### Page 2 of 27 The maximum EDWCs calculated in this assessment are shown in Table 1. In surface water, the highest estimated 1-in-10 year peak (acu te) concentration of isofetamid is 96 μ g/L, the highest estimated 1-in-10 year annual average concentration is 28 μ g/L, and the highest estimated 30- year annual average concentration is 16 μ g/L. In groundwater, the highest estimated peak concentration is 49 μ g/L, and the highest estimated post- breakthrough average concentration is 43 μ g/L. EFED recommends using the 1-in-10 year peak surface water EDWC value (96
μ g/L) for assessing human heal th dietary risk from acut e exposures and the maximum post-breakthrough average groundwater EDWC value (43 μ g/L ) for assessing human health dietary risk from chronic and life-time/cancer exposures.

Table 1 . Maximum estimated drinking water con centrations (EDWCs) in parts per billion ( μ g/L) resulting from applications of Isofetamid on the Proposed Low-Growing Berries Subgroup 13-07G and Turf Uses. Drinking Water Source (model) Model Scenario, Use Modeled, & Application Method Acute Chronic Cancer

μ g/L

Surface Water (SWCC) California Strawberry RedLegged Frog (RLF) Scenario

Low-Growing Berries

Subgroup 13-07G

5 Aerial Applications of 0.442 lb a.i./acre Peak 1-in-10 Year Chronic 1-in-10 Year 30-year Annual Average

96 28 16

Groundwater (PRZM-GW 30-year simulation) Wisconsin Corn Scenario

Turf

7 Ground Applications Total: six of 0.567 lb a.i./acre and one of 0.248 lb a.i./acre Peak Post-Breakthrough Average

49 43



### Data Uncertainties

There are only anaerobic soil metabolism data from one soil for isofetamid. However, given the compound’s persistence in the single anaerobic so il, as well as its persistence in anaerobic aquatic test systems, additional anaerobic soil metabolism data are not expected to alter the EDWCs modeled and recommended for use in th e human health dietary assessment.

Parent isofetamid is only considered in this DWA based on ROCKS recommendations (D411110). Because of this, any uncertainties concerning degradate data do not impact the EDWCs recommended for use in the hu man health dietary assessment.

### Page 3 of 27 Uses Proposed and Assessed

Isofetamid is being proposed for use on alm ond, lettuce, grapes (Subgroup 13-07F), low growing berries (Subgroup 13-07G), rapes eed (Subgroup 20A), and turf (commercial a nd residential). Isofetamid is applied as a foliar spray via ground or aerial equipment or via chemigation. There are two isofetamid end-use products being pr oposed for registration in the United States: Isofetamid 400SC Agricultural Fungicide (flowa ble suspension concentrate; 36.0% isofetamid; the product does not contain any other active in gredients); and Isofetamid Turf Fungicide (flowable suspension concentrat e; 36.0% isofetamid; the product does not contain any other active ingredients). According to the proposed labels, isofetamid can be applied at a single maximum application rate of 0.572 lb a.i./acre (grapes) and a y early maximum application rate of 3.65 lb a.i./acre (turf) (see Tabl e 2). At most, it can be applied eight times per year (turf). The minimum application interval is 7 or 14 days, depending on the proposed use. For all of the proposed uses, except turf, isofetamid can be applied via chemig ation and ground or aerial spray. Isofetamid can only be applied to turf via ground spray. For resistance management, both proposed labels stipulate that no more than two sequential applic ations of isofetamid can be made to use sites.

Based on the proposed single and annual applica tion rates, application methods, and exposure estimates from the recently conducted is ofetamid Ecological Risk Assessment 2 

### , it is expected that low-growing berry uses will result in the highest surface water EDWCs and turf uses will result in the highest groundw ater EDWCs. Note that

Table 2. Application Information from the Proposed Isofetamid Labels 1



### .

Crop Maximum Individual Application Rate lbs a.i./A Number of Applications/ year Minimum Application

Interval

(days) Max Annual Application Rate in lbs a.i./A/year Application Method Comments

Almond 0.442 4 2 7 1.77 Ground Aerial Chemigation 3 - Do not apply after first

cover. - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid.

Lettuce (head and leaf) 0.320 2 14 0.64 Ground Aerial Chemigation 3 - on direct seeded lettuce make first application after
emergence, thinning or prior to onset of disease

2 By default, the Surface Water Concen tration Calculator (SWCC) calculates exposure estimates for both the EPA farm pond and the EPA reservoir. EPA reservoir EDWCs calculated during the development of the isofetamid Ecological Risk Assessment were used to triage SWCC scenarios resulting in higher concentrations for consideration in this DWA.

### Page 4 of 27 Crop Maximum Individual Application Rate lbs a.i./A Number of Applications/ year Minimum Application

Interval

(days) Max Annual Application Rate in lbs a.i./A/year Application Method Comments

development; on transplanted lettuce make application immediately after transplanting or prior to disease development; make a second application iof conditions continue to favor disease development. - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid.
Grapes (Crop Subgroup 13-07F) 4 0.572 3 2 7 1.72 Ground Aerial Chemigation 3 - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid. Low growing berries (Crop Subgroup 13-07G) 5 0.442 5 2 7 2.28 Ground Aerial Chemigation 3 - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid.

Rapeseed (Canola)

(Crop Subgroup

20A) 6 0.312 2 14 0.63 Ground Aerial Chemigation 3 - Initiate applications at 20 -40% flowering or prior to disease development. A second application may be made near the end of flowering. - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid.

### Page 5 of 27 Crop Maximum Individual Application Rate lbs a.i./A Number of Applications/ year Minimum Application

Interval

(days) Max Annual Application Rate in lbs a.i./A/year Application Method Comments

Turf 7 0.567 8 applications are allowed at 0.452 lb a.i./acre/application

6 applications are allowed at 0.567 lb a.i./acre/application

in addition to 1 application of 0.248 lb a.i./acre/application 8 14 3.65 Ground - Do not apply by air or through any type of irrigation system - Do not make more than two sequential applications of isofetamid.

1 There is 3.33 lb a.i. (isofetamid) in one gallon of the isofetamid products.

2 This is not specified on the label; it is assumed by dividing the maximum application rate allowed/year by the maximum single application rate.

3 Only center pivot, motorized lateral move, traveling gun, so lid set or portable (wheel move, side roll, end tow, or hand move) irrigation systems.

