# Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment

for the Registration Review of Glufosinate



# O P O

OH O NH

2



# NH

4 +



# Glufosinate

CAS 77182-82-2 PC Code 128850



## 26 January 2013

Prepared by

Catherine Aubee, Biologist

Chuck Peck, Environmental Engineer U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460 

### Reviewed by

Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

James Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Fate Scientist

Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief

### - Page 2 of 135

- 

# Table of Contents

1. Executive Summary

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 5

2. Problem Formulation

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 6

2.1. Nature of Regulatory Action

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 6

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 6

2.3. Receptors

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 8

2.3.1. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 8

2.4. Assessment Endpoints

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 10

2.5. Conceptual Model

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 10

2.5.1. Risk Hypotheses

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 10

2.5.2. Conceptual Diagram

................................ ................................ ................................ ......................... 11

2.6. Analysis Plan

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 12

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 12

2.6.2. Measures of Effect

................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 15

2.6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

................................ ................................ ............................. 15

3. Analysis

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 17

3.1 Use Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 17

3.2. Exp osure Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 20

3.2.1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

................................ ................................ . 20

3.2.2. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 24

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

................................ ................................ ................................ .. 32

3.3. Ecological Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 42

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 42

3.3.2. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

................................ ................................ .............................. 52

3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 57

4. Risk Characterization

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 58

4.1. Scr eening

- Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values

................................ ................................ ........................ 58

4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ 59

4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ........................... 64

4.2. Refinements for Scenarios that Failed the Screen

................................ ................................ ............... 76

4.2.1. EECs and RQs for Aquatic Nonvascular Plants Using Avg. Ap plication Rates

........................ 76

4.2.2. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs for Average

Application Rates

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 76

4.2.3. Refinements for Terrestrial Plants

................................ ................................ ................................ 83

4.3. Risk Description

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 83

4.3.1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 83

4.3.2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 88

5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

................................ ................................ ........................ 99

6. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

................................ ........................ 100

6.1. Action Area

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 100

6.2. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

................................ ................................ ............................... 100

6.3. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses

................................ ............................ 104

7. Conclusions

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 104

8. References

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 105

8.1. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

................................ ..................... 107

8.2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 108

### - Page 3 of 135

- 

## Tables

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Glufosinate.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 7

Table 2.2. Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Potential Effects of Glufosinate.

.......................... 9

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class.

......................... 16

Table 3.1. Glufosinate maximum application rates for labeled uses.

................................ ................................ ... 18

Table 3.2. Estimates of Agricultural Usage of Glufosinate (OPP/BEAD).

................................ ........................... 20

Table 3.3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Glufosinate.

................................ ....... 21

Table 3.4. Table of Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies.

................................ .... 24

Table 3.5. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure Assessment (PRZM/EXAMS)

........ 26

Table 3.6. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure

Assessment.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 28

Table 3.7. PRZM

- GW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate.

................................ .......... 28

Table 3.8. SCI

- GROW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameter s for Glufosinate.

................................ ......... 29

Table 3.6. Surface Water EECs for Labeled Uses of Glufosinate.

................................ ................................ ....... 30

Table 3.7. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening

- Level Terrestrial EECs for Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 32

Table 3.8. Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles, and

Terrestrial

- Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ............. 35

Table 3.9. Scree ning

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses

of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 37

Table 3.10. Screening

- level Dietary

- based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles,

Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................... 39

Table 3.11. EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants Near Glufosinate Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2). 40

Table 3.12. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its Degradates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 43

Table 3.1 3. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its

Degradates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 44

Table 3.14. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and its

Degradates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 45

Table 3.15. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate and i ts

Degradates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ . 46

Table 3.16. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Fish Exposed to Glufosinate.

.................. 47

Table 3.17. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Including

Molluscs) Exposed to Glufosinate.

................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 49

Table 3.18. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate

and its Degradates.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 51

Table 3.19. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Glufosinate.

......................... 53

Table 3.20. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data for Rats Exposed to Glufosinate.

.... 54

Table 3.21. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinat e.

.............. 55

Table 3.22. Summary of Tier II Toxicity of Glufosinate to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants.

................................ . 56

Table 4.1. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI.

.......................... 59

Table 4.2. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direc t Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI.

. 59

Table 4.3. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish, Amphibians, and Invertebrates from Spray Drift

Only of Glufosinate End

- use Products (EPs).

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 60

Table 4.4. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI.

............ 61

Table 4.5. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates from Spray Drift Only

of Glufosinate End

- use Products (EPs).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 62

Table 4.6. Overvie w of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI.

.............................. 62

Table 4.7. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from Gl ufosinate

TGAI.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 63

Table 4.8 RQs for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular 1 

### Plants from Spray Drift Only of Glufosinate End

- use

Products (EPs).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 64

Table 4.9. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Animals.

................................ .................... 64

### - Page 4 of 135

- Table 4.10. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians of Different

Feeding Classes (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 65

Table 4.11. Acute Dose

- bas ed RQ values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5).

..................... 67

Table 4.12. Chronic Dose

- based RQ Values for Mammals Exposed to Glufosinate (T

- REX v.1.5).

................. 69

Table 4.13. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Mammals of Different Feeding Classes.

................................ ....... 71

Table 4.14. Overview of Glufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Plants.

................................ ..................... 72

Table 4.15. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosi nate Use Areas (Ground Spray).

......... 73

Table 4.16. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Aerial Spray).

............ 75

Table 4.19. Mean Kenaga Dietary EECs (mg ai/kg diet) for Birds, Reptiles, Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians,

and Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ......... 77

Table 4.20. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs 1 

### for Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians Based on

Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ............................... 77

Table 4.21. Mean, Dose

- Adjusted Kenaga EECs (mg ai/kg bw) for Mammals Using Average Application

Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 79

Table 4.22. Acute Dose

- based RQs 1 

### (Mean) for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average

Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 80

Table 4.23. Chronic Dose

- based RQs 1 

### for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average

Application Rates (T

- REX v.1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 81

Table 4.24. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average

Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5).

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 82

Table 4.25. Comparison of T

- REX EECs (Upper Bound Kenaga Nomogram) t o the Non

- definitive Endpoint

for Acute Contact Toxicity to the Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ).

................................ ................................ ............. 94

Table 4.26. Possible 1 

### Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Glufosinate through Spray

Drift Only, Based on the Most Sensitive Crop Species in Submitted Toxicity Studies.

................................ ....... 98

Table 6.1. Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the

Registered Uses of Glufosinate, Based on Best Available Data.

................................ ................................ .......... 102



## Appendices

Appendix A. Chemical Names and Structures of Glufosinate and its Degradates

................................ ........... 112

Appendix B. Scenario Descriptions for Surface Water Modeling (PRZM/EXAMS, PFAM)

.......................... 113

Appendix C. PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data

................................ ................................ .................. 121

Appendix D. Example T

- REX ( v. 1.5) Input and Output for Glufosinate

................................ ......................... 124

Appendix E. Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for Glufosinate

................................ .................. 128

Appendix F. STIR Results.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 129

Appendix G. SIP Results.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 130

Append ix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Glufosinate

................................ . 131

Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effec ts Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for Glufosinate

....... 133

Appendix J. Results of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies for Glufos inate

................................ ................... 135



## Attachment s (Separate Electronic File)

Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (April 2012 Refresh)

Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (April 2012 Refresh)

### - Page 5 of 135

- 

# 1

. Executive Summary

The preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks associated with

labeled uses of the broad

- spectrum herbicide glufosinate [ammonium

- (2RS)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (methylphosphinato) butyric acid], based on the best available scientific and commercial

information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects of glufosinate on nontarget

organisms

. This PRA includes two major components. First, a screening level assessment is

presented, consistent with prior assessments for glufosinate pesticide registration actions.

Second, a refined analysis is presented and integrated into the risk description to further

characterize poten tial risk to wildlife and plants. Additional lines of evidence which , once

available, may be useful to further refine the risk profile for glufosinate are briefly described.

The screening level assessment with preliminary refinements concludes that the use of

glufosinate in accordance with registered labels results in chronic risk to mammals that exceeds

the Agency’s chronic risk Level of Concern (LOC). Adverse effects in mammals following

chronic exposure to glufosinate in laboratory studies include r eductions in growth and in

offspring fitness and viability; these effects are seen across generations and in multiple species.

Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, risk is expected for nontarget

plants exposed to spray drift an d runoff. Some uses of glufosinate may also result in acute risk

to mammals and chronic risks to birds, reptiles, and amphibians exposed to glufosinate in the

diet. The potential for acute risk to birds, reptiles, and amphibians exposed through a terrest rial

diet is based on sublethal effects (lethargy and diarrhea) observed after force

- feeding glufosinate

at the limit dose (2,000 mg/kg bw); acute risk under natural conditions is uncertain given the

relatively high dietary exposure levels that would need to occur f or animals foraging on a treated

field to approach the equivalent oral dose. No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in

subacute dietary toxicity tests with birds at the limit dose ( 5,000 mg/kg diet )

.

Off

- site transport of glufosinate to surface water presents risk that exceeds the LOC for listed

species of aquatic nonvascular plants ( e.g. , algae)

. While there are currently no listed species of

aquatic nonvascular plants, the degree to which algicidal or algistatic effects in the aqua tic plant

community may result in indirect effects on other organisms is uncertain

. Fish kill incidents

have been reported in association with nearby terrestrial applications of glufosinate. Given the

low toxicity of the glufosinate technical grade activ e ingredient (TGAI) to fish, it is plausible that

these fish kill events may be the result of indirect effects such as water column oxygen depletion

due to decreased photosynthesis and increased bio chem ical oxygen demand from decaying plant

material, or pe rhaps from ammonium toxicity if the watershed contained other significant

sources of ammonium ( e.g.

, fertilizer runoff , decaying organic matter ). Finally, formulated

glufosinate is generally more toxic to aquatic and terrestrial animals than is the TGAI. Direct

application of formulated glufosinate to rice paddies may result in acute risk to fish, amphibians,

and aquatic invertebrates in the paddy or in waters into which treated paddy water may be

discharged; this risk exceeds the LOC for listed species o f fish and amphibians and for both

listed and nonlisted species of aquatic invertebrates.

### - Page 6 of 135

- 

# 2 . Problem Formulation

The purpose of problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the environmental fate and

ecological risk assessment being conducted for the representative labeled uses of g lufosinate

ammonium , which are summarized in the most recent Label Use Informa tion System (LUIS)

report compiled by the Benefits and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) (May 5, 2012)

. The

problem formulation sets the obje ctives for the risk assessment and provides a plan for analyzing

the data and characterizing the risk ( USEPA 1998 a ). As part of the Registration Review process,

a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D 345696 ) for this risk assessment was published to

the docket [ Docket ID: EPA

- HQ

- OPP

- 2008

- 0190 ] in March 2008 . The following section

summarizes the key points of th at document and discusses any differences between the analysis

outlined there and the analysis conducted in this risk assessment.

2.1

. Nature of Regulatory Action

The risk assessment is con ducted as part of the Agency’s Registration R eview process for

pesticide active ingredients. The Registration Review process was established under the Fo od

Quality Protection Act (FQPA 1995).

2.2

. Stressor Source and Distribution

2.2. 1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

G lufosinate

- ammonium [ammonium

- (2RS)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (methylphosphinato) butyric acid ; CAS

77182

- 82

- 2 ] , hereafter refered to as glufosinate, is a non

- selective

, foliar herbicide that acts by

inhibiting glutamine synthetase needed for the ammonification of glutamate to the amino aci d

glutamine (MRIDs 40345632 and 40345633) . Th e disruption in the production of this key

amino acid leads to disruption of the cell membrane, build up of excess ammonium

, and death of

the cell. Although this metabolic pathway exists in animals as well as in plants

, compensation

for toxicity to animals may occur when alternative sources of glutamine are available in the diet.

Glufosinate has an organophosphate moeity; however, u nlike the organophosphate insecticides,

which act primarily on acetyl cholinest erase (AChE) receptors in animals, glufosinate exposure

is not generally associated with detectable AChE inhibition.

G lufosinate is primarily a foliar

- active herbicide with limited systemic activity; plants that have

not emerged will not be controlled an d there is reported to be no residual activity ( Datta 1988).

G lufosinate salt dissociates to produce ammonia and glufosinate acid, a racemic mixture of ionic

isomers; of these, only the L

- isomer (or (S)

- enantiomer) mimics the enzyme glutamine

synthetase and, therefore, is herbicidally active. It is unknown whether the introduction of

ammonia via dissociat ion of the g lufosinate salt enhances the herbicidal action of the application.

The product labels and most submitted studie s refer to the salt race mate as the active ingredient.

T here is uncertainty regarding the environmental fate and relative nontarget toxicity of the

individual components ( isomers or enantiomers) of the racemic mixture because data specific to

the enantiom ers of parent glufosinate have not been submitted. Fate and ecotoxicity data have

### - Page 7 of 135

- 

## been submitted for the glufosinate ammonium salt

, racemic mixture. Therefore, the racemic

mixture of the ammonium salt is assessed in this document.

The chemical profile of glufosinate is provided in Table 2. 1 . Chemical names and structures of

the isomeric mixtures of glufosinate and its degradates, as they are formulated in standards used

in submitted environmental fate s tudies, are listed in Appendix A

. As described i n Section

3.2.1.4 , this screening level ecological risk assessment focuses on glufosinate parent only

. P revious exposure modeling and recently reviewed ecotoxicity data for glufosinate degradates

( S ection 3.3 ) generally demonstrate that potential exposure to and effects from glufosinate

degradates are expected to be of equal or lesser magnitude than from parent glufosinate.

Table 2.1. Chemical Profile of Glufosinate.



## Common name G lufosinate

IUPAC name ammonium

- (2RS)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (methylphosphinato)butyric

acid

CAS name (RS)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid

monoammonium salt

Structure

Pesticide type Herbicide

Chemical class Phosphinic acid (organophosphate herbicide)

CAS number 77182

- 82

- 2

Empirical formula C 5 

## H 15 

## N 2 

## O 4 

## P

Molecular mass 198.2 g/mol

2.2.2

. Overview of Pesticide Usage

Glufosinate is an active ingredient in several formulated products registered for preplant and

post

- emergent control of broadleaf weeds in a variety of crop and non

- crop areas ; it is also used

as a defoliant and as a means of conducting chemical burndown

. Glufosinate is registered for

use on apples, berries, canola, citrus, corn, cotton, currants, grape s, grass grown for seed, olives,

pome fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit, sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for non

crop areas include golf course turf, residential lawns, ornamenta ls, and a variety of industrial and

public areas. Both aerial and ground spray is allowed for most uses, although some applications

are limited to methods using hand wands and backpack sprayers. Application rates vary

considerably by use pattern. Multiple applications are allowed by most labels, although the

interval is not generally specified, with an annual maximum rate of up to 4.5 lbs ai/A for

orchards and vineyards. Specific use rates are discussed in Section 3.1

. O P O

O H O N H

2

N H

4 +

### - Page 8 of 135

- 

## 2.3 . Receptors

2.3.1

. Aquatic and Terrestrial Effects

The receptor is the biological entity that is exposed to the stressor (USEPA 199 8 ). Consistent

with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), this risk assessment uses

a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of glufosinate

. T oxic ity data generated from

surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, are

used to extrapolate potential effects on a variety of species (receptors) included under these

taxonomic groupings.

A cute and chronic toxicity data from st udies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the

available open literature are used to evaluate potential direct effects of glufosinate to aquatic and

terrestrial receptors. The open literature studies are located through EPA’s database ECOTOX

( http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ ), which provides a source for locating single chemical toxicity data

for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

Table 2.2 provides examples of taxonomic groups and the surrog ate species tested to evaluat e

p otential ecological effects of pesticides to these nontarget taxonomic groups . The table also

provides a summary of the acute toxicity classification s of glufos inate, any tested end

- use

products (EPs), and any tested degradates for each described tax on ; note that ecotoxicity data for

animals are routinely required for the TGAI only

.

2.3.2. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystems at risk are often extensive in scope; therefore, it may not be possible to identify

specific ecosystems at the screening level. In general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at

risk could include the treated site and areas immediately adjacent to the treated site t hat may

receive drift

, runoff , eroded sediment, or discharged subsurface (ground) water

. Such areas

could include the treatment site itself, other cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows,

meadows, fallow fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habita ts, and other uncultivated areas.

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk i nclude water bodies adjacent to or down stream from the

treated area and may include natural or impounded lentic systems such as ponds, lakes and

reservoirs, and lotic ( flowing ) wa terways

, i.e.

, streams and rivers. For the use on rice, the

treatment area itself is also considered. Aquatic ecosystems supplied by groundwater, such as

cave ecosystems and areas supplied by natural springs, may be at risk if a compound has the

potentia l to leach into the subsurface. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic habitat includes estuarine

and marine ecosystems. Within water bod ies, the water column, sediment , and pore water are all

compartments of potential concern.

### - Page 9 of 135

- Table 2. 2 . Taxonomic Groups and Example Test Species for Potential Effects of Glufosinate

.

Taxonomic Group Example(s) of Surrogate Species Acute Toxicity Classification

TGAI Tested EPs Degradates

Birds 1 

### Mallard duck ( Anas platyrhynchos )

Bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) Practically nontoxic No data No data

Mammals Laboratory rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) Practically nontoxic Moderately toxic Practically nontoxic 2



### Insects Honey bee ( Apis mellifera L. ) Practically nontoxic Practically nontoxic No data

Freshwater fish 3 

### Bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis macrochirus )

Rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ) Practically nontoxic Slightly to

moderately toxic Practically nontoxic up

to limit of solubility

Freshwater invertebrates Waterflea ( Daphnia magna ) Practically nontoxic Slightly to

moderately toxic Practically nontoxic to

slightly toxic

(acidification) up to

limit of solubility

Estuarine/marine fish Sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ) Practically nontoxic Moderately toxic No data

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates Mysid ( Americamysis bahia )

Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea virginica ) Practically nontoxic to

moderately toxic Moderately to highly

toxic No data

Terrestrial plants 4 

### Monocots

– onion ( Allium cepa )

Dicots

– carrot ( Daucus carota ) Not classified Not classified No data

Aquatic plants and algae Duckweed ( Lemna gibba )

Freshwater blue

- green alga ( Anabaena flos

- aquae ) Not classified Not classified No data

Abbreviations: EP 

### End

- use product. TGAI 

### Technical grade active ingredient.

1 

### Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles.

2 

### Based on data reviewed by HED and the ROCKS Committee, not further described in this assessment.

3 

### Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic

- phase amphibians.

4 

### Four species o f two families of monocots, of which one is corn; six species of at least four dicot families, of which one is soybeans.

### - Page 10 of 135

- 

## 2.4

. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value s that are to be protected, defined

by ecological entitities (species, community, etc. ) and their attr ibute s or characteristics (USEPA

1998 ). For glufosinate , the ecological entities assessed include the following: birds , amphibians,

reptiles, mammals, freshwater and estuarine/marine fish , terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates, and

terrestrial and aquatic plants. The attributes for each of these entities may include growth,

survival, and reproduction. (Se e Table 2. 3 in Section 2.6.2 , the Analysi s Plan, for furthe r

discussion).

The assessment endpoints are intended to reflect population sustainability and community

structure within ecosystems and hence relate to ecosystems at risk. If risks are identified for

given species/taxa based on a screening

- level assessme nt, then such risks might be expected to

translate to higher levels of biological organization.

2.5 . Conceptual Model

For a pesticide to pose an ecological risk, it must reach ecological receptors in biologically

significant concentrations. An ex posure pathway is the means by which a pesticide moves in the

environment from a source to an ecological receptor. For an ecological pathway to be complete,

it must have a source, a release mechanism, an environmental transport medium, a point of

exposure for ecological receptors, and a plausible route of exposure. The conceptual model is

intended to provide a written description and visual representation of predicted relationships

between glufosinate

, potential routes of exposure, and the effects related to the Agency

assessment endpoint s

. The conceptual model consists of two major components: the risk

hypotheses and a conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).

The conceptual model used to depict potential ecological risk s associated with the foliar uses of

glufosinate relies on previous assessments and the Agency’s current understanding of the

environmental fate and ecological effects of the chemical

. Consistent with the intended use of

glufosinate as an herbicide, p otential risk to nontarget terrestrial an d aquatic plants is expected

. Effects on plants, which are the primary producers in most ecosystem s , may result in potential

indirect effects on consumers. The model assumes that glufosinate is capable of affecting

terrestrial vertebrates and aquatic ver tebrates and invertebrates

, provided that environmental

concentrations are sufficiently elevated as a result of glufosinate’s current uses ( Figure 2.1 ).

P revious risk assessments (DP Barcodes: 280453, 318746, 318747

, 368799, 372624

, 3 82673 )

have identified potential direct acute risk to listed terrestrial and aquatic invertebrate species a nd

potential direct chronic risk to avian species and mammals.

2.5. 1. Risk Hypotheses

For glufosinate , the following ecological risk hypothesis is employed for the ecological risk

assessment:

Given the registered uses of glufosinate and its environmental fate properties, there is

possible acute and chronic exposure to nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

### - Page 11 of 135

- 

## Previous risk assessments have identified risk to terrestrial plants

, vertebrates , and listed

species of both terrestrial a nd aquatic invertebrates

. Potential risk to other nontarget

organisms has been identified as uncertain or below the Agency’s Levels of Concern

. This assessment tests the hypothesis that, w hen used in accordance with the label,

glufosinate exposure may re sult in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and

reproduction of nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals.

2.5.2 . Conceptual Diagram

The potential exposure pathways and effects of the registered uses of glufosinate are depicted in

Figure 2.1 . Solid arrows depict the most likely routes of exposure and effects; dashed lines

depict potential routes of e xposure that are not considered likely for glufosinate

. The a pplication

methods for the registered uses of glufosinate involve ground and aerial applications . Ecological

receptors that may be exposed to glufosinate following such applications include terrestrial and

semi

- aquatic wildlife ( i.e. , mammals, birds, terrestrial

- phase amphibians, terrestrial invertebrates,

and reptiles) and plants. In addition, aquatic receptors ( e.g ., freshwater and estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates, aquatic

- phase amp hibians, and plants) may be exposed as a result of

movement of glufosinate via spray drift and runoff f rom the site of application or from direct

application to rice paddies that may intermittently serve as aquatic habitat

. The conceptual

framework for as sessment of potential ecological risk associated with glufosinate use is depicted

in Figure 2.1 ; potential endpoints, stressors, and ecological effects are identified based on this

model.

For terrestrial organisms, the primary route of exposure assessed at the screening level is the

dietary route

, via consumption of food items such as plant leaves or insects that have glufosinate

residues as a result of spraying. The assessment considers exposure of nontarget terrestrial

invertebrates through oral ingestion and through contact, e.g.

, as a result of direct deposition or

spray drift. Direct contact and root uptake are the major route s of exposure considered for

terrestria l and wetland (riparian) plants.

Based on glufosinate’s vapor pressure (< 7.5x10

- 9 

## torr)

, the chemical is not expected to readily

volatilize

. T he Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk ( STIR ) (see Section 2.6.2 ) , which compares

inhala tion exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian toxicity data, confirm s this

assumption

, so t h is assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in estimating

environmental concentrations

. While the S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP) conservatively

indicates that d rinking water exposure alone could be a potential pathway of concern , the means

to quantify such exposure are currently not available ; therefore, the current assessment does not

evaluate potential risk to wildlife throu gh drinking water exposure. Similarly, t his ecological

risk assessment does not account for possible ingestion of glufosinate residues in contaminated

grit or from preening activities of terrestrial animals, and it does not evaluate potential uptake

throu gh dermal absorption.

For aquatic assessments, t he major routes of exposure for aquatic animal species are considered

to be through the respiratory surface (gills) or the integument. Organisms in habitats supplied

primarily by groundwater discharge ( e.g. , seeps, springs) may receive different level s of

### - Page 12 of 135

- 

## exposure than organisms in surface rivers, streams, lakes, and other impoundments ( e.g.

, reservoirs)

. Similar to terrestrial organisms, exposure of aquatic organisms to glufosinate may

also occur through i ngestion of residues in sediment and forage. However, g lufosinate is

hydrophilic, with an octanol

- water partition coefficient (K

ow 

## ) of <0.1 ( Accession Number

00 263025)

, and does not bioconcentrate in fish ( MRID 41323130 ) ; therefore, although

glufosinate r esidues may be present in prey and forage, bioaccumulation potential is low

. A quatic plants may be exposed via direct uptake and adsorption.

2.6. Analysis Plan

2.6.1. Measures of Exposure

2.6.1.1. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

M easures of expo sure to aquatic animals and plants are concentrations in surface water and pore

water simulated by the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12 .2 , May 12, 2005 ) and Exposure

Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.04.06, Apr. 2005)

, coupled with the input shell pe5

( August 2007 )

, to generate estimated environmental conc entrations (EECs) of glufosinate that

may occur from use on adjace nt crops at maximum use rates. The EECs used in assessment of

acute risk are 1

- in

- 10 year return fre quency daily maximum values (referred to as “peak”

values). For chronic risk assessment, mean concentrations over a specified duration are

generated. In both cases, each modeled site is selected to represent a site expected to be more

vulnerable to runof f than most locations where use may occur ( e.g. , based on the crop being

grown). Concentrations in groundwater (which may also be a source of irrigation water ) were

derived with PRZM

- GW (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater , version 1.0, June 28,

201 2) and SCI

- GROW (Screening Concentration in Groundwater , version 2.3, July 29, 2003).

PRZM

- GW outputs represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable aquifer that is located

directly beneath a n agricultural field. Similarly, SCI

- GROW output represents the pesticide

concentrations that might be expected in shallow

, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which

is the groundwater expected to be most vulnerable to pesticide contamination through leaching

. As PRZM

- GW is currently undergoing a period of eva luation , the SCI

- GROW estimates are also

generated for comparison purposes

. For rice uses, the Pesticide Flooded Application Model

(PFAM, v. 0.7, Sep. 2011) was used to generate EECs in water released from a rice paddy.

2.6.1.2. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

Terrestrial wildlife are exposed to glufosinate via consumption of residues on food items

generated by spray applications

. For spray applications, the T

- REX model ( T errestrial R esidue

EX posure model ; v. 1.5; March 22, 2012 ) is used to predict dietary exposure to glufosinate

residues on foliar surfaces and insects using the Kenaga nomogram as modified by Fletcher

(Hoerger and Kenaga 1972

, Fletcher et al. 1994). A default 35

- day foliar dissipation half

- life is

### - Page 13 of 135

- Figure 2

. 1 . Conceptual Model Depicting Potential Risks to Nontarget Species From the Registered Use s of Glufosinate

. Solid arrows depict the routes of

exposure and effects which are assesse d for parent glufosinate based on the available data ; dashed lines depict potential routes of exposure that are not

considered likely

. 

### Stre ssor

Source/

Transport

Pathways Direct Deposition Runoff

Erosion Leaching

(Infiltration/

Percolation

Source/

Exposure

Media Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial Invertebrates Terrestrial Plants

Soil Receiving

Water

Body/

Sediment Groundwater

Tested

Exposure

Rou te Ingestion Direct C ontact

Root Uptake Gill or Integument

Uptake

Receptors

Attribute

Changes Terrestrial

Vertebrates Terrestrial Plants

Individual Animals :

Reduced survival and/or reproduction Aquatic Invertebrates

Aquatic Vertebrates

Individual Plants :

Seedling emergence

Vegetative vigor Individual Animals:

Reduced survival

and/or reproduction Plant P opulation :

Reduced population

growth

Aquatic Plants Uptake/

Adsorption Spray Drift Volatilization

Atmospheric Transport 

### G lufosinate

Direct Contact

Terrestrial

Invertebrates

### - Page 14 of 135

- 

## used for terrestrial exposure modeling in this assessment

. F oliar dissipation data specific to

glufosinate ( e.g.

, Wi llis and McDowell 1987 ) are not available and magnitude of residue data,

submitted under Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention ( OCSPP ) Guideline

860.1500, have been deemed inappropriate for use, usually because the studies are missing

residue values for Day 0

. Estimated exposures of terrestrial insects to glufosinate are evaluated

in terms of the insects’ potential relevance as dietary items for terrestrial vertebrates and for use

in risk characterization for listed terres trial invertebrates

.

The TerrPlant ( v

. 1.2.2 ; December 26, 2006) model is used to derive EECs relevant to terrestrial

and wetland plants exposed to glufosinate as a combination of spray drift and runoff

. The model

employs the assumption that default fractions of the intended application are transported to an

adjacent

. Measures of exposure to terrestrial plants are expressed as a fraction of the mass of the

glufosinate applied to the treated field

.

To characterize potential nontarget pl ant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in

AgD RIFT (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to estim ate how far off

- site spray drift exposure

might occur at a level known to cause adverse effects in terrestrial plant toxicity studies. Labels

for gl ufosinate specify that the product should be applied using nozzles and pressures that

generate a Medium (about 250 to 350 microns) spray droplet size category. For Tier I aerial

applications, this corresponds to an American Society of Agricultural and Bio logical Engineers

(ASA B E , formerly ASAE ) Medium

- to

- Coarse droplet size category. For Tier I ground

applications, this corresponds to ASAE Fine

- to

- Medium/Coarse droplet size category. As non

burndown applications of glufosinate by ground spray are meant to kill weeds and not

surrounding crops, ground spray applications in AgDRIFT were modeled using a low boom.

The S creening T ool for I nhalation R isk (STIR v.1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate

an upper bound estimate of exposure using glufosinate’s vapor pressure and molecular weight

for vapor phase exposure as well as the maximum application rate and method of application for

spray drift . STIR incorporates results from several toxicity studies including acute oral and

inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six

- pack” of core studies, which are a series

of six guideline studies that are submitted to the Registration Division of the Office of Pesticide

Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide (LD 50 

## = 3,030 mg/kg bw/day,

MRID 00142430; and inhlation LC 50 

## > 2.12 mg/L, MRID 46279004 , respectively) as well as the

most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoin t (bobwhite quail LD 50 

## > 2,000 mg/kg bw , MRID

00142451 ). Based on the results of the STIR model ( Appendix F ) , exposure through inhalation

of spray drift or the vapor phase of glufosinate was not determined to be a potential pathway of

concern for either a vian or mammalian species on an acute exposure basis.

The analysis of the inhalation route in STIR does not consider that aggregation with other

exposure pathways such as dietary, dermal, or drinking water may contribute to a total exposure

that has a p otential for effects to nontarget animals. However, the Agency does consider the

relative importance of other routes of exposure in situations where data indicate that pesticide

exposures through other routes may be potentially significant contributors to wildlife risk

(USEPA 2004). The risk characterization section ( Section 4.3 ), discusses the impact of

consideration of other routes of exposure that have been identified as potentially important and

### - Page 15 of 135

- 

## the degree of certainty associated with screening

- level risk assessment conclusions. Detailed

information about STIR v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on EPA’s website

( http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#t errestrial ).

The S creening I mbibition P rogram (SIP v.1.0, r eleased June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an

upper bound estimate of exposure using glufosinate’s solubility (1 x 10 6 

## mg/L, MRID

00263025 )

, and compared to the most sensitive acute and chronic avian and mammalian toxicity

endpoints ( see Table 3.22 and 3.23 , respectively). Drinking water exposure alone was

determined to be a potential pathway of concern for mammalian species on both an acute and a

chronic exposure basis and for avian species on a chronic exposure basis. The potential for

exposure through drinking water to present a concern on an acute exposure basis was not

determined because the LD 50 

## value for birds is a nondefinitive value (LD 50 

## > 2,000 mg/kg bw).

For a sample of the output generated by SIP v.1.0, please see Appendix G

.

