First Order (SFO), Double First Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 19 of 31 

### Table 11. Transformation Kinetics of Prof enofos Product CGA 19941 in Total Aquatic Systems 1, 2

Syst em Observed

DT 50 (days) 3 Observed

DT 90 (days) 3 Calculated

Half- life

(days) Kinetics

Model 4 Model Parameters Model Statistics

Georgia pond water:loamy sand sediment (20oC, water pH 6.1, sediment pH 5.1) ca . 32 >72 28.2 SFO C 0 = 36, k = 0.0246 S
c = 138,

S SFO = 95

38.1 IORE C 0 = 29.2, k = 0.0719,

N = 0.548 t R IORE = 27.6

4.91 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = -894, k 0 = 0.0664,

k 1 = 0.11,

f = -0.59 Slow t 1/2 = 10.4

North Carolina pond

water:sand sediment system (20oC, water pH 6.7, sediment pH 5.6) ca

. 12 ca

. 38 9.38 SFO C 0 = 49.7, k = 0.0739 S
c = 13.9,

S SFO = 9.1

5.72 IORE C 0 = 107, k = 0.0612,

N = 1.16 t R IORE = 6.52

8.52 DFOP
[if applicable] C 0 = 60.9, k 0 = 0.0815,

k 1 = -0.0199,

f = 0.999 Slow t 1/2 = -34.7

1 Kinetics values calculated by the reviewer using R v. xxDe g_0.8.4 and data obtained from Table 9, p. 46; Table 12, p.

49 of the study report (DER Attachment 2).

2 C alculated half- lives and model parameters for the best fit kinetics model, in accordance with the NAFTA kinetics guidance (USEPA, 2011), are in bold

. 3 Based on mean CGA19941 levels at each interval from interval of maximum mean detection.

4 K inetics models: Simple First Order (SFO), Double First Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 20 of 31 

### A transformation pathway was provided by the study au thors and is illustrated below (p. 30; Figure 33, p. 92). Transformation occurred through hydrolytic cleavage of the phosphorothioate moiety and reductive de-chlorination to yield maj or products 4-bromo-2-chlorophenol (CGA55960) and 4- bromophenol (CGA19941), several minor products (uni dentified), sediment bound residues, and

mineralization to CO 2



### .

Figure 4. Aerobic Aquatic Degrad ation Pathway of Profenofos.Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 21 of 31 

### III. Study Deficiencies and Reviewer's Comments

1. Material balances were incomplete with up to 26.5% and 41.8% of the applied unaccounted for in the loamy sand (GA) and sand (NC) sediment systems, respectively (Tables 4-5, pp. 41-42). Analysis of extracts from incubation appara tus rubber stoppers, Teflon tape and connective tubing indicated some volatilization and adsorption of parent profenofos and product CGA55960 (Figures 25-26, pp. 83-85). Possible adsorption to the glass incubation vessels, however, was not investigated (p. 34). Addition of activated carbon and/or in-line catalytic converter traps recovered only ≤ 3.0% of the applied at 28 -100 days, indicating other volatile compounds were not "readily escaping" the trapping system (p. 31; Tables 4-5, pp. 41-42). However, even with extraction of the labwar e and addition of activated carbon/catalytic converter traps, material balan ces continued to decline at 48-100 days. The study authors contend that declining material balances at the later sampling intervals did not "adversely impact" profenofos kinetics calculations or determination of the profenofos transformation pathway (p. 32). However, declining material balanc es impacts the patterns of formation and decline of profenofos transformation products, including maximum levels of the products (identified and unidentified) detected.

2. The limit of detection for the HPLC analyses was not reported.

3. The pesticide use histories for the source sites for the sediments and waters were not reported. Both source sites were farm ponds with surrounding agricultural usage of either cotton (Georgia) or corn, cotton and/or soybean (North Carolina; Table 1, p. 37). The sediments and waters were not analyzed for pesticides to es tablish that they were not contaminated prior to

treatment.