4 Includes amur river grape. Gooseberry, grape (wine, table, raisin, and juice), kiwifruit (hardy), maypop, schisandra berry, and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

5 Includes bearberry, bilberry, blueberry (low bush), cloudberry, cranberry, lingonberry, muntries, partrisgeberry, strawberry, and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

6 Includes borage, crambe, cuphea, echium, flax seed, gold of pleasure, hare’s ear mustard, lesquerella, lunaria, meadowfoam, milkweed, mustard seed, oil radish, poppy seed, rapeseed, sesame, sweet rocket, and cultivars, varieties, and/or hybrids of these.

7 Turf areas associated with golf courses (greens, tees and fairways), sod farms, seed farms, college and professional sports fields, residential and commercial lawns. Application by homeowners to residential turf is prohibited.

8 Eight applications of 0.452 lb a.i./acre would result in th e maximum annual rate of 3.65 lb a.i./acre. However, the maximum single application rate specified on the label is 0.56 7 lb a.i./acre. To fully account for uses at this higher single application rate, the number of applications per year is also reported in this table as six applications at the maximum single application rate in addition to a seventh ap plication at a lower single application rate of 0.227 lb a.i./acre.



### Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Degradation

Isofetamid rapidly degrades as a result of aqueou s photolysis, and degradati on is also expected to occur as a result of aerobic me tabolism in soil and water. In the aqueous photolysis study, isofetamid degraded to half its initial concentration w ithin two days (1.4 - 1.8 days at pH 7). Half-lives calculated for isofetamid in the ae robic soil metabolism studies ranged from 25 to 66 days, with comparable DT 50 

### s. Half-lives calculated for isofetamid in the aerobic aqueous metabolism study ranged from 108 to 173 days.

### Page 6 of 27 Laboratory studies i ndicate that isofetamid is stable to hydrolysis and soil photolysis, and very persistent in anaerobic environments. No degrad ation of isofetamid occu rred in the hydrolysis study. The half-lives for soil photo lysis ranged from 294 days for dry soil to 354 days for moist soil. The half-life calculated for the anaerobic soil metabo lism study was 572 days, while the half-lives calculated for anaerobic aquatic metabolism exceeded 1,000 days. Based on these half-life estimates, the modeling conducted in th is assessment assumes that isofetamid residues do not degrade in anaerobic environments.

Figure 1 in the Degradates section illustrates the proposed degr adation pathways for isofetamid.

Mobility and Transport

Isofetamid is expected to be moderately mob ile and may enter surface water through runoff and groundwater via leaching. Isofet amid’s vapor pressure (4.4 ×10 -11 

### Torr) and Henry’s Law Constant (1.2×10 -5 

### Pa-m 3 

### /mol) indicate that volatilization is not a likely dissi pation pathway.

Adsorption/desorption testing for isofetamid wa s conducted on two US soils, two UK soils, and one Japanese soil (volcanic ash) . For these five soils, the K d 

### values range from 6.59 to 19.43 mL/g, while K F 

### values range from 6.64 to 20.79 with 1 

### / n 

### values ranging from 0.873 to 0.991. K oc 

### values range from 281 to 615 mL/g-organic carbon and K Foc 

### values range from 274 to 603 mL/gorganic carbon. Results fr om this study are also summarized in Appendix A, Table A2

. The adsorption/desorption study result s indicate that soil sorption of isofetamid is influenced by soil organic carbon content. The coeffi cient of variance is lower for the K oc 

### ’s and K Foc 

### ’s than for the K d 

### ’s and K F 

### ’s indicating a correlati on between isofetamid soil sorption and soil organic carbon content; however, a regression analysis of percent organic carbon versus K F 

### for the five soils did not find this relationship to be statis tically significant. Adso rption and desorption both decreased slightly with increasing con centration in the study. Based on its K Foc 

### values, isofetamid would be classified as moderately mobile (FAO, 2000).

Field Studies

Several terrestrial field dissi pation studies have been completed for isofetamid (MRIDs 49011993, 49018438, 49018441, 49011992, 49018442). Results from these studies are summarized in Appendix A, Table A4 . Three studies were conducte d on bare ground sites in both the US (North Dakota, California) and Ca nada (Saskatchewan), and two studies were conducted on turf in the US (North Carolina, Arkans as). Several applications of isofetamid were made at each site. The single application rates in each study ranged between 500 and 800 g a.i./ha, which are comparable to the propos ed application rate for isofetamid.

Isofetamid dissipation half-lives calculated for th e whole soil profile ranged from 7 to 47 days for four of the five studies. The half-life fo r the Aberdeen, Saskatchewan study was 217 days, and this longer half-life was attributed to a prolonged winter. With the exception of the Saskatchewan study, DT 50 

### s in the terrestrial field dissipatio n studies were generally consistent with the half-lives ca lculated for the aerobic soil metabo lism studies. However, the carryover

### Page 7 of 27 percentages in some of the terrestrial field diss ipation studies are indicative of higher persistence in surface soils.

At all sites, isofetamid residues were observe d in the top 15 cm; however, isofetamid was observed up to a depth of 30 cm in the Ca lifornia and North Carolina studies.

Degradates

Identification information and structures for isofetamid degradates are summarized in Appendix A, Table A1 . A summary of maximum amount of transformation products observed in the laboratory fate studies is in Appendix A, Table A5

. 4HP and PPA are the environmental degradates that have structural similarity to isofetamid and are therefore assumed to be as toxic as isofetamid. However, these two degradates were observed at levels <11.8% of the applied radioact ivity. Based on the low levels expected relative to parent isofetamid, these degradates are not considered residues of concern for this DWA (ROCKS Memo, D411110).

Another structurally similar tr ansformation product, GPTC, is a plant metabolite. GPTC was observed in turf thatch collected in the terrestr ial field dissipation stud ies; however, because it was not observed in any laboratory fa te studies or in soil samples collected in the terrestrial field dissipation studies, it is not expe cted to be present in drinki ng water resources and is not included in this DWA (ROCKS Memo, D411110).

Figure 1 shows the applicant’s depiction of the potent ial degradation pathways of isofetamid in soil, water, and air based on chemical structures and observed transformation products in the fate studies. This figure does not take into consid eration the potential fo r numerous degradation products that may form from isofetamid degradates prior to mineralization.