2 .6.2 . Measures of Effect

Measures of effect are obtained from a suite of registrant

- submitted guideline studies which were

conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species ( Table 2. 2 ) . The test species are not

intended to be representative of the most sensitive species but rather were selected based on their

ability to thrive under laboratory conditions. Toxicity testing reported in this risk assessment

utilizes surrogate species t o represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the

U.S. T he ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in August 201 2 to identify

whether additional, more sensitive ecological effects data were available for glufosinate ;

however, no more useful data were identified ( USEPA 20 1 2 )

.

The acute measures of effect used in this screening

- level assessment are the LD 50 

## (Lethal Dose),

LC 50 

## (Lethal Concentration)

, EC 50 

## (Effects Concentration) , and IC 50 

## (Inhibition Concentration)

. These are m easures of acute toxicity which result in 50% of the respective effect in tested

organisms. The endpoints for chronic measures of exposure are the NOAEC (No Observed

Adverse Effects Concentration) and the NOAEL (No Observed Adverse Effects Level).

Toxici ty studies were submitted for freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and

invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals

, bees , and other terrestrial invertebrates . The

endpoints used for risk characterization were derived from studies whi ch underwent review and

were classified as “acceptable” (conducted under guideline conditions and considered to be

scientifically valid) or “supplemental” (conditions deviated from guidelines but the results we re

considered to be scientifically valid).

2 .6.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse

ecological effects on nontarget species. For the risk assessment of glufosinate , the risk quotient

(RQ) meth od is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ

method involves dividing EEC s by point estimates of the most sensitive acute and chronic

toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency’s Levels of Concern (LOC)

### - Page 16 of 135

- 

## (USEPA 2004) ( Table 2.3 ). These criteria are used to indicate when applications of glufosinate

, as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse e ffects to nontarget organisms.

Table 2.3. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) Per Risk Class.

R isk C lass R isk D escription RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.5

Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.1

Acute Listed

Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from

chronic exposures 60

- day EEC/NOAEC

(fish)

1

21

- day EEC/NOAEC

(invertebrates)

Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to non

- listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/LC 50 1 

### 1

Listed Potential for effects to listed plants from exposures Peak EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds) 2



### Acute Potential for effects to non

- listed animals from acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 

### (Dietary)

0.5

EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose)

Acute

Restricted Use Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification EEC/LC 50 

### (Dietary)

0.2

EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose)

Acute Listed

Species Listed species may be potentially affected by acute

exposures EEC/LC 50 

### (Dietary)

0.1

EEC/LD 50 

### (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non

- listed and listed animals from

chronic exposures EEC/NOAEC 1

Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants

Non

- Listed Potential for effects to nontarget , non

- listed plants from

exposures EEC/ EC 25 

### 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to nontarget , listed plants from

exposures EEC/ NOAEC

1

EEC/ EC 05

1 

### LC 50 

### or EC 50



### . 2 

### EEC b ased on upper bound Kenag a nomogram values for foliar exposure.



## The Agency uses the probit dose

- response relationship as a tool for providing additional

information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic

animals that may indirectly affect the listed spec ies of concern (USEPA 2004). As part of this

evaluation, the acute RQ for listed species is presented in terms of the chance of an individual

event ( i.e. , mortality or immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species

with sensitivit y to g lufosinate on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation.

To accomplish this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose

- response relationship

available from the toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity mea sures of effect for each

taxonomic group that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated

### - Page 17 of 135

- 

## with the acute RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose

response relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean,

upper and lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in

the slope, if available. If no dose response information is available to estimate a slope for th is

analysis, a default slope assumption of 4.5 is used, with lower and upper bounds of 2 to 9

( USEPA 2004 ).

Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Microsoft  

## Excel spreadsheet tool

IECV1.1 (Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP,

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such

calculations by entering the mean slope estimate (and the confidence bounds of that estimate) as

the slope parameter in the spreadsheet. Th e desired threshold for the probability of an individual

effect is entered as the listed species LOC or based on the calculated acute RQ, if available.



# 3 . Analysis

3.1 Use Characterization

Maximum use pattern in for mation is presented in Table 3. 1

. Glufosinate is an active ingredient

in several formulated products us ed for preplant and post

- emergent control of broadleaf weeds

which grow with in a variety of crops and non

- crop areas. Products include Derringer ® 

## (Reg. No.

432

- 1228), Derringer ® 

## F Her bicide (Reg. No. 432

- 960), Finale ® 

## Super Concentrate (Reg. No.

432

- 954), Finale ® 

## Ready

- to

- Use (Reg. No. 432

- 955), Finale ® 

## Concentrate (Reg. No. 432

- 956),

Finale ® 

## Herbicide (Reg. No. 432

- 1229), Glufosinate 280 (Reg. No. 88685

- 2), Liberty ® 

## (Reg. No.

264

- 660) , Liberty ® 

## ATZ (Reg. No. 264

- 668), Liberty 280 ® 

## (Reg. No. 264

- 829) , Rely ® 

## (Reg. N o.

264

- 652)

, and Remov e ® 

## (Reg. No. 264

- 663) , along with 8 special local needs (Section 24c;

SLN 1 

## ) labels

. Glufosinate is registered for use on apples, berries, canola, citrus, corn, cotton,

currants, grapes, grass grown for seed, olives, pome fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit,

sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for non

- crop areas include golf course turf, residential

lawns, ornamenta ls, and a variety o f industrial and public areas. Both aerial and ground spray is

allowed for most uses, although some applications are limited to methods using hand wands and

backpack sprayers. As glufosinate is designed primarily to control broadleaf weeds, applications

are normally ground applications, to prevent damage to crops. Aerial application is considered a

viable option for genetically modified crops ( e.g. , canola, corn, cotton, rice, sugarbeets, and

soybeans ) t hat are resistant to glufosinate’s herbicidal prope rties , and for burndown applications.

In addition to the crop burndown uses described in this assessment, s ome use patterns

categorized as “non

- agricultural” may also involve burndown applications.

Application rates vary considerably by use pattern. The highest registered application rate for

broadcast spray (ground) is 1.5 lbs ai/A for use patterns including control of understory weeds

for orchard nuts and fruits ( e.g

. , almonds, apples, and hickory ), grapes, grasses grown for seed

1 

### Section 24c

– A section of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) that authorizes states

to issue special local needs (SLN) pesticide registrations. Under the authority of §24(c) of FIFRA, states may

register an additional use of a federally registered pesticide product, or a new end use product to meet special local

needs. Although SLNs can be approved for many different reasons and application sites , most involve use on crops.

### - Page 18 of 135

- 

## and golf course turf. The maximum rate for cotton applications is 0.79 lbs ai/A (also labeled at

0.52 lbs ai/A), for rice is 0.73 lbs ai/A, and for sugar beets is 0.55 lbs ai/A. Corn and soybean

broadcast applications ar e a maximum of 0.44 lbs ai/A. There are numerous other applications,

including turf and patio applications, labeled for 0.03 lbs ai/A. Multiple applications are allowed

by most labels, although the interval is not generally specified, with an annual maxi mum rate for

agri c ultural crops of up to 4.5 lbs ai/A for orchards and vineyards. In situations where the

retreatment interval (RTI) is not specified on the label, an RTI of 3 days was assumed. Where the

maximum annual use is not specified, the product wa s assumed to be applied 26 times , except

when model limitations ( e.g. , PRZM

- GW) limited the number of applications, at which point the

maximum number of applications was set to the model limit of 11

. This assessment focuses on

the highest application rates for the uses evaluated by BEAD ( LUIS Report; May 5, 2012 ) and

on broadcast (aerial and ground) spray, because these combinations are expected to result in the

highest off

- target exposure. Uses have been categorized as agricultural, seed propagation,

burn down, and non

- agricultural. Agricultural use s of glufosinate refer to applications made to

eliminate weeds growing alongside the associated crop. Seed propagation uses refer to

applications made to the respective crops in order to select out susceptible plants that are not

tolerant to glufosinate during seed propagation. Burndown uses refer to glufosinate application

prior to planting or prior to emergence of any conventional or transgenic variety of the associated

crop to eliminate weeds. Non

- agricultu ral uses refer to applications of glufosinate to non

- crop

bearing areas to eliminate weeds. For use of glufosinate on fallow fields and noncrop areas, as

labels were vague on the maximum number of applications and maximum use amounts, aquatic

exposure wa s modeled based on estimated maximum use rates as well as registrant submitted

information on best agronomic practices (labeled EFED and registrant, respectively, in the table

below).

Table 3. 1

. Glufosinate maximum application rates for labeled uses

.

Crop Max Single App

Rate

lbs ai /A Max

Number

of Apps Max Seasonal

App Rate

lbs ai /A Minimal Interval

Between Apps

(days) App Method

Agricultural

Blueberry 1.50 2 3.00 NS Ground

Canola 0.4 2 0.8 7 Aerial

Citrus 4 

### 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Corn 0.4 2 0.8 14 Aerial

Cotton 0.53 3 1.59 10 Aerial

Grape vineyard 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Olives 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Pome fruit 5 

### 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 1 0.38 NA Aerial

Rice 2 

### 0.4 4 2 0.8 9 10 Aerial

Soybean 0.4 2 0.8 14 Aerial

0.66 2 1.19 10 Aerial

Stone fruit 6 

### 1.50 2 3.00 NS Ground

Sugarbeet 0.55 2 1.10 NS Aerial

Tree nuts 7 

### 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Seed Propagation

### - Page 19 of 135

- Crop Max Single App

Rate

lbs ai /A Max

Number

of Apps Max Seasonal

App Rate

lbs ai /A Minimal Interval

Between Apps

(days) App Method

Corn 0.52 2 1.04 NS Aerial

Cotton 0.52 2 1.04 NS Aerial

Rice 2 

### 0.73 2 1.46 10 Aerial

Soybean 0.52 2 1.04 NS Aerial

Burndown

Corn 0.66 1 0.66 NA Aerial

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 2 1.32 10 Aerial

Cotton (postharvest) 0.79 2 1.32 10 Aerial

Rice 0.66 1 0.66 NA Aerial

Soybean 0.66 1 0.66 NA Aerial

Sugar beet 0.66 1 0.66 NA Aerial

Non

- agricultural 3



### Conifer/hardwood trees

- Scenario 1 1.5 3 4.5 NS Aerial

- Scenario 2 0.3 3 0.9 NS Aerial

Fallow field

- EFED 0.53 NS NS NS Aerial

- Registrant 0.4 5 2 10 Aerial

Lawns/gardens 1.36 NS NS NS Ground

Farmstead / Noncrop areas

- EFED 1.5 NS NS NS Ground

- Registrant 1.5 2 3 10 Ground

NS

– not specified. App

- application

1. Where the retreatment interval (RTI) is not specified on the label, an RTI of 3 days was assumed. Where the

maximum annual use is not specified, the product was assumed to be applied 26 times.

2. For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A was

applied to a flooded 8

- inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7

- day holding period. For modeling applications for

rice seed p ropagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A was applied, the first

application to a dry field, the second application to a 4

- inch flooded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 55

- day

holding period.

3. See scenario descrip tions for assumed application rates and RTIs.

4. Citrus includes lemon, orange, grapefruit, lime, mandarin, tangerine, tangelo, calamondin, kumquat, and pummel

trees.

5. Pome fruit includes apple, pear, crabapple, loquat, mayhaw, and quince trees.

6. Stone fruit includes apricot, cherry, peach, nectarine, and plum trees.

7. Tree nuts include almond, filbert, hickory nut, macadamia nut, bush nut, pecan, pistachio, and walnut trees.



## According to the Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) provided by the Biolo gical and

Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) in 2012 ( Table 3

. 2 ) , the majority of glufosinate is used on

corn with 1.3 million pounds of active ingredient applied

. Almonds , cotton, and grapes are also

appreciable uses reported in the BEAD analysis

. U ses w hich have not be en ca lculat ed do not

imply zero use, though they are likely low in comparison to those uses that are quantified in

Table 3.2 . Stone fruits, such as peaches, cherries, and plums/prunes, are new uses which were

approved in 2012. Registered non

- agricultural uses , such as fallow fields, lawns and gardens,

conifer tree areas, and non

- crop areas ( e.g. , farmstead building foundations, shelter belts, along

fences, etc. ) are no t captured in the above data. T hese data do not include non

- agricultural uses.

### - Page 20 of 135

- Table 3. 2

. Estimates of Agricultur al Us age of Glufosinate (OPP/BEAD)

.



## Crop Lbs. ai Percent Crop T reated Average Single

App. Rate

(lbs ai/A) 

## Average Number

of Apps. Av erage

(%) 

## Max imum

(%)

Almonds 200,000 15 40 0.96 NR

Apples 4,000 <1 <2.5 0.82 NR

Blueberries 10,000 5 15 NR NR

Canola 100,000 25 35 0.37 1.0

Cherries 1,000 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Corn 1,300,000 5 10 0.38 1.0

Cotton 200,000 5 10 0.40 1.4

Fallow <500 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Grapes 200,000 15 30 0.91

– 1.05 NR

Hazelnuts 6,000 10 25 0.71 NR

Peaches 2,000 <2.5 10 0.79 NR

Peanuts 1,000 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Pecans 1,000 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Pistachios 50,000 20 45 1.01 NR

Plums/Prunes 2,000 <2.5 10 0.55 NR

Potatoes 30,000 10 20 0.36 1.1

Rice 5,000 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Soybeans 100,000 <1 <2.5 0.43 1.2

Sweet Corn <500 <1 <2.5 NR NR

Walnuts 30,000 10 20 0.87 NR

All numbers rounded. App(s).: Application(s). NC: Not calculated . NR: Not reported.

Data sources: Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA), OPP/BEAD, 19 March 2012; EPA Proprietary Data: 2007

- 2011, C. Doucoure, OPP/BEAD ; any proprietary data have been obscured from their source(s)

.



## 3.2

. Exposure Characterization

3.2. 1. Environmental Fate and Transport Characterization

Chemical and environmental fate characteristics of the parent compound glufosinate are listed in

Table 3. 3 and are discussed in greater detail in the following sections. It should be noted that, as

mentioned earlier, the fate properties discussed below are for the racemic mixture of the (R)

- and

(S)

- enantiomers of glufosinate ammonium, despite the understanding that the (S)

- enantiomer is

actually the herbicidal ly active substance.

### - Page 21 of 135

- Table 3. 3

. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Glufosinate

.

Property Value Source Study

Classification Comments

Chemical Name Ammonium

- (2RS)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (methylphosphinato)butyric

acid – -- –

Molecular Weight

(g/mol) 198.2

– -- –

Solubility in Water

(mg/L, 20°C) 1.37x10 6 

### Acc No

00263025 Acceptable

–

Vapor Pressure (torr,

25°C) <7.5x10

- 9 

### MRID

44032901 Acceptable

–

Henry’s Law Constant

(atm

- m 3 

### /mole) < 1.43 x 10

- 12



### – Estimated using

vapor pressure,

molecular weight

and solubility.

Octanol

- water

partition coefficient

(K OW 

### ) <0.1 Acc No

00263025 Acceptable

–

Hydrolysis Half

- life

(25°C) (days) No significant degradation at

pH 5, 7, and 9 MRID

40345656 Acceptable

–

Aqueous Photolysis

Half

- life (@ pH 7

( days) No significant degradation MRID

41323115 Acceptable

–

Soil Photolysis Half

life (days) 17 MRID

41920102 Acceptable

–

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism Half

- life

(days) 8.5 (sandy loam)

8.7 (silt loam)

8.8 (loamy sand) MRID

4132311 9 Acceptable 1.62 ppm applied

20.6 (sandy loam)

21.4 (silt loam)

23.0 (sandy loam) MRID

40345659A Acceptable 7.23 ppm applied

Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism H alf

- life

(days) 37 (silt loam) MRID

40501014 Acceptable

Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half

- life

(days) 38 (sand)

57 (silt loam) MRID

40345660 Acceptable 8.3 ppm applied

11 (loam)

87 (sand) MRID

45204402/01 Acceptable 1 ppm applied

1 (sand) Acceptable 0.1 ppm applied

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Half

- life

(days) 415 MRID

46258601 Acceptable

–

Organic Carbon

Normalized Soil

Partition Coefficient

(mL/g

oc 

### ) (K F 

### oc) 16.5 (sand)

268 (silt loam)

605 (silt loam) MRID

40345662/

48394101 1 

### Acceptable

--

Fish Bioconcentration

Factor (28 d) 0.19x (whole fish)

0.13x (edible) MRID

41323130 Acceptable

Terrestrial field

dissipation half

- lives

(days) 8 (cropped plot) MRID

43110402 Acceptable

– 16.5 (cropped plot)

15.1 (bare ground) MRID

4376691 5 Acceptable

### - Page 22 of 135

- Property Value Source Study

Classification Comments

10.3 (cropped plot)

10.6 (bare ground) MRID

43766916 Acceptable

14 (grapes) MRID

47542601 Acceptable

Aquatic field

dissipation half

- lives

(days) <7 (soil, 1st application, LA)

12 ( soil, 2nd application, LA)

3 ( water, 1st and 2nd

applications, CA) MRID

45204403 Supplemental

–

Acc. No. 

### Accession number.

1. 

### Based on comments from the registrant (MRID 48394101), the organic carbron partition coefficient ( K

oc 

### ) value s

used by EFED in previous assessments were based on organic matter and not organic carbon content . The values

reported in this t able have been corrected.



## 3.2.1.1

. Transport and Mobility

Glufosinate is soluble in water ( 1.37x10 6 

## mg/L at 20 o 

## C ; Acc No 00263025) and will not

volatilize significantly due to its low vapor pressure of <7.5 x 10

- 9 

## torr (25°C; MRID 44032901).

Glufosinate is an ammonium salt , with an octanol

- water partition coefficient (K

ow 

## ) of <0.1 (Acc

No 263025) and does not bioconcentrate in fish (MRID 41323130).

G lufosinate is mobile to highly mobile

, with a Freundlich organic carbon partition coefficient

(K FOC 

## ) of 16.5 to 605 mL/g

oc 

## in soils representative of use sites ( MRID 40345662). Mobility of

glufosinate residues in soils is a function of organic content , as evidence by the fact that the

coefficient of variation (CV) across four soils of the Freundlich organic carbon partitio n

coefficient (99.7%) is less than that for the Freundlich soil

- water partition coefficient (116%).

As such, the mobility of glufosinate in soil may be less for soils with higher organic carbon

content.

3.2.1.2

. Degradation

Glufosinate does not signifi cantly degrade via the abiotic mechanism s of hydrolysis or photolysis

(MRID 40345656, 41323115) and is thus considered stable to such processes . The compound is

biodegraded moderately rapidly in aerobic soils, with some evidence of sensitivity to

concentr ation : at higher application rates (7.23 ppm applied ) aerobic soil metabolism half

- lives

for glufosinate range d between 20.6 and 23.0 days (MRID 40345659A) , while at a lower

application rate ( 1.62 ppm applied ) shorter half

- lives of 8.5

- 8.8 days were observed (MRID

41323119). Biodegradation occurs less quick ly in anaerobic soils (t 1/2 

## = 37 days; MRID

40501014) and in aerobic water (t 1/2 

## range = 38

- 87 days; MRIDs 40345660 and 45204402/01)

, and is insignificant in anaerobic water (MRID 46258601).

### - Page 23 of 135

- 

## 3.2.1.3

. Field Studies

Several terrestrial field dissipation studies of glufosinate have been submitted. In these studies,

glufosinate dissipate d from the upper 6 inches of soil with half

- lives of 8

- 17 days. This range of

dissipation rates is generally consistent with the degradation rates observed in submitted fate

studies. Rates of aerobic soil metabolism ( the major route of degradation ) in par ticular are

similar to these

. Despite the fact that glufosinate is expected to be mobile, the compound

apparently did not leach further than 6 inches in to loam or clay soils

, or further than 24 inches

in to a sand y soil. Leaching may have been slow ed by t he presence of relatively high ( 2

- 3% )

organic matter in the three soils tested (MRID 43110402, 43766915, 43766916).

A supplemental aquatic field dissipation (AFD) study (MRID 45204403) was conducted to

simulate applications to rice. Two applications of 0.45 lb ai /A (0.50 kg ai /ha) of glufosinate

were made to bare ground (a drained rice paddy) in Louisiana in late Augus t

, followed by

flooding 24 hours after the second application and holding of the water for 60 days.

Additionally, two applications of 0.45 lb ai /A of glufosinate were made 14 days apart to a

flooded, non

- cropped paddy in California in late August. At bot h test sites, the plots were

maintained under static water conditions after flooding

, and the water was maintained at a depth

of 12 inches by the addition of water as ne eeded . P addie s were drained 60

- days after the second

application in Louisiana

, and 90

- days after the second application in California. At the

Louisiana site, the maximum concentration of glufosinate in the flood water was 31 μg/L ( 4 days

after the second application ). In California, the maximum concentration of glufosinate in the

flood wa ter was 96 μg/L ( on Day 0 after the second application ).

3.2.1.4

. Transformation Products

Major aerobic metabolism degradates of g lufosinate include MPP ( 3

- methylphosphinico

propionic acid )

, MPA ( 2

- methylphosphinico

- acetic acid )

, NAG ( 2

- acetamido

- 4

- methylphosphinico

- butanoic acid ) , and carbon dioxide (chemical names and structures are

tabulated in Table 3.4 ). Two minor degradates have also been identified, HOE 086486 [3

- methylphosphinico

- 3

- oxo

- propionic acid] and HOE 065594 [4

- methylph osphinico

- 2

- oxo

butanoic acid].

OPP’s Health Effects Division’s (HED) Residues of Concern Knowledgebase Subcommittee

(ROCKS) met i n January 2012 to re

- evaluate the inclusion of MPP, MPA, and NAG into the

drinking water assessment, as had been done in pr evious assessments. Per the recomme ndation

of the ROCKS, only MPP was retained as a degradate of concern in drinking water assessments

(DWA) for human health ; the ROCKS committee concluded that MPP is likely to have a lower

mammalian toxicity than glufosi nate, but that its toxicity wa s not low enough to exclude it from

consideration in the DWA

. However, t h e ecological exposure in this assessment wa s limited to

residues of parent glufosinate only because p revious exposure modeling of MPP indicated that

MPP EECs we re generally of the same order of magnitude as glufosinate EECs . Recently

reviewed ecotoxicity data with MPP, MPA, and NAG support the conclusion that these

compounds are generally equally or less toxic than parent glufosinate, although high

conce ntrations of MPA and MPP (up to 100 ,000 u g/L) in unbuffered aquatic test systems were

### - Page 24 of 135

- 

## associated with toxicity attributed to acidification (pH < 4) (see Section 3.3 ). Environmental

exposure to glufosinate degradates is not expected to reach these levels g iven that the highest

peak surface water EEC for parent glufosinate is 390 ug/L (based on use for rice seed

propagation), and EECs for most other uses are an order of magnitude lower ( see Table 3.9 ).

Table 3. 4

. Table of Transfo rmation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies

.

Common Name Chemical Name Study in Which Found

(Maximum % of Parent, or

equivalent) Reference

MRID

MPP



### 3

- methylphosphinico

propionic acid Soil photolysis (60%)

Aerobic soil (55%)

Anaerobic soil (42%)

Aerobic aquatic (80%) 41920102

40345659A

40501014

45204402/01

MPA



### 2

- methylphosphinico

acetic acid Aerobic soil (28%)

Aerobic aquatic (20%) 41323119

45204402/01

NAG



### 2

- acetamido

- 4

- methylphosphinico

butanoic acid Soil photolysis (18%) 41920102



## 3.2.2

. Measures of Aquatic Exposure

3.2.2. 1. Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Screening

- level EECs of glufosinate in surface water were generated based on maximum labeled

use rates ( Table 3.5) . As discussed in the problem formulation, simulations were conducted

using PRZM, ( v3.12.2, May 2005) and EXAMS ( v2.98.4.6, April 2005) coupled with the input

shell pe5.pl (August, 2007) . The PRZM model simulates transformation on and transport (via

runo ff and spray drift) from a field, of a pesticide following its application to a crop. The

EXAMS model simulates the subsequent fate of the pesticide in an adjacent receiving water

body. As routinely employed in ecological risk assessment, the receiving w ater body is assumed

to be a static, 1

- hectare pond of 2

- meter depth (the “standard pond”), into which a 10

- hectare

cropped field drains (USEPA 2009b ).

For rice applications, PFAM ( version 0.7 , September 2011 ) was used. The model simulates two

linked co mpartments: a water column and a sediment zone ( benth os) . Each compartment is

completely mixed and at internal equilibrium with respect to sorption of the chemical (USEPA,

2004). Pesticide moves between the compartments via a time

- limited, first

- order ma ss

- transfer

process. The model accounts for hydrolysis, photolysis, and metabolism in water, sediment, and

soil (when no water is present), sorption, and volatilization. Water, sediment, and pesticide may P H O

C H 3

O O H

O



### P H O

C H 3



### O O

O H

P H O

C H 3 O O

O H N H C H 3

O

### - Page 25 of 135

- 

## flow out of the flooded field. Changes in water body conditions (temperature, water levels, wind

speed, etc. ) and resulting changes in degradation rates occur on a daily time step. Pesticide

application and flooding sequences are mapped onto the time series in 1

- year cycles for the

length of a simula tion. As PFAM runs for rice applications had been recently completed for the

g lufosinate drinking water assessment (D387412 dated 5/30/2012), the results from those model

runs were used in this assessment.

Concentrations in ground water were derived with PRZM

- GW (version 1.0, June 28, 2012) using

GW

- GUI (version 1.0, June 28, 2012) and SCI

- GROW (version 2.3, July 29, 2003). PRZM

GW is a one

- dimensional, finite

- difference leaching model that accounts for pesticide fate in the

crop root zone by simulating transport and degradation through the soil profile after appli cation

to an agricultural field

. The model also estimates resulting concentrations of pesticide in

groundwater . PRZM

- GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up

to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known

to be vulnerable to groundwater contamination, were used with PRZM

- GW for risk assessment

purposes. The PRZM

- GW output values represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable

groundwater supply that is located directly beneath a rural agricultural field. The SCI

- GROW

model is a regression

- based screening tool also used to estimate pesticide concentrations found

in groundwater

. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90

- day average high

concentrations from Prospective Groundwater monitoring studies. The RILP is a function of

aerobic soil metabolism and the soil

- water partition coefficient. The output of SCI

- GROW

represents concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy

soils, representative of groundwater expected to be maximally vulnerable to pesticide

contamination.

3.2.2. 2

. Selection of Crop Scenarios

The scenario s listed in Table 3.5 are those currently approved for Tier II modeling which most

closely represent the labeled uses for glufosinate

. Scenario input parameters and application

methods are described in Appendix B. For use of glufosinate on fallow fields and noncrop

areas, as labels are vague on the maximum number of applications and maximum use amounts,

aquatic exposure were modeled based on estimated maximum use rates as well as registrant

submitted information on best agronomic practices.

3.2.2. 3

. Aquatic Modeling Inputs

Application parameters were chosen based on the likely method of application at the maximum

application rate as indicated in the proposed label instructions. Where retreatment interval s were

not specified on the proposed label s , a retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed. This duration

wa s estimated as the minimum amount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the

effects of the application, and determine if subsequent applications are required. Chemical

property and model input values ( Table 3. 6 ) were chosen according to the current Input

Parameter Guidance, ( USEPA 200 9). Based on EFED guidance, a erial spray of liquid

formulations are assumed to have 95% efficiency and 5% spray drift, and ground spray is

expected to have 99% efficiency and 1% spray drift. Based on th e proposed uses for glufosinate

,

### - Page 26 of 135

- 

## a variety of locations and PRZM/EXAMS scenarios were run to simulate national use of the

pesticide. Descriptions of how a pplication dates , application methods, and chemical application

methods ( CAMs ) were selected are provided in Appendix B

. Parameters used in rice modeling

with PFAM are also included in Appendix B

.

Table 3. 5

. Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure As sessment (PRZM/EXAMS)

Use 1 

### PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Single

Applic ation

Rate

(lbs. ai /A) No. of

Applic ation 1 

### Retreatment

Interval

(days) Applic ation

Start Date

(month/day)

Agricultural

Blueberry OR berries 1.50 2 3 1 

### 5/31

Canola ND canola 0.4 2 7 5/30

Citrus CA citrus 1.50 3 3 1 

### 6/1

FL citrus 6/1

Corn IA corn

0.4 2 14 6/24

IL corn 7/11

MS corn 6/16

NC corn 6/21

OH corn 7/14

PA corn 5/25

Cotton MS cotton 0.53 3 10 5/15

NC cotton 6/15

Grape vineyard CA grape

1.50 3 3 1 

### 2/15

CA wine grape 3/16

NY grape 6/16

Olives CA olives 1.50 3 3 1 

### 2/24

Pome fruit CA fruit

1.50 3 3 1 

### 2/23

NC apple 4/17

OR apple 4/25

PA apple 4/28

Potato vine dessication ID potato 0.38 1 NA 9/22

ME potato 10/12

Rice 2 

### PFAM 0.4 4 2 10

Soybean MS soybean 0.4 2 14 4/30

MS soybean 0.66 2 10 4/30

Stone fruit CA fruit

1.50 2 3 1 

### 2/23

GA peaches 4/7

MI cherries 6/3

Sugarbeet MN sugarbeet 0.55 2 3 1 

### 5/30

Tree nuts CA almond

1.50 3 3 1 

### 4/24

GA pecans 7/4

OR filberts 3/23

Seed Propagation

Corn MS corn 0.52 2 3 1 

### 6/16

Cotton MS cotton 0.52 2 3 1 

### 5/15

Rice 2 

### PFAM 0.73 2 10

Soybean MS soybean 0.52 2 3 1 

### 4/30

Burndown

Canola ND canola 0.66 1 NA 4/16

Corn IA corn 0.66 1 NA 4/25

### - Page 27 of 135

- Use 1 

### PRZM/EXAMS

Scenario Single

Applic ation

Rate

(lbs. ai /A) No. of

Applic ation 1 

### Retreatment

Interval

(days) Applic ation

Start Date

(month/day)

IL corn 4/1

MS corn 3/11

NC corn 3/16

OH corn 4/1

PA corn 3/17

Cotton (preplant) MS cotton 0.79 4 

### 2 10 4/1

NC cotton 5/2

Cotton (postharvest) MS cotton 0.79 4 

### 2 10 9/29

NC cotton 8/8

Rice PFAM 0.66 1 NA

Soybean MS soybean 0.66 1 NA 3/16

Sugar beet MN sugarbeet 0.66 1 NA 4/16

Non

- agricultural 3



### Conifer/hardwood trees

- Scenario 1 CA Forestry 1.5 3 3 1 

### 6/1

- Scenario 2 CA Forestry 0.3 3 3 1 

### 6/1

Fallow field

- EFED MS Cotton 0.53 26 7 1 

### 3/21

- Registrant MS Cotton 0.4 5 10 3/21

Lawns/gardens CA residential &

CA impervious 1.36 26 7 1 

### 3/21

Farmstead / Noncrop areas

- EFED CA right

- of

- way &

CA impervious 1.5 26 7 1 

### 3/21

- Registrant 1.5 2 10 3/21

1

. In some instances, t he retreatment interval or maximum use rate was not specified on the proposed label, so a

retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed. This is estimated as the minimum amount of time necessary to apply

the pesticide, evaluate the effects of the application, and determine if subsequent applications are required. Where

the m aximum annual use is not specified, the product was assumed to be applied 26 times with an RTI of 7 days

. 2. For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A was

applied to a flooded 8

- inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7

- day holding period. For modeling applications for

rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A was applied, the first

application to a dry field, the second application to a 4

- inch f looded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 55

- day

holding period.