4. Redox potential, dissolved oxygen and pH were monitored in two designated untreated ("control") systems, per system type, at each sa mpling interval, rather than in the treated systems taken for analysis (p. 21). To establish that aerobic conditions were maintained throughout the study, system parameters should be monitored in the treated systems taken for extraction and analysis.

5. All samples from a given treatment were connect ed to the same set of volatiles traps (p. 21). The reported concentrations of CO 2 

### and other volatile compounds were adjusted based on the number of samples at the time of sampling (Appendix 4, pp. 109-110). It is preferred that sample vessels be connected to individual volatiles traps so that more precise material balances for each sample can be calculated.

IV. References

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Fate, Transport and Transformation Test - Guidelines, OPPTS 835.4300, Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism. Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Washington, DC. EPA 712-C-08-018.

1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. NAFTA Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media.Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901Page 22 of 31DER ATTACHMENT 1. Profenofos and Its Environmental Transformation Products.ACode Name/SynonymChemical NameChemical StructureStudyTypeMRIDMaximum %AR (day)Final %AR(study length)PARENTProfenofos(CGA15324,CS_13269)IUPAC:(RS)-(O-4-bromo-2-chlorophenylO-ethyl S-propylphosphorothioate)CAS:O-(4-bromo-2-chlorophenyl)O-ethyl S-propylphosphorothioateCAS No.:41198-08-7Formula:C11H15BrClO3PSMW:373.63 g/molSMILES:CCCSP(=O)(OCC)Oc1ccc(Br)cc1Cl835.4300Aerobicaquaticmetabolism48934901Pondwater/loamysandsediment104.5%(0 d)ND (100d)Pondwater/sandsediment105.5%(0 d)2.4% (100d)MAJOR (>10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTSCGA55960(CS_13266)IUPAC:4-Bromo-2-chlorophenolCAS: Phenol,4-Bromo-2-chloroCAS No.:3964-56-5Formula:C6H4BrClOMW:207.45 g/molSMILES:c1cc(c(cc1Br)Cl)O835.4300Aerobicaquaticmetabolism48934901Pondwater/loamysandsediment52.2%(7 d)ND (100d)Pondwater/sandsediment61.4%(14 d)1.4% (100d)CGA19941(CS_13259)IUPAC:4-BromophenolCAS:Phenol,4-Bromo835.4300Aerobicaquaticmetabolism48934901Pondwater/loamysandsediment19.0%(48 d)4.0% (100d)Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901Page 23 of 31Code Name/SynonymChemical NameChemical StructureStudyTypeMRIDMaximum %AR (day)Final %AR(study length)CAS No.:106-41-2Formula:C6H5BrOMW:173.01 g/molSMILES:c1cc(ccc1O)BrPondwater/sandsediment7.8%(28 d)0.8% (100d)Carbon dioxideIUPAC:Carbon dioxideFormula:CO2MW:44 g/molSMILES:C(=O)=O835.4300Aerobicaquaticmetabolism48934901Pondwater/loamysandsediment29.1%(100 d)29.1%(100 d)Pondwater/sandsediment36.5%(100 d)36.5%(100 d)UnextractableresiduesNA NA835.4300Aerobicaquaticmetabolism48934901Pondwater/loamysandsediment16.3%(71 d)14.2%(100 d)Pondwater/sandsediment18.1%(48 d)11.9%(100 d)MINOR (<10%) TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTSNo minor transformation products were identified.REFERENCE COMPOUNDS NOT IDENTIFIEDAll compounds used as reference compounds were identified.AAR means “applied radioactivity”. MW means “molecular weight”. ND means "not detected".Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 24 of 31 

### Attachment 2: Statistics Spreadsheets and Graphs

Figure 1a. Transformation Kinetics of Profenof os in Total Pond Water:Loamy Sand Sediment System 1, 2 