### Page 8 of 27 Figure 1. Potential Degradation Pathway of Isofetamid

Drinking Water Modeling

Models and Scenarios Used

Detailed descriptions, documentation, and li nks for running the models discussed in the paragraphs below may found at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm

. Surface Water Modeling

The Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWC C version 1.101) model was used to generate Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs ). The SWCC generates daily, 1-in-10-year, and 30-year average EDWCs of isofetamid that may occur in surface water bodies adjacent to application sites receiv ing isofetamid through runoff and spray drift. SWCC simulates pesticide application, movement and transformation in a wate rshed and the resultant pesticide loadings to a receiving water body via runoff, erosion, and spray drift, and th en simulates the fate of the pesticide and resulting concentrations in the wa ter body. The standard watershed geometry used for drinking water assessments assumes application to a 427-acre watershed that drains into an adjacent 13-acre reservoir that is an average of 2.7 meters deep (4,665,600 m 3 

### volume).

In this assessment, EFED’s standard s cenarios as well Red-Legged Frog (RLF) and Organophosphate (OP) assessment scenarios were used within the SW CC and are listed in Table 3 . The metadata for each scenario identifies the growing season for the crop of concern in that scenario. EDWCs were calculated based on the cr op emergence date identified in the scenario metadata and listed in Table 3 . The national agricultural PCA of 0.91 was applied to the model outputs. Guidance for using PCAs and a thorough discussion of this method and comparisons of monitoring and modeling results for selected pest icide/crop/site combinations is located at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html

. Ground Water Modeling

Groundwater EDWCs for isofetamid resulting from the use with the highest annual application rate, turf, were derived using the Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater (PRZM-GW v. 1.07). PRZM-GW is a one-dimensional, finite-difference model that estimates the concentrations of pesticides in groundwater. It accounts for pestic ide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide transport and degradatio n through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an agricultural field. PRZM-GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard sc enarios, each representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groun dwater contaminations, are available for use with PRZM-GW for risk assessment purposes. In the PRZM-GW simulations, each of these standard scenarios was used (scenario versions installed 4/28/14). PRZM-GW output values represent pesticide conc entrations in a vulnera ble groundwater supply that is located directly beneath a rural agricultural field. Note that, unl ike in surface water modeling, PCAs are not used

### Page 9 of 27 with PRZM-GW per EFED guidance. In this asse ssment, PRZM-GW is used as a Tier-1 screen. For more information on potential Tier II refinements in PRZM-GW modeling, see http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm ).

The default PRZM-GW assumptions used in calculating Tier I groundwater EDWCs for isofetamid include the following:

 Isofetamid is used at the maximum la beled rate for 30 consecutive years.

 There are no well setbacks.

 Removal of the pesticide via r unoff or erosion is negligible.

 The saturated zone is a shallow (<100 feet), unconfined aquifer with a water table depth that corresponds to its re spective scenario location.

 The well screen extends from the aquifer su rface to 1 meter below the aquifer surface.

 The pesticide undergoes aerobic soil metabolism in the top 10 cm of soil; the aerobic soil metabolism rate declines lin early to 1 meter below the soil surface, below which only abiotic degradation processes ( i.e. , hydrolysis) occur.

Modeling Input Parameters

Input parameters used in the SWCC are found in Table 3 and

Table 4. The pesticide applica tion assumptions used in th e SWCC are summarized in Table 3
, while the environmental fate propertie s used in the SWCC summarized in

Table 4. Model input parameters for PRZM-GW are summarized in

Table 5

. Model input values were prepared follow ing EFED input parameter guidance.

Although proposed label language prohibits more th an two sequential isofetamid applications, surface water and groundwater modeling assumes that all isofetamid applica tions allowed within the year are separated by the minimum re-appl ication interval. This is a conservativeassumption, and may result in higher EDWCs. With regard to surface water modeling for lowgrowing berries, ground and chemigation applicati ons are also proposed as application methods for low-growing berries subgroup 13-07G; howev er, only the aerial appl ication was assessed because it is expected to be protective of exposures resulting from ground and chemigation application methods ( i.e., modeling for aerial applications is pr otective of ground and chemigation applications).

Table 3. Summary of Isofetamid Low-Grow ing Berries Subgroup 13-07G Application Input Parameters Used in the SWCC.

### Page 10 of 27 Model Input Parameter Input Value and Unit Source/ Comment

SWCC Scenarios CA Strawberry (RLF) FL Strawberry OR Berries (OP) Proposed End-Use Labels (EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and 71512-EG). FL Strawberry scenario includes irrigation. RLF is the acronym for Red-Legged Frog and OP is the acronym for Organophosphate.
Maximum Single Application Rate 0.495 kg ai/ha Proposed End-Use Labels (EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and 71512-EG)

Maximum Number of Applications 5 Proposed End-Use Labels (EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and 71512-EG)

Method of Application Aerial The label allows aerial, ground, and chemigation applications of isofetamid on the low-growing berries subgroup. Only aerial was considered in the modeling for the low-growing berries subgroup, as model results for the aerial applications are expected to be protective of ground and chemigation applications. Application Efficiency 0.95 December 2013 EFED Spray Drift Guidance

Spray Drift Fraction 0.135 December 2013 EFED Spray Drift Guidance

Type of Application Foliar Proposed End-Use Labels (EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and 71512-EG)

Initial Date of Application 5 (month/day) CA Strawberry (RLF): 1/1

FL Strawerry: 10/1

OR Berries (OP): 4/1 Initial application dates were assumed to occur on the crop emergence dates listed in scenario metadata.

Minimum Interval between Applications 7 days Proposed End-Use Labels (EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and 71512-EG). Note that proposed label language prohibiting more than two sequential isofetamid applications is not considered in the modeling.



### Table 4. Summary of Isofetamid Environmental Fate Input Parameters Used in the SWCC.

Model Input Parameter Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

Foliar Half-life Stable Assumption based on Input Parameter Guidance Soil Partition Coefficient K Foc 491 mL/g oc MRID 49011979 Mean of isofetamid K Foc 's calculated for five soils. Hydrolysis Stable MRID 49011976

### Page 11 of 27 Model Input Parameter Input Value and Unit Source/CommentsAerobic Soil Metabolism Halflife (20°C) 61.52 days MRIDs 49011981 and 49011982 The 90th percentile of four soil half-lives. Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life (20°C) Stable MRID 49011985
Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (20°C) 166.5 days MRID 49011986The 90th percentile of two test system halflives. Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half-life (20°C) Stable MRID 49011987
Aqueous Photolysis Half-life 1.8 days MRID 49011977 The longer half-life of the two half-lives calculated in the study.