3. See scenario descriptions for assumed application rates and RTIs.

4. The first application is at 0.79 lbs ai/A, while the second application is at 0.53 lbs ai/A.

### - Page 28 of 135

- Table 3. 6

. Environmental Fate Data Used for Aquatic Exposure Inputs in Glufosinate Ecological Exposure

Assessment.

Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Molecular weight (g/mol) 198.2

Vapor pressure ( torr @ 25 oC) 7.5E

- 9 MRID 44032901

Solubility in water (mg/L @ 20oC) 1.37 x 10 6 Accsn # 00263025

Hydrolysis half

- life ( t 1⁄2 in days) pH 5: stable ( 0 )

pH 7: stable ( 0 )

pH 9: stable ( 0 ) MRID 40345656 (no degradation)

Aqueous Photolysis half

- life ( t 1⁄2 in

days) 0 MRID 41323115 (no degradation)

Aerobic Soil metabolism half

- life ( t 1⁄2

in days) 19 MRIDs 41323119 and 40345659A. Represents the

90 th percentile uppe r

- bound confidence limit on the

mean ( t 1⁄2 = 15) of 6 aerobic soil metabolism half

- life

values. 1

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism half

life ( t 1⁄2 in days) 1245 MRID 46258601. 3 times the anaerobic aquatic half

life. 1

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism half

- life

( t 1⁄2 in days) 63 MRIDs 40345660 and 45204402/01. Represents the

90 th percentile upper

- bound confidence limt on the

mean ( t 1⁄2 = 39) of 5 aerobic aquatic metabolism h alf

life values. 1

Organic carbon normalized soil

partition coefficient K

oc (mL/g

oc ) 296.5 MRID 40345662. Average of three K

oc values.

Henry’s Law Constant ( atm

- m 3 /mol) 1.43E

- 12 Calculated from vapor pressure and solubility where

HENRY = (VAPR/760)/(SOL/MWT),

Decay rate on foliage (day

- 1 ) 0 No foliar data available, assumed stable (0)

Foliar extrcation (cm

- 1 ) 0.5 Default wash off rate constant.



### Accsn #

- Accession Number.

1 

### EFED input parameter guidance is located at

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm



## Exposure concentrations in groundwater were estimated using SCI

- GROW and PRZM

- GW

using the parameters provided in Tables 3. 7 and 3. 8

. Model runs were conducted for the

maximum agricultural foliar application ( citrus ; 3 applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A) and

nonagricultural foliar application ( fallow fields ; 11 applications at 0.53 lbs ai/ A).

Table 3. 7

. PRZM

- GW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate.

Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Hydrolysis half

- life ( t 1⁄2 in days) 0 MRID 40345656 (no degradation)

Surface Soil Metabolism half

- life ( t 1⁄2

in days) 19 MRIDs 41323119 and 40345659A. Represents the

90 th percentile upper

- bound confidence limit on the

mean ( t 1⁄2 = 15) of 6 aerobic soil metabolism half

- life

values. 1

Sorption coefficient K

oc (mL/g

oc ) 296.5 MRID 40345662. Average of three K

oc values.

Application scenarios Citrus (1. 5 lb ai / A x 3,

RTI = 3 days)

Fallow fields (0.5 3 lb

ai / A x 11, RTI = 7 days) Maximum use rate scenarios that were chosen for

groundwater assessment. The number of

applications for fallow fields was reduced from 26 to

11, as this is the maximum number of applications

allowed in PRZM

- GW. See discussion above for

first application dates.

### - Page 29 of 135

- Input Parameter Value Source/comment

Groundwater scenarios FL citrus

FL potato

GA peanut

NC cotton

DELMARVA sweet corn

WI corn Six standard scenarios in PRZM

- GW designed to

generate conservative groundwater estimates for

vulnerable areas.

1 

### EFED input parameter guidance is located at: :

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

Table 3. 8

. SCI

- GROW Groundwater Chemical Input Parameters for Glufosinate.

Input Parameter Value Source

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Half

- life (days) 14.7 MRIDs 41323118, 40345659A

Median of 6 value s per EFED guidance

. 1



### Organic Carbon Normalized

Partition Coefficient K F OC 

### 16.5 MRID 40345662, Three K FOC 

### values

showed greater than 3

- fold variation; used

lowest value per EFED guidance

. 1



### Application Rate Citrus = 1.5 lbs ai /A

Fallow fields = 0.53 lb ai /A 

### Label

Maximum No. of

Applications/Year Citrus = 3

Fallow fields = 11 

### Label

. The number of applications for fallow

fields was reduced from 26 to 11, as this is the

maximum number of applications allowed in

PRZM

- GW. See discussion above for first

application dates.

1 

### EFED input parameter guidance is located at: :

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm



## 3.2.2.4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations in Surface

W ater

The EECs listed in Table 3. 9 reflect 1

- in

- 10 year surface water concentrations based on

maximum application rates for labeled uses of glufosinate. For conifer/hardwood tree, fallow

field, and farmstead/noncrop area uses, where the maximum number of applications and

minimum retreatme nt intervals are not specified on the existing labels, typical use information

provided by the registrant (email from K. Cain, Bayer Cropscience to K. Weyrauch, USEPA,

June 4, 2012) is used to calculate EECs for comparison to the screening level EECs using

maximum application rates and default assumptions. The typical use information for these

scenarios is reportedly based on best professional judgment of the submitter.

I n some cases

, f ormulated glufosinate is more toxic than the technical grade active in gredient.

As such, peak exposure estimates from spray drift alone were developed ( i.e. , by setting the

application efficiency in the respective PRZM/EXAMS runs to 0) to charact erize the potential

for acute risk to aquatic organisms from formulated product ( Table 3. 9 )

. Chronic exposure

concentrations resulting from spray drift of the formulation were not calculated. The

components of a formulation have different fate and transport properties, which result in changes

to the mixture as a function of time, s uch that only a peak concentration for the formulated

product can be estimated.

### - Page 30 of 135

- 

## For aquatic invertebrates that may potentially be exposed to sediment in rice paddies, PFAM

provides daily values of the pore water concentration. The 90 th 

## percentile of the annual

maximum daily pore water concentrations was estimated for agricultural and seed propagation

uses of glufosinate on rice. Pore water concentrations ranged from 0.0004 to 0.00007 ug/L.

Table 3. 9

. Surfac e Water EECs for Labeled Uses of G lufosinate

.

Use (s) App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) Scenario App

. Method 1

- in

10

year

Peak

EECs

(μg/L) Peak EECs

Spray Drift

Only 1



### (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

21

- day

average

(μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day

average

(μg/L)

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 OR berries Ground 3.29 NA 2.97 2.66

Canola 0.44 ND canola Aerial 6.97 NA 5.90 5.13

Citrus 1.50 FL citrus Ground 60.6 2.42 45. 3 32. 2

Corn 0.44 MS corn Aerial 17. 6 NA 13. 6 9.84

Cotton 0.53 MS cotton Aerial 21. 2 NA 18. 2 1 4.0

Grape

vineyard 1.50 NY grape Ground 20. 2 NA 1 8.0 16.1

Olives 1.50 CA olives Ground 2.80 NA 2.48 1.96

Pome fruit 1.50 NC apple Ground 20. 7 NA 18.4 1 5.0

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 ME potato Aerial 3.69 NA 3.38 3.09

Rice 2 

### 0.44 PFAM Aerial 375 NA 33 5 274

Soybean 0.66 MS soybean Aerial 16.3 NA 1 3.0 10.5

Stone fruit 1.50 MI cherries Ground 11. 5 NA 10. 1 8.24

Sugarbeet 0.55 MN sugarbeet Aerial 7.30 NA 6.17 5.04

Tree nuts 1.50 GA pecans Ground 74.7 2.47 54. 6 37. 3

Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 MS corn Aerial 20.7 NA 16.0 11.6

Cotton 0.52 MS cotton Aerial 23.0 NA 19.9 15.0

Rice 3 

### 0.73 PFAM Aerial 390 NA 348 285

Soybean 0.52 MS soybean Aerial 16.2 NA 14.4 11.1

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 ND canola Aerial 6.73 NA 6.16 5.34

Corn 0.66 MS corn Aerial 15. 6 NA 12.7 9.88

Cotton

(pre

- plant) 0.79 MS cotton Aerial 48. 5 3.55 32.5 23.8

Cotton

(post

harvest) 0.79 MS cotton Aerial 29. 9 3.55 25.3 19.1

Rice 0.66 PFAM Aerial 74 .0 NA 66 .0 54 .0

Soybean 0.66 MS soybean Aerial 11.6 NA 10.2 8.41

Sugar beet 0.66 MN sugarbeet Aerial 5.37 NA 4.90 4.25

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood

trees 1.5 0

CA Forestry Aerial 15.4 NA 14.2 12.6

0.30 5 

### 4.36 NA 4.02 3.61

Fallow

field 0.53 MS Cotton Aerial 69.8 14.74 57.5 51.7

0.4 0 5 

### 11.8 NA 9.64 7.08

Lawns/ 1.36 CA residential 

### Ground 7.26 NA 57.5 51.7

### - Page 31 of 135

- Use (s) App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) Scenario App

. Method 1

- in

10

year

Peak

EECs

(μg/L) Peak EECs

Spray Drift

Only 1



### (μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

21

- day

average

(μg/L) 1

- in

- 10

- year

60

- day

average

(μg/L)

gardens CA impervious



### Farmstead/

noncrop

areas 4 

### 1.5 0 CA right

- of

- way

CA impervious 

### Ground 10.6 NA 9.78 9.18

1.50 5 

### 9.08 NA 8.31 7.41

Abbreviations: App. 

### Application. NA 

### Not applicable. PFAM 

### Pesticide Flooded Application Model

1 

### Surface water EECs from spray drift only were calculated to better characterize potential risk to aquatic organisms

from exposu re to the end

- use product (EP). Spray drift EECs were calculated only for the uses (other than rice )

which resulted in the highest peak surface water EECs (PRZM/EXAMS) for spray drift and runoff combined. T he

use of these values is discussed further in the Risk Description ( Section 4.2 ).

2 

### For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions we re used: two applications of 0.44 lb s ai/A w ere

applied to a flooded 8

- inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 da ys and a 7

- day holding period.

3 

### For modeling applications for rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73

lb s ai/A w ere applied, the first application to a dry field, the second application to a 4

- inch flooded paddy, with a

RTI of 10 days and a 55

- day holding period.

4 

### EECs are reported for the highest percent treated area for residential (50%) and right

- of

- way (25%) uses.

5 

### Typical use rate scenarios provided by registrant.



## 3.2.2.5. Monitoring Data

Glufosinate is included as one of the analytes monitored in U.S. surface and groundwater under

the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA) program

( http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa ). In surface water, glufosinate was detected as recoverable, filtered

glufosinate (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) a total of 6 times out of 1,150 samples

, at a maximum

concentra tion of 3. 23 μg/L. In groundwater , glufosinate was detected as recoverable, filtered

glufosinate (0.7 micron glass fiber filter) a total of 6 times out of 827 samples, at a maximum

concentra tion 4.49 μg/L. Data from the California Department of Pesticide Regulation’s

(CDPR) indicate that 14 s urface water samples were collected from the San Joaquin River and

analyzed for glufosinate, and all results were below the detection limit of 0.02 μg/L

. Sediment

samples were no t collected. It should be noted that there is uncertainty in t he specific use

patterns ( e.g., application rates and timing, crops) associated with the agricultural areas where

the monitoring occurred. While they are assumed to be representative of potenti al g lufosinate use

areas , the monitored concentrations may not be representative of the maximum application rates,

use sites or meteorological conditions used in the aquatic modeling scenarios

.

3.2.2. 6

. Estimated Groundwater Concentrations

PRZM

- GW conce ntration estimates for vulnerable areas were great er than corresponding

estimates generated using SCI

- GROW, so they were used in this assessment. For groundwater

used as irrigation water, the estimated concentration of glufosinate using PRZM

- GW for

applic ations to citrus is 21.4 μg/L

, and the estimated concentration for fallow field applications is

26.4 μg/L. E stimated concentration s for application to citrus and fallow fields using SCI

- GROW

are 1.04 μg/L and 1.35 μg/L , respectively

. All t hese estimate s represent concentrations that

### - Page 32 of 135

- 

## might be expected in shallow, unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which are expected to be

most vulnerable to pesticide contamination.

3.2.3. Measures of Terrestrial Exposure

3.2.3.1

. Ingestion of Surface Residues by Birds and Mammals

Terrestrial wildlife exposure estimates are typically calculated for birds and mammals by

e mphasizing the dietary exposure route of uptake of pesticide active ingredients. These

exposures are considered to be surrogates for exposures to terrestrial

- phase amphibians and

reptiles. For exposure s to terrestrial organisms

, such as birds and mammals, pesticide residues

on food items are estimated based on the assumption that organisms are exposed to pesticide

residues as a function of the pes ticide use pattern. For glufosinate , application methods for the

registered uses include broadcast, banded, and directed spray of liquid formulations for all crops,

and aerial spray for burndown applications and to crops that have been genetically modified

( e.g. , canola, corn, cotton, rice, sugarbeets, and soybeans) for resistance to glufosinate

. Therefore , potential dietary exposure for terrestrial wildlife in this assessment is based on

consumption of g lufosinate residues on food items following spray applications.

T

- REX (v. 1. 5 ) is used to calculate dietary and dose

- based EECs of glufosinate residues on food

items for mammals and birds generated by spray applications for the labeled uses . Input values

for deriving EECs using T

- REX are located in Table 3.10 . Upper

- bound Kenaga nomogram

values are used to derive EECs for g lufosinate exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds ( Table

3.11 ) , based on a 1

- year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feedin g

strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. D ose

- based

exposures are estimated for three weight classes of birds (20 g , 100 g , and 1000 g) and three

weight classes of mammals (15 g , 35 g , and 1000 g).

Table 3. 10

. Input Parameters for Deriving Screening

- Level Terrestri al EECs for Glufosinate ( T

- REX v. 1.5 )

.

Use (s) Maximum

Single App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) Minimum Reapplication

Interval (days) Maximum

No. of App. 1 

### Foliar

Dissipation

Half

- Life

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3 2 

### 2

35 3 

### Canola 0.44 7 2

Citrus 1.50 3 2 

### 3

Corn 0.44 14 2

Cotton 0.53 10 3

Grape vineyard 1.50 3 2 

### 3

Olives 1.50 3 2 

### 3

Pome fruit 1.50 3 2 

### 3

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 NA 1

Rice 2 

### 0.44 10 2

Soybean 0.66 10 2

Stone fruit 1.50 3 2 

### 2

Sugarbeet 0.55 3 2 

### 2

Tree nuts 1.50 3 2 

### 3

### - Page 33 of 135

- Use (s) Maximum

Single App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) Minimum Reapplication

Interval (days) Maximum

No. of App. 1 

### Foliar

Dissipation

Half

- Life

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 3 2 

### 2

35 3 

### Cotton 0.52 3 2 

### 2

Rice 3 

### 0.73 10 2

Soybean 0.52 3 2 

### 2

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 NA 1

35 3 

### Corn 0.66 NA 1

Cotton (pre

- plant) 0.79 10 2

Cotton (post

- harvest) 0.79 10 2

Rice 0.66 NA 1

Soybean 0.66 NA 1

Sugar beet 0.66 NA 1

Non

- agricultural Uses 4



### Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.5 0 3 2 

### 3

35 3 

### Fallow field 0.53 3 2 

### 26 5



### Lawns/

gardens 1.36 3 2 

### 26 5



### Farmstead/noncrop

areas 1.5 0 3 2 

### 26 5



### Abbreviations: App. 

### Application(s). GMO 

### Genetically modified organism. NA 

### Not applicable.

1 

### The maximum number of applications at the maximum single application rate, based on the maximum annual

application rate. Values are rounded up to the next hi gher integer.

2 

### The retreatment interval was not specified on the proposed label, so a retreatment interval of 3 days was assumed

for terrestrial exposure modeling, consistent with previous glufosinate risk assessments . This is estimated as the

minimum am ount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the effects of the application, and determine if

subsequent applications are required. Note that terrestrial and aquatic exposure modeling in this assessment

arbitrarily used different default values for retreatment intervals; the PRZM surface water default is 7 days.

3 

### The default foliar dissipation half

- life value of 35 days is used in the absence of foliar dissipation data.

4 

### T ypical application rate information (in Table 3.9 ) is not used for screening

- level calculations of terrestrial

exposure but is used in refinements presented in Section 4.2

. 5 

### For the screening

- level terrestrial risk assessment, when a maximum annual application rate or maximum number

of applications is not specified on t he label, a default maximum value of 26 applications per year is assumed unless

otherwise specified

.



## Differences in exposures between ground and aerial applications cannot be assessed with the

current T

- REX model ; exposure and risk estimates from the T

- REX model are considered

relevant to both application scenarios. Other u ncertainties in the terrestrial EECs are primarily

associated with a lack of data on interception and subsequent dissipation from foliar surfaces.

Foliar dissipation data specific to glufosinate ( e.g.

, Willis and McDowell 1987) are not available

and magnitude of residue data, submitted under OCSPP Guideline 860.1500, have been deemed

inappropriate for use, usually because the studies are missing residue values for Day 0. When

data are absent, as in this case, EFED assumes a default 35

- day foliar dissipation half life, based

on the work of Willis and McDowell (1987). Similarly, when the maximum annual application

rate or maximum number of application s is not specified on the label, the screening

- level

assessment assumes a default maximum value of 26 applications per ye a r (corresponding to the

maximum number of reapplications that can be modeled for aquatic EECs using currently

### - Page 34 of 135

- 

## available tools) , unless otherwise specified. When the m inimum retreatment interval (RTI) is not

specified on the label, a default RTI of three days is assumed for terrestrial modeling, which is

assumed to be the minimum amount of time necessary to apply the pesticide, evaluate the effects

of the application, a nd determine if subsequent applications are required. As shown in Table s

3.11 through 3.13 , the absence of a label restriction on cumulative annual applications results in

EECs for lawn

- and

- garden and farmstead/noncrop area uses that are approximately fou r times

higher than other uses with the same maximum single application rate (1.5 lbs ai/A). An

example output from the T

- REX model is provided in Appendix D

.

### - Page 35 of 135

- Table 3. 11

. Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- Phase Amphibians from Labeled Uses

of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5 )

. Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 796 365 448 50 454 208 255 28 203 93 114 13 312 178 80 11 6 3

Canola 225 103 127 14 128 59 72 8 57 26 32 4 88 50 23 3 2 1

Citrus 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

Corn 211 97 119 13 121 55 68 8 54 25 30 3 83 47 21 3 2 1

Cotton 361 166 203 23 206 94 116 13 92 42 52 6 141 81 36 5 3 1

Grape vineyard 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

Olives 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

Pome fruit 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

Potato vine

dessication 104 48 58 6 59 27 33 4 27 12 15 2 41 23 10 1 1 <1

Rice 219 100 123 14 125 57 70 8 56 26 31 3 86 49 22 3 2 1

Soybean 328 151 185 21 187 86 105 12 84 38 47 5 129 73 33 5 3 1

Stone fruit 796 365 448 50 454 208 255 28 203 93 114 13 312 178 80 11 6 3

Sugarbeet 292 134 164 18 167 76 94 10 75 34 42 5 114 65 29 4 2 1

Tree nuts 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 276 127 155 17 157 72 89 10 70 32 40 4 108 62 28 4 2 1

Cotton 276 127 155 17 157 72 89 10 70 32 40 4 108 62 28 4 2 1

### - Page 36 of 135

- Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Rice 363 166 204 23 207 95 117 13 93 43 52 6 142 81 36 5 3 1

Soybean 276 127 155 17 157 72 89 10 70 32 40 4 108 62 28 4 2 1

Burndown Uses

Canola 180 83 101 11 103 47 58 6 46 21 26 3 71 40 18 3 1 1

Corn 180 83 101 11 103 47 58 6 46 21 26 3 71 40 18 3 1 1

Cotton (pre

- plant) 393 180 221 25 224 103 126 14 100 46 56 6 154 88 39 5 3 1

Cotton (post

harvest) 393 180 221 25 224 103 126 14 100 46 56 6 154 88 39 5 3 1

Rice 180 83 101 11 103 47 58 6 46 21 26 3 71 40 18 3 1 1

Soybean 180 83 101 11 103 47 58 6 46 21 26 3 71 40 18 3 1 1

Sugar beet 180 83 101 11 103 47 58 6 46 21 26 3 71 40 18 3 1 1

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1160 

### 532 653 73 662 303 372 41 296 136 167 19 455 259 116 16 9 4

Fallow field 1976 

### 905 1111 

### 123 1127 

### 516 634 71 504 231 284 32 774 441 198 27 16 7

Lawns/

gardens 5070 2324 2852 

### 317 2891 

### 1325 1626 181 1294 593 728 81 1986 1132 507 70 40 18

Farmstead/noncrop

areas 5591 2563 3145 

### 349 3188 

### 1461 1793 199 1428 654 803 89 2190 1249 559 78 44 20

### - Page 37 of 135

- Table 3. 12 . Screening

- level Dose

- based EECs (mg/kg bw) as Food Residues for Mammals from Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5 ).

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivore s and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 667 306 375 42 461 211 259 29 107 49 60 7 261 180 42 9 6 1

Canola 188 86 106 12 130 60 73 8 30 14 17 2 74 51 12 3 2 < 1

Citrus 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

Corn 177 81 100 11 122 56 49 8 28 13 16 2 69 48 11 2 2 <1

Cotton 302 139 170 19 209 96 118 13 48 22 27 3 118 82 19 4 3 1

Grape vineyard 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

Olives 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

Pome fruit 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

Potato vine

dessication 87 40 49 5 60 28 34 4 14 6 8 1 34 24 5 1 1 <1

Rice 183 84 103 11 127 58 71 8 39 13 17 2 72 50 12 3 2 <1

Soybean 275 126 155 17 190 87 107 12 44 20 25 3 108 74 17 4 3 1

Stone fruit 667 306 375 42 461 211 259 29 107 49 60 7 261 180 42 9 6 1

Sugarbeet 244 112 138 15 169 77 95 11 39 18 22 2 96 66 15 3 2 1

Tree nuts 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 231 106 130 14 160 73 90 10 37 17 21 2 91 63 15 3 2 1

Cotton 231 106 130 14 160 73 90 10 37 17 21 2 91 63 15 3 2 1

Rice 304 139 171 19 210 96 118 13 49 22 27 3 119 82 19 4 3 1

### - Page 38 of 135

- Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivore s and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Small Med Large Small Med Large Small Med Large

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Soybean 231 106 130 14 160 73 90 10 37 17 21 2 91 63 15 3 2 1

Burndown Uses

Canola 151 69 85 9 104 48 59 7 24 11 14 2 59 41 9 2 1 <1

Corn 151 69 85 9 104 48 59 7 24 11 14 2 59 41 9 2 1 <1

Cotton (pre

- plant) 329 151 185 21 227 104 128 14 53 24 30 3 129 89 21 5 3 1

Cotton (post

harvest) 329 151 185 21 227 104 128 14 53 24 30 3 129 89 21 5 3 1

Rice 151 69 85 9 104 48 59 7 24 11 14 2 59 41 9 2 1 <1

Soybean 151 69 85 9 104 48 59 7 24 11 14 2 59 41 9 2 1 <1

Sugar beet 151 69 85 9 104 48 59 7 24 11 14 2 59 41 9 2 1 <1

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 971 445 546 61 671 308 378 42 156 71 88 10 380 263 61 13 9 2

Fallow field 1653 

### 758 930 103 1143 

### 524 643 71 265 121 149 17 648 448 104 23 16 4

Lawns/

gardens 4244 1945 2387 

### 265 2933 

### 1344 1650 183 680 312 383 43 1662 1149 266 59 41 9

Farmstead/noncrop

areas 4681 2145 2633 

### 293 3235 

### 1483 1820 202 750 344 422 47 1833 1267 294 65 45 10

### - Page 39 of 135

- Table 3. 13 . Screening

- level Dietary

- based EECs (mg/kg diet) as Food Residues for Birds, Reptiles,

Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians, and Mammals from Labe led Uses of Glufosinate (T

- REX v. 1.5 ).

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 699 320 393 44 274



### Canola 198 91 111 12 77



### Citrus 1019 467 573 64 399



### Corn 186 85 104 12 73



### Cotton 317 145 178 20 124



### Grape vineyard 1019 467 573 64 399



### Olives 1019 467 573 64 399



### Pome fruit 1019 467 573 64 399



### Potato vine dessication 91 42 51 6 36



### Rice 192 88 108 12 75



### Soybean 288 132 162 18 113



### Stone fruit 699 320 393 44 274



### Sugarbeet 256 118 144 16 100



### Tree nuts 1019 467 573 64 399



### GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 242 111 136 15 95



### Cotton 242 111 136 15 95



### Rice 319 146 179 20 125



### Soybean 242 111 136 15 95



### Burndown Uses

Canola 158 73 89 10 62



### Corn 158 73 89 10 62



### Cotton (pre

- plant) 345 158 194 22 135



### Cotton (post

- harvest) 345 158 194 22 135



### Rice 158 73 89 10 62



### Soybean 158 73 89 10 62



### Sugar beet 158 73 89 10 62



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1019 467 573 64 399

### - Page 40 of 135

- Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Fallow field 1735 795 976 108 679



### Lawns/

gardens 4451 2040 2504 278 1743



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 4909 2250 2762 307 1923



## 3.2.3. 2

. Runoff and Spray Drift to Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic

Plants

Exposure of nontarget terrestrial and semi

- aquatic (wetland) plant species is estimated using

OPP’s TerrPlant (v

. 1.2.2 ) model. Loading via spray drift to dry, nontarget , adjacent areas is

assumed to occur from one acre of treated land to one acre of the nontarget area. Runoff is also

expected to be a source of pesticide loading to nontarget areas. TerrPlant calculates EECs as a

function of application rate, solubility

, and default assumptions regarding spray drift. The

default spray drift assumptions are 1% of the application rate for ground spray applications and

5% for aerial spray applications (USEPA 2006b)

. Aerial spray is considered unlikely to be used

as an application method for glufosinate except in the case of burndown applications and

potentially for in

- field applications to genetically modified (glufosinate

- resistant) row crops.

The EECs for terrestrial and semi

- aquatic plants for a single application of glufosinate at the

maximum label ed rate s for repres entative uses are presented in Table 3

. 1 1 (see example output

in Appendix E ).

Table 3. 14 . EECs for Terrestrial and Semi

- Aquatic Plants Near Glufosinate Use Areas (TerrPlant v. 1.2.2)

.

Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) EECs (lbs ai /A)

Spray Drift Only Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas )

Ground

spray Aerial

spray Ground

spray Aerial

spray Ground

spray Aerial

spray

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

Canola 0.44 0.004 NA 0.026 NA 0.224 NA

Citrus 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

Corn 0.44 0.004 NA 0.026 NA 0.224 NA

Cotton 0.53 0.005 NA 0.032 NA 0.270 NA

Grape vineyard 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

Olives 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

### - Page 41 of 135

- Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) EECs (lbs ai /A)

Spray Drift Only Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas )

Ground

spray Aerial

spray Ground

spray Aerial

spray Ground

spray Aerial

spray

Pome fruit 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 0.004 NA 0.023 NA 0.194 NA

Rice 0.44 0.004 NA 0.026 NA 0.224 NA

Soybean 0.66 0.007 NA 0.040 NA 0.337 NA

Stone fruit 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

Sugarbeet 0.55 0.006 NA 0.033 NA 0.281 NA

Tree nuts 1.50 0.015 NA 0.090 NA 0.765 NA

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 0.005 NA 0.031 NA 0.265 NA

Cotton 0.52 0.005 NA 0.031 NA 0.265 NA

Rice 0.73 0.007 NA 0.044 NA 0.372 NA

Soybean 0.52 0.005 NA 0.031 NA 0.265 NA

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 0.007 0.033 0.040 0.066 0.337 0.363

Corn 0.66 0.007 0.033 0.040 0.066 0.337 0.363

Cotton (pre

- plant) 0.79 0.008 0.040 0.047 0.079 0.403 0.435

Cotton (post

harvest) 0.79 0.008 0.040 0.047 0.079 0.403 0.435

Rice 0.66 0.007 0.033 0.040 0.066 0.337 0.363

Soybean 0.66 0.007 0.033 0.040 0.066 0.337 0.363

Sugar beet 0.66 0.007 0.033 0.040 0.066 0.337 0.363

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.50 0.015 0.075 0.09 0.150 0.765 0.825

Fallow field 0.53 0.005 0.027 0.032 0.053 0.270 0.292

Lawns/

gardens 1.36 0.014 NA 0.082 NA 0.694 NA

Farmstead/noncrop

areas 1.50 0.015 0.075 0.09 0.150 0.765 0.825

NA 

## Not applicable.

### - Page 42 of 135

- 

## 3.3

. Ecological Effects Characterization

The ecological effects characterization for glufosinate is based up on registrant

- submitted toxicity

data for the TGAI ( racemic mixture of the parent compound ) and for specified formulations

. Appendix I lists these studies

, their review classifications

, and associated deficiencies. The

ecotoxicity data for glufosinate and its associated products have been reviewed previously in

multiple eco logical risk assessments ( e.g., USEPA 2006, 2002, 2000 ) and in a Preliminary

Problem Formulation for Registration Review (USEPA 2008). These data are summarized

briefly in Sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2

. Various studies with terrestrial and aquatic plant s, bird s, and

aquatic animals exposed to either the TGAI or formulated glufosinate have been received since

the Problem Formulation was issued; the results of these studies are described briefly in this

section

. Ecotoxicity data recently submitted for glufosinat e degradates indicate that these

degradates are generally equally or less toxic than parent glufosinate.

T he results of a 201 2 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described

in Section 3.3.3 ( USEPA 20 12 )

. A search of t he ECOTOXicology database o n April 12, 2012,

yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the

registrant

- submitted g uideline studies described below

.

3.3.1. Aquatic Toxicity Assessment

A summary of the most sensitive aquatic toxicity data for glufosinate , based on a current Agency

review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.1 5 through Table 3. 21 and discussed further

in Sections 3.3.1.1 through 3.3.1.5

. The available data indicate that glufosinate TGAI is

practically non

- toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish and freshwater invertebrates and is

moderately toxic to estuarine/marine inverteb rates, including mollusc s , on an acute exposure

basis. Formulated glufosinate ranges from slightly toxic to highly toxic to freshwater and

estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates on an acute exposure basis. Glufosinate degradates are

generally less toxic than parent glufosinate

, although results of chronic aquatic toxicity tests with

glufosinate degradates are variable. For example, non

- guideline chronic toxicity data with

rainbow trout associated MPP exposure with increased wet weight at a concentration (49,000 ug

MPP/L)

, slightly lower than the chronic NOAEC for the TGAI (50,000 ug ai/L) based on

survival. However, the NOAEC for growth inhibition based on exposure to formulated

glufosinate (830 ug ai/L) was considerably lower than the NOAEC for the TGA I or for MPP (see

Table 3.16 ). P arental mortality and reproductive effects (see Table 3.18 ) were observed in a

daphnid chronic toxicity test conducted with MPP in 1999 (MRID 48301103), but these effects

were not reproduced when the study was repeated in 2 008 (MRID 48301102).

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

In two 96

- hour acute static toxicity studies, rainbow trout ( Oncorhynchus mykiss ; MRID

001424 54) and pumpkinseed sunfish ( Lepomis gibbosus ; MRID 001424 55) were exposed to

glufosinate TGAI (97.4% ai ) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 97

, 4 00 , 175, 000, and

312 ,000 ug ai /L . No mortality or other adverse effects were observed in either test . The 96

- h our

LC 50 

## value for g lufosinate , adjusted for purity, w as > 312 ,000 ug ai /L

. Based on these results

,

### - Page 43 of 135

- 

## g lufosinate technical is classified as practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure

basis.