# Profenofos in Loamy Sand Sediment System

Days Profenofos

0 0 0.5 0.5
1
1 3 3 7
7 14
14 28 28 48 48
71
71 100 100 95.6 104. 81.2 75.9 81.2 65.6 52.2 50.1 42.2 43.9 26.7 30.0
21.1 20.0 13.5 11.8 6.50 4.20 0.00400 0.00400 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

TimeConcentration SFO

DFOP

IORE

-20 -10 0 10 20

-20 -10 0 10 20

-20 -10 0 10 20

0 20 40 60 80 100

DT 50 DT 90 2 C 0 Parameters

SFO 8.46 28.1 17 83.6 k 0.082

DFOP 3.34 49.5 4.8 98.7 f 0.477 k 0 0.809 k 1 0.0335

IORE 3.95 72.7 8.8 96.2 N 2.57 k 0.000243 S C
S SFO Slow t 1 2

t R IORE 638

1.8e+03

20.7

21.9 1 Data were obtained from Table 9, p. 46 of the study repo rt, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Firs t Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 25 of 31 

### Figure 1b. Transformation Kinetics of Prof enofos in Total Pond Water:Sand Sediment System 1, 2 

# Profenofos in Sand Sediment System

Days Profenofos

0 0 0.5 0.5
1
1 3 3 7
7 14
14 28 28 48 48
71
71 100 100 106. 103.

82.4 81.2 62.4 53.2 55.2 58.3 30.3 36.7 14.6 15.8 0.00400

3.00 2.00 2.50 4.70 3.60 0.00400

2.40 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100

TimeConcentration SFO

DFOP

IORE

-20 -10 0 10 20

-20 -10 0 10 20

-20 -10 0 10 20

0 20 40 60 80 100

DT 50 DT 90 2 C 0 Parameters

SFO 4.51 15 18 89.2 k 0.154

DFOP 2.78 18.2 9.8 105 f 0.332 k 0 2.41 k 1 0.104

IORE 2.63 25 15 98.9 N 2.05 k 0.00316 S C
S SFO Slow t 1 2

t R IORE 1.08e+03

1.34e+03

6.65

7.53 1 Data were obtained from Table 12, p. 49 of the study re port, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Firs t Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 26 of 31 

### Figure 2a. Transformation Kinetics of Pr ofenofos Product CGA55960 in Total Pond Water:Loamy Sand Sediment System 1, 2 

# Product CGA55960 in Loamy Sand Sediment System

Days CGA55960

7
7 14
14 28 28 48 48
71 71 100 100 52.2 48.2 46.3 46.0 29.9 25.8 13.1 12.9 1.10 0.600 0.00400 0.00400 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120

TimeConcentration SFO

DFOP

IORE

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

-6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6

0 20 40 60 80 100

DT 50 DT 90 2 C 0 Parameters

SFO 20 66.4 11 68.5 k 0.0347

DFOP 1.44 47.7 14 131 f 0.523 k 0 0.0347 k 1 3.73

IORE 25 61.5 6.6 62.3 N 0.585 k 0.134 S C
S SFO Slow t 1 2

t R IORE 67.3

140

20

18.5 1 Data were obtained from Table 9, p. 46 of the study repo rt, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Firs t Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 27 of 31 

### Figure 2b. Transformation Kinetics of Profenofos Product CGA55960 in Total Pond Water:Sand Sediment System 1, 2 

# Product CGA55960 in Sand Sediment System

Days CGA55960

14
14 28 28 48 48
71
71 100 100 61.1 61.4 45.4 39.7 13.0 21.6 1.40 0.600 1.40 0.300 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

TimeConcentration SFO

DFOP

IORE

-5 0 5

-5 0 5

-5 0 5

0 20 40 60 80 100

DT 50 DT 90 2 C 0 Parameters

SFO 18.1 60 13 109 k 0.0384

DFOP 9.56 51.5 18 151 f 0.722 k 0 0.0384 k 1 2.03

IORE 24.2 60.1 7.1 91.2 N 0.601 k 0.152 S C
S SFO Slow t 1 2

t R IORE 125

203

18.1

18.1 1 Data were obtained from Table 12, p. 49 of the study re port, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Firs t Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 28 of 31 