Vapor pressure (25°C) 4.4 ×10-11 Torr MRID 49011905
Solubility in water (20 o C) 5.33 mg/L MRID 49011905
Molecular Weight 359.48 g/mole ---



### Table 5 . Inputs Used to Model Groundwater EDWCs fo r the Proposed Isofetamid Turf Use using PRZM-GW.

Model Input Parameter PRZM-GW Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

Maximum Application Rate and Number of Applications 6 applications of 0.635 kg ai/ha

1 application of 0.278 kg ai/ha EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and

71512-EG

Method of Application CAM 2, Above Canopy EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and

71512-EG

Date of Initial Application 0 days post-emergence Emergence dates are specified in each

PRZM-GW

scenario.

Minimum Interval between Applications 14 days EPA File Symbols 71512-EE and

71512-EG

Soil Partition Coefficient K Foc 491 mL/g oc MRID 49011979 Mean of isofetamid K Foc 's calculated for five soils.

Hydrolysis Half-Life Stable MRID 49011976

### Page 12 of 27 Model Input Parameter PRZM-GW Input Value and Unit Source/Comments

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-Life 61.52 days MRIDs 49011981 and 49011982 The 90th percentile

of four soil halflives.



### Modeling Results

Surface Water

Table 6 reports the EDWCs calculated for each low-growing berry SWCC ( i.e. , surface water) scenario. The maximum 1-in-10 year peak EDWCs in surface water range from 15 to 96 μg/L, the 1-in-10 year annual averag e EDWCs in surface water range from 6 to 28 μg/L, and the 30- year average EDWCs range from 5 to 16 μg/L. The California Strawberry (RLF) scenario results in the maximum EDWCs, as well as the maximum peak EDWC of the uses evaluated in this assessment. The SWCC output data fo r the surface water EDWCs for the California Strawberry (RLF) scenario are attached in Appendix B

.

Table 6. Isofetamid Surface Water EDWCs for th e Proposed Low-growing Berries (Crop Subgroup 13-07G) Use.

SWCC Crop

Scenario App. method Percent Cropped

Area App. Date 1-in-10 year Peak EDWC μg/L 1-in-10 year Annual EDWC μg/L 30-year Average EDWC

μg/L CA Strawberry (RLF)
Aerial 0.91 1-Jan 96 28 16

FL Strawberry 1-Oct 50 8 5

OR Berries (OP) 1-Apr 15 6 5



### Ground Water

Table 7 reports the Tier I groundwater EDWCs calc ulated using PRZM-GW; the peak EDWCs in this 30-year simulation range from 0.0023 to 49.2 μg/L, while the post-breakthrough average EDWCs reached a maximum of 42.5 μg/L. The Wisconsin Corn scenario results in the maximum EDWCs for the turf use. Figure 2 illustrates the EDWCs modeled over the 30- year simulation period in the Wisconsin Corn scenario.

Table 7. Isofetamid Groundwater EDWCs for the Proposed Turf Use - 30-Year Simulation.

### Page 13 of 27 Peak Post

‐ Breakthrough Average
μg/L

DMV Corn 10.1 7.63

FL Citrus 40.4 38.9

FL Potato 0.0023 Incomplete

GA Peanuts 3.43 3.24

NC Cotton 5.43 4.84

WI Corn 49.2 42.5

### Page 14 of 27 Figure 2. Estimated Groundwater Concentrations of Isofetamid from Use on Turf for a 30- Year Simulation using PRZM-GW Wisc onsin Corn Scenario (ppb = μg/L)*

*Maximum Single Application rate 0.567 lb a.i./acre for 6 sequential applications and 0.248 lb a.i./acre for the 7 th application; Maximum Annual Application rate 3.65 lb a.i./acre; Minimum Re

‐ Application Interval 14 days; 7 Applications; Initial application modeled is 0 days post

‐ emergence, based on emergence date in the scenario

### Page 15 of 27 Bibliography

FAO 2000. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence pr ocesses in the soil. In FAO Information Division Editorial Group (Ed.), Pesticide Disposal Series 8. Assessing Soil Contamination. A Reference Manual. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x2570e/x2570e00.htm

USEPA 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parame ters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides. Version 2.1 October 22, 2009. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Divi sion. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/mode ls/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm

USEPA 2010. Guidance for Reporting on the Envir onmental fate and trans port of the Stressors of Concern in Problem Formulations for Re gistration Review, Regi stration Review Risk Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments, New Chemical Risk Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk Assessments. January 25, 2010. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmenta l Fate and Effects Di vision. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/efed/pol icy_guidance/team_authors/endangered_species_ reregistration_workgroup/ esa_reporting_fate.htm

USEPA 2012a. Development and Use of Per cent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Expos ure Assessments: 2012 Update. March 16, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models /water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html

USEPA 2012b. Guidance for Using PRZM-GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. October 15, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protectio n Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Eff ects Division. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water /przm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_guidance.htm

USEPA 2012c. Guidance for Selecting Input Para meters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pestic ide Root Zone Model. Version 1.0. October 15, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pestic ide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/p rzm_gw/wqtt_przm_gw_input_guidance.htm

USEPA 2012d. NAFTA Guidance for Evaluating a nd Calculating Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media. December 17, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA. http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1 /international/naf tatwg/guidance/degradation-kin.pdf

USEPA 2012e. Standard Opera ting Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Character izing Pesticide Degradation. November 30, 2012. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA.

### Page 16 of 27 http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/degrada tion_kinetics/ftt_sop _using_nafta_guidance.p df

USEPA 2013. Guidance on Modeling Offsite De position of Pesticides Via Spray Drift for Ecological and Drinking Water Assessments. December 19, 2013. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA.

USEPA 2014a. D409629. Ecological Risk Assessm ent for the Section 3 Registration of the New Chemical Isofetamid (draft). U.S. Envir onmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate a nd Effects Division. Arlington, VA.

USEPA 2014b. D411110. Isofetamid: Report of the Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee (draft). U.S. Environmental Pr otection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Health Effects Division. Arlington, VA.

USEPA 2014c. PRZM5 A Model for Predicting Pe sticide in Runoff, Erosion, and Leachate: User Manual. Undated, issued 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Divisio n. Arlington, VA.

USEPA 2014d. Surface Water Concentration Calc ulator User Manual. May 1, 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pestic ide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Arlington, VA.