In a 96

- h our static toxicity test, bluegill sunfish ( Lepomis ma crochirus ; MRID 001443 38) were

exposed to formulated glufosinate (19% ai , HOE 39866 ) a t 14 nominal concentrations ranging

from 34 0 to 14 ,000 ug ai /L, plus a control. There was 100% mortality at the highest

concentration within 24 hrs, and there was 30% mortality in the second highest concentration at

48 hrs. Observations o f sublethal effects were not reported . The LC 50 

## value for this study , based

on mortality and adjusted for purity, w as 12 ,000 (95% CL 10 ,000

– 14 ,000 ) u g ai /L.

A second 96

- hour, acute toxicity test using bluegill sunfish exposed to formulated glufosinate

(16.22% ai , Ignite) was conducted at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 1

, 6 00 , 2

, 2 00 , 2

, 9 00

, 3

, 9 00 , 5

, 2 00 , 6

, 8 00 , 9

, 1 00 , 12 ,000 , and 16 ,000 ug ai /L (MRID 00159914) . There was 100%

mortality in the two highest concentrations after 24 hrs. No other clinical signs were reported.

The LC 50 

## value for formulated glufosinate, adjusted for purity, was 11 ,000 (95% CL : 9

, 1 00

–

12 ,000 ) u g ai /L

.

A 72

- hour, static toxicity test with formulated glufosinate (16.22% ai

, Ignite ) was conducted

with rainbow trout (MRID 00159913). Rainbow trout were exposed at nominal concentrations

of 0 (control), 91 0 , 1

, 6 00

, 2

, 9 00

, 5

, 2 00

, 9

, 1 00

, and 1 6 ,000 ug ai /L

. T here was 100% mortality in

the two highest concentrations after 48 hrs. There was 10% mortality at the 5

, 2 00 u g ai /L

concentration after 48 hrs, and by 72 hrs, there was 80% mortality. Signs of toxicity at the 5

, 2 00

u g ai/L concentration included surface and head

- down swimming

, darting movements, and slow

reaction to stimuli. The calculated LC 50 

## value for formulated glufosinate , adjusted for purity,

w as 4

, 3 00 (95% CL 2

, 9 00

– 9

, 1 00 ) u g ai /L. Based on this stud y , formulated glufosinate is

classified as moderately toxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure basis

.

Table 3. 15

. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its Degradates

.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) LC 50 

### (u g/L) 1,2



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID)

Rainbow trout

( Oncoryhncus

mykiss ) 96

- hour, static TGAI (97.4%) > 3 12,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(00142454)

72

- hour, static EP (16.22%) 4,300

(2, 9 00

– 9,100 ) 3 

### Moderately toxic

(00159913)

96

- hour, static MPP (99.6%) >100,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(48444805)

96

- hour, static disodium salt of MPA (98.9%) >98,900

(NA) No more than

slightly toxic 4



### (48444806)

96

- hour, static L

- isomer of NAG ( 92.9% purity;

sum of D+ and L

- enantiomers is

34.4% w/w) >100,900

(NA) Practically

nontoxic 5



### (48444807)

96

- hour, static dinatrium salt of MPF ( 97.5%) >102,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(48444808)

### - Page 44 of 135

- Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) LC 50 

### (u g/L) 1,2



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID)

Bluegill sunfish

( Lepomis

macrochirus ) 96

- hr, static EP (19.0%) 12,000

(10,000

–

14,000) Slightly toxic

(00144338)

96

- hr, static EP (16.22%) 11,000

(9, 1 00

–

12 ,000 ) Slightly toxic

(00159914)

Pumpkinseed

sunfish

( Lepomis gibbosus ) 96

- hour, static TGAI (97.4%) > 3 12,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(00142455)

Abbreviations : ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP : End

- use product. LC 50 

### : Lethal concentration to

50% of the population. MPA: 2

- methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF : Methylphosphinico

- formic acid. MPP: 3

- methylphosphinicopropionic acid. N/A: Not applicable or available. NAG: N

- acetyl

- glufosinate.

1 

### Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater fish exposed to parent glufosinate

. 2 

### Based on nominal concentrations, a djusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate ) , unless otherwise

specified

. 3 

### Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to

derive the probability of an individual effect ( USEPA 2004 ).

4 

### No effects at nominal limit dose of 98

, 9 00 ug MPA/L (adjusted for purity).

5 

### Classified as practically nontoxic based on LC 50 

### value. However, t wo fish (7%) died at the limit concentration,

and sublethal effects were observed in eight or nine fish (>25%).



## Chronic toxicity data conforming to OCSPP test guidelines for freshwater fish were not

sub mitted. However, the Organization for Economic Co

- operation and Development ( OECD )

guideline data on toxicity to juvenile fish were submitted and reviewed after the Problem

Formulation was added to the public docket and are summarized in Table 3.16 below. These

data are useful in risk characterization but do not fully address the fish early life stage s ( e.g.,

embryo through free

- feeding juvenile), as recommended in the OCSPP guideline 850.1400.

Therefore, chronic risk quotients are not calculated for glufosinate based on these data because

the toxicity to earlier life stages than free

- swimming juveniles remains undetermined.

Table 3. 16

. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Fish Exposed to Glufosinate and its

Degradates

.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) NOAEC &

LOAEC

(u g/L) 1 

### Endpoints

(MRID)

Rainbow trout

( Oncoryhncus

mykiss ) Nonguideline

21

- day, flow

through TGAI (98.9%) 50,000 &

110,000

(mean

measured) Survival

(48301105)

Nonguideline

28

- day, flow

through EP (13.1%) 830 & 1,480

(calculated

measured) Reduction of

growth 2



### (48301106)

Nonguideline

28

- day, flow

through disodium salt of MPP (48.4%) 26,000 &

49,000

(TWA) Wet weight

increase

(48301104)

Abbreviations : ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP : End

- use product. ( MPA: 2

- methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF : Methylphosphinico

- formic acid. MPP: 3

- methylphosphinicopropionic acid.

N/A: Not applicable or available. TWA: Time

- weighted average.

1 

### Based on nominal concentrations, a djusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate ) , unless otherwise

### - Page 45 of 135

- specified

. 2 

### Survival was also reduced at higher test concentrations (NOAEC=1

, 48 0 ug ai/L, LOAEC= 2

, 58 0 ug ai/L,

calculated

- measured).



## 3.3.1.2. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

An acute 48

- hour static toxicity study was conducted to determine the effect of glufosinate

technical (97.4% ai ) on first instar water fleas ( Daphnia magna ; MRID 001424 56). The nominal

test concentrations , adjusted for purity, were 0 (contr ol), 97.4

, 13 1

, 1 75

, 2 34

, 3 12

, 409

, 545

, 731

, and 974 m g ai /L. At 48 hours, there was 100% mortality at the highest concentration, 80% at

7 31 m g ai /L, and 10% at 545 m g ai /L. No effects were observed at test concentrations of 4 09

m g ai /L and lower. Based on nominal concentrations, t he 48

- h our EC 50 

## value was 6 51 (95% CL

580

– 728) m g ai /L. Based on the results of this study, g lufosinate is classified as practically

nontoxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

Three studies evalua ting the toxicity of formulated glufosinate to the water flea are available,

two using 19% ai (MRIDs 00144339, 00145067) and one using 16. 22 % a

. i (MRID 00159915)

. The E C 50 

## values for these studies are based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity, and

range from 2.4 to 15.1 mg ai /L, with 20% mortality noted as low as 0.16 mg ai /L (nominal)

. Under these test conditions, f ormulated glufosinate is classified as slightly to moderately toxic to

f reshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

A 21

- day ( life

- cycle ) static renewal toxicity test (MRID 405010 10) was conducted to determine

the effects of glufosinate technical (96.3% ai ) on the water flea

. The nominal test concentrations

, adjusted for purity, were 0 (control), 9.6 , 1 7 , 3 1 , 5 4

, 62 , and 96 mg ai /L. Seven beakers of one

daphnid each were used to evaluate effects on reproduction and growth, and three replicates of

five daphnids each were used to evaluate effects on mortality. The 21

- day NOAEC value was 3 1

m g ai /L

, based on reduced reproduction (calculated as number of young per adult per

reproduction day)

. Based on an acute EC 50 

## of 651 mg ai /L (MRID 00142456 ) 

## and a chronic

NOAEC of 31 mg ai /L (MRID 40501010) for daphnids , the acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR) for

freshwater invertebrates is 2 1 ( 651 ÷ 31 = 2 1 ). The ACR for freshwater invertebrates was used

to estimate a chronic toxicity endpoint for estuarine/marine invertebrates, in the absence of

chronic toxicity data ( Table 3.20 )

.

Table 3. 17

. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinat e and its

Degradates

.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) E C 50 

### (u g/L) 1,2 ,3



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID)

Water flea

( Daphnia magna ) 48

- hr, static TGAI (97.4%) 6 51,000

(580 ,000

–

728 ,000 ) Practically

nontoxic

(00142456)

48

- hr, static EP (16.22%) 2, 4 00

(1,600

– 5,200) Moderately toxic

(00159915)

48

- hr, static EP (19%) 6,100

(2,200

– 21,000) Moderately toxic

(00144339)

48

- hr, static EP (19%) 15,000 Slightly toxic

### - Page 46 of 135

- Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) E C 50 

### (u g/L) 1,2 ,3



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID)

(12,000

– 19,000) (00145067)

48

- hr, static MPP (99.6%) 42 ,000 4



### ( 32 ,000

– 56 ,000) Slightly toxic

( 48444801 )

48

- hr, static MPA (98.1%) 37 ,000 5



### ( 32 ,000

– 56 ,000) Slightly toxic

( 48444802 )

48

- hr, static dinatrium salt of MPF (97.5%) > 98, 2 00

(NA)

(mean

- measured) No more than

slightly toxic

( 48444803 )

Abbreviations : ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP : End

- use product. MPA: 2

- methylphosphinicoacetic acid. MPF : Methylphosphinico

- formic acid. MPP: 3

- methylphosphinicopropionic acid.

NA: Not available or applicable.

1 

### Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for freshwater invertebrates exposed to parent

glufosinate.

2 

### Based on nominal concent rations, a djusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate ) , unless otherwise

specified

. 3 

### Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to

derive the probability of an individual ef fect ( USEPA 2004 ).

4 

### Endpoints are reported for unbuffered test systems and are attributable to acidification . The EC 50 

### for MPP in a

buffered test system in the same test was >100 mg MPP/L.

5 

### Endpoints are reported for unbuffered test systems and are attributable to acidification . The EC 50 

### for MPP in a

buffered test system in the same test was >1000 mg MPA/L (NOAEC = 320 mg MPA/L).

Table 3. 18

. Summary of Chronic Toxicity Data for Freshwater Invertebrates Exposed t o Glufosinate and its

Degradates

.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity) NOAEC &

LOAEC

(u g/L) 1 

### Endpoints

(MRID)

Water flea

( Daphnia magna ) 21

- day, static

renewal TGAI (96.3%) 3 1,000 &

54,000 Reduced number

of offspring per

female

(40501010)

21

- day, static

renewal EP ( 18.5% ai ) 2

, 9 00 &

5

, 6 00 Reduced number

of offspring per

female, parental

length

( 48301101 )

21

- day, static

renewal disodium salt of MPP (50.9%) 13,500 &

>13,500 No effects

( 4830110 2 )

21

- day, static

renewal disodium salt of MPP (50.9%) < 6

, 43 0 &

6,430

(initial

measured) Reduced number

of offspring per

female 2



### ( 48301103 )

Abbreviations : ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP : End

- use product. MPP: 3

- methylphosphinicopropionic acid. N/A: Not applicable or available.

1 

### Based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate), unless otherwise

specified.

2 

### Statistically significant reductions (29 to 69%) in number of offspring per female were observed at all treatment

levels ; there was statistically significant parental mortality in the two highest treatment levels

. Study conducted in

1999. The results were not reproduced when the study was repeated in 2008 (MRID 48301102).

### - Page 47 of 135

- 

## 3.3.1.3. Toxicit y to Estuarine/Marine Fish

In a 96

- hour acute static toxicity test , sheepshead minnow ( Cyprinodon variegatus ; MRID

413961 04 ) were exposed to glufosinate technical (96.3% ai ) at nominal concentrations of 0

(control), 96.3

, 1 73

, 3 08

, 5 39

, and 963 m g ai /L , adjusted for purity. No mortality or other

adverse effects were reported. The 96

- hour L C 50 

## value w as > 963 m g ai /L, based on nominal

concentrations adjusted for purity. Therefore, g lufosinate technical i s classified as practically

non toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.

In a nother 96

- hour static toxicity test , sheepshead minnow ( MRID 413961 08 ) were exposed to

formulated glufosinate (18.5% ai , HOE 039866) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control, 1.30,

2.16, 3.59, 5.99, and 9.99 mg ai /L. Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 (control),

7.0, 11.7, 19.4, 32.4 and 54.0 mg/L (total formulation) . Mortality was 100% at the two highest

concentration after 24 hours and 100% at the 3.59 mg ai /L at 48 hours. Mortality was 30% at

2.16 mg ai /L after 24 hours, but no further mortality was recorded at this test concentration

. There was no mortality in the control or at the lowest concentration tested. The study reports

that specimens were observed for other “abnormalitie s,” but these observations were not

presented in the report. Based on nominal concentrations adjusted for purity, t he 96

- hour LC 50



## value was 2.42 (95% CL 1.30

– 3.59) mg ai /L. The results of this test indicate that formulated

glufosinate is moderately toxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis

.

Chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish were not submitted.

Table 3. 19

. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Fish Exposed to Glufosinate

.

Specie s Study Type Test Substance (Purity) E C 50 

### (u g/L) 1,2



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID)

Sheepshead minnow

( Cyprinodon

variegatus ) 96

- hour,

static TGAI (96.3%) > 963,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(41396104)

96

- hour,

static EP (18.5%) 2,420 ,3



### (1,300

– 3,590) Moderately toxic

(41396108)

1 

### Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine fish exposed to parent

glufosinate.

2 

### Based on nominal concentrations, a djusted for purity of test substance (% ai or % degradate ) , un less otherwise

specified

. 3 

### Probit slope data were not available; therefore, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to

derive the probability of an individual effect ( USEPA 2004 ).



## 3.3.1. 4

. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

A 96

- hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of

glufosinate technical (96.3% ai ) on the mysid shrimp ( Americamysis bahia

, formerly Mysidopsis

bahia ; MRID 413961 07). S hrimp were exposed to nominal c oncentrations of 0 (control), 1 , 1

. 8,

3

. 2, 5

. 6, 10, 18

, and 32 m g ai /L. Mortality ranged from 0 at the 1 m g ai /L to 100% at the 32 m g

ai /L concentration. The study reported abnormal effects of loss of equilibrium and mysid lying

on the bottom of the test vessel. The 96

- hour E C 50 

## value was 7

. 5 mg ai /L (95% CL 5.4

– 11 mg

### - Page 48 of 135

- 

## ai /L )

, based on acute mortality and nominal concentrations

. Probit analysis for dose response

yielded a slope value of 2.3 mg ai /L (95% CL 1.4

– 3.2 mg ai /L ). G lufosinate technical is

classified as moderately toxic to mysid shrimp on an acute exposure basis

.

A 96

- hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of

formulated glufosinate (18.5% ai , HOE 039866) on the mysid shrimp (MRID 41396110). The

shrimp were exposed to nominal concentrations 0 (control), 0.26, 0.50, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0, and 8.0 mg

ai /L, adjusted for purity. Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 (control), 1.4, 2.7,

5.4, 10.8, 21.6 and 43.2 m g/L (total form ulation) . No mortality was reported in the 0.26, 0.50,

and 1.0 mg ai /L concentrations, but there was 15%, 5% and 50% mortality in the 2.0, 4.0, and

8.0 mg ai /L concentrations , respectively . Partial loss of equilibrium was reported in some

shrimp at all b ut the lowest test concentration. The 96

- hour LC 50 

## value w as 8.0 (95% CL 6.4

– 14) mg ai /L, based on nominal test concentrations

. Therefore, f ormulated glufosinate is

classified as moderately toxic to mysid shrimp on an acute exposure basi s; under these test

conditions, the toxicity of formulated glufosinate (18.5%) to mysid shrimp was approximately

equivalent to the toxicity of glufosinate technical.

A 48

- hour acute toxicity study was conducted under static conditions to determine the effect of

glufosin ate technical (96.3% ai ) on larval development in the Eastern oyster ( Crassostrea

virginica ; MRID 413961 05). L arvae were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 4

. 7

, 7.8

, 13

, 22

, 36

, 60

, and 100 m g ai /L , adjusted for purity

. Percent reductions in normal larvae,

when compared to the control, ranged from 66% at the 7.8 m g ai /L concentration to 100% at the

10 0 m g ai /L concentration. The 48

- hour calculated E C 50 

## value w as 7.7 m g ai /L

, based on

nominal concentrations adjusted for purity

. The 95% con fidence limits for the EC 50 

## value were

not reported. Glufosinate TGAI is classified as moderately toxic to Eastern oyster larvae on an

acute exposure bas i s

.

Two studies examining the effect of formulated glufosinate on the Eastern oyster have been

submitted. In a 48

- hour static toxicity test (MRID 41396109), oyster larvae were exposed to

nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 0.04, 0.06, 0.11, 0.18, 0.30, and 0.50 mg ai /L, adjusted for

purity (18.5% ai , HOE 039866)

. Test concentrations were reported in the study as 0 ( control),

0.21, 0.35, 0.58, 0.97, 1.62 and 2.7 mg/L (total formulation). Exposure to formulated glufosinate

resulted in a 52% reduction in the number of normal ly developing larvae at the highest

concentration (0.50 mg ai /L), when compared to the control ; therefore, t he 48

- hour E C 50 

## value is

estimated to be 0.50 mg ai /L These results indicate that f ormulated glufosinate is highly toxic to

E astern oyster on an acute exposure basis.

The second study evaluated the effect of formulated glufosinate (18.3% ai , Ignite) on shell

deposition in mollusc s (MRID 42262403). Eastern oysters were exposed to mean

- measured

concentrations of 0 (control), 0.2 9, 0.50, 0.76, 1.32, 2.26 and 3.98 mg ai /L in a flow

- through test

system . Shell deposition was inhibited 45% at 2.26 mg ai /L and 55% at 3.98 mg ai /L, relative to

controls . The 48

- hour E C 50 

## value w as 2.9 mg ai /L. The slope value and associated 95%

confid ence limits for dose response were not provided because the data were a poor fit to the

probit model (p<0.05). Based on these results with the Eastern oyster , formulated glufosinate is

classified as having moderately toxic effects on mollusc shell deposit ion.

### - Page 49 of 135

- 

## In another study with estuarine/marine molluscs , a 48

- hour static toxicity test was conducted

under static conditions to determine the effect of glufosinate technical (96.3% ai ) on larvae of the

quahog clam ( Mercenaria mercenaria ; MRID 413961 06). The larvae were exposed to nominal

concentrations of 0 (control), 1 5

, 2 6

, 4 3

, 7 2

, and 12 0 m g ai /L , adjusted for purity

. Reductions in

the number of normal larvae, as compared to the control, ranged from 0% at the 1 5 m g ai /L

concentration to 31% at the 12 0 m g ai /L concentration. The 48

- hour E C 50 

## value was >12 0 m g

ai /L . Glufosinate technical is classified as practically nontoxic to quahog clam larvae on an

acute exposure basis

.

A second 48

- hour static toxicity test with the quahog clam was conducted with formulated

glufosinate (18.3% ai , Ignite) (MRID 42262402), M ean

- measured concentrations were < 0.018

(< LOQ, control), 0

. 52

, 0

. 90, 1

. 54, 2

. 62, 4

. 22

, and 7

. 12 m g ai /L , and ranged from 88

– 93% of

nominal

. Statistically significant r eduction s in the number of normal larvae , as compared to

controls (p < 0.05), were seen at all test concentrations (four replicates per treatment level) and

ranged from 100% at the three highest concentrations to 24% at the lowes t concentration. The

48

- h our EC 50 

## was 0. 69 (95% CL 0.64

– 0.75) m g ai /L

.

No guideline data or appropriate open literature data are available for chronic toxicity to

estuarine/marine invertebrates. An estimate of chronic toxicity for mysid shrimp was de rived

using the acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR=21) developed for freshwater invertebrates. Based on the

ACR, the estimated NOAEC for the mysid is 360 mg ai /L.

Table 3. 20

. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates (Including

Molluscs) Exposed to Glufosinate

.

Species Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity

Study

Type EC 50



### ( u g ai /L) 1,2



### (95% CL) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID) Study

Type NOAEC &

LOAEC

(mg ai /L) 1,2 

### Endpoints

(MRID)

My s id shrimp

( Americamysis bahia

formerly Mysidopsis

bahia ) 96

- hr,

static,

TGAI

(96.3%) 7

, 5 00 3



### (5

, 4 00

–

11 ,000 ) Moderately

toxic

(41396107) NA 3 6 0 4 

### & NA

(ACR) Reproducti on

96

- hr,

static, EP

(18.5%) 8

, 0 00

(6

, 4 00

–

14 ,000 ) Moderately

toxic

(41396110)

Eastern oyster

( Crassotrea

virginica ) 48

- hr

(larvae),

static,

TGAI

(96.3%) 7

, 7 00

(NR) Moderately

toxic

(41396105)

NA NA NA 48

- hr

(larvae),

static, EP

(18.5%) 50 0 3



### (N R ) Highly toxic

(41396109)

48

- hr (shell

deposition),

flow

through, 2

, 9 00 5



### (2

, 2 00

– 6

, 9 00 ) Moderately

toxic

(42262403)

### - Page 50 of 135

- EP (18.3%)

Quahog clam

( Mercenaria

mercenaria ) 48

- hr

(larvae),

static,

TGAI

(96.3%) > 1 20 ,000

(NA) Practically

nontoxic

(41396106)

48

- hr

(larvae),

static, EP

(18.3%) 69 0

( 64 0

– 75 0 ) Highly toxic

(42262402)

CL 

### Confidence limits, NA 

### Not available

, N R 

### Not reported

. 1 

### Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates.

2 

### Unless noted otherwise, toxicity en d points are b ased on nominal concentrations, a djusted for purity (% ai ).

3 

### Where p robit slope data are not available

, the default value of 4.5 (with bounds of 2.0 and 9.0) is used to derive the

probability of an individual effect ( USEPA 2004 ).

4 

### Based on the freshwater invertebrate acute

- to

- chronic ratio (EC 50 

### 7,500 ÷ ACR 2 1 = 3 6 0 ).

5 

### Based on mean

- measured concentrations.



## 3.3.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

In a 14

- day static toxicity test

, the vascular aquatic plant , duckweed ( Lemna gibba ; MRID

42262404) was expos ed to g lufosinate technical (96.3% ai ). M ean

- measured c oncentrations

were < 4 0 (< LOQ

, control), 80 0 , 1

, 3 5 0 , 2

, 12 0 , 3

, 6 4 0 , 6

, 57 0

, and 10

, 3 00 ug ai /L , and ranged

from 92

– 110% of nominal

. After 14 days, inhibition of growth relative to the control ranged

from a non

- statistically significant 11% change at the lowest test concentration (80 0 ug ai /L) to

100% inhibition at the two highest test concentrations . The NO A EC and I C 50 

## values, based on

frond number and mean

- measured concentrations , were 80 0 and 1

, 47 0 (95% CL : 1

, 36 0

– 1

, 58 0 )

ug ai /L , respectively.

A 7

- day toxicity test with duckweed exposed to formulated glufosinate (17.7% ai , AE F039866)

under static renewal conditions demonstrated effects on frond number, growth rate, dry weight,

biomass growth rate, a nd doubling time (MRID 47542605) . The most sensitive endpoints were

frond number and biomass growth rate, with NOAEC and IC 50 

## values of 3

, 1 00 and 9

, 1 00 (95%

CL 7

, 9 00

– 11 ,000 ) ug ai /L (mean

- measured), respectively. The slope value for dose

- response,

based on inhibition of biomass growth rate, was 4.41 (95% CL : 3.97

– 4.85).

In a static laboratory toxicity test, the freshwater unicellular green alga, Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata

, formerly Selenastrum capricornutum (MRID 40345653), was exposed to

g l ufosinate technical (96.3% ai ) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 2

, 4 00

, 4

, 8 00

, 9

, 6 00

, 19 ,000

, 39 ,000

, and 77 ,000 ug ai /L , adjusted for purity

. O bservations were reported for days 3,

4, 5, and 7. In accordance with OCSPP guideline 850.5400 2



## , t oxicity endpoints for risk

estimation are based upon Day 4 r eduction s in cell counts, compared to the control, which

ranged from 15 % at 2

, 4 00 ug ai /L to 96 % at 77 ,000 ug ai /L. The Day 4 NOAEC and IC 50 

## values, based on cell count and nominal concentrations , were < 2

, 4 00 and 4

, 6 00 (95% CL : 4

, 1 00

– 5

, 2 00 ) ug ai /L. At test termination, t he 7

- day NO A EC and I C 50 

## values were 2

, 4 00 and 40 ,000

(95% CL : 34 ,000

– 50 ,000 ) ug ai /L, respectively.

2 USEPA 1996. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines OPPTS 850.5400. Algal Toxicity, Tiers I and II. EPA 712

- C

- 96.164. April

1996.

### - Page 51 of 135

- 

## In a 120

- hour toxicity test, exposure to glufosinate technical (96.5% ai ) under static conditions

resulted in reduced cell density and cell growth rate in the freshwater diatom, Navicula

pelliculosa (MRID 47542603) . The statistically

- determined NOAEC value for both endpoints

was 17

, 0 00 ug ai /L (mean

- measured) ; however, some u ncertainty surrounds this conclusion

because the pattern of responses observed was not monotonic, and a 41% inhibition in cell

density was observed at an intermediate concentration (31

, 4 00 ug ai /L). The IC 50 

## value s for cell

density and cell growth rate are assumed to be greater than the highest concentration tested ( IC 50



## > 98

, 5 00 ug ai /L).

Green alga ( Desmodesmus subspicatus

, formerly Scenedesmus subspicatus C hodat ) were

exposed to glufosinate technical (96.0% ai ) for 72 hours under static conditions, a t nominal

concentrations ranging from 32 ,000

– 1,000 ,000 ug ai /L, plus a negative control (MRID

47542604) . Mean

- measured concentrations were reported for the control (<177 ug ai/L , <LOQ)

and three of the seven test levels; analytical recoveries in these treatments ranged from 100

– 116% of nominal. The NOAEC and IC 50 

## values were 100 ,000 and > 1,000 ,000 ug ai /L,

respectively, based on nominal concentrations and inhibitions of cell density, area under the

growth curve, and growth rate (compared to controls ).

Table 3. 21

. Summary of Toxicity Data for Vascular and Nonvascular Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate

and its Degradates

.

Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) NOAEL & IC 50 1



### ( u g ai /L)

(95% CL) Effect ( MRID)

Duckweed

( Lemna gibba ) 14

- d, static TGAI (96.3%) 80 0 & 1 ,470 3



### ( 1,360

– 1,580) Frond number

(42262404)

7

- day, static

renewal EP (17.7%) 3,100 & 9,100 3



### (7,900

– 11,000) Frond number and

biomass growth rate

(47542605)

7

- day, static

renewal disodium salt of

MPP (50.9% ) 10 3,000 &

> 103,000

(NA) No effects ( 48444814)

7

- day, static

renewal MPA (98.9% ) 97,200 &

> 97,200

(NA) No effects ( 48444815)

Green alga

( Pseudokirchneriella

subcapitata ) 120

- hr, static TGAI (96.3%) < 2

, 4 00 & 4

, 6 00

(4

, 1 00

– 5

, 2 00 ) Cell count (40345653)

96

- hr, static dinatrium salt of

MPF (97.5%) 94,800 & >94,800

(NA) No effects ( 48444812)

Blue

- green alga

( Anabaena flos

aquae ) 96

- hr, static TGAI (99.2%) 41 & 72

(44

– 122) Cell density, biomass,

and growth rate

( 48444816 )

Diatom ( Navicula

pelliculosa ) 120

- hr, static TGAI (96.5%) 17

, 0 00 &

> 98

, 5 00 3



### (NA) Cell density and cell

growth rate (47542603)

Estuarine/marine

diatom ( Skeletonema

costatum ) 96

- hr, static TGAI (99.2%) 12

, 0 00 & 22

, 0 00

(18

, 0 00

– 28

, 0 00 ) Biomass ( 48444817)

Green alga

( Desmodesmus

subspicatus ) 72

- hr, static TGAI 100,000 &

> 1,000,000

(NA) Cell density and cell

growth rate (47542604)

### - Page 52 of 135

- Species Study Type Test Substance

(Purity) NOAEL & IC 50 1



### ( u g ai /L)

(95% CL) Effect ( MRID)

72

- hr, static MPP (99.6%) 1,000,000 &

>1,000,000

(NA) No effects ( 48444810)

72

- hr, static MPA (98.1%) 17,700 & 53,000

(37,000

– 77,000) Biomass ( 48444811)

72

- hr, static NAG ( 92.4%),

applied in an

aqueous solution

(35.7%) 357,000 &

>357,000

(NA) No effects ( 48444813)

NA 

### Not available.

1 

### Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for vascular and nonvascular aquatic plants exposed

to parent glufosinate

. 2 

### Unless noted otherwise, toxicity endpoints are b ased on nominal concentrations, a djusted for purity (% ai ).

3 

### Based on mean

- measured concentrations.



## 3. 3.2

. Terrestrial Effects Characterization

A summary of the most sensitive terrestrial animal toxicity data for g lufosinate , based on a

current Agen cy review of all submitted data

, is provided in Table 3.22 through Table 3. 2 4 and is

discussed further in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.3

. The available data indicate that g lufosinate

TGAI is practically non

- toxic to birds on an acute oral and subacute dietary exposure basis and is

practically non

- toxic to mammals on an acute oral exposure basis. Glufosinate i s practically

non

- toxic to young adult honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) on an acute contact exposure basis.

The available data for terrestrial plants exposed to the TGAI , provided in Section 3.3.2.4,

indicate that g lufosinate exposure in Tier II testing had the strongest adverse effects on seedling

emergence endpoints in onion and lettuce and on vegetative vigor endpoints in onion and carrot

(see Table 3. 2 5 )

.

### - Page 53 of 135

- 

## 3.3.2.1. Toxicity to Birds

Avian toxicity data are summarized in Table 3.19 below. Based on results of toxicity testing

with upland game and waterfowl species

, bobwhite quail ( Colinus virginianus ) and mallard duck

( Anas platyrhynchos ) , respectively

, g lufosinate TGAI is categorized as practically nontoxic to

birds on an acute oral (MRIDs 00142451, 00142450) and subacute dietary (MRIDs 00150988,

00150989 ) exposure bas e s

. Although no mortalities were observed in either of the acute oral

toxicity studies, bobwhite quail administered glufosinate at 2,000 mg/kg bw presented sublethal

effects, including lethargy and diarrhea ; mallard ducks ( Anas platyrhynchos ) 

## tested up to th e

same limit dose of 2,000 mg/kg bw did not exhibit the sublethal effects reported for quail

. Subacute dietary toxicity testing up to 5

, 000 mg/kg diet with both bobwhite quail and mallard

ducks did not result in any of the sublethal effects reported for q uail in the acute oral toxicity

study. Chronic exposure to g lufosinate at nominal concentrations up to and including 400 mg/kg

diet resulted in no compound

- related toxic effects in bobwhite quail or mallard duck (MRIDs

40345649, 40345650). However, a recently submitted avian reproduction study with the

bobwhite quail (MRID 48444809) demonstrated statistically significant (p<0.05) effects on the

ratio of live

- to

- viable embryos when parental quail were exposed to measured concentrations of

9 56 mg ai/kg diet (NOAEC = 665 mg ai/kg diet).