### Figure 3a. Transformation Kinetics of Pr ofenofos Product CGA19941 in Total Pond Water:Loamy Sand Sediment System 1, 2

1 Data were obtained from Table 9, p. 46 of the study repo rt, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Fi rst Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 29 of 31 

### Figure 3b. Transformation Kinetics of Profenofos Product CGA19941 in Total Pond Water:Sand Sediment System 1, 2

1 Data were obtained from Table 12, p. 49 of the study re port, with kinetics calculated by reviewer using R 8.4 (DER

Attachment 2). 2 Kinetics models: Simple First Order (SFO); Double Firs t Order in Parallel (DFOP), and Indeterminate Order Rate

Equation (IORE).Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 30 of 31 

### Attachment 3: Calculations

Calculations were performed by the reviewer using R software, and the following equations.

Single First-Order (SFO) Model

(eq. 1)

where,

C t 

### = concentration at time t (%)

C 0 

### = initial concentration (%)

e = Euler’s numbe r (-) k = SFO rate constant of decline (d -1 

### ) t = time (d)

The SFO equation is solved with R kinetics software by adjusting C 0 

### and k to minimize the objective function (S SFO 

### ) shown in equation 9.

DT 50 

### = natural log (2)/k (eq. 2)

DT 90 

### = ln (10)/k (eq. 3)

Indeterminate Order Rate Equation (IORE) Model

(eq. 4)

where, N = order of decline rate (-)

k IORE 

### = IORE rate constant of decline (d -1 

### )

This equation is solved with R kinetics software by adjusting C0, k IORE 

### , and N to minimize the objective function for IORE (SIORE) (See equation 9). Half-lives for the IORE model are calculated using equation 5, which represents a first-order half-life that passes through the DT 90 

### of the IORE model. (Traditional DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### values for the IORE model can be calculated using equations 6 and 7.)

(eq. 5)

DT 50 

### = 1)

- k(N C

- /2) (C N)

- (1 0 N)

- (1 0 

### (eq. 6)

DT 90 

### = 1)

- k(N C

- /10) (C N)

- (1 0 N)

- (1 0 

### (eq. 7)Profenofos (PC 111401) MRID 48934901

Page 31 of 31 

### Double First-Order in Pa rallel (DFOP) Model

(eq. 8)

where, g = the fraction of C 0 

### applied to compartment 1 (-)

k 1 

### = rate constant for compartment 1 (d -1 

### )

k 2 

### = rate constant for compartment 2 (d -1 

### )

If C 0 

### x g is set equal to a and C 0 

### (1-g) is set equal to c , then the equation can be solved with R

kinetics software for a , c , k 1 

### , and k 2 

### by minimizing the objective function (S DFOP 

### ) as described in equation 9.

DT 50 

### and DT 90 

### values can be calculated using equations 2 and 3, with k 1 

### or k 2 

### in place of k.

Objective Function: SFO, IORE, and DFOP are solved by minimizing the objective function (S SFO 

### , S IORE 

### , or S DFOP 

### ).

(eq. 9)

where,

S SFO 

### , S IORE 

### , or S DFOP 

### = objective function of kinetics model fit (% 2 

### ) n = number of data points (-)

C model,t 

### = modeled value at time corresponding to C d,t 

### (%)

C d,t 

### = experimental concentration at time t (%)

Critical Value to Determine Whether SFO is an Adequate Kinetics Model

If S SFO 

### is less than S C 

### , the SFO model is adequate to describe kinetics. If not, the faster of t IORE 

### or the DFOP DT 50 

### for compartment 2 should be used.

(eq. 10)

where,

S
c 

### = the critical value that defines the confidence contours (% 2 

### ) p = number of parameters (3 in this case)

α = the confidence level (0.50 in this case) F( α , p, n

- p) = F distribution with α level of confidence and degrees of freedom p and n-p