USEPA 2014e. The Variable Volume Water Mode l and the USEPA Standard Water Bodies for Pesticide Risk Assessments. March 12, 2014. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Divisio n. Arlington, VA.

Submitted Fate and Transport Studies

49018438 McDonald, J.; Wiedmann, J. (2013) Terrestrial Fiel d Dissipation of IKF-5411 Applied to Bareground in Aberdeen, SK, Canada - 2010. Project Number: IB/2010/JLW/005/OCR, 100349. Unpublished study prepared by ISK BioSciences Corporation and Golden Pacifi c Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 406p. 49018441 McDonald, J.; Wiedmann, J. (2013) Field Soil Dissipation for IKF-5411 400SC Applied to Turf in Proctor, AR - USA 2011. Project Number: IB/2011/JLW/010/01/01/OCR, RICERCA/ 027501. Unpublished study prepared by ISK BioSciences Corporation and Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 342p. 49018442 McDonald, J. ; Wiedmann, J. (2013) Field Soil Dissipa tion for IKF-5411 400SC Applied to Turf in Goldsboro, NC - USA 2011. Project Number: IB/2011/JLW/008/01/01/OCR, RICERCA/ 027502. Unpublished study prepared by ISK BioSciences Corporation and Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 362p.

### Page 17 of 27 49018445 Wiedmann, J. (2013) Summary of th e Environmental Fate of IKF-5411 (Isofetamid). Project Number: IB/2 013/MG/005/01/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by ISK BioSciences Corporation. 16p. 49011976 Fletcher, T. (2010) [Car bon 14]IKF-5411: Hydrolytic St ability. Project Number: 2244/073/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 43p. 49011977 Graham, R. (2012) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: P hotodegradation and Quantum Yield in Sterile, Aqueous Solution. Project Number: 2244/074/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 182p. 49011978 Lewis, C. (2010) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: Phot odegradation on Soil Surface. Project Number: 2244/075/OCR. Unpublished study pr epared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 113p. 49011979 Fletcher, T. (2010) [Car bon 14]IKF-5411: Adsorption/Desorption in Five Soils. Project Number: 2244/078/OCR. Unpub lished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 87p. 49011980 Lewis, C. (2012) 4HP (Metabolite of IKF-5411): Adsorption/Desorption in Five Soils. Project Number: 8204073/OCR. U npublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 136p. 49011981 Lewis, C. (2010) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: Ae robic Soil Metabolism and Degradation: Final Report. Project Number: 2244/068/ OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 85p. 49011982 Lewis, C. (2010) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: The Rate of Degradation in Three Soils Under Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 2244/084/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 78p. 49011983 Lewis, C. (2010) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: The Rate of Degradation in One Soil at 10 (Degrees Celsius) Under Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 8204074/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 59p. 49011985 Fletcher, T. (2010) [Carbon 14]IK F-5411: Anaerobic Soil Metabolism and Degradation. Project Number: 2244/076/ OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 77p. 49011986 Hurst, I. (2012) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: Degradation in Water-sediment Systems Under Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 2244/072/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 99p. 49011987 Hurst, L. (2011) [Carbon 14]IKF-5411: De gradation in Water-Sediment Systems Under Anaerobic Conditions. Project Number: 2244/079/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 116p. 49011988 Schoenan, E. (2010) Independent Laborator y Validation of Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha (ISK) Residue Analytical Method for the Determination of IKF-5411 and its Metabolites 4HP in Soil: (Documen t Number: F-559). Project Number: IB/2010/JLW/008/01/00/OCR, 100341. Unpub lished study prepared by Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 117p.

### Page 18 of 27 49011989 Furuo, R. (2010) Validation of the Residue Analytical Method for the Determination of IKF-5411 and its Metabolite 4HP in Soil. Project Number: F/559/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Is hihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd. 58p. 49011990 Furuo, R. (2012) Validation of an Analyt ical Method for the Determination of IKF5411 and 4HP in Sediment. Project Number: F/561/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Ishihara Sangyo Kaisha, Ltd. 39p. 49011991 Boatwright, M. (2012) Freezer Storage Stability of IKF-5411 in Soil. Project Number: IB/2010/JLW/011/01/00/OCR, 100354. Unpublished study prepared by Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 126p. 49011992 McDonald, J.; Wiedmann, J. (2012) Terrestrial Fiel d Dissipation of IKF-5411 Applied to Bareground in Kerman, CA - USA 2010. Project Number: IB/2010/JLW/003/01/01/OCR, 100347. U npublished study prepared by ISK BioSciences Corp. and Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 333p. 49011993 McDonald, J.; Wiedmann, J. (2012) Terrestrial Fiel d Dissipation of IKF-5411 Applied to Bareground in Northw ood, ND - USA 2010. Project Number: IB/2010/JLW/004/01/01, 100348/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC (GPL). 334p. 49011994 Richardson, M. (2012) IKF-5411 and its Metabolites 3-MTCAM, IBA and PPA: Validation of an Analytical Method for th e Determination of Residues in Surface and Drinking Water. Project Number : 8261479/OCR. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 120p.

### Page 19 of 27 Appendix A. Fate Data for Isofetamid Parent and Degradates

Table A1. Chemical Identification Information for Isofetamid and Isofetamid Degradates and Metabolites.

Common Name and Registrant Code Name Chemical Name and Smiles Code Structure

Isofetamid (IKF-5411) N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-[2-methyl-4-(1- methylethoxy)phenyl]-2- oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2- thiophenecarboxamide

C(C)(C)(C(=O)c1c(C)cc(OC(C)C)cc1)NC(=O)C 1=C(C)C=CS1

Molecular Weight = 359.48

4HP (YN-5394) N-[1,1-dimethyl-2-(4-hydroxy-2-methylphenyl)- 2-oxoethyl]-3-methyl-2-thiophenecarboxamide

C(C)(C)(C(=O)c1c(C)cc(O)cc1)NC(=O)C1=C(C) C=CS1

Molecular Weight = 317.40

PPA (YN-6187) 2-[3-methyl-4-[2-methyl-2-(3-methylthiophene-2- carboxamido)propanoyl]phenoxy]propanoic acid