Avian toxicity tests using formulated glufosinate have not been submitted.

Table 3. 22

. Summary of Acute and Chronic Toxicity Data for Birds Exposed to Glufosinate

.

Species Study Ty pe Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity

L D 50 

### (mg/kg bw) or

L C 50 

### (mg/kg diet) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID) NOAEC

( mg/kg diet ) Endpoints

(MRID)

Bobwhite quail

( Colinus

virginianus ) Acute oral

toxicity LD 50 

### > 2,000 Practically

nontoxic

(00142451) N/A N/A

Mallard duck

( Anas

platyrhynchos ) Acute oral

toxicity LD 50 

### > 2,000 Practically

nontoxic

(00142450) N/A N/A

Bobwhite quail

( Colinus

virginianus ) Subacute

dietary toxicity L C 50 

### > 5 ,000 Practically

nontoxic

(00150988) NOAEC

= 665

LOAEC = 956 Effects on ratio

of live

- to

- viable

embryos

. ( 48444809 )

Mallard duck

( Anas

platyrhynchos ) Subacute

dietary toxicity L C 50 

### > 5,000 Practically

nontoxic

(00150989) NOAEC

= 400

LOAEC > 400 No adverse

effects.

(40345650)

N/A=not applicable

. Bolded values represent the lowest definitive toxicity endpoint and are used in risk estimation ( i.e. , RQ calculation).

Other values are used in risk characterization.



## 3.3.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals

A cute oral (MRID 00142430) and chronic 2

- generation reproductive toxicity (MRID 4034 5612)

studies with the Norway rat ( Rattus norvegicus ) exposed to g lufosinate TGAI were submitted

. Results of the tests , reviewed by the Health Effects Division (HED), are presented in Table 3.2 3.

### - Page 54 of 135

- 

## Based on these results, g lufosinate is classified as practically nontoxic to mammalian species on

an acute oral exposure basis. In the chronic study, s tatistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in

the number of viable pups per litter in both generations (F 1 

## and F 2 

## ) of offspring occurred at

dietary concent rations greater than 120 mg/kg diet (NOAEC = 120 mg/kg diet ; daily equivalent

dose = 6.0 mg/kg bw/day; LOAEC = 360 mg/kg diet).

The NOAEC for mammalian effects following repeated dietary exposure to glufosinate is

corroborated by effects on unweaned rat pups in a nonguideline developmental neurotoxicity

study (MRID 46455701)

. Effects on brain morphometry were seen in both male and female

pups at all treatment levels and were statistically significant (p<0.05) and considered advers e

(>5% difference from controls) by the Health Effects Division at the lowest parental treatment

level, 200 mg/kg diet ( d aily dose equivalent: 14 mg/kg bw/day), and above. Statistically

significant decreases in body weight and in body weight gain (8

- 36% c ompared to controls,

p<0.05) were seen in male and female pups at 1,000 mg/kg diet (69 mg/kg bw/day) and above.

Postnatal mortality was increased for pups of rats exposed to 4,500 mg/kg diet ( 292 mg/kg

bw/day); mortality of pups in this treatment group wa s approximately twice that in controls and

occurred primarily as total litter loss during postnatal days (PND) 0 through 4 . Three females

lost their entire litters, and a fourth lost 10 of 15 pups.

An acute oral toxicity study with female Norway rats exposed to formulated glufosinate

( Liberty ® 

## 280 SL Herbicide, 24.3% ai ) at two nominal dose levels, 7 2.9 and 486 mg ai /kg bw,

resulted in a calculated LD 50 

## value of 243 mg ai /kg bw (MRID 46279002). Based on this test,

reviewed by the Registration Division (RD) , formulated glufosinate is classified as moderately

toxic to mammals.

Table 3. 23

. Summary of Acute and Chronic Mammalian Toxicity Data for Rats Exposed to Glufosinate

.

S pecies Study Type Acute Chronic

LD 50



### ( mg/kg bw ) Toxicity

Classification

(MRID) NOAEC

( mg/kg diet )

NOAEL

(mg / kg bw/day) Endpoints

(MRID)

Norway rat

( Rattus

norvegicus ) Acute oral

toxicity LD 50 

### = 3,030 Practically

nontoxic

(00142430) 1 

### NOAEC = 120

NOAEL = 6.0 Decreased number

of viable pups

(403456 12)

1 

### Mammalian toxicity data for glufosinate TGAI provided and reviewed by EPA Health Effects Division. Bolded

values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints available for ecological risk assessment.



## 3.3.2.3. Toxicity to Beneficial Insects

In acute oral and acute contact toxicity tests

, young adult honey bees ( Apis mellifera ) were

exposed to glufosinate technical (95.3% ai ) at the rate of 3 29.3 μg ai /bee , adjusted for purity

(MRID 41364002) . No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in either study. The L D 50 

## was >100 μg ai /bee; therefore, glufosinate technical is classified as practically non

- toxic to

young adult honey bee s on an acute oral and contact exposure basis.

### - Page 55 of 135

- 

## H oney bees were exposed in both oral and contact studies to formulated glufosin ate ( 20.4% ai

, Basta) at a rate of 1 00 μg ai /bee (MRID 40345654) . No mortalities or sublethal symptoms were

observed in either study. In both studies, t he L D 50 

## was >100 μg ai /bee; therefore, the 20.4%

glufosinate formulation is cla ssified as practically non

- toxic to young adult honey bees on an

acute oral and on a n acute contact exposure basis.

Table 3. 24

. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate

.

Species Study Type

(TGAI or EP) LD 50 

### (μg/bee) Toxicity Classification

(MRID)

Honey bee ( Apis mellifera ) Acute oral and contact

toxicity (TGAI) > 100 Practically nontoxic

(41364002)

Acute oral and contact

toxicity (EP) > 100 Practically nontoxic

(40345654)



## 3.3.2.4. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

Terrestrial plant toxicity studies are required for pesticides that have terrestrial use patterns or

may move off of the application site

. The NOAEL and I C 25 

## (concentration that causes an

inhibitory effect in 25% of the population for the monitored endpoint) values are established for

markers of seedling emergence and vegetative vigor.

One seedling emergence (MRID 4139611) and two vegetative vigor ( MRIDs 41396112,

41396113) tests with glufosinate technical have be en submitted. In the seedling emergence test,

glufosinate technical reduced percent emergence in the monocotyledonous (monocot) onion

( Allium cepa ; NOAE L = 0.38 lbs ai /A, I C 25 

## = 1.0 lbs ai /A, nominal) but in none of the other nine

species within the range of concentrations tested (0.19

– 1.5 lbs ai /A, nominal)

. Seedling dry

weight was affected most in the dicotyledonous (dicot) lettuce ( Lactuca sativa ) and cabbage

( Brassica oleracea ), with I C 25 

## values of 0.15 lbs ai /A (NOAE L < 0.15 lbs ai / A) and 0 .16 lbs ai /A

(NOAE L < 0.16 lbs ai /A) , respectively. Onion plant height was the most sensitive endpoint for

monocot s (NOAE L < 0.23 lbs ai /A, I C 25 

## = 0.23 lbs ai /A). The data reported in the study are not

sufficient to calculate reliable I C 05 

## values for the seedling emergence endpoints

.

The two vegetative vigor tests with glufosinate TGAI indicated that dicot carrot ( Daucus carota )

dry weight (NOAE L = 0.05 lbs ai /A, I C 25 

## = 0.063 lbs) and monocot onion dry weight (NOAE L

= 0.10 lbs ai /A, I C 25 

## = 0.11 lbs ai /A) were the most sensitive endpoints for dicot and monocot

plants, respectively.

In a vegetative vigor test submitted after the Problem Formulation was completed , exposure to

formulated glufosinate (13.9% ai ) inhibited dry weight of surviving plants in all ten test species,

when compared to controls (MRID 47542602) , and at concentrations less than the established

vegetative vigor toxicity endpoints for the TGAI. Phytotoxic effects included leaf cupping

, curl ing , and twisting; leaf darkening ; height inhibition ; necrosis ; chlorosis ; apical damage ; and

side branching. The study failed to establish reliable NOAEL/IC 05 

## and/or IC 25 

## values for two

monocot species and three dicot species within the range of concentrations tested ( i.e. , monocot

### - Page 56 of 135

- 

## NOAEL, IC 25 

## < 0.062 lbs ai/A; dicot NOAEL, IC 25 

## < 0.018 lbs ai/A) ; therefore, the results are

used qualitatively in risk assessment

. The percentages of effect for statistically significant

(p<0.05) changes in dry weigh t at the lowest treatment level were 37% (onion, most sensitive

monocot; 0.062 lbs ai/A), 4% (corn , 0.016 lbs ai/A )

, 28% (cucumber, most sensitive dicot; 0.018

lbs ai/A), 18% (radish, 0.016 lbs ai/A), and 21% (lettuce, 0.016 lbs ai/A), when compared to the

negative controls.

In a recently submitted seedling emergence test with formulated glufosinate ( Ignite 280, 24.3%

ai )

, monocot and dicot plants showed varying degrees of sensitivity to exposure , with seedling

emergence, survival, dry weight, and/or plant height affected in all species except cabbage and

corn (MRIDs 48531301 and 48718501)

. Onion was the most sensitive monocot species tested

(NOAEL = 0.07 lbs ai/A, IC 25 

## = 0.61 lbs ai/A). Lettuce was the most sensitive dicot species

tested (NOAEL = 0.21 lbs ai/A, IC 25 

## = 0.40 lbs ai/A). V isual observations of p hytotoxic effects

included wilting and stunted growth . The effects of formulated glufosinate on seedling

emergence were generally consistent with the effects of the TGAI in the previously reviewed

studies. Therefore, since the study with formulated glufosinate established definitive endpoints

(IC 25 

## and NOAEL / IC 05 

## values) for the most sensitive monocot and dicot species, respectively,

these values will be used for screening level risk estimation (RQ calculation) for plants.

Table 3. 25

. Summary of Tier II Toxicity of Glufosinate to Nontarget Terrestrial Plants.

Crop Type of Study

Species I C 25 

### *

(lb s ai /A) NOAE L

or IC 05 

### *

(lb s ai /A) Endpoint

Affected MRID

Seedling Emergence (TGAI)

Monocots Corn 0.52 0.38 Height

41396111 Oat 0.85 0.75 Dry weight

Onion 0.23 < 0.23 1 

### Height

Ryegrass 0.38 0.19 Height

Dicots Cabbage 0.16 < 0.16 1 

### Dry weight

Lettuce 0.15 < 0.15 1 

### Dry weight

Carrot 0.33 < 0.33 1 

### Height

Tomato 0.25 0.19 Dry weight

Cucumber 0.35 < 0.35 1 

### Dry weight

Soybean 1.2 0.75 Dry weight

Vegetative Vigor (TGAI)

Monocots Corn 0.31 0.20 Plant height

41396112

41396113 2 

### Oat 0.99 0.80 Dry weight

Onion 0.11 0.10 Plant height

Ryegrass 0.14 2 

### 0.10 2 

### Dry weight

Dicots Cabbage 0.17 0.10 Dry weight

Lettuce 0.61 2 

### 0.04 2 

### Dry weight

Carrot 0.063 0.05 Dry weight

Tomato 0.086 0.05 Dry weight

Cucumber 0.16 < 0.16 1 

### Dry weight

Soybean 0.21 0.10 Dry weight

Vegetative Vigor (EP, 13.9% ai )

Monocots Corn 0.072 <0.016 1 

### Dry weight

47542602 Onion <0.062 1 

### <0.062 1 

### Dry weight

Ryegrass 0.095 0.062 Dry weight

Wheat 0.33 0.13 Dry weight

### - Page 57 of 135

- Dicots Cabbage 0.029 0.018 Dry weight

Cucumber <0.018 1 

### <0.018 1 

### Dry weight

Lettuce 0.020 <0.016 1 

### Dry weight

Radish 0.030 <0.016 1 

### Dry weight

Soybean 0.047 0.018 Dry weight

Tomato 0.019 0.0089 Dry weight

Seedling Emergence (EP, 24.3 % ai )

Monocots Corn >1.71 1.71 None

48531301

48718501 3 

### Oat 1.98 0.43 Dry weight

Onion 0.61 0.07 Dry weight

Ryegrass 0.74 0.43 Emergence

Dicots Cabbage >3.43 3.43 None

Cucumber >3.43 0.86 Emergence

Lettuce 0.40 0.21 Survival

Radish >0.86 0.43 Height

Soybean 2.13 0.11 Height

Tomato 1.13 0.86 Height

* Based on measured application rates. Bolded values are the most sensitive endpoints from each study

. 1 

### Less than the lowest concentration of g lufosinate tested.

2 

### Ryegrass and lettuce were tested in MRID 41396113 but not in MRID 41396112.

3 

### L ettuce only was tested in MRID 48718501 because lettuce in MRID 48531301failed to meet validity criteria

(control survival).



## 3.3.3. Review of Incident Data

The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS)

, which is maintained by the Agency’s Office

of Pesticide Programs, was searched to determine if ecological incidents have been reported for

g lufosinate

. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in November 201 2

, 5 1 incidents associated

with g lufosinate were reported between 1999 and 2011 . Of these incidents, 48 were associated

with phytotoxic effects to corn or canola (USEPA 20 12 )

. One new incident has been reported, in

which 160 acres of pistachio ( Pistacia vera ) in Merced County, California, were da maged

following direct treatment with glufosinate (Rely  

## 280) and flumioxazin (Chateau  

## Herbicide)

(Incident number I023302

- 028 ; 2011). The majority ( 4 5 of the 4 9 plant

- related incidents )

, including the pistachio incident, w ere associated with the registe red use of glufosinate. Eighteen

(18) of the plant

- related incidents were classified as having a “probable” association with

glufosinate exposure; the remaining 31 plant

- related incidents were classified as having a

“possible” association with glufosinate use

. Most of the incidents of crop damage resulted from

direct treatment of corn or canola by broadcast application or other spray of Liberty ® 

## herbicide

products, generally ranging from 18 to 40 fl.oz./A and including (but not limited to) flowable,

emulsifiable concentrate, and soluble concentrate products. Only four of the plant incidents were

associated with the misuse (accidental or intentio nal) of glufosinate.

T wo aquatic incidents occurred i n or adjacent to agricultural areas. In 1999 , the spray

application of glufosinate (registered use) in Queen Anne County, Maryland, was identified as

having a “probable” association with mortality of approximately 1,500 fish (“minnows” and

“catfish”) in a nearby pond. In 2000, a fish kill of approximately 2,000 unidentified specimens

was reported for a lake in Lewis County, Missouri; the lake incident was classified as “unlikely”

to be associated wit h glufosinate runoff ; additional details were not reported

. It is unknown

### - Page 58 of 135

- 

## whether the fish kill incidents were associated with oxygen depletion related to direct lethal

effects of glufosinate on aquatic plants , possibly compounded by increased biological oxygen

demand associated with decaying plant matter

.

Because of limitations in the incident reporting system, the lack of additional incident reports

cannot be construed as the absence of incidents from the registered use of g lufosinate

. At the

time of t he search, EIIS contained information on incident s reported through December 2011

.

The American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Avian Incident Monitoring System , which contains

information on bird

- related incidents for the years 1968 through 2005, was searched in October

201 2 . N o records of incidents were reported to be associated with glufosinate (ABC 20 10 ).



# 4

. Risk Characterization

4.1. Screening

- Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values

This screening

- level ass essment of the labeled use s of g lufosinate relies on the deterministic RQ

method to provide a metric of potential risks. The RQ provides a comparison of exposure

estimates to toxicity endpoints ( i.e. , the estimated exposure concentrations are divided by acute

and chronic toxicity values , respecti vely ). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the

Agency’s LOCs, as shown in Table s 4.1 through Table 4. 1 6

. The LOCs are used by the Agency

to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed by the label, has the potential to cause adverse

effects to nontarget organisms. F or endangered species, LOC exce e dances require an additional

in

- depth listed species evaluat ion of the potential co

- occurrence of listed species and areas in

which new use crops are grown to characterize risks. In this assessment, RQ s that exceed the

non

- listed species LOC also exceed the listed species LOC.

Tables 4.1

, 4.6 , 4.9, and 4.14 indic ate whether the available data were sufficient to calculate RQ

values for specific organisms. The remaining tables provide the resulting, screening

- level RQ

values, for taxa with sufficient data. Note that with plants, unlike with animals, RQ values are

not presented for acute versus chronic risk; instead, RQ values are presented for listed and

nonlisted species based on a comparison of a given EEC to NOAEL and IC 25 

## values,

respectively. A discussion of the RQ values for g lufosinate and of other informat ion that

provides context for the interpretation of potential risk to various taxa is presented in the Risk

Description in Section 4.2

.

### - Page 59 of 135

- 

## 4.1.1. RQ Values for Aquatic Organisms

Table 4.1

. Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Animals Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI

.

Taxonomic Group(s) RQ Calculation

Acute

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs are

not calculated Chronic

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs are

not calculated

Freshwater fish and amphibians N Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint

( LC 50 

### > 312,000 μg ai /L) N Toxicity data gap

Freshwater invertebrates Y NA Y NA

Estuarine/marine fish N Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint

( LC 50 

### > 963,000 μg ai /L) N Toxicity data gap

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Y NA N Toxicity data gap

Table 4 .2

. Acute and Chronic RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI

.

Use (s) App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak

EECs

(μg ai /L) Freshwater Invertebrates

E C 50 

### = 651,000 μg ai /L 21

- day

EECs

( μg ai /L ) Freshwater

Invertebrates

NOAEC =

31,000 μg ai /L

RQs Probability of

Acute Effect 1



### (1 in ...) RQs

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 2.97 <0.01

Canola 0.44 6.97 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 5.90 <0.01

Citrus 1.50 60.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 45.3 <0.01

Corn 0.44 17. 6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 13.6 <0.01

Cotton 0.53 21.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 18.2 <0.01

Grape vineyard 1.50 20.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 1 8.0 <0.01

Olives 1.50 2.80 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 2.48 <0.01

Pome fruit 1.50 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 18.4 <0.01

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 3.69 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 3.38 <0.01

Rice 0.44 375 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 335 0.01

Soybean 0.66 16.3 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 1 3

. 0 <0.01

Stone fruit 1.50 11. 5 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 10. 1 <0.01

Sugarbeet 0.55 7.30 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 6.17 <0.01

Tree nuts 1.50 74.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 54.6 <0.01

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 1 6.0 <0.01

Cotton 0.52 23.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 19. 9 <0.01

Rice 0.73 390 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 348 0.01

Soybean 0.52 16.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 14.4 <0.01

Burndown Uses

### - Page 60 of 135

- Canola 0.66 6.73 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 6.16 <0.01

Corn 0.66 15.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 12.7 <0.01

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 48. 5 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 32.5 <0.01

Cotton

(postharvest) 0.79 29. 9 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 25.3 <0.01

Rice 0.66 74 .0 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 66.0 <0.01

Soybean 0.66 11.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 10.2 <0.01

Sugar beet 0.66 5.37 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 4.90 <0.01

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/hardwood

trees 1.5 0 15.4 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 14.2 <0.01

0.30 2 

### 4.36 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 4.02 <0.01

Fallow field 0.53 69.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 57.5 <0.01

0.40 2 

### 11.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 9.64 <0.01

Lawns/gardens 1.36 7.26 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 57.5 <0.01

Farmstead/

noncrop areas 1.5 0 10.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 9.78 <0.01

0.50 2 

### 9.08 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 8.31 <0.01

Abbreviations: App. 

### Application.

1 

### Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value . A default concentration

- response

slope value (4.5) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were not calculable from the

available test da ta ( Urban and Cook 1986 , USEPA 2004 )

. 2 

### Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.

Table 4 .3

. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Freshwater Fish , Amphibians, and Invertebrates from Spray Drift

Only of Glufosinate End

- use Products (EPs)

.

Use (s) Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak

EECs

Spray

Drift Only

(μg ai /L) Freshwater Fish

L C 50 

### = 4,300 μg ai /L Freshwater Invertebrates

E C 50 

### = 2,400 μg ai /L

RQs Probability of

Acute Effect 1



### (1 in ...) RQs Probability of

Acute Effect 1



### (1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Citrus 1.50 2.42 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Tree nuts 1.50 2.47 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Burndown Uses

Cotton 0.79 3.55 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Fallow field 0.53 14.74 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 0.01 1 in 9x10 18



### (1 in 31,600 to

1 in 1 x 10 72 

### )

1 

### Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value . A default concentration

- response

slope value (4.5, lower and upper bounds 2

- 9 ) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were

not calculable from the available test data ( USEPA 2004 )

.

### - Page 61 of 135

- Table 4.4

. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates from Glufosinate TGAI

.

Use (s) Application Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak EECs

(μg ai /L) Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

E C 50 

### = 7,500 μg ai /L

RQs Probability of Acute

Effect 1



### (1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Canola 0.44 6.97 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Citrus 1.50 60.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Corn 0.44 17. 6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Cotton 0.53 21. 2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Grape vineyard 1.50 20. 2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Olives 1.50 2.80 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Pome fruit 1.50 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Potato vine dessication 0.38 3.69 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Rice 0.44 375 0.05 1 in 4 x10 8



### (1 in 216 to

1 in 2 x10 31 

### )

Soybean 0.66 16.3 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Stone fruit 1.50 11. 5 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Sugarbeet 0.55 7.30 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Tree nuts 1.50 74.7 < 0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Cotton 0.52 23.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Rice 0.73 390 0.05 1 in 4 x10 8



### (1 in 216 to

1 in 2 x10 31 

### )

Soybean 0.52 16.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 6.73 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Corn 0.66 15. 7 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Cotton (preplant) 0.79 48. 5 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Cotton (postharvest) 0.79 29. 9 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Rice 0.66 74 .0 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Soybean 0.66 11.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Sugar beet 0.66 5.37 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/hardwood trees 1.5 0 15.4 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### 0.30 2 

### 4.36 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Fallow field 0.53 69.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### 0.40 2 

### 11.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18

### - Page 62 of 135

- Lawns/gardens 1.36 7.26 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Farmstead/noncrop areas 1.5 0 10.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### 0.50 2 

### 9.08 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### A shaded cell indicate s that the RQ meets or exceeds the LOC for acute risk to listed species of estuarine/marine

invertebrates (LOC=0.05)

. 1 

### Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value . A default concentration

- response

slope value (4.5

, lower and upper bounds 2

- 9 ) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were

not calculable from the available test data ( USEPA 2004 )

. 2 

### Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.

Table 4.5

. Acute RQs for Direct Effects to Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates from Spray Drift Only

of Glufosinate End

- use Products (EPs)

.

Use (s) Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak

EECs

Spray

Drift Only

(μg ai /L) Estuarine/Marine Fish

L C 50 

### = 2,420 μg ai /L Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

E C 50 

### = 500 μg ai /L 2



### RQs Probability of

Acute Effect 1



### (1 in ...) RQs Probability of

Acute Effect 1



### (1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Citrus 1.50 2.42 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Tree nuts 1.50 2.47 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18



### Burndown Uses

Cotton 0.79 3.55 <0.01 <1 in 9x10 18 

### 0.01 1 in 9x10 18



### (1 in 31,600 to

1 in 1 x 10 72 

### )

Non

- agricultural Uses

Fallow field 0.53 14.7 0.01 1 in 9x10 18



### (1 in 31,600 to

1 in 1 x 10 72 

### ) 0.03 1 in 3 x 10 11



### (1 in 862 to

1 in 2 x 10 42 

### )

1 

### Probability of individual mortality based on actual screening level RQ value . A default concentration

- response

slope value (4.5, lower and upper bounds 2

- 9 ) is used to generate the probability value because slope values were

not calculable from the avai lable test data ( USEPA 2004 )

. 2 

### Based on 48

- hour shell deposition in the Eastern oyster exposed to formulated glufosinate (MRID 41396109)

.

Table 4.6 . Overview of RQ Calculation for Aquatic Plants Exposed to Glufosinate TGAI

.

Taxonomic Group(s) RQ Calculation

Listed

Species RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs are

not calculated Nonlisted

Species RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs

are not calculated

Aquatic vascular plants Y NA Y NA

Aquatic non

- vascular

plants Y NA Y NA

### - Page 63 of 135

- Table 4.7. RQ Values for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular and Nonvascular Plants from G lufosinate

TGAI

.

Use (s) Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak

EECs

(μg ai /L) Aquatic Vascular Plants

I C 50 

### = 1,470 μg ai /L

NOAEL = 800 μg ai /L Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

I C 50 

### = 72 μg ai /L

NOAEL = 41 μg ai /L

Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.08 0.05

Canola 0.44 6.97 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.17 0.10

Citrus 1.50 60.6 0.08 0.04 1.48 0.84

Corn 0.44 17. 6 0.02 0.01 0.43 0.24

Cotton 0.53 21. 2 0.03 0.01 0.52 0.29

Grape vineyard 1.50 20.2 0.03 0.01 0.49 0.28

Olives 1.50 2.80 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.07 0.04

Pome fruit 1.50 20.7 0.03 0.01 0.50 0.29

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 3.69 < 0.0 1 < 0.0 1 0.09 0.05

Rice 0.44 375 0.47 0.26 9.15 5.21

Soybean 0.66 16.3 0.02 0.01 0.40 0.23

Stone fruit 1.50 11. 5 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.16

Sugarbeet 0.55 7.30 0.01 < 0.0 1 0.18 0.10

Tree nuts 1.50 74.7 0.09 0.05 1.82 1.04

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 20. 7 0.03 0.01 0.50 0.29

Cotton 0.52 23. 0 0.03 0.02 0.56 0.32

Rice 0.73 390 0.49 0.27 9.51 5.42

Soybean 0.52 16.2 0.02 0.01 0.39 0.22

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 6.73 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.09

Corn 0.66 15. 6 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.22

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 48. 5 0.06 0.03 1.18 0.67

Cotton

(postharvest) 0.79 29. 9 0.04 0.02 0.73 0.42

Rice 0.66 74 .0 0.09 0.05 1.80 1.03

Soybean 0.66 11. 6 0.01 0.01 0.28 0.16

Sugar beet 0.66 5.37 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.07

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.5 0 15.4 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.21

0.30 1 

### 4.36 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.10

Fallow field 0.53 69.8 0.09 0.05 1.70 0.97

0.40 1 

### 11.8 0.01 0.01 0.29 0.16

### - Page 64 of 135

- Lawns/gardens 1.36 7.26 0.01 <0.01 0.18 0.10

Farmstead/noncr

op areas 1.5 0 10.6 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.15

1.50 1 

### 9.08 0.01 0.01

A dark shaded cell indicate s that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1)

. A lighter shaded cel l indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC=1).

1 

### Application rate based on typical use information provided by registrant.

Table 4.8 RQs for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular 1 

### Plants from Spray Drift Only of G lufosinate End

- use

Products (EPs)

.

Use (s) Application Rate

(lbs ai /A) Peak EECs

Spray Drift

Only

(μg ai /L) Aquatic Vascular Plants

I C 50 

### = 9,100 μg ai /L

NOAEL = 3,100 μg ai /L

Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs

Agricultural Uses

Citrus 1.50 2.42 <0.01 <0.01

Tree nuts 1.50 2.47 <0.01 <0.01

Burndown Uses

Cotton 0.79 3.55 <0.01 <0.01

Non

- agricultural Uses

Fallow field 0.53 14.74 <0.01 <0.01

1 

### Toxicity data for aquatic nonvascular plants exposed to formulated glufosinate were not submitted.



## 4.1.2. RQ Values for Terrestrial Organisms

Table 4.9 . Overview of G lufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Animals.

Taxonomic Group(s) RQ Calculation

Exposure

Route Acute

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs are

not calculated Chronic

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs

are not calculated

Birds, reptiles, and

terrestrial

- phase

amphibians Dietary N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint ( LC 50 

### > 5,000

mg/kg diet) Y NA

Dose

adjusted N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint ( LD 50 

### > 2,000

mg/kg bw) N No toxicity data

requirement

Mammals Dietary N No toxicity data

requirement Y NA

Dose

adjusted Y NA Y NA

Terrestrial

Invertebrates Contact N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint ( LD 50 

### > 100 μ g

ai /

bee ) N No toxicity data

requirement

### - Page 65 of 135

- Table 4. 10

. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians of Different

Feeding Classes (T

- REX v. 1.5)

. Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.75 0.80 0.98 0.11 0.68



### Canola 0.49 0.23 

### 0.28 0.03 0.19



### Citrus 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00



### Corn 0.46 0.21 0.26 0.03 0.18



### Cotton 0.79 0.36 0.45 0.05 0.31



### Grape vineyard 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00



### Olives 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00



### Pome fruit 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00



### Potato vine dessication 0.23 0.10 0.13 0.01 0.09



### Rice 0.48 0.22 0.27 0.03 0.19



### Soybean 0.72 0.33 0.41 0.05 0.28



### Stone fruit 1.75 0.80 0.98 0.11 0.68



### Sugarbeet 0.64 0.29 0.36 0.04 0.25



### Tree nuts 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00



### GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.61 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.24



### Cotton 0.61 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.24



### Rice 0.80 0.37 0.45 0.05 0.31



### Soybean 0.61 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.24



### Burndown Uses

Canola 0.40 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.16



### Corn 0.40 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.16



### Cotton (pre

- plant) 0.86 0.40 0.49 0.05 0.34



### Cotton (post

- harvest) 0.86 0.40 0.49 0.05 0.34



### Rice 0.40 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.16



### Soybean 0.40 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.16



### Sugar beet 0.40 0.18 0.22 0.02 0.16



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 2.55 1.17 1.43 0.16 1.00

### - Page 66 of 135

- Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Fallow field 4.34 1.99 2.44 0.27 1.70



### Lawns/

gardens 11.13 5.10 6.26 0.70 4.36



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 12.27 5.63 6.90 0.77 4.81



### Dietary

- based RQ values are based on the mallard duck NOAEC value of 400 mg/kg diet (LOAEC > 400 mg/kg

diet)

. A dark shaded cell indicate s that the RQ exceds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted birds (LOC = 1).

### - Page 67 of 135

- Table 4.11. Acute Dose

- based RQ values for Mammals Exposed to G lufosinate (T

- REX v. 1. 5 ).

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Canola 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Citrus 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Corn 0.03 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Cotton 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Grape vineyard 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Olives 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Pome fruit 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Potato vine

dessication 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Rice 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Soybean 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Stone fruit 0.10 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Sugarbeet 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Tree nuts 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Cotton 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Rice 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

### - Page 68 of 135

- Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Soybean 0.03 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.03 0.01 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Burndown Uses

Canola 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Corn 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Cotton (pre

- plant) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Cotton (post

harvest) 0.05 0.02 0.03 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Rice 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Soybean 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Sugar beet 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.01 0.07 0.03 0.04 <0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Fallow field 0.25 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.21 0.10 0.12 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.10 0.08 0.04 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Lawns/

gardens 0.64 0.29 0.36 0.04 0.54 0.25 0.31 0.03 0.29 0.13 0.16 0.02 0.25 0.21 0.11 0.01 0.01 <0.01



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 0.70 0.32 0.40 0.04 0.60 0.28 0.34 0.04 0.32 0.15 0.18 0.02 0.28 0.24 0.13 0.01 0.01 <0.01



### Acute RQ values for mammals are based on the LD 50 

### value of 3,030 mg/kg bw.

A dark shaded cell indicate s that the RQ exceeds the LOC for acute risk to nonlisted mammals (LOC = 0.5)

. A lighter shaded cel l indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for acute risk to listed mammals only (LOC

= 0.1).