C(C)(C)(C(=O)c1c(C)cc(OC(=O)O)cc1)NC(=O) C1=C(C)C=CS1

Molecular Weight = 389.46

IBA (HM-939) 2-methyl-4-(2-propyloxy)benzoic acid

C(=O)(O)c1c(C)cc(OC(=O)O)cc1

3-MTCAM 3-methyl-2-thiop henecarboxamide

C(N)(=O)C1=C(C)C=CS1

### Page 20 of 27 Common Name and Registrant Code Name Chemical Name and Smiles Code Structure

3-MTCA 3-methyl-2-thiophe necarboxylic acid

C(=O)(O)C1=C(C)C=CS1

GPTC N -[l,1 –dimethyl-2-(4- β -D-glucopyranosyloxy-2- methylphenyl)-2-oxoethyl] -3 -methyl-2- thiophenecarboxamide

C(C)(C)(C(=O)c1c(C)cc (OC2C(O)C(O)C(O)C(C O)O2)cc1)NC(=O)C1=C(C)C=CS1



### Table A2. Isofetamid Parent: Select Physical-Chemical and Fate Properties.

Parameter Value and Units 1 Source and/or Comment Water Solubility at 20 o C 5.33 mg/L MRID 49011905

Vapor Pressure at 25 o C 4.2×10 -7 Pa 4.4 ×10-11 Torr MRID 49011905 Non-volatile under field conditions

Henry’s Law constant 1.2×10 -5 Pa-m 3 /mol MRID 49011905 Log Dissociation Constant (pK a ) The pure active ingredient did not dissociate in pH 4 to 10 solutions. MRID 49011905

Octanol-water partition coefficient (K ow ) log K ow = 2.5 MRID 49011905 Not likely to bioconcentrate.

Soil Partition Coefficient K F (25°C) US Loamy Sand: 6.64 mL/g ( 1 /

n = 0.873)

US Loam: 17.17 mL/g ( 1 /

n = 0.921)

UK Loam or Silt Loam: 20.79 mL/g ( 1 /

n = 0.991)

UK Clay Loam: 13.68 mL/g ( 1 /

n = 0.924)

Japanese Sandy Loam (Volcanic Ash): 14.86 mL/g ( 1 /

n = 0.933)

Mean: 14.63 mL/g MRID 49011979 Supplemental

### Page 21 of 27 Parameter Value and Units 1 Source and/or Comment

Soil Partition Coefficient K Foc (25°C) US Loamy Sand: 602.6 mL/g oc
US Loam: 591.9 mL/g oc

UK Loam or Silt Loam: 534.9 mL/g oc
UK Clay Loam: 274.3 mL/g oc
Japanese Sandy Loam (Volcanic Ash): 449.6 mL/g oc
Mean: 491 mL/g oc MRID 49011979 Supplemental

Terrestrial Field Dissipation DT 50 's ND, USA: 6.98 days (IORE) SK, Canada: 217 days (SFO)

AR, USA: 35 days (SFO) CA, USA: 46.5 days (SFO) NC, USA: 29 days (SFO) MRIDs 49011993, 49018438, 49018441, 49011992, and 49018442 Acceptable

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

1 Representative half-lives are estima ted SFO half-lives (for EFED modeling inputs) from a degradation curve that does not necessarily follow the SFO equation. Representative half-life values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE equations. The equations can be found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guid ance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degrad ation (US EPA 2012). Representative half- life values calculated in this table do not include unextracted residues, as exhaustive extraction methods were used in the studies.

2 Representative half-lives for moist soil photolysis were corrected for the moist dark control.

### Page 22 of 27 Table A3. Representative Half-Lives for Isofetamid.

Study System Details Representative Half-Life* (Kinetic Equation) MRID

Abiotic Hydrolysis pH 4, 7, 9 at 50 o C stable 49011976 Supplemental

Aqueous Photolysis Sterile Buffer pH 7 ± 0.2

25±2 o C 40°N sunlight 1.8 days (SFO)

49011977 a Supplemental Natural Water pH 7.1 25±2 o C 40°N sunlight 1.4 days (SFO)

Soil Photolysis UK Silt Loam pH 6.4 20±2 o C Dry Soil 293 days (DFOP)

Moist Soil ¥

354 days

(SFO) 49011978 b Supplemental

Aerobic Soil Metabolism † ND Loamy Sand pH 7.8 20±2°C 1.1% OC 46 days (IORE) 49011981 c Supplemental

German Sandy Loam pH 8.4 20±2°C 1.1% OC 24.5 days (IORE)

49011982 c Supplemental UK Silt Loam pH 7.5 20±2°C 2.2% OC 50.6 days (DFOP)

UK Sand

pH 8.3 20±2°C 0.8% OC 66.2 days (IORE)

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism ND Sand pH 7.1 20±2°C 1.1% OC 572 days (SFO) 49011985 d Supplemental

### Page 23 of 27 Study System Details Representative Half-Life* (Kinetic Equation) MRID

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism UK, Calwich Abbey Lake pH 7.9 20±2°C 4.8% OC 173 days (SFO)

49011986 b Supplemental UK, Swiss Lake pH 6.4 20±2°C 0.8% OC 108 days (SFO)

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism ND, Goose River pH 7.8 20±2°C 3.1% OC Stable (1,307 days, SFO)
49011987 b Supplemental ND, Golden Lake pH 8.2 20±2°C 1.0% OC Stable (1,944 days, SFO)

* Representative half-lives are estimate d SFO half-lives from a degradation cu rve that does not necessarily follow the SFO equation. Representative half-life values were calculated using nonlinear regression and SFO, DFOP, or IORE degradation kinetics equations. The equations can be found in the document, Standard Operating Procedure for Using the NAFTA Guidance to Calculate Representative Half-life Values and Characterizing Pesticide Degradation (US EPA

. 2012)

. Representative half-life values calculate d in this table do not include unextracted residues, as exhaustive extraction methods were used in the studies. Note that one aerobic soil metabolism half-life calculated for total toxic residues is longer than those calculated for the parent compound, and thus not comparable to the half-life calculated for the parent compound. This is an artifact of selecting amongst multiple degradation kinetics equations. In general, half-lives for the parent and total toxic residues were comparable when using the same equation.

¥ Representative half-lives for moist soil photolysis were corrected for the moist dark control, which has a DT 50 of 312 days (IORE) and a stable representative half-life (285,000 days, IORE). † Representative half-lives for the ND Loamy Sand (MRID 49011981) include both benzene and thiophene radiolabeled compounds. The half-life for the benzene ring only is 47.9 days (IORE) and the half-life for the thiophene ring only is 44.1 days (IORE). Only the benzen e ring was radiolabeled for tests conducted on the three other soils (MRID 49011982).

a 4HP and PPA formation was not observed in the aqueous photolysis study.

b A formation and decline pattern was not observed for a ll degradates included in the representative half-life calculation.

c Degradates included in the representative half-life calcu lation peak and decline within the duration of the study period. For the UK Silt Loam in MRID 49011982, there is some uncertainty as the decline was only observed on the last sample date.

d PPA is included in the representativ e half-life calculation, although it is unclear whether PPA concentrations are increasing or decreasing at study termination.

### Page 24 of 27 Table A4. Summary of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study Results For Isofetamid ¤

MRID (Year) Study Site, Crop, and Application Rate ¥ % Carryover of Residues DT 50 * DT 90 * Max Concentration in Soil (mg/kg-soil) Max Depth

detected

Parent 4HP

49011993

(2010) Northwood, ND, USA Bare ground -

sandy loam 3 apps: 752, 755 and 745 g a.i./ha 9.3% - isofetamid, 0% - 4HP at 359 days after last application 6.98 days (IORE) 126 days (IORE) 0.589 0-15

cm 0.013 0-15 cm

49018438

(2010) Aberdeen, SK, Canada Bare ground -

clay loam 3 apps: 767, 724 and 716 g a.i./ha 46% - isofetamid, 0% - 4HP at 301 days after last application

8.7% - isofetamid, 0% - 4HP at study termination, 709 days after last

application 217 days (polynomial regression) 990 days (polynomial regression) 0.543 0-15

cm 0.025 0-15 cm

49018441

(2011) Proctor, AR, USA Bermuda Turfgrass grown

on silt loam 8 apps: 509 g a.i./ha 28.6% - isofetamid (0-8 cm), 0% - 4HP (0-8 cm) at 120 days after last application 35 days (SFO) Not Calculated 0.0789 8-15

cm 0.0104 0-8 cm

49011992

(2010) Kerman, CA, USA Bare ground - loamy sand soil 3 apps: 746, 731 and 749 g a.i./ha 3% isofetamid (0-15 cm) at 365 days after last application 46.5 days (SFO) 155 days (SFO) 0.515 15- 30

cm No Detections

49018442

(2011) Goldsboro, NC, USA Fescue Turfgrass grown on sandy loam 8 apps: 509 g a.i./ha 37% - isofetamid (0-8 cm), 38% - 4 HP (0-8 cm) at 119 days after last application 29 days (SFO) Not Calculated 0.112 15-30

cm 0.015 8-15 cm

¤ Turf Dissipation Studies also analyze th atch for degradates 4HP and GPTC. That ch results are not reported in this table. ¥ Formulation applied in each stud y is a suspension concentrate * DT50s and DT90s are from PMRA Data Evaluation Reviews.


### Table A5. Summary of maximum amount of tran sformation products observed in fate studies.

### Page 25 of 27 Compound Maximum % of Applied Radioactivity Associated with Degradate (Day of Peak) Maximum Amount Detected at Final Samplin g Interval in Corresponding Study, Radiolabel, and for Hydrolysis, pH (Day of Study Termination)HydrolysisSoilPhotolysisAerobic SoilAnaerobicSoilbAqueousPhotolysisAerobicAquaticAnaerobicAquaticObserved inFieldDissipation

Isofetamid 93.3 (0) 98.7 (0) 100.3 (0) 69.9 (30) 97.0 (0) 97.0 (0) 107.8 (7) Yes 95.2 (5) 72.6 (30) 24.0 (120) 60.9 (150) ND (30) 52.0 (100) 82.7 (365)

4HP 3.7 (21) 10.4 (30) 10.3 (150) 7.6 (100) 2.5 (365) Yes 2.7 (30) 6.0 (120) same same same

PPA 2.0 (30) 4.4 (30) 2.0 (150) 11.8 (100) 3.3 (365)

N/A same ND (120) same same same

IBA 6.2 (30) ND (all) 0.4 (150) 80.8 (10) 7.5 (59) 1.0 (59) same ND (120) same 73.9 (30) 0.5 (100) 0.3 (365)

3-MTCAM 5.5 (14) 0.5 (14) 0.9 (30) 0.7 (0) 0.9 (0) 5.0 (30) ND (120) ND (150) ND (100) ND (365)

3-MCTA 2.0 (21) 2.4 (59) 0.6 (120) 1.5 (59) 0.7 (7) 1.0 (30) 0.5 (120) 0.5 (150) 0.9 (100) ND (365)
Polar Compound 66.8 (20) 64.3 (30)

UnkAnS01 1.3 (60) 0.4 (150)

UnkAE02 4.0 (92, 120)

same

UnkSP01 2.6 (30)

same Largest Unknown 2.0 (30) 6.0 (92) Not Reported 8.0 (10) Not Reported same 2.9 (120) 4.7 (30)

Total Other Unknowns 0.5 (0) 7.0 (30) 12.0 (92) 6.3 (150) 13.1 (2) 20.2 (100) 5.8 (365)

ND (5) same 11.4 (120) same 11.9 (30) same same

Unextracted Residues 10.5 (30) 55.4 (92) a 14.8 (120) 9.7 (100) 11.6 (365)

same 53.6 (120) a 14.7 (150) same same

ND=not detected

a Only one sample was available for analysis at the end of this study; typica lly there are replicates.

b In this study, the test system was aerobic from days 0-30 and flooded on day 30.