### - Page 69 of 135

- Table 4.12. Chronic Dose

- based RQ Values for Mammals Exposed to G lufosinate (T

- REX v.1. 5 ).

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med L g Sm Med L g Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 50.55 23.17 28.44 3.16 43.18 19.79 24.29 2.70 23.15 10.61 13.02 1.45 19.80 16.91 9.07 0.70 0.60 0.32



### Canola 14.28 6.55 8.03 0.89 12.20 5.59 6.86 0.76 6.54 3.00 3.68 0.41 5.59 4.78 2.56 0.20 0.17 0.09



### Citrus 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Corn 13.42 6.15 7.55 0.84 11.46 5.25 6.45 0.72 6.15 2.82 3.46 0.38 5.26 4.49 2.41 0.19 0.16 0.09



### Cotton 22.93 10.51 12.90 1.43 19.59 8.98 11.02 1.22 10.50 4.81 5.91 0.66 8.98 7.67 4.11 0.32 0.27 0.15



### Grape vineyard 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Olives 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Pome fruit 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Potato vine

dessication 6.59 3.02 3.71 0.41 5.63 2.58 3.17 0.35 3.02 1.38 1.70 0.19 2.58 2.21 1.18 0.09 0.08 0.04



### Rice 13.90 6.37 7.82 0.87 11.87 5.44 6.68 0.74 6.36 2.92 3.58 0.40 5.44 4.65 2.49 0.19 0.16 0.09



### Soybean 20.85 9.55 11.73 1.30 17.81 8.16 10.02 1.11 9.55 4.38 5.37 0.60 8.17 6.97 3.74 0.29 0.25 0.13



### Stone fruit 50.55 23.17 28.44 3.16 43.18 19.79 24.29 2.70 23.15 10.61 13.02 1.45 19.80 16.91 9.07 0.70 0.60 0.32



### Sugarbeet 18.54 8.50 10.43 1.16 15.83 7.26 8.91 0.99 8.49 3.89 4.77 0.53 7.26 6.20 3.32 0.26 0.22 0.12



### Tree nuts 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 17.53 8.03 9.86 1.10 14.97 6.86 8.42 0.94 8.02 3.68 4.51 0.50 6.86 5.86 3.14 0.24 0.21 0.11



### Cotton 17.53 8.03 9.86 1.10 14.97 6.86 8.42 0.94 8.02 3.68 4.51 0.50 6.86 5.86 3.14 0.24 0.21 0.11



### Rice 23.06 10.57 12.97 1.44 19.70 9.03 11.08 1.23 10.56 4.84 5.94 0.66 9.03 7.71 4.14 0.32 0.27 0.15

### - Page 70 of 135

- Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med L g Sm Med L g Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Soybean 17.53 8.03 9.86 1.10 14.97 6.86 8.42 0.94 8.02 3.68 4.51 0.50 6.86 5.86 3.14 0.24 0.21 0.11



### Burndown Uses

Canola 11.45 5.25 6.44 0.72 9.78 4.48 5.50 0.61 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.49 3.83 2.05 0.16 0.14 0.07



### Corn 11.45 5.25 6.44 0.72 9.78 4.48 5.50 0.61 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.49 3.83 2.05 0.16 0.14 0.07



### Cotton (pre

- plant) 24.95 11.44 14.04 1.56 21.32 9.77 11.99 1.33 11.43 5.24 6.43 0.71 9.77 8.35 4.48 0.35 0.30 0.16



### Cotton (post

harvest) 24.95 11.44 14.04 1.56 21.32 9.77 11.99 1.33 11.43 5.24 6.43 0.71 9.77 8.35 4.48 0.35 0.30 0.16



### Rice 11.45 5.25 6.44 0.72 9.78 4.48 5.50 0.61 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.49 3.83 2.05 0.16 0.14 0.07



### Soybean 11.45 5.25 6.44 0.72 9.78 4.48 5.50 0.61 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.49 3.83 2.05 0.16 0.14 0.07



### Sugar beet 11.45 5.25 6.44 0.72 9.78 4.48 5.50 0.61 5.24 2.40 2.95 0.33 4.49 3.83 2.05 0.16 0.14 0.07



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 73.67 33.76 41.44 4.60 62.93 28.84 35.40 3.93 33.73 15.46 18.97 2.11 28.85 24.65 13.21 1.02 0.87 0.47



### Fallow field 125.4 57.48 70.55 7.84 107.1 49.10 60.26 6.70 57.43 26.32 32.30 3.59 49.12 41.96 22.49 1.74 1.49 0.80



### Lawns/

gardens 321.8 147.5 181.0 20.11 274.9 126.0 154.6 17.18 147.4 67.5 82.89 9.21 126.1 107.7 57.72 4.47 3.82 2.05



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 35 5.0 162.7 199. 7 22.18 303.2 13 9.0 170. 6 18.95 162.5 74.49 91.42 10.16 139.0 118. 8 63.66 4.93 4.21 2.26



### Dose

- adjusted RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAEL value of 6 mg/kg bw/day (LOAEL 18 mg/kg bw/day)

. A dark shaded cell indicate s that the dose

- adjusted RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals (LOC = 0.5)

.

### - Page 71 of 135

- Table 4.13. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Mammals of Different Feeding Classes.

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 5.83 2.67 3.28 0.36 2.28



### Canola 1.65 0.75 0.93 0.10 0.64



### Citrus 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33



### Corn 1.55 0.71 0.87 0.10 0.61



### Cotton 2.64 1.21 1.49 0.17 1.04



### Grape vineyard 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33



### Olives 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33



### Pome fruit 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33



### Potato vine dessication 0.76 0.35 0.43 0.05 0.30



### Rice 1.60 0.73 0.90 0.10 0.63



### Soybean 2.40 1.10 1.35 0.15 0.94



### Stone fruit 5.83 2.67 3.28 0.36 2.28



### Sugarbeet 2.14 0.98 1.20 0.13 0.84



### Tree nuts 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33



### Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 2.02 0.93 1.14 0.13 0.79



### Cotton 2.02 0.93 1.14 0.13 0.79



### Rice 2.66 1.22 1.49 0.17 1.04



### Soybean 2.02 0.93 1.14 0.13 0.79



### Burndown Uses

Canola 1.32 0.61 0.74 0.08 0.52



### Corn 1.32 0.61 0.74 0.08 0.52



### Cotton (pre

- plant) 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 1.13



### Cotton (post

- harvest) 2.88 1.32 1.62 0.18 1.13



### Rice 1.32 0.61 0.74 0.08 0.52



### Soybean 1.32 0.61 0.74 0.08 0.52



### Sugar beet 1.32 0.61 0.74 0.08 0.52



### Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 8.49 3.89 4.78 0.53 3.33

### - Page 72 of 135

- Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Fallow field 14.46 6.63 8.13 0.90 5.66



### Lawns/

gardens 37.09 17.00 20.87 2.32 14.53



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 40.91 18.75 23.01 2.56 16.02



### Dietary

- based RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAEC value of 120 mg/kg diet (LOAEC 360 mg/kg diet)

. A dark shaded cell indicate s that the dietary

- based RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted

mammals (LOC = 0.5)

.

Table 4.14 . Overview of G lufosinate RQ Calculation for Terrestrial Plants.

Taxonomic

Group(s) RQ Calculation

Exposure

Route Listed

Species

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs

are not calculated Nonlisted

Species

RQ

(Y/N) Justification, if RQs

are not calculated

M onocot plants Spray drift

only N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint

(NOAEL<0.062 lbs

ai/A) N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint (IC 25 

### <0.062 lbs

ai/A)

Runoff and

spray drift Y NA Y NA

Dicot plants Spray drift

only N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint

(NOAEL<0.018 lbs

ai/A) N Nondefinitive toxicity

endpoint (IC 25 

### <0.018 lbs

ai/A)

Runoff and

spray drift Y NA Y NA

### - Page 73 of 135

- Table 4.15

. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas (Ground Spray)

.

Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Monocot RQ Values Dicot RQ Values

Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas )

Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Canola 0.44 <0.10 0.38 0.37 3.21 <0.10 0.13 0.56 1.07

Citrus 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Corn 0.44 <0.10 0.38 0.37 3.21 <0.10 0.13 0.56 1.07

Cotton 0.53 <0.10 0.45 0.44 3.86 <0.10 0.15 0.68 1.29

Grape vineyard 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Olives 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Pome fruit 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Potato vine

dessication 0.38 <0.10 0.33 0.32 2.77 <0.10 0.11 0.48 0.92

Rice 0.44 <0.10 0.38 0.37 3.21 <0.10 0.13 0.56 1.07

Soybean 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Stone fruit 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Sugarbeet 0.55 <0.10 0.47 0.46 4.01 <0.10 0.16 0.70 1.34

Tree nuts 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

### - Page 74 of 135

- Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Monocot RQ Values Dicot RQ Values

Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas )

Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 <0.10 0.45 0.43 3.79 <0.10 0.15 0.66 1.26

Cotton 0.52 <0.10 0.45 0.43 3.79 <0.10 0.15 0.66 1.26

Rice 0.73 <0.10 0.63 0.61 5.32 0.11 0.21 0.93 1.77

Soybean 0.52 <0.10 0.45 0.43 3.79 <0.10 0.15 0.66 1.26

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Corn 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Cotton (pre

plant) 0.79 <0.10 0.68 0.66 5.76 0.12 0.23 1.01 1.92

Cotton (post

harvest) 0.79 <0.10 0.68 0.66 5.76 0.12 0.23 1.01 1.92

Rice 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Soybean 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Sugar beet 0.66 <0.10 0.57 0.55 4.81 <0.10 0.19 0.84 1.60

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Fallow field 0.53 <0.10 0.45 0.44 3.86 <0.10 0.15 0.68 1.29

Lawns/

gardens 1.36 0.13 1.17 1.14 9.91 0.20 0.39 1.73 3.30

Farmstead/non

crop areas 1.50 0.15 1.29 1.25 10.9 0.23 0.43 1.91 3.64

Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget monocot plants are based on the onion seedling emergence IC 25 

### = 0.61 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 0.07

lbs ai/A. Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget dicot plants are based on the lettuce seedling emergence IC 25 

### = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL =

### - Page 75 of 135

- 0.21 lbs ai/A.

A dark shaded cell indicate s that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1)

. A lighter shaded cel l indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC = 1).

Table 4.16

. RQs for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Adjacent to Glufosinate Use Areas ( Aerial Spray).

Crop Single Max.

Application

Rate

(lbs ai /A) Monocot RQ Values Dicot RQ Values

Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Dry Areas ) Runoff and

Spray Drift

( Semi

- Aquatic Areas )

Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species Nonlisted

Species Listed

Species

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 0.11 0.94 0.60 5.19 0.17 0.31 0.91 1.73

Corn 0.66 0.11 0.94 0.60 5.19 0.17 0.31 0.91 1.73

Cotton (pre

plant) 0.79 0.13 1.13 0.71 6.21 0.20 0.38 1.09 2.07

Cotton (post

harvest) 0.79 0.13 1.13 0.71 6.21 0.20 0.38 1.09 2.07

Rice 0.66 0.11 0.94 0.60 5.19 0.17 0.31 0.91 1.73

Soybean 0.66 0.11 0.94 0.60 5.19 0.17 0.31 0.91 1.73

Sugar beet 0.66 0.11 0.94 0.60 5.19 0.17 0.31 0.91 1.73

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.50 0.25 2.14 1.35 11.79 0.38 0.71 2.06 3.93

Fallow field 0.53 <0.10 0.76 0.48 4.16 0.13 0.25 0.73 1.39

Farmstead/non

crop areas 1.50 0.25 2.14 1.35 11.79 0.38 0.71 2.06 3.93

Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget monocot plants are based on the onion seedling emergence IC 25 

### = 0.61 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 0.07

lbs ai/A. Runoff and spray drift (combined) RQ values for nontarget dicot plants are based on the lettuce seedli ng emergence IC 25 

### = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL =

0.21 lbs ai/A.

A dark shaded cell indicate s that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1)

. A lighter shaded cel l indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC = 1).

### - Page 76 of 135

- 

## 4. 2

. Refine ments for Scenarios that Failed the Screen

4. 2 .1. EECs and RQs for Aquatic Nonvascular Plants Using Avg.

Application Rates

For those scenarios that failed the screening

- level assessment for aquatic nonvascular plants,

a verage application rates (when available from BEAD, Table 3.2 ) were used to develop refined

exposure estimates

. The only two scenarios t hat fail ed the screening assessment and ha d data on

average application rates were for tree nuts and cotton ( preplant b urndown )

. An average

application rate for tree nuts (0.95 lbs ai /A) was calculated by taking the total mass of glufosinate

reportedly applied for tree nut crops (almonds, hazelnut s, pistachios, walnuts ; 286,000 lbs ai ) and

dividing by the approximate total number of acres treated for these crop uses (EPA Proprietary

Data, 2007

- 2011; C. Doucoure, OPP/BEAD). The average application rate for cotton was 0.4

lbs ai/A applied an average of 1.4 times, so two applications were modeled to be protective

.

For tree nuts, EECs were generated b ased on one application and three applications at the

average single application rate of 0.95 lbs ai/A ; these EECs were 10.7 μ g/L and 47 μ g/L

, respectiv ely

. The RQ values based on a single application at the average application rate for tree

nuts do not exceed the LOCs for either risk to listed or nonlisted aquatic nonvascular plants

(LOC=1)

. 3 

## However, when three applications (the maximum permitted on the label) are

modeled using the average application rate, the RQ value for listed species exceeds the Agency’s

LOC. 4 

## For cotton ( preplant burndown )

, the EEC based on two applications at the ave rage rate

was 30.4 μ g/L , resulting in RQs below the LOCs for risk to listed and nonlisted aquatic

nonvascular plants.

4. 2

. 2

. EECs and RQs for Terrestrial Animals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs

for Average Application Rates

Where available, average application rates for specific crops ( Table 3.2 ) are used to generate

terrestrial RQ values for risk characterization ( Table 4. 18 and Tables 4.2 0 through 4. 2 2 )

. For

characterization purposes in this assessment, the RQ values using average application rates are

based on the mean Kenaga nomogram EECs ( Table 4.1 7 and 4. 19 ) instead of the upper bound

EECs, which are used for more conservative screening

- level RQ calculation for terrestrial

animals (see previous Section 4.1 ). Consistent with the screening

- level risk estimation, refined

RQ values are calculated for chronic risk to birds and for acute and chronic risk to mammals

. RQ values are not calculated for acute risk to birds because the toxicity endpoints are non

definitive (LD 50 

## >2,000 mg/kg bw, LC 50 

## > 5,000 mg/kg diet). Therefore, and because chronic

avian toxicity dat a are presented on a dietary (not dose

- adjusted) basis, dose

- based EECs for

birds are omitted from this section.

The average application rates and numbers of applications reported for specific crops ( e.g.

, hazelnuts ) are less than the maximum application rates and numbers of applications permitted by

the label for a group of crops ( e.g.

, tree nuts ). However, average application rates were not

3 

### Listed species RQ: 11 ug/L EEC/41 ug/L NOAEL=0.27; nonlisted species RQ: 11 ug/L EEC/72 ug/L I C 50 

### = 0.15.

4 

### Listed species RQ: 47 ug/L EEC/41 ug/L NOAEL= 1.15 ; nonlisted species RQ: 47 ug/L EEC/72 ug/L IC 50 

### = 0.65.

### - Page 77 of 135

- 

## available for all uses where screening

- level RQ values exceeded the LOC. Although these data

on average applicati on rates are based upon limited data sets, they are useful in supporting a

lower end estimate for potential risk to nontarget organisms when the screening level RQ value

(or similar comparison) exceeds the LOC

. Toward this end, when usage data were availa ble for

more than one crop ( e.g. , hazelnuts, almonds, walnuts) in a representative crop group ( e.g. , tree

nuts), a single application of the lowest average application rate for the crop group is used as the

basis for generating the lower end RQs reported in the following tables.

Table 4.1 7 . Mean Kenaga Dietary EECs (mg ai/kg diet) for Birds, Reptiles, Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians,

and Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5)

. Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola (oilseed rape) 32 13 

### 17 3 24



### Corn 66 28 

### 35 5 50



### Cotton 34 14 18 3 26



### Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only) 77 33 41 6 59



### Pome fruit (apples only) 70 30 37 6 53



### Potato 31 13 16 3 23



### Soybean 37 15 19 3 28



### Stone fruit (plums only) 47 20 25 4 36



### Tree nuts (hazelnuts only) 60 26 32 5 46

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood trees 72 31 38 6 55



### Fallow field 62 26 33 5 47



### Farmstead/noncrop areas 318 135 168 26 243



### Table 4. 18

. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs 1 

### for Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians Based on

Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5)

. Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola (oilseed rape) 0.08 0.03 

### 0.04 0.01 0.06



### Corn 0.16 0.07 

### 0.09 0.01 0.13



### Cotton 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.07

### - Page 78 of 135

- Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only) 0.19 0.0 8 0.10 0.02 0.15



### Pome fruit (apples only) 0.17 0.07 0.09 0.01 0.13



### Potato 0.08 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.06



### Soybean 0.09 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.07



### Stone fruit (plums only) 0.12 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.09



### Tree nuts (haze l nuts only) 0.15 0.06 0.08 0.01 0.12

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood trees 0.18 0.08 0.10 0.01 0.14



### Fallow field 0.15 0.07 0.08 0.01 0.12



### Farmstead/noncrop areas 0.79 0.34 0.42 0.07 0.61

1 

### Dietary

- based RQ values for birds are based on the mallard duck NOAEC value of 400 mg/kg diet (LOAEC > 400

mg/kg diet)

. A s haded cell indicate s that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC for chronic risk to listed

and nonlisted birds (LOC = 1)

.

### - Page 79 of 135

- Table 4. 19 . Mean, Dose

- Adjusted Kenaga EECs (mg ai/kg bw) for Mammals Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5)

.

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola

(oilseed rape) 85 39 48 5 59 27 33 4 14 6 8 1 33 23 5 1 1 <1



### Corn 63 27 33 5 43 18 23 4 10 4 5 1 48 33 8 1 1 <1



### Cotton 32 14 17 3 22 9 12 2 5 2 3 <1 25 17 4 1 <1 <1



### Grape vineyard

(raisin grapes only) 74 31 39 6 51 22 27 4 12 5 6 1 56 39 9 1 1 <1



### Pome fruit

(apples only) 66 28 35 5 46 19 24 4 11 5 6 1 51 35 8 1 1 <!



### Potato 29 12 15 2 20 9 11 2 5 2 2 <1 22 15 4 1 <1 <1



### Soybean 35 15 18 3 24 10 13 2 6 2 3 <1 27 18 4 1 <1 <1



### Stone fruit

(plums only) 45 19 24 4 31 13 16 3 7 3 4 1 34 24 5 1 1 <1



### Tree nuts (hazelnuts

only) 58 24 30 5 40 17 21 3 9 4 5 1 44 30 7 1 1 <1

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood

trees 69 29 36 6 48 20 25 4 11 5 6 1 53 36 8 1 1 <1



### Fallow field 59 25 31 5 41 17 22 3 9 4 5 1 45 31 7 1 1 <1



### Farmstead/noncrop

areas 303 128 160 25 209 89 111 17 49 21 26 4 232 160 37 6 4 1

### - Page 80 of 135

- Table 4. 2 0

. Acute Dose

- based RQ s 1 

### (Mean) for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1. 5 )

.

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.ShortGrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola

(oilseed rape) <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Corn 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Cotton <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Grape vineyard

(raisin grapes only) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Pome fruit

(apples only) 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Potato <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Soybean 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Stone fruit

(plums only) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Tree nuts (hazelnuts

only) 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood

trees 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 < 0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Fallow field 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01



### Farmstead/noncrop

areas 0.05 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.04 0.02 0.02 <0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 <0.01 0.03 0.03 0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

1 

### Dose

- adjusted acute RQ values for mammals are based on the LD 50 

### = 3,030 mg/kg bw.

A shaded cell indicate s that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC for acute risk to listed species of mammals (LOC = 0.1)

.

### - Page 81 of 135

- Table 4. 2 1

. Chronic Dose

- based RQs 1 

### for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v.1 .5 ).

Primary Feeding

Strategy  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

Animal Size  Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Short GrassTall GrassBroadleafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.



### Arthropods Seeds, grains, etc

.

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola

(oilseed rape) 2.27 0.96 1.20 0.19 1.94 0.82 1.03 0.16 1.04 0.44 0.55 0.09 1.74 1.49 0.80 0.04 0.04 0.02



### Corn 4.75 2.01 2.52 0.39 4.06 1.72 2.15 0.33 2.18 0.92 1.15 0.18 3.63 3.10 1.66 0.09 0.07 0.44



### Cotton 2.46 1.04 1.30 0.20 2.10 0.89 1.11 0.17 1.13 0.48 0.60 0.09 1.88 1.61 0.86 0.04 0.04 0.02



### Grape vineyard

(raisin grapes only) 5.59 2.37 2.96 0.46 4.78 2.02 2.53 0.39 2.56 1.08 1.36 0.21 4.28 3.65 1.96 0.10 0.09 0.05



### Pome fruit

(apples only) 5.04 2.13 2.67 0.42 4.30 1.82 2.28 0.35 2.31 0.98 1.22 0.19 3.85 3.29 1.76 0.09 0.08 0.04



### Potato 2.21 0.94 1.17 0.18 1.89 0.80 1.00 0.16 1.01 0.43 0.54 0.0 8 1.69 1.45 0.77 0.04 0.03 0.02



### Soybean 2.64 1.12 1.40 0.22 2.26 0.96 1.20 0.19 1.21 0.51 0.64 0.10 2.02 1.73 0.93 0.05 0.04 0.02



### Stone fruit

(plums only) 3.38 1.43 1.79 0.28 2.89 1.22 1.53 0.24 1.55 0.66 0.82 0.13 2.58 2.21 1.18 0.06 0.05 0.03



### Tree nuts (haz e l nuts

only) 4.36 1.85 2.31 0.36 3.73 1.58 1.97 0.31 2.00 0.85 1.06 0.16 3.34 2.85 1.53 0.08 0.07 0.04

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood

trees 5.22 2.21 2.76 0.43 4.46 1.89 2.36 0.37 2.39 1.01 1.26 0.20 3.99 3.41 1.83 0.10 0.08 0.04



### Fallow field 4.47 1.90 2.37 0.37 3.82 1.62 2.02 0.31 2.05 0.87 1.08 0.17 3.42 2.92 1.57 0.08 0.07 0.04



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 23.0 9.73 12.2 1.89 19.6 8.32 10.4 1.62 10.5 4.46 5.57 0.87 17.6 15.0 8.05 0.42 0.36 0.19

1 

### Dose

- adjusted chronic RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAE L value of 6 mg/kg bw/day (LOAEL 18 mg/kg bw/day)

. Bolded values indicate RQs that exceed the level of concern for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals (LOC = 1).

### - Page 82 of 135

- A s haded cell indicate s that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC.

An RQ value of 3 or greater in this table means that the the average EEC based on a single application at the average application rate is equal to or greater than

the lowest dose (LOAEL) at which chronic effects were seen in laboratory mammals.

Table 4.2 2

. Chronic Dietary

- Based RQs for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average Application Rates (T

- REX v. 1.5)

. Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items Short GrassTall GrassBroad-leafPlantsFruits, pods,seeds,etc.Arthropods

Use(s) 



### Agricultural Uses (Unspecified Scenario)

Canola 0.26 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.20



### Corn 0.55 0.23 0.29 0.05 0.42



### Cotton 0.28 0.12 0.15 0.02 0.22



### Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only) 0.64 0.27 0.34 0.05 0.49



### Pome fruit (apples only) 0.58 0.25 0.31 0.05 0.44



### Potato 0.26 0.11 0.14 0.02 0.20



### Soybean 0.30 0.13 0.16 0.03 0.23



### Stone fruit (plums only) 0.39 0.17 0.21 0.03 0.30



### Tree nuts (hazelnuts only) 0.50 0.21 0.27 0.04 0.38

Nonagricultural Uses (Based on Registrant

- Submitted Usage Estimates)



### Conifer/hardwood trees 0.60 0.25 0.32 0.05 0.46



### Fallow field 0.52 0.22 0.27 0.04 0.39



### Farmstead/

noncrop areas 2.65 1.12 1.40 0.22 2.03

1 

### Dietary

- based chronic RQ values for mammals are based on the NOAEC value of 120 mg/kg diet (LOAEC 360 mg/kg diet)

. Bolded values indicate RQs that exceed the level of concern for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted mammals (LOC = 1).

A s haded cell indicate s that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC.

### - Page 83 of 135

- 

## 4. 2

. 3

. Refinements for Terre strial Plants

TerrPlant uses a simple model to assess runoff from application sites by adjusting the application

rate using the incorporation depth and a runoff fraction. For foliar applications, the incorporation

depth is set to 1, so the only adjustment made is based on the runoff fraction. The runoff fraction

is based on solubility, with the fraction increasing as the solubility increases. This is a logical

assumption, as the more soluble a pesticide is, the more likely that it will be retained in the

surface water runoff.

For a Tier I model, this approach is appropriate, as those pesticides that are not toxic to plants are

easily screened out. However, this model leaves little room for refining those exposure

assessments where plant exposure is an issue. Additi onally, this model does not account for

other processes ( e.g. , degradation in soil and water, adsorption to soil, etc.) that reduce

concentrations in runoff.

An approach to refining these estimates c ould be to look at the concentrations of the pesticide i n

the runoff being generated by PRZM. This would account for application

- specific ( e.g.

, application timing, precipitation, percolation of water into the soil) and chemical

- specific

parameters ( e.g. , aerobic soil degradation, soil sorption, aquatic degrad ation) in the development

of exposure estimates. Using the parameters built into PRZM that quantify pesticide mass in the

runoff and the runoff volume, a more accurate estimate of the amount of pesticide leaving the

field could be obtained. With this app roach, the terrestrial plant exposure estimates and

associated RQ values would be expected to drop by a factor of approximately 3. However, given

that screening

- level RQ values for listed monocot species range as high as 10.9 and 5.19 for

ground and aerial applications, respectively, in agricultural settings and as high as 11.8 in

nonagricultural settings, the refined exposure values would likely still result in RQ values that

excced the risk to listed species LOC f or some uses

. There is uncertainty regard ing potential risk

from spray drift because effects on plant growth were seen at all treatment levels in the most

sensitive monocot (onion) and dicot (cucumber) species in the vegetative vigor study.

4. 3

. Risk Description

4. 3 .1. Risks to Aquatic Organisms

4. 3 .1.1. Freshwater Fish , Amphibians, and Invertebrates

RQ values for freshwater fish exposed to glufosinate TGAI are not presented in the Risk

Estimation because the toxicity endpoint is non

- definitive

, i.e ., rainbow trout LC 50 

## > 312 ,000 μg

a i /L, and no guideline chronic toxicity data were submitted. To characterize the potential for

acute risk to freshwater fish associated with the registered uses of g lufosinate

, the highest peak

surface wa ter EEC from the assessed uses ( 390 μg/L, GMO seed propagation for rice ; Table 3.9 )

is compared to non

- definitive acute toxicity endpoint for rainbow trout . The EEC for this direct

application to aquatic habitat is less than or equal to 0. 1 % of the LC 50

. 

## For aquatic animals, an

acute EEC that exceeds 5% of the effects endpoint would exceed the Agency’s acute risk LOC

for listed species, and an acute EEC that exceeds 50% of that effects endpoint would exceed the

### - Page 84 of 135

- 

## acute risk LOC for nonlisted species. T herefore, the potential for acute risk to freshwater fi sh

(and aquatic

- phase amphibians for which freshwater fish serve as surrogates) from exposure to

technical grade g lufosinate in surface water is low. However, at least one incident involving

freshwater fish mortality has been documented as having a “proba ble” association with the spray

application of glufosinate in a nearby field (see Section 3.3.3 )

. It is unknown whether the fish

mortality was related to oxygen depletion from direct effects of glufosinate on aquatic plants or

perhaps from ammonium toxicity if additional sources of ammonium (such as fertilizer runoff)

were present in the watershed

.

In the absence of chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish early life stages

, the best available data

from OECD toxicity studi es with freshwater fish are compared to surface water EECs to evaluate

the potential for chronic risk. T he highest 60

- day surface water EEC (51.7 ug/L, fallow fields

and lawn

- and

- garden) for glufosinate is equal to 0.1% of the NOAEC for survival (50,000 u g/L)

in the 21

- day OECD study with juvenile rainbow trout. The highest EEC for rice (390 ug/L,

GMO seed propagation) is equal to 0.8% of the NOAEC for survival in this study. Therefore,

the chronic risk to freshwater fish and aquatic

- phase amphibians fro m exposure to g lufosinate

TGAI is likely low.

RQ values for freshwater invertebrates exposed to the TGAI are below the LOCs for acute risk

LOCs for listed species ( LOC

= 0.05) and for acute ( LOC = 0.5) and chronic ( LOC = 1) risk to

non

- listed species. Th erefore, risk s to freshwater invertebrates from the registered uses of

g lufosinate (TGAI) are low

.

Given that the maximum estimated concentration of glufosinate in shallow groundwater derived

using PRZM

- GW ( 26.4 μg/L, non

- agricultural uses ) is approximately 7% of the peak

concentration in surface water (390 ug/L, GMO seed propagation for rice)

, and the available data

indicate that acute risk to freshwater fish from glufosinate exposure in surface water is unlikely,

acute risk to freshwater fish , aquatic

- phase amphibians, and invertebrates exposed to the TGAI

in groundwater ( e.g.

, groundwater discharge to surface water, cave ecosystems) is also low.

The submitted ecotoxicity data indicate that formulated g lufosinate is consistently more toxi c to

fish and aquatic invertebrates than the TGAI. To better characterize the potential risk to aquatic

organisms associated with spray drift of formulated glufosinate, additional surface water EECs

were calculated based on spray drift alone (see Table 3. 9 ). The RQ values calculated using these

EECs and the acute formulated product toxicity endpoints for rainbow trout ( LC 50 

## = 4, 300 μg

ai /L ) and water flea ( EC 50 

## = 2,400 μg ai /L) , respectively , are all less than or equal to 0.01

. However, the EECs for direct application of glufosinate to rice paddies (390 ug/L, GMO seed

propagation; 375 ug/L, in

- field application to GMO rice) are considerably higher at

approximately 9% and 16% of the acute toxicity endpoints for rainbow trout and water flea

(r espectivel y ), based on studies with a Typical End

- use Product (TEP, 18.5% ai) considered

representative of the formulations approved for use on rice (Liberty 280, 24.5% ai, and Liberty,

18.2% ai)

. Based on these calculations, the direct application of formulated gl ufosinate to

flooded rice paddies may present acute risk to listed species of freshwater fish, amphibians, and

invertebrates that are located either in the rice paddy or in downstream receiving waters that

receive large discharges of paddy water, if the re lease occurs shortly after glufosinate treatment.

### - Page 85 of 135

- 

## Aquatic concentrations of glufosinate would need to be below 215 and 120 ug ai/L, respectively,

to determine that risks to freshwater fish and invertebrates are below the acute risk to listed

species LOCs. P otential risk s to fish, aquatic

- phase amphibians, or invertebrates in freshwater

aquatic habitats from spray drift only of formulated glufosinate are expected to be low

.

The sensitivity of benthic invertebrates to glufosinate is uncertain because ecotoxicity data have

not been submitted. However, t he physicochemical properties of glufosinat e suggest that it is

unlikely to partition to sediment in most soils ( i.e. , K

oc 

## < 1 ,000 in all soils tested except volcanic

ash); therefore, the potential for benthic invertebrates to be exposed to glufosinate in sediment is

considered low.

4. 3 .1.2

. Estuarine/Marine Fish and Invertebrates

RQ values for estuarine/marine fish exposed to glufosinate TGAI are not presented in the Risk

Estimation because the toxicity endpoint is non

- definitive (sheepshead minnow LC 50 

## > 963 ,000

μg ai /L) and no chronic toxicity data were submitted. To characterize the potential for acute risk

to es tuarine/marine fish associated with the registered uses of g lufosinate

, the highest peak

surface water EEC from the assessed uses (390 μg/L, GMO seed propagation for rice) is

compared to the non

- definitive acute toxicity endpoint for sheepshead minnow . EE Cs for all

proposed uses are less than 0.0 1 % of the LC 50

. 

## T herefore, the likelihood of acute mortality in

estuarine/marine fish from exposure to technical grade g lufosinate is low.

In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish, the be st available data from

OECD chronic toxicity studies with freshwater fish are used to evaluate the potential for chronic

risk to estuarine/marine fish

. Based on these data, e stuarine/marine fish would need to be

approximately 128 times more sensitive than the juvenile rainbow trout in the nonguideline 21

- day toxicity test to trigger a chronic risk concern based on the highest 60

- day EEC for rice ( 285

ug/L, GMO seed propagation). While t he likelihood of chronic exposure of estuarine/marine

fish to undilute d or minimally diluted paddy water is uncertain , it is considered low . I t is

unknown to what extent tidal flux may increase (through repeated, pulsed exposures to

glufosinate in downstream tidal waterways or backwaters) versus decrease (through dilution)

glufosinate exposure, or to what extent tidal influx may introduce fish and invertebrates into the

rice paddy. Further refinements could consider t he acreage of rice grown in proximity to

estuarine/marine environments

. Overall , chronic risk to estuarine/ marine fish from exposure to

technical grade g lufosinate is expected to be low.

Most of the assessed uses of g lufosinate TGAI result in RQ values for estuarine/marine

invertebrates , including mollusc s

, that are below the acute risk to listed spec i es LOC ( 0.05) and

non

- listed species LOC ( 0.5) . However, the uses on GMO rice, including seed propagation,

result in RQ values that meet the LOC for acute risk to listed species (RQ=0.05). The chance of

an individual effect (mortality) associated with this RQ is 1 in 4x10 8 

## , with confidence intervals

of 1 in 216 to 1 in 2x10 31



## . In the case of rice, the RQ applies to organisms in the treated rice

paddy. The RQ values for acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates outside the treated rice

paddy are expected to be below the LOCs for both listed and nonlisted species if any dilu tion of

released paddy water occurs.

### - Page 86 of 135

- 

## In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates, the freshwater

invertebrate acute

- to

- chronic ratio (ACR = 2 1 , water flea) and the acute toxicity endpoint for

mysid shrimp (EC 50 

## = 7,500 μg ai /L) are used to estimate a chronic toxicity endpoint (NOAEC =

360 u g ai /L). The highest 21

- day EECs for rice ( 348 ug/L, GMO seed propagation, and 3 3 5 u g

ai /L , in

- field application to GMO rice) exceed the estimated NOAEC. Therefore, chronic risk to

estuar ine/marine invertebrates in the rice paddy cannot be precluded. Chronic risk to

estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to released paddy water is expected to be less than risk to

invertebrates inside the paddy because exposure is expected to be intermitte nt

, of shorter

duration , and of lesser magnitude if dilution occurs

. The 21

- day surface water EECs for other

uses of glufosinate range from 2.48 ug/L (olives) to 57.5 ug/L (fallow field and lawn

- and

garden) and are less than 15% of the estimated NOAEC. A ccordingly, chronic risk to

estuarine/marine invertebrates from non

- rice uses of glufosinate is low. The submittal of chronic

toxicity data for estuarine / marine invertebrates may help to further refine these estimates and

potentially to preclude risk asso ciated with any chronic exposure from the rice uses, if these data

demonstrate that mysid shrimp are less than 21 times (ACR

- estimated factor) as sensitive to

glufosinate on a chronic exposure basis than they are on an acute exposure basis.

The submitted ecotoxicity data indicate that formulated g lufosinate is more toxic to

estuarine/marine fish and mollusc s than the TGAI. Peak s urface water EECs from spray drift

alone ( up to 1 4.74 μg/L, fallow field ) are equal to or less than 0.7% and 3% of the formulate d

product acute toxicity endpoints for sheepshead minnow (LC 50 

## = 2

, 420 μg ai /L) and Eastern

oyster (EC 50 

## = 500 μg ai /L) , respectively

. The EECs for direct application of glufosinate to rice

paddies (390 ug/L , GMO seed propagation; 375 ug/L , in

- field appli cation to GMO rice) are

approximately 16% and 78% of the acute toxicity endpoints for sheep shead minnow and Eastern

oyster, respectively. Based on these calculations, the direct application of formulated glufosinate

to flooded rice paddies in coastal area s may present acute risk to listed species of

estuarine/marine fish and to both listed and nonlisted species of estuarine/marine invertebrates

, if

they are located either in the rice paddy or in downstream receiving waters that receive large

discharges of paddy water shortly after glufosinate treatment. Although low salinity is generally

required for the successful cultivation of rice, the occurrence and potential exposure of

estuarine/marine organisms cannot be precluded for rice habitats in proximity to coastal areas

which are subject to tidal incursions. Nonetheless, dilution would reduce exposure and associated

risk for organisms in downstream receiving waters . T he likeli hood of adverse acute effects to

estuarine/marine fish or invertebrates from spray drift only of formulated glufosinate is low

.

The sensitivity of benthic estuarine/marine invertebrates to glufosinate is uncertain because

ecotoxicity data for benthic in vetebrates have not been submitted. However, the

physicochemical properties of glufosinate suggest that it is unlikely to partition to sediment in

most soils ( i.e. , K

oc 

## < 1,000 in all soils tested except volcanic ash) . Therefore, the potential for

benthi c estuarine/marine invertebrates to be exposed to glufosinate in sediment is expected to be

low. Estuarine/marine i nvertebrates that spend a portion of their life cycle in benthos but other

portion(s) of their life cycle in the water column may be at risk of adverse effects from exp o s u re

to glufosinate in the water column in excess of the acute risk to listed species and chronic risk

LOCs, based on the application scenarios described above. However, sediment pore water EECs

### - Page 87 of 135

- 

## for glufosinate from the uses o n rice (0.0004 to 0.00007 ug/L) are approximately six orders of

magnitude lower than the associated water column (surface water) EECs for these uses (375

– 390 ug/L). Ecotoxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates exposed to glufosinate in the

water column were compared to sediment pore water EECs as a surrogate metric of potential risk

from the use on rice. The resulting RQ values were less than or equal to 8 x 10

- 7 

## ; therefore, risk

from this exposure pathway is considered low

.

4. 3 .1.3

. Aquatic Plants

The registered uses of g lufosinate result in RQ values below the LOC (1) for listed and nonlisted

species of aquatic vascular plants. The highest RQ values (listed species RQ=0.49, nonlisted

species RQ=0.27) result from the GMO seed propagation use on rice. Similarly, RQ values

based on spray drift EECs and toxicity endpoints for formulated glufosinate are all <0.01.

Therefore , risk to nontarget aquatic vascular plants from aquatic exposure to glufosinate is low.

The screening

- level RQ values for registered uses of glufosinate on rice (GMO seed propagation,

in

- field application to GM O rice, and burndown) and tree nuts exceed t he Agency’s LOCs for

both listed and nonlisted species of aquatic nonvascular plants ( e.g., algae)

, based on reductions

in cell density, biomass, and growth rate in a laboratory toxicity test with the blue

- green alga

( Anabaena flos

- aquae ). The blue

- green alga is used for regulatory toxicity testing of pesticides

because it is often a sensitive indicator species in laboratory toxicity tests; in the case of

glufosinate, the toxicity endpoints for the blue

- green alga were lower than endpoints from

previously submitted studies with other algal and diatom species ( Table 3. 18 ) . When compared

to the endpoints for the blue

- green alga, s creening

- level RQ values for the uses on citrus, pre

plant burndown for cotton, and fallow field also exceed the LOC for listed species . All other

uses result in RQ values below the LOCs for both listed and nonlisted species. For uses with

which potential risk has been identified, t he actual risk of adverse effects in different aquatic

nonvascular plant species is expected to be variable, as toxicity endpoints in the submitted

studies ranged from 41 ug/L (NOAEC, blue

- green alga) to 100,000 ug/L (NOAEC; green alga,

Scenedesmus subspicatus ). While there are currently no listed species of aquatic nonvascular

plants, the degree to wh ich effects on the aquatic plant community may result in indirect effects

on other organisms is uncertain. For example , fish kill incidents have been reported which might

be attributable to indirect effects ( e.g., dissolved oxygen levels) of glufosinate.

### - Page 88 of 135

- 

## 4. 3 .2. Risks to Terrestrial Organisms

4. 3 .2.1. Birds , Reptiles, and Terrestrial

- phase Amphibians

Screening

- level RQ values for acute and sub

- acute exposure s were not calculated in the Risk

Estimation section of this asses sment b ecause no mortality was observed at the highest treatment

levels tested in the avian acute oral and sub

- acute dietary studies

. T o gain a better understanding

of how the EECs for the maximum g lufosinate application rate s for the assessed uses relate to the

toxicity data curre ntly available for birds, dietary

- and dose

- based EECs from the T

- REX model

are compared to the highest treatment concentrations in the avian acute and sub

- acute toxicity

tests

, where no mortality was observed.

For agricultural uses of g lufosinate , t he ma ximum avian dose

- based EE C is 1,160 mg/kg bw

(small birds consuming short grass) for the uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, and

tree nuts. The maximum avian dose

- based EEC for non

- agricult ural uses is 5,591 mg/kg bw

(small birds consuming short grass) for farmstead and noncrop areas , which is driven by unclear

labels which do not specify the maximum number of applications or minimum retreatment

intervals for these uses

. These EECs are approximately 58% and 280%, res pectively, of the

maximum dose tested (2,000 mg/kg diet) in the acute oral toxicity tests with bobwhite quail and

mallard duck. Although no mortality was observed in either of these studies (LD 50 

## > 2,000 mg

/kg bw), s ublethal effects, including lethargy a nd diarrhea, were observed in bobwhite quail

exposed to 2,000 mg/kg bw glufosinate ; however, similar effects were not observed in mallard

ducks at the limit dose of 2

, 000 mg/kg bw

. The maximum dietary

- based EECs (not dose

adjusted) for agricultural and no n

- agricultural uses of g lufosinate are 1,019 mg/kg diet (short

grass) and 4,909 mg/kg diet (short grass), respectively ; the higher EECs for non

- agricultural uses

are driven by the absence of label restrictions on the number of applications or retreatment

i ntervals . The dietary EECs reach 20% and 98% of the maximum concentration tested (5,000

mg/kg diet) in the sub

- acute dietary toxicity tests with bobwhite quail and mallard duck. No

mortality was observed in either of these studies (LC 50 

## > 5,000 mg/kg die t) and none of the

sublethal effects reported in the acute oral toxicity test of quail were observed in the subacute

dietary toxicity tests with either quail or mallards

.

N o mortality was observed in any of the four acute and aub

- acute toxicity tests, eac h of which

tested up to the standard limit dose or concentration for that study type . No ecological incidents

with birds , reptiles, or amphibians have been reported (ABC 2007, USEPA 2012)

. Therefore,

risk of acute mortality from the currently registered uses of glufosinate is likely low. However

, a

definitive estimate of acute risk to these taxa is not possible at this time because of the relatively

high EECs for both agricultural and non

- agricultural uses of glufosinate , the nondefini t ive

toxicity endpo ints in acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity tests, and the presence of sublethal

effects in one study

. More information is needed to refine the current estimates of terrestrial

exposure and avian toxicity for glufosinate; such information could include more detailed label

instructions regarding maximum application rates, numbers of re

- applications, and re

- application

intervals (especially for non

- agricultural uses) and information on the effects of glufosinate

exposure at higher oral ( i.e. , by gavage) and dietary concentrations. Additionally, it is unknown

### - Page 89 of 135

- 

## whether passerine species may be more sensitive t o glufosinate exposure than the bobwhite quail

and mallard duck ; although acute toxicity testing with a passerine species is now required per 40

CFR Part 158.630 (2008), a data call

- in for passerine testing was not issued at the time of

Problem Formulation

.

Screening

- level chronic RQ values for the uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree

nuts, and all non

- agricultural uses (conifer and hardwood trees, fallow field, lawn

- and

- garden,

and farmestead/noncrop areas) exceed the LOC for chronic r isk to birds, reptiles, and amphibians

exposed to glufosinate in the diet . The RQ values for these uses exceed the chronic risk LOC for

four out of five dietary items, including short grass, tall grass, broadleaf plants, and arthropods.

The uses on blueb erry and stone fruit result in RQ values that exceed the chronic risk LOC for

short grass only. The RQ value associated with a given food item ( e.g. , short grass) assumes that

the specific food item constitutes 100% of an organism’s diet. Therefore, for the uses on

blueberry and stone fruit, chronic risk is expected to be lower for organisms that forage on a

wider variety of food items ( i.e. , generalists) than for specialists that primarily consume

vegetation like short grass. However, for the other uses that t rigger chronic risk concerns, the

potential scope of risk across species is greater because almost every dietary forage item is

affected. None of the assessed uses result in RQ values that exceed the chronic risk LOC for

fruits, seeds, and pods; th erefore, potential chronic risk to strict granivores and frugivores (fruit

eaters) is low.

Each of the agricultural uses that triggers a chronic risk concern for birds has a maximum label

application rate of 1.5 lbs ai /A per application. Uses that exceed the LOC only for short grass

allow up to two applications, whereas uses that exceed the LOC for most dietary items allow up

to three applications (see Figure 4.1 ) . Screening

- level RQ values would not exceed the chronic

risk LOC for birds if the applicati on scenario for these uses w ere limited to two applications of

less than 1.0 lb ai /A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 14 days , or three applications of up

to 0.80 lb ai/A with a minimum retreatment interval of 22 days . Currently, minimum retreatmen t

interval requirements are not included on these labels.

High uncertainty surrounds the estimated exposure and associated risk from non

- agricultural

uses of glufosinate because neither minimum retreatment intervals nor maximum numbers of

applications are specified on the labels.

As described in the Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook (USEPA 1993) and the T

- REX User’s

Guide (v. 1.5, USEPA 2012)

,

The typical 21

- week avian reproduction study does not define the true exposure duration

needed to elicit the observed responses. The study protocol was designed to establish a

steady

- state tissue concentration for bioaccumulative compounds. For other pesticides, it

is entirely possible that steady

- state tissue concentrations are achieved earlier than the

21

- wee k exposure period. Moreover, pesticides may exert effects at critical periods of

the reproduction cycle and so long term exposure may not be necessary to elicit the effect

observed in the 21

- week protocol. The EFED screening risk assessment uses the sing le

day maximum estimated EEC as a conservative approach. The degree to which this

### - Page 90 of 135

- 

## exposure is conservative cannot be determined by the existing reproduction study. ... The

greater number of days EECs exceed the NOAEC, the greater the confidence in

predic tions of reproductive risk concerns.

Figures 4.1 and 4.2 are taken from the T

- REX model and illustrate the number of days for

which the screening level (upper

- bound) dietary EECs for a common glufosinate application

scenario exceeds the Agency’s LOCs for chronic risk to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial

- phase

amphibians and for mammals, respectively. R esidues on multiple food items exceed the

NOAEC for effects on avian reproduction (400 mg/kg diet)

, based on the highest concentration

tested with mallard du ck . However, only residues on short grass meet or exceed the LOAEC

(956 mg/kg diet) where adverse effects were actually observed

, in the recently reviewed study

with bobwhite quail. In this scenario, the definitive LOAEC is only exceeded after the third

application of glufosinate, and residues drop below the LOAEC after approximately five days.

Figure 4.1

. Terrestrial dietary EECs for glufosinate applied 3 times at 1.5 lbs ai /A with a retreatment

interval of 3 d ays (citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwoods ). Day 0 =

date of first application. (T

- REX v. 1.5) DayEEC(mg/kg diet)



### Avian NOAEC

(Level of Concern for chronic r isk) Avian L OAEC (956 mg/kg diet)

Reduced embryo viability

(Bobwhite quail)

### - Page 91 of 135

- 

## 4. 3 .2.2. Mammals

The agricultural uses of glufosinate for citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, and tree nuts

result in dose

- adjusted RQ values that exceed the LOC f or acute risk to listed species of

mammals (LOC = 0.1) . The listed species LOC is exceeded for small (15 g ; RQ = 0.15) and

medium (35 g ; RQ = 0.12 ) mammals that primarily consume short grass. The uses on blueberry

and stone fruit result in RQ values that exceed the listed species LOC only for small mammals

consuming short grass (RQ = 0 .10). The chance of an individual effect (mortality) associated

with the highest acute RQ value for agricultural uses (RQ = 0.15) is calculated as 1 in 9,560,

with default confidence intervals (CI) of 1 in 20 to 1 in 2 x 10 13 

## , to account for potential var iation

in the slope of the dose

- response relationship ( USEPA 2004 )

.

Non

- agricultural uses of g lufosinate are generally associated with higher RQ values . RQ values

for the uses on farmstead/noncrop areas and lawn

- and

- garden exceed the acute risk LOC for

nonlisted species of mammals (small and medium, consuming short grass). RQ values for these

two uses also exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC fo r all mammals except strict

granivores and frugivores. RQ values for fallow field uses exceed the acute risk to listed species

LOC for all mammals consuming short grass, small and medium mammals consuming tall grass

and broadleaf plants, and small mammals consuming arthropods. The use on conifer and

hardwood trees results in RQ values that exceed the acute risk to listed species LOC for small

and medium mammals consuming short grass. The chance of an individual effect (mortality)

associated with the use on conifer and hardwood trees is similar to that for agricultural uses

because the highest RQ for this use is 0.15. There is a greater chance of individual mortality

associated with the fallow field use ( e.g. , RQ=0.25; 1 in 297, CI 1 in 9 to 1 in 3 x 10 7 

## )

. The

highest chance of mortality in wild mammals is associated with the lawn

- and

- garden and

farmstead/noncrop uses ( e.g. , RQ=0.70; 1 in 4, CI 1 in 3 to 1 in 12 ) , driven by unclear labeling

. However, acute risk to strict granivores and frugivores from t he registered uses of glufosinate is

low, as none of the dose

- adjusted RQ values for these dietary items exceed the Agency’s LOCs.

The submitted mammalian toxicity data for Liberty ® 

## 280 SL Herbicide (LD 50 

## = 243 mg ai /kg

bw)

, a formulated product for which new uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives, and stone fruit were

recently registered

, indicate that formulated glufosinate can be more toxic to mammals than the

TGAI , by more than an order of magnitude

. The Agency’s level of concern for acut e risk to

nonlisted mammals is exceeded when EECs exceed 50% of the effects threshold for the active

ingredient ( i.e. , LD 50 

## value). As identified in the previous ecological risk assessment for these

uses, the maximum dose

- based EEC for the uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives (971 mg/kg bw,

short grass) is approximately 4 times the LD 50 

## value for formulated glufosinate and 8 times the

concentration ( i.e. , 1⁄2 LD 50 

## ) that could trigger concern for acute risk to nonlisted mammals. The

maximum EEC for the use on stone fruit (667 mg/kg bw, short grass) is 2.7 times the LD 50 

## value

and 5.5 times the level that could trigger concern for nonlisted mammals. These comparisons

illustrate that acute risk to mammals exposed to formulated glufosinate, and specifically to t he

Liberty ® 

## 280 SL product, may be greater than the calculated risk from exposure to the TGAI.

Screening

- level chronic RQ values indicate a potential for risk to mammals associated with all

registered uses. Dietary and dose

- adjusted RQ values for agric ultural uses and for the use on

### - Page 92 of 135

- 

## conifer and hardwood trees generally indicate potential chronic risk to all mammals except

medium and large granivores. RQ values for nonagricultural fallow field and lawn

- and

- garden

uses also exceed the chronic risk LOC fo r medium granivores. The RQ values for use on

farmstead and noncrop areas exceed the chronic risk LOC for every size and dietary class of

mammals, including large granivores. The screening

- level RQ values for nonagricultural uses

are sensitive to the ass umptions of re

- application (every 3 days) and retreatment intervals ( up to

26 applications per year for fallow field, lawn

- and

- garden, and farmstead/noncrop areas ) , and the

values for conifer and hardwood uses may be more realistic estimates of risk for th is category.

However, the chronic risk LOC is still exceeded for most mammals based on the more

prescriptive agricultural and tree scenarios and when much less conservative RQ values are

calculated for characterization based on mean EECs using average application rates. For

mammals, chronic RQ values > 3 indicate that glufosinate EECs are equal to or greater than

exposure levels at which adve rse effects were seen in laboratory mammals. Therefore, there is

high confidence in the conclusion that the use of glufosinate in accordance with registered labels

may result in chronic risk to mammals

.

The adverse effects observed in laboratory studies with mammals at concentrations and dose

levels less than or equal to the screening

- level EECs include reductions in parental and offspring

growth and offpsring viability. These effects have been observed in multiple studies and have

been shown to extend t o the second generation (no subsequent generations were tested). At

higher concentrations ( 4,500 mg/kg diet, 292 mg/kg bw/day) , total litter losses were observed at

approximately twice the rate of controls. Dose

- adjusted EECs exceed this value ( > 292 mg/kg

bw) for the uses on blueberry, citrus, cotton, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree

nuts, GMO seed propagation for rice, pre

- plant and post

- harvest burndown for cotton, and all

non

- agricultural uses of g lufosinate

.

To further character ize the potential for chronic risk to mammals from the uses of glufosinate,

dietary EECs were compared to the chronic LOAEC (360 mg/kg diet ; daily dose equivalent 18

mg/kg bw/day ) from the two

- generation reproduction study with the rat

. The ditary EECs fo r

uses on citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, and all nonagricultural

uses generally exceed this LOAEC for all food items except fruits, pods, and seeds. These

results demonstrate that the potential for chronic risk to mamm als

, as indicated by screening

level RQ values which exceed the chronic risk LOC, is substantiated because treatment

- related

effects have been documented in laboratory studies at concentrations within the range of EECs

for many of the se uses

.

### - Page 93 of 135

- Figure 4.2

. Terrestrial dietary EECs for glufosinate applied 3 times at 1.5 lbs ai /A with a retreatment

interval of 3 days (citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwoods ). Day 0 =

date of first application. (T

- REX v. 1.5)



## 4. 3 .2.3. Terrestrial Invertebrates

Based on the available data for young adult honey bees

, both glufosinate TGAI and formulated

glufosinate are classified as practically nontoxic to nontarget terrestrial invertebrates on both an

acute contact and oral exposure ba sis. The results of the acute studies show no significant

mortality to youn g adult (foraging) bees at any treatment level, with corresponding LD 50 

## values

of > 1 00 μg ai /bee for both oral and contact exposure. There is uncertainty regarding the toxicity

of glufosinate to bee larvae since no data on this age group of honey bees were available at the

time of this review. However, no incidents for terrestrial invertebrates associated with the

application of g lufosinate have been reported.

The honey bee is used as a representative species to assess the risks of glufosinate use to listed

species of terrestrial invertebrates. For characterization purposes, a toxicity value for terrestrial

invertebrates is calculated by multiplying the nondefinitive honey bee a cute contact LD 50 

## (>100 μg

ai /bee) for glufosinate by 1 bee/0.128 g, based on the average weight of an adult honey bee (Mayer

and Johansen, 1990). Dietary

- based EECs calculated by T

- REX (μg ai /g) for arthropods are then

divided by the adjusted toxicity val ue for terrestrial invertebrates (>781 μg ai /g). The resulting DayEEC(mg/kg diet)



### Mammalian NOAEC (120 mg/kg diet)

(Level of Concern for chronic r isk) Mammalian L OAEC (360 mg/kg

diet)

Reduced number of viable pups

(Rat)

### - Page 94 of 135

- 

## values range from 0.05 (potato vine dessication) to 2.46 (farmstead/noncrop areas) and meet or

exceed the interim LOC for acute risk to listed species of terrestrial invertebrates (0.05) for a ll uses.

Although t hese values meet or exceed the LOC in al l cases, they remain difficult to interpret because

(1) no effects were observed in honey bees exposed to the limit dose , and (2) because the limit dose

is lower than the T

- REX EEC in cases where the resulting ratio is > 1

.

Table 4.2 3 . Comparison of T

- REX EECs (Upper Bound Kenaga Nomogram) to the Non

- definitive Endpoint

for Acute Contact Toxicity to the Honey Bee ( Apis mellifera ).

Use (s) App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) EECs

(μg ai / g bw ) Terrestrial

Invertebrates

L C 50 

### > 100 μg ai / bee

> 781 μg ai / g bw

Limit Dose : EEC

factor of 20 corresponds

to RQ LOC=0.05

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 274 2.85

Canola 0.44 77 10.1

Citrus 1.50 399 1.96

Corn 0.44 73 10.7

Cotton 0.53 124 6.30

Grape vineyard 1.50 399 1.96

Olives 1.50 399 1.96

Pome fruit 1.50 399 1.96

Potato vine dessication 0.38 36 21.7

Rice 0.44 75 10.4

Soybean 0.66 113 6.91

Stone fruit 1.50 274 2.85

Sugarbeet 0.55 100 7.81

Tree nuts 1.50 399 1.96

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 95 8.22

Cotton 0.52 95 8.22

Rice 0.73 125 6.25

Soybean 0.52 95 8.22

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 62 12.60

Corn 0.66 62 12.60

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 135 5.79

Cotton (postharvest) 0.79 135 5.79

Rice 0.66 62 12.60

Soybean 0.66 62 12.60

Sugar beet 0.66 62 12.60

Non

- agricultural Uses

### - Page 95 of 135

- Conifer/hardwood trees 1.50 399 1.96

Fallow field 0.53 679 1.15

Lawns/gardens 1.36 1743 0.45

Farmstead/

noncrop areas 1.50 1923 0.41

A light shaded cell indicate s that the screening

- level EEC is less than or equal to the highest treatment level tested

in the acute contact toxicity study with the honey bee, but that the potential for risk at these exposure levels is

uncertain. Generally, a factor of at least 20 ( e.g. , 21.7 f or potato vine dessication) between the toxicity endpoint

and the EEC is considered sufficient to preclude acute risk to listed species of terrestrial invertebrates. When

considering RQ values (not calculated here), this factor of 20 corresponds to an LOC =0.05.

A dark shaded cell indicate s that the screening

- level EEC is greater than the non

- definitive endpoint in the acute

contact toxicity study with the honey bee. For these nonstandard uses, the higher EECs are driven by the absence of

specified retreatment intervals or maximum number of applications on the label.



## The European Food Safey Authority (EFSA 2005) evaluated a series of extended laboratory and

semi

- field studies on beneficial insects including the parasitoid wasp ( 

## Aphidius rhopalosiphi ),

predatory mite 

## ( Typhlodromus pyri )

, wolf spider ( Pardosa ssp. )

, green lacewing ( Chrysoperla

carnea )

, ground beetle ( Poecilus cupreus ), and rove beetle ( Aleochara bilineata ). “Severe”

effects were observed with a potential for population recovery in one season when glufosinate

was applied at rates consistent with use on glufosinate

- resistant corn (two application at 0.8 kg

ai/ha). However, EFSA noted that the application r ates tested were less than the maximum

single application rate for orchard use (1.5 kg ai/ha). As described in the EFSA (2005) report,

t he EFSA Peer Review Coordination ( EPCO ) expert meeting (April 2004 , ecotoxicology )

recommended mitigation measures for risk to nontarget arthropoods, such as a 5

- m buffer zone

when glufosinate is applied to corn or potatoes. In a recent review of additional field

- level data

for nontarget arthropods in apple orchards, EFSA (2012) noted that recovery was not observed

for al l species ( e.g. , predatory mite) within one season, and concluded that the risk for nontarget

,

non

- Apis sp. arthropods associated with the representative orchard use was high.

In the absence of additional data on the toxicity of higher doses of glufosina te to terrestrial

invertebrates, risk to listed species cannot be precluded at the screening level.



## 4. 3 .2.4. Terrestrial Plants

Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, screening

- level RQ values based

on maximum single application rates indicate a potential for risk to terrestrial and semi

- aquatic

plants exposed to glufosinate via combinations of runoff and spray drift (see Table 4.15 through

Table 4.1 6 ). All ground spray uses of glufosinate result in RQ values that ex ceed the listed

species LOC for monocots in wetland (semi

- aquatic) areas. RQ values for all uses except potato

vine dessication exceed the LOC for risk to listed species of dicots in wetland areas. The

nonlisted species LOC, which generally represents an average growth inhibition of 25% for

terrestrial plants, is exceeded for both monocots and dicots based on uses for blueberry, citrus,

grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwood trees, lawn

- and

garden, and farmstead/n oncrop areas. The burndown uses for cotton also exceed the nonlisted

species LOC for wetland dicots. Terrestrial plants in non

- wetland areas are expected to receive

less runoff and generally be at lower risk

. H owever, RQs still exceed the LOCs for risk to listed

### - Page 96 of 135

- 

## species of monocots based on the same uses (except for cotton burndown) that trigger nonlisted

species risk concerns for wetland plants

.

Aerial spray of glufosinate is expected to result in greater spray drift exposure; the TerrPlant

model assumes that the spray drift fraction from aerial applications is five times greater than

spray drift from ground spray applications. Aerial spray of glufosinate results in additional risk

that exceeds the Agency’s LOCs for both listed and nonlisted dico t plants adjacent to the use site

when applied at 1.5 lbs ai/A ( e.g., aerial spray for conifer and hardwood trees, farmstead and

noncrop areas). The likelihood of aerial spray for these scenarios is uncertain but cannot be

precluded based on the available information. Aerial spray at 0.79 lbs ai/A ( e.g. , pre

- plant and

post

- harvest burndown for cotton) triggers additional risk to listed species of monocot and dicot

plants in non

- wetland areas.

Spray drift EECs (the spray drift fraction) are always calcula ted to be less than or equal to EECs

for plants exposed to both spray drift and runoff. However, the potential for risk may be higher

if effects were seen at lower treatment rates in the vegetative vigor study (foliar application) than

in the seedling eme rgence study (root uptake). In the case of glufosinate, the greatest plant

sensitivity was seen in the vegetative vigor studies. Based on the magnitude of effects in the

vegetative vigor study with formulated glufosinate (see Figure 4.3 ), the IC 25 

## values for the most

sensitive monocot and dicot species were determined to be lower than the lowest treatment rates

tested. Therefore, spray drift only RQs are not calculated because they would be likely to

underestimate risk.

### - Page 97 of 135

- 

## AgD RIFT was used to estimate how far from the treatment site spray drift exposure might occur

at levels known to inhibit plant growth ( Table 4.2 4 ). The screening level analysis, based on the

most sensitive monocot and dicot plant species tested, suggests that spray drift from ground

spray applications of glufosinate at 1.5 lbs ai/A ( e.g. , uses on blueberry, citrus, grapes, olives,

pome fruit, stone fruit, tree nuts, and farmstead and noncrop a reas) may result in potential effects

on nontarget monocot plants within seven feet of the treatment area and on nontarget dicot plants

within 26 feet of the treatment area. Aerial applications of glufosinate are expected to result in

greater spray drift exposure and therefore greater risk.farther from the field. Spray drift from

aerial applications may result in effects on nontarget monocot plants within 30 to 131 feet and on

nontarget dicot plants within 121 to 358 feet of the treatment area. The actua l effects area may

be larger because the submitted data did not establish a lower bound of effects for the most

sensitive species; effects greater than 25% were observed with foliar exposure to glufosinate at

levels consistent with the AgDRIFT spray drift EECs. The contribution of runoff may further

extend the potential effects area for nontarget plants. 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%% Inhibition (Dry Weight)



### Tomato

Corn

Dicot

Monocot



### * * statistically significant when compared to negative control (p<0.05)



## * *

0.0089 lbs ai/A 0.0 16 lbs ai/A 0.0 18 lbs ai/A 0.0 62 lbs ai/A Lowest Measured

Treatment Rate



### Figure 4.3

. Magnitude of effects at the lowest treatment rate tested in the vegetative vigor study with formulated

glufosinate ( Glufosinate

- Ammonium 150 g/L, 13.9% ai). The crops on the x

- axis represent crops tested in the

vegetative vigor study; they do not represent glufosinate uses, although glufosinate is registered for use on some

of these crops.

### - Page 98 of 135

- Table 4. 2 4

. Possible 1 

### Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Glufosinate through Spray

Drift Only, Based on the Most Sensitive C rop Species in Submitted Toxicity Studies.

Crop Single

Max. App

. Rate

(lbs ai /A) AgDRIFT

Scenario Distance from Treatment Site (feet)

Monocots

Onion

IC 05 

### < 0.062 lbs ai/A

37%  Dry Weight Dicots

Cucumber

NOAEL < 0.018 lbs ai/A

28%  Dry Weight

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 Ground spray 7 26

Canola 0.44 Aerial spray 30 121

Citrus 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

Corn 0.44 Aerial spray 30 121

Cotton 0.53 Aerial spray 44 154

Grape vineyard 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

Olives 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

Pome fruit 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

Potato vine dessication 0.38 Aerial spray 30 121

Rice 0.44 Aerial spray 30 121

Soybean 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Stone fruit 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

Sugarbeet 0.55 Aerial spray 49 161

Tree nuts 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 Aerial spray 44 151

Cotton 0.52 Aerial spray 44 151

Rice 0.73 Aerial spray 72 200

Soybean 0.52 Aerial spray 44 151

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Corn 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Cotton (pre

- plant) 0.79 Aerial spray 75 213

Cotton (post

- harvest) 0.79 Aerial spray 75 213

Rice 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Soybean 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Sugar beet 0.66 Aerial spray 69 184

Non

- agricultural Uses

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.50 Aerial spray 131 358

Fallow field 0.53 Aerial spray 44 154

Lawns and gardens 1.36 Aerial spray Not calculated Not calculated

Farmstead/noncrop areas 1.50 Ground spray 6.5 26

1 

### The actual effects area is uncertain and may be greater than the distance calculated by AgDrift. The submitted

vegetative vigor data with formulated glufosinate did not establish a lower bound of effects for the most sensitive

species; effects greater th an 25% were observed at the lowest treatment levels



## .

### - Page 99 of 135

- 

## The abundance ( i.e. , 48) of reported crop damage incidents with corn and canola, 4 4 of which

were associated with the use of glufosinate consistent with label instructions, and the more recent

report of damage to pistachio treated with glufosinate and another herbicide (flumioxazin),

underscores the potential for risk to terrestrial plants.



# 5. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP)

As required by FIFRA and the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act ( FFDCA ) , EPA reviews

numerous studies to assess potential adverse outcomes from exposure to chemicals.

Collectively, these studies include acute, subchronic and chronic toxicity, including assessments

of carcinogenicity, neurotoxicity, developmental, rep roductive, and general or systemic toxicity.

These studies include endpoints which may be susceptible to endocrine influence, including

effects on endocrine target organ histopathology, organ weights, estrus cyclicity, sexual

maturation, fertility, pregnan cy rates, reproductive loss, and sex ratios in offspring. For

ecological hazard assessments, EPA evaluates acute tests and chronic studies that assess growth,

developmental and reproductive effects in different taxonomic groups . As part of the

Preliminar y Problem Formulation for Registration Review (DP Barcode 345696) , EPA reviewed

these data and selected the most sensitive endpoints for relevant risk assessment scenarios from

the existing hazard database. However, as required by FFDCA section 408(p), g l ufosinate is

subject to the endocrine screening part of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).

EPA has developed the EDSP to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide

active and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans o r wildlife similar to an effect

produced by a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator

may designate.” The EDSP employs a two

- tiered approach to making the statutorily required

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to

interac t with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine

- related effect s caused by the substance, and

establish a dose

- response relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.

Under FFDCA section 408(p), the Agency must screen all pesticide chemicals. Between

October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/ data call

- ins for the first group of 67

chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. G lufosinate is

not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the

EDSP. Accordingl y, as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data call

ins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for g lufosinate . For further information

on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the list of 67 chemicals , future lists, the

test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our website:

http://www.epa.gov/endo/

.

### - Page 100 of 135

- 

# 6

. Federally Threatened and Endangered (Listed) Species of Concern

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, 16 U.S.C. Section 1536(a)(2), requires all federal

agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for marine and

anadromous listed species, and/ or the United States Fish and Wildlife Service ( US FWS) for

listed wildlife and freshwater organisms, if they are proposing an "action" that may affect listed

species or their designated critical habitat. Each federal agency is required under the Act to

ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out is not li kely to jeopardize the continued

existence of a listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated

critical habitat. To jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species means "to engage in an

action that reasonably wou ld be expected, directly or indirectly, to reduce appreciably the

likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the

reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species" (50 C.F.R. § 402.02).

To facilitate compl iance with the requirements of the Endangered Species Act (subsection

(a)(2)), the Office of Pesticide Programs has established procedures to evaluate whether a

proposed registration action may directly or indirectly appreciably reduce the likelihood of bo th

the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers,

or distributi on of any listed species (USEPA 2004). After the Agency’s screening level risk

assessment is conducted, if any of the Agency’s listed species LOCs are exceeded for either

direct or indirect effects, an analysis is conducted to determine if any listed or candidate species

may co

- occur in the area of the proposed pesticide use or areas downstream or downwind that

could be contaminated from drift o r runoff/erosion. Given the existing national registrations and

broad range of registered uses for g lufosinate , the Agency has determined that listed species may

be present in the action area. If listed or candidate species may be present in the action a rea,

further biological assessment is undertaken. The extent to which listed species may be at risk is

considered

, which then determines the need for the development of a more comprehensive

consultation package, as required by the Endangered Species Act. The federal action addressed

herein is the registraion review of existing uses for g lufosinate

.

6 .1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected

directly or indirectly by g lufosinate use and not merely the immediate area where g lufosinate is

applied. At the initial screening

- level, the risk assessment considers broadly described

taxonomic groups and conservatively estimates exposure for organisms that are co

- located with

the pesticide treatment area. This means that terrestrial plants and wildlife are assumed to be

located on or adjacent to the treated site and aquatic organisms are assumed to be located in a

surface water body adjacent to the treated site , except in the case of direc t application to aquatic

habitat

.

6

. 2

. Taxonomic Groups Potentially at Risk

If the assumptions associated with the screening

- level action area result in RQs that are below

the listed species LOCs, a "no effect" determination conclusion is made with respect to listed

### - Page 101 of 135

- 

## species in that taxa, and no further refinement of the action are a is necessary. Furthermore, RQs

below the listed species LOCs for a given taxonomic group indicate no concern for indirect

effects on listed species that depend upon the taxonomic group for which the RQ was calculated.

However, in situations where the s creening assumptions lead to RQs in excess of the listed

species LOCs for a given taxonomic group, a potential for a "may affect" conclusion exists and

may be associated with direct effects on listed species belonging to that taxonomic group or may

extend to indirect effects upon listed species that depend upon that taxonomic group as a

resource. In such cases, additional information on the biology of listed species, the locations of

these species, and the locations of use sites are considered to determine the extent to which

screening assumptions regarding an action area apply to a particular listed organism. These

subsequent refinement steps will consider how this information would impact the action area for

a particular listed organism and potentially i nclude areas of exposure that are downwind and

downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual model s addressing proposed new

g lufosinate uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for th e g lufosinate

screening

- level risk assessment are in Sections 2 to 3

. The assessment endpoints used in the

screening

- level risk assessment include those defined operationally as reduced survival and

reproductive impairment for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species and survival,

reproduction, and growth of aquatic and terrestrial plant species from both direct acute and

chronic exposures. These assessment endpoints address the standard set forth in the Endangered

Species Act requiring federal agencie s to ensure that any action they authorize does not

appreciably reduce the likelihood of both the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild

by reducing the reproduction, numbers, or distribution of the species. Risk estimates (RQs)

which, inte grating exposure and effects, are calculated for broad based taxonomic groups in the

screening

- level risk assessment presented in Section 4

.

Data on exposure and effects collected under laboratory and sometimes field conditions are

evaluated in the screening

- level risk assessment for nonlisted and listed species. Both acute and

chronic risk to listed species LOCs are considered to identify potential effects (or absence

thereof) to listed species. This section identifies potential direct effect con cerns, by taxa, that are

triggered by exceeding listed species LOCs in the screening

- level risk assessment ( Table 6.1 ).

Where applicable, a n evaluation of the probability of individual effects for exposures that may

occur at the established listed species LOC is presented in Section 4

. Table 6.1 further identifies

taxa for which the potential risk to individual listed species is uncertain due to data gaps or

limitations in study design ( e.g ., non

- definitive endpoints in avian limit dose tests). These

unc ertainties may be reduced or resolved by additional data , but physiological constraints in

achieving higher dose levels than the standard limit dose should be considered when determining

the need for further acute toxicity testing

.

### - Page 102 of 135

- Table 6. 1

. Preliminary Conclusions for Potential Direct Effects to Federally Listed Taxa Associated with the Registered Uses of G lufosinate , Based on

Best Available Data

.

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants

–

monocots and dicots Yes

Aquatic vascular plants No effect

Listed Animal Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes

Terrestrial invertebrates Uncertain 1 1 

### Although no effects were seen in the acute

contact toxicity tests with juvenile honey bees, the

standard limit dose (100 ug ai/bee) was not high

enough to preclude risk at the listed species LOC,

based on the relatively high glufosinate EECs for

registere d uses. A comparison of the limit dose to

EECs, by use, is presented in Table 4.25

.

2 

### Although no mortality was seen in the acute

toxicity tests with birds, the standard limit dose

was not high enough to preclude risk at the listed

species LOC, based on the relatively high

glufosinate EECs for registered uses (see Section

4.3.2.1 ) . Sublet hal effects (lethargy and diarrhea)

were observed in one acute oral toxicity test with

birds, used as surrogates for reptiles and

terrestrial

- phase amphibians. No effects were seen

in the acute avian dietary toxicity studies, which

represent a more ecolog ically relevant exposure

route for foraging birds.

3 

### No effect to aquatic animal species unless ND 4 

### Screening

- level RQ values would not

exceed the chronic risk LOC for birds (also

surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial

amphibians) if the application scenario for

these uses (see Section 4.3.2.1 ) were limited

to two applications of less than 1.0 lb ai/A,

with a minimum retreatment interval of 14

days . Currently, minimum retreatment

interval requirements are not specified on all

labels.

5 

### No effect to aquatic animal species from

chronic aquatic exposure to the TGAI, unless

estuarine/marine fish or early life stages of

freshwater fish are more than 175 times as

sensitive as the juvenile rainbow trout tested

in MRID 48301105.

6 

### Risk of direct effects from chronic aquatic

exposure to formulated glufosinate is

expected to be below the LOC. The potential

fo r sustained exposure to glufosinate and its Mammals Yes Yes

Birds Uncertain 2 

### Yes 4



### Reptiles Uncertain 2 

### Yes 4



### Amphibians Uncertain 2,3 

### Yes 4,5, 6



### Freshwater fish No effect 3 

### No effect 5, 6



### Freshwater

invertebrates No effect 3 

### No effect

Molluscs No effect 3 

### ND

Estuarine/marine fish No effect 3 

### No effect 5, 6

### - Page 103 of 135

- Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Estuarine/marine

invertebrates No effect 3 

### organisms are exposed directly to undiluted

glufosinate

- treated rice paddy water

.

Uncertain 7,8 

### formulation ingredients, in ratios reflective of

the original packaged product, is

undetermined; however, a comparison of the

most conservative aquatic EECs (rice uses),

assuming intact product, with OECD

guideli ne toxicity data for juvenile rainbow

trout (MRID 48301106) supports a

conclusion of no effect.

7 

### No effect to aquatic animal species unless

organisms are exposed directly to

undiluted glufosinate

- treated rice paddy

water

.

8 

### In the absence of chronic tox icity data for

estuarine/marine (E/M) invertebrates, chronic

toxicity and risk were estimated based on an

acute

- to

- chronic ratio for freshwater

invertebrates. Experimental data would

reduce this uncertainty and may support a no

effect determination for th e uses on rice.

ND 

### Not determined.

### - Page 104 of 135

- 

## 6

. 3

. Listed Species Occurrence Associated with Registered Uses

The screening

- level risk assessment for glufosinate assumes that it may be applied nationwide,

including U.S. territories and possessions. Therefore, no federally listed species are excluded

from the screening level analyses, unless otherwise indicated ( e.g. , if only listed due to Similarity

o f Appearance to another listed species). A spatial co

- occurrence analysis that compares the best

available data regarding glufosinate potential and documented use areas and listed species

occurrence is needed to more explicitly address potential risk to l isted species of concern.



# 7

. Conclusions

The risk hypothesis identified in the problem formulation stated , “G iven the uses of g lufosinate

and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of acute and chronic exposure to

nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Therefore, w hen used in accordance with the label,

g lufosinate may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of

nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals. ” After reviewing the mos t recent

environmental fate and effects data for glufosinate, the screening

- level assessment concludes that

registered uses of the herbicide g lufosinate may result in risk to both listed and non

- listed species

of plants and wildlife.

Glufosinate is expe cted to be moderately mobile to highly mobile in the environment, and its

primary route of degradation is expected to be aerobic soil metabolism. The compound is not

volatile, but is likely to move off

- site via a combination of spray drift, runoff and lea ching.

Glufosinate that enters surface waters is expected to be stable to hydrolysis and photolysis, and

to degrade slowly via aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolic processes. Glufosinate residues

may persist in aquatic environments, resulting in chron ic exposure to aquatic organisms. As

glufosinate is expected to be moderately mobile to highly mobile, significant partitioning of

glufosinate to benthic sediments in most aquatic habitats is not expected. Instead, glufosinate is

likely to remain primari ly in the water column, where dilution and slow metabolic degradation

act to decrease concentrations over time.

When estimates of glufosinate exposure in terrestrial and aquatic environments are compared to

the available ecotoxicity data, the results of the screening

- level assessment indicate a potential

for acute risk to listed species of mammals for some agricultural uses and to both listed and

nonlisted species for nonagricultural uses. The potential for acute risk to mammals is increased

from exposur e to glufosinate formulated as Liberty ® 

## 280 SL Herbicide, the product for which the

new uses on citrus, pome fruit, olives, and stone fruit were recently registered, because the

toxicity of this product is greater than that of the TGAI. All registered use s of glufosinate are

expected to result in chronic risk to mammals that exceeds the Agency’s LOC, although

exposure and risk to strict granivores and frugivores is expected to be lower and of less concern.

Consistent with the intended use of glufosinate as an herbicide, direct risk to terrestrial and semi

aquatic plants is expected. Spray drift from aerial applications of formulated glufosinate may

result in effects on nontarget terrestrial plants within at least 30 to 358 feet of the treatment area.

Th e potential for adverse effects to terrestrial plants is affirmed by 49 reported incidents of crop

damage ( i.e.

. , 48 incidents with corn and canola , 1 incident with pistachio ) and may result in

### - Page 105 of 135

- 

## potential indirect effects to both terrestrial and aquatic tax a. Acute risk to listed species of birds,

and by proxy to terrestrial

- phase amphibians and reptiles, is uncertain; however, although risk

estimates are indeterminate, risk of acute avian mortality from dietary exposure to the TGAI is

likely low because no mortality was observed in the submitted ecotoxicity studies which tested

up to 2,000 mg/kg bw and 5,000 mg/kg diet, respectively. Chronic risks to birds, reptiles, and

terrestrial

- phase amphibians exposed through residues in the diet are expected when gl ufosinate

is applied at least twice at treatment rates greater than 0.79 lbs ai/A with a retreatment interval

(RTI) of less than 14 days

. Similarly

, the chronic risk LOC is exceeded with three applications

at 0.80 lbs ai/A and a RTI less than 22 days, or with three applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A and a RTI

of less than 120 days. With the exception of uses on rice, acute and chronic risk to fish, aquatic

phase amphibians, and aquatic invertebrates is low.

Although the toxicity of formulated glufosinate to aquatic animals is equivalent to or greater than

the toxicity of the TGAI, aquatic EECs calculated for spray drift of the formulation are relatively

low, and risk to these taxa from exposure to the formulation is considered unlikely. However,

two incident s of freshwater fish mortality have been reported as having a potential association

with the registered use of glufosinate in agricultural areas . I t is unknown whether these incidents

were associated with a particular glufosinate formulation, whether the observed mortalities

resulted from direct effects of glufosinate exposure or perhaps from ammonium toxicity

following exposure from multiple sources, or whether they resulted from oxygen depletion from

direct effects of glufosinate exposure on the aquatic plant community. Several uses result in RQ

values that exceed the LOC for risk to listed and nonlisted species of nonvascular aquatic plants

( e.g. , algae).

Finally, fate and toxicity data were available for the racemic mixture of glufosinate but not for

individual components within the mixture. The (S)

- enantiomer is considered to be the

herbicidally active substance. Microbially mediated degradation processes in soil and aquatic

environments can be influenced through enantioselective behavior, which may result in

environmental exposure to isomers or enantiomers of the racemic mixture in ratios that are

different from those in the applied product. The conduct of studies to determine such exposure

levels can be complex and expensive. Likewise, the relati ve toxicity of individual components

of the racemic mixture to nontarget taxa is unknown. This assessment was conducted on the

racemic mixture and assumes that components of the mixture remain together in the

environment; there is uncertainty as to how re flective the EECs and risk conclusions for the

racemic mixture are to those of the individual enantiomers of glufosinate

- ammonium

.



# 8

. References

American Bird Conservancy (ABC). 20 1 0 . Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available online at

http://www.ab cbirds.org/abcprograms/policy/toxins/aims/aims/login.cfm

.

Datta, P. 1988. Memorandum to Richard Mountfort and Amy Rispin, Subject: Ignite EFGWB Science Chapter

, Memorandum.

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). 2012. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of

confirmatory data submitted for the active substance glufosinate . EFSA Journal 10 (3): 2609. Available

online at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/2609.pdf

.

### - Page 106 of 135

- -- 2005. Conclusion regarding the peer review of t he pesticide risk assessment of the active substance glufosinate.

EFSA Scientific Report 27: 1

- 81. Available online through the EFSA website at 

### http://www.efsa.eu.int

.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleege r. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food

- chain

(Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environmental

Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9):1383

- 1391.

Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative data as a basis for

estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality

and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Th ieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9

-

28.

Kashuba, R., Spatz, D. 2006 Memorandum to Steven Bradbury, Subject: Standard Soil Mobility Classification

Guidance

Matsumura N., Takeuchi C., Hishikawa K., Fujii T., Nakaki T. 2001. Glufosinate ammonium induces convulsion

through N

- methyl

- D

- aspartate receptors in mice

. Neurosci Lett. 304(1

- 2):123

- 5

Urban, D.J., and N. Cook. 1986. Ecological Risk Assessment . EPA 540/9

– 85

- 001. Office of Pesticide Programs.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2009. National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Accessed on 4

December 2009. Available online at http://www.agcensus.usda.gov

.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 20 12 . Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 .

Accessed on 7 November 20 12 . Description online at

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm

.

-- 2009a. Pesticides; Data Re quirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data

Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933

- 60988.

-- 2009 b . Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

.

-- 2009 c . ECOTOXicology Database, v. 4.0. Accessed on 12 April 2012 . Available online at

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

.

-- 2009d

. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of Pesticides,

Version 2.1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic

Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, October 22, 2009.

Online at: http://www.epa .gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

-- 2008. Registration Review

– Preliminary Problem Formulation for the Ecological Risk Assessment of

Glufosinate

- ammonium. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 9

January 2008. DP Barcode 345696.

-- 2006 a

. PRZM User’s Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/gwater/przm3/index.html

-- 2006b, TerrPlant v. 1.2.2 User’s Guide. Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division,

Washington, D.C. December 26, 2006.

-- 2005. EXAMS User’s Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/swater/exams/index.html

-- 2004

. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. Endangered and Threatened Species Effects Determinations. Office of

### - Page 107 of 135

- Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington, D.C. Available

online a t http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/consultation/ecorisk

- overview.pdf

.

-- 2003. SCIGROW: Users Manual. Online at: http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#scigrow

-- 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R

- 95/002F. Published in 63 FR 26846; May 14,

1998. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. April, 1998.

-- 1993. Wildlife Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA/600/R

- 13/187a. Offi ce of Research and Development,

Washington, D.C.

Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide persistence on foliage. Reviews of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 100: 23

- 73.

Wilson, C., B. Boman, E. Stover, J. Bargar, and J. Hebb. 2006. Flatwoods citrus Best Management Practice:

Minimizing direct deposition of pesticides into waterways. SL235. Institute of Food and Agricultural

Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Available online at

http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffi les/SS/SS45400.pdf

.



## 8 .1

. Submitted Product Chemistry and Environmental Fate Studies

MRID: 40345632 Wild, A.; Manderscheid, R. (1983) The effect of phosphinothrin on the assimilation of ammonia

in plants. Z Naturforsch 39:500

- 504.

MRID: 40345633 Ma nderscheid, R.; Wild, A. (1986) Studies on the mechanism of in

- hibition by phosphinothricin

of glutamine synthetase isolated from triticum aestivum L. J. Plant Physiol.123:135

- 142.

MRID: 40345656 Goerlitz, G.; Kloeckner, C.; Eyrich, U. (1986) Abiotic Hydrolysis as a Function of pH and

Amendment and Separation of Potential Hydrolysis Products of HOE 039866 from the Active Ingredient

by HPLC: Project Nos. (B)277/85 and (B)110/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 48 p.

MRID: 40345659 Gildemei ster, H.; Jordan, H.; Stumpf, K.; et al. (1987) Aerobic Soil Metabolism Studies with

HOE 039866

- [carbon 14] and Amend

- ment and Degradation in Soil Study with HOE 061517

- [carbon 14]:

Project Nos. CB066/85, CB060/86 and CB065/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 152 p.

MRID: 40345660 Gildemeister, H.; Jordan, H.; Schink, C. (1987) HOE 039866

- [carbon 14]: Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism Study: Project No. CB064/86. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 56 p.

MRID: 40345662 Goerlitz, G. (1985) A dsorption/Desorption in the System

-- Soil/Water for HOE 039866 and HOE

061517: Project Nos. CP055/85 and CP062/ 85. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 81 p.

MRID: 41323115 Stumpf, K. (1989) HOE 039866

- Carbon 14: Photodegradation in Water at pH 5, 7, and 9: Lab

Project Number: A40989: CB/89/88. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 73 p.

MRID: 41323118 Stumpf, K. (1989) HOE 061517

- Carbon 14, Metabolite of HOE 039866: D egradation in Aerobic

Conditions at Application Rates of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg: Lab Project Number: CB007/88: A41198.

Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 59 p.

MRID: 41920102 Stumpf, K. (1990) Photolysis of HOE 039866

- 14C (G lufosinate ) on Soil: Lab P roject Number:

CB90/097: A44730. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 76 p.

MRID: 44032901 Miklautz, H. (1995) The Vapor Pressure of G lufosinate (Hoe 039866) at 25 (degrees) C: Lab

Project Number: 0910: A55227: APC 126/95. Unpubli shed study prepared by Schering AG, Institute of

Physical Chemistry. 16 p.

### - Page 108 of 135

- MRID: 45204401 Stumpf, K. (1994) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon

- 14)

- Labelled G lufosinate in Two

Water Sediment Systems at Different Application Rates: 1st Amendment to Re port CB90/109: Lab Project

Number: CB90/109: CB90/109.A01: A53137. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo

GmbH. 60 p.

MRID: 45204402 Stumpf, K. (1994) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon

- 14)

- Labelled G lufosinate in Two

Water Sediment S ystems at Different Application Rates: Lab Project Number: CB90/109: A53136.

Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH. 75 p.

MRID: 46258601 Stupp, H. (2003) Degradation and Metabolism of Glufosinate Ammonium in Soil Under

Anaerobic Co nditions. Project Number: M1261285/5, MEF/367/03, C038925. Unpublished study

prepared by Bayer Ag, Institute of Product Info. 62 p.



## 8 .2. Submitted Ecotoxicity Studies

MRID 150988 Ebert; Weigand (1984) Hoe 039866

- Active Ingredient Technical 8

- day Dietary LC 50 Test in the

Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus): Report No. 84.0438. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst

Aktiengesellschaft, translation of Doc. No. A29940. 19 p.

MRID 150989 Ebert; Weigand (1984) Hoe 039866

- Active Ingredient Technical 8

- day Dietary LC 50 Test in the

Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): Report No. 84.0377. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst

Aktiengesellschaft, translation of Doc. No. A29756. 21 p.

MRID 40345649 Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Chanter, D. (1986) The Effects of Dieta

- ry Inclusion of HOE 039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC98 0002) on Reproduction in the Bobwhite Quail:

Project No. 247/851115. Unpublished study pre pared by Hunting

- don Research Centre Ltd. 241 p.

MRID 40345650 Roberts, N.; Phillips, C.; Chanter, D.; et al. (1986) The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of HOE

039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC98 0002) on Reproduction in the Mall ard

Duck: Project No. HST 248/851211. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 180

p.

MRID 41396102 Cameron, D. (1989) Supplement to: The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Hoe 039866

-- Active

Ingredient Technical...on Reproduction in t he Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project No. HST 247/851115; A40648.

Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 5 p.

MRID 41396103 Cameron, D. (1989) Supplement to: The Effects of Dietary Inclusion of Hoe 039866

-- Active

Ingredient Technical... on Reproduction in the Mallard Duck: Lab Project Number: HST 248/851211;

A40669. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre Ltd. 5 p.

MRID 159913 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866

- Soluble Concentrate 200 (g/l) ... to Salmo gai rdneri

(Rainbow Trout) in a Static Test (SG342/A, Method EPA): Study No. SG342/A. Unpublished study

prepared by Hoechst AG. 14 p.

MRID 159914 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866

- Soluble Concentrate ... to Lepomis macrochirus

(Bluegill Sunfish) in a Static

- acute Toxicity Test (Lm14/c, Method EPA): Study No. Lm14/C. Unpub

lished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.

MRID 159915 Fischer, R. (1985) The Effect of Hoe 039866

- Soluble Concentrate 200 (g/l) ... to Daphnia magna

(Waterflea) in a Stat ic Acute Toxicity Test (Dm593/A, Method EPA): Study No. Dm593/A. Unpub

- lished

study prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.

### - Page 109 of 135

- MRID 41396104 Swigert, J. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance ... to the Sheepshead

Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): AB C Study No. 34154; Report No. A33264. Unpublished study

prepared by Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 63 p.

MRID 41396105 Ward, G. (1989) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance... to Embryos and Larvae of

the Eastern Oyster (Crassost rea virgin

- ica): ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: 87341

- 0200

- 2130. Un

published study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 33 p.

MRID 41396106 Surprenant, D. (1988) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Sub

- stance...to Embryos and

Larvae of the Quahog Clam (M ercenaria mercenaria): SLS Study No. 1719.0487.6107.514; Report # 87

-

12

- 2587. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Life Sciences, Inc. 40 p.

MRID 41396107 Forbis, A. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 Technical Substance ...to the Mysid Shrimp

(My sidopsis bahia): ABC Study No. 34155; Report No. A33265. Unpublished study prepared by

Analytical Bio

- Chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 55 p.

MRID 41396108 Ward, G. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con

- centrate...to the Sheepshead

Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): ?Final Report|: Project No. 86

- 341; Report No. A34014. Unpub

- lished

study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 42 p.

MRID 41396109 Ward, G. (1989) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con

- centrate...to Embryos and

Larvae of the Eastern Oyster (Crass

- ostrea virginica): ?Final Report|: Lab Project No. 87341

- 0210

- 2130;

86

- 341. Unpublished study prepared by Hunter/ESE. 33 p.

MRID 41396110 Ward, G. (1986) Acute Toxicity of Hoe 039866 200 G/L Soluble Con

- centrate...to the Mysid

S hrimp (Mysidopsis bahia): ?Final Re

- port|: Lab Project No. 86

- 341; Report A34013. Unpublished study

prepared by Hunter/ESE. 38 p

MRID 42262402 Ward, G. (1992) Ignite Herbicide (HOE 039866 00 SL18 A518): Acute Toxicity to Embryos and

Larvae of the Hard Shell Clam (Quahog), Mercenaria Mercenaria Under Static Test Conditions: Lab

Project Number: J9105001B. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 40 p.

MRID 42262403 Ward, G. (1992) Ignite Herbicide (HOE 039866 00 SL18 A518): Acute E ffect on New Shell

Growth of the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica: Lab Project Number: J9105001C. Unpublished study

prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 42 p.

MRID 40501010 Fischer, R. (1987) The Effect of Hoe

- 039866

-- Substance Technical ... to Daphnia magna

(Waterflea) in a Life

- cycle (21

- day Renew

- al) Chronic Toxicity Test: Study No. Dm631/a. Unpublished

study prepared by Hoechst Ag. 47 p.

MRID 40345651 Gorsuch, J. (1987) HOE 039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC96

0002) Plant Effect Test: Seed Germination/ Seedling Emergence Test, Tier I: Project No. EN

- 502

- HSC001

- 1. Unpublished study prepared by Eastman Kodak Co., Health and En

- vironment Laboratories. 168 p.

MRID 40345652 Gorsuch, J. (1987) HOE 039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical (Code: HOE 039866 OH ZC96

0002) Plant Effect Test: Vegetative Vigor Test, Tier I: Project No. EN

- 503

- HSC001

- 1. Unpublished study

prepared by Eastman Kodak Co., Health and Environmental Labora

- tories. 219 p.

MRID 40501011 Canez, V. (1987) Hoe

- 039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical ...: Non

- target Phytotoxicity Test,

Vegetative Vigor: Tier 2: Project No. LR87

- 32A. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Lab

oratories, Inc. 160 p.

MRID 40501012 Canez, V. (1987) Hoe

- 039866

-- Active Ingredient Technical ...: Non

- target Phytotoxicity Test,

Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence: Tier 2: Project No. LR87

- 32B. Unpublished study prepared by

Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 231 p.

### - Page 110 of 135

- MRID 40345 653 Hughes, J. (1987) The Toxicity of HOE 039866 OH ZC96 Technical to Selenastrum

capricornutum: Project No. 1093

- 01

- 1100

- 1. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 86 p.

MRID 42262404 Lintott, D.; Ward, G. (1991) Ignite Herbicide Technical G lufosinate (HOE 039866 00 ZC96

0002): Acute Toxicity to Duckweed, Lemna gibba G3, Under Static Test Conditions: Lab Project Number:

J9105001B. Unpublished study prepared by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 41 p.

MRID 41396111 Chetram, R. (1990) Hoe 039 866 Tier II Seed Germination/Seedling Emergence