### Page 26 of 27 Appendix B. SWCC Output for Low-Growin g Strawberries – California Strawberry (RLF) Scenario

Variable Volume Water Model, Version 0.0

******************************************* Performed on: 6/ 5/2014 at 16:28

Peak 1-in-10 = 105. ppb Chronic 1-in-10 = 30.5 ppb Simulation Avg = 18.0 ppb 4-day avg 1-in-10 = 102. ppb 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 90.9 ppb 60-day avg 1-in-10 = 74.1 ppb 90-day avg 1-in-10 = 64.6 ppb

Benthic Pore Water Peak 1-in-10 = 51.8 ppb Benthic Pore Water 21-day avg 1-in-10 = 51.6 ppb Benthic Conversion Factor = 20.0 -Pore water (ug/L) to (total mass, ug)/(dry sed mass,kg) Benthic Mass Fraction in Pore Water = 0.185E-01

YEAR Peak 4-day 21-day 60-day 90-day Yearly Avg Benthic Pk Benthic 21-day 1 5.27E+01 5.09E+01 4.73E+01 3.94E+0 1 3.43E+01 1.54E+01 2.50E+01 2.49E+01 2 6.63E+01 6.47E+01 5.96E+01 4.82E+0 1 4.21E+01 2.05E+01 3.40E+01 3.39E+01 3 1.24E+02 1.20E+02 1.07E+02 8.51E+0 1 7.35E+01 3.30E+01 5.50E+01 5.48E+01 4 6.70E+01 6.53E+01 5.98E+01 4.79E+0 1 4.18E+01 1.95E+01 3.37E+01 3.36E+01 5 3.35E+01 3.26E+01 3.09E+01 2.62E+0 1 2.36E+01 1.18E+01 1.99E+01 1.98E+01 6 6.21E+01 6.01E+01 5.47E+01 4.45E+0 1 3.86E+01 1.79E+01 2.97E+01 2.96E+01 7 1.49E+02 1.44E+02 1.30E+02 1.07E+0 2 9.35E+01 4.21E+01 6.92E+01 6.90E+01 8 1.08E+02 1.04E+02 9.24E+01 7.50E+0 1 6.53E+01 3.08E+01 5.24E+01 5.22E+01 9 7.97E+01 7.77E+01 7.50E+01 6.64E+0 1 5.88E+01 2.75E+01 4.65E+01 4.64E+01 10 6.23E+01 6.04E+01 5.71E+01 4.94E+01 4.39E+01 2.05E+01 3.50E+01 3.49E+01 11 1.79E+01 1.75E+01 1.63E+01 1.46E+01 1.44E+01 7.70E+00 1.28E+01 1.28E+01 12 1.99E+01 1.93E+01 1.76E+01 1.49E+01 1.31E+01 6.33E+00 1.08E+01 1.07E+01 13 6.73E+01 6.57E+01 6.14E+01 5.68E+01 5.04E+01 2.36E+01 3.83E+01 3.82E+01 14 2.58E+01 2.51E+01 2.44E+01 2.24E+01 2.12E+01 1.09E+01 1.83E+01 1.83E+01 15 7.75E+01 7.59E+01 7.00E+01 5.55E+01 4.79E+01 2.16E+01 3.57E+01 3.56E+01 16 2.57E+01 2.50E+01 2.25E+01 1.84E+01 1.64E+01 9.01E+00 1.53E+01 1.52E+01 17 2.35E+01 2.28E+01 2.21E+01 2.07E+01 1.96E+01 1.00E+01 1.57E+01 1.57E+01 18 7.02E+01 6.80E+01 6.13E+01 5.27E+01 4.77E+01 2.29E+01 3.74E+01 3.73E+01 19 6.95E+01 6.75E+01 6.29E+01 5.56E+01 5.14E+01 2.51E+01 4.15E+01 4.14E+01 20 4.98E+01 4.88E+01 4.51E+01 4.04E+01 3.77E+01 1.86E+01 3.11E+01 3.10E+01 21 7.89E+01 7.68E+01 6.87E+01 5.55E+01 4.84E+01 2.20E+01 3.70E+01 3.69E+01 22 5.98E+01 5.82E+01 5.22E+01 4.73E+01 4.50E+01 2.23E+01 3.65E+01 3.63E+01 23 8.25E+01 8.07E+01 7.67E+01 6.46E+01 5.64E+01 2.57E+01 4.33E+01 4.32E+01 24 1.56E+01 1.53E+01 1.42E+01 1.32E+01 1.23E+01 6.24E+00 1.20E+01 1.19E+01 25 4.47E+01 4.32E+01 3.79E+01 3.01E+01 2.60E+01 1.21E+01 2.01E+01 2.00E+01 26 4.39E+01 4.32E+01 4.15E+01 3.58E+01 3.15E+01 1.53E+01 2.56E+01 2.55E+01 27 4.33E+01 4.19E+01 3.73E+01 2.98E+01 2.65E+01 1.34E+01 2.26E+01 2.25E+01 28 3.50E+01 3.39E+01 3.24E+01 2.65E+01 2.30E+01 1.10E+01 1.85E+01 1.85E+01 29 2.04E+01 1.98E+01 1.76E+01 1.54E+01 1.41E+01 7.02E+00 1.19E+01 1.18E+01 30 2.50E+01 2.44E+01 2.18E+01 2.00E+01 1.84E+01 8.89E+00 1.47E+01 1.47E+01

********************************************************************************************* ******* Effective compartment halflives av eraged over simulation duration:

### Page 27 of 27 washout halflife (days) = 141.480147244749 water col metab halflife (days) = 260.299287554702 zero hydrolysis 0 photolysis halflife (days) = 239.202201470900 volatile halflife (days) = 69021186.4615431 total water col halflife (days) = 66.2671240265854

zero burial 0 zero benthic metab 0 zero benthic hydrolysis 0 zero benthic total degradation 0 *********************************************************************** Fractional Contribution of Transport Processes to Waterbody & Total Mass (kg):

Due to Runoff = 0.8194 239.3 Due to Erosion = 0.0000 0.1352E-01 Due to Drift = 0.1806 52.72 ******* Inputs ******* 491.0 = oc partitioning coefficient 166.5 = water column half Life 20.00 = reference temp for water column degradation 0.000 = benthic Half Life 20.00 = Reference temp for benthic degradation 2.000 = Q ten value 1.800 = photolysis half life 40.00 = reference latitude for photolysis study 0.000 = hydrolysis half life 359.5 = molecular wt 0.4400E-10 = vapor pressure 5.330 = solubility 0.1728E+07 = field area 0.5260E+05 = water body area 2.740 = initial depth 2.740 = maximum depth 3 1=vvwm, 2=usepa pond, 3 = usepa reservoir, 4 = const vol no flow, 5 = const vol w/flow F T = burial, else no burial 0.1000E-07 = mass tr ansfer coefficient 0.5000 = PRBEN 0.5000E-01 = benthic compartment depth 0.5000 = benthic porosity 1.350 = benthic bulk density 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in benthic sediment 5.000 = DOC in benthic compartment 0.6000E-02 = benthic biomass 1.190 = DFAC 30.00 = SS 0.5000E-02 = chlorophyll 0.4000E-01 = OC frcation in water column SS 5.000 = DOC in water column 0.4000 = biomass in water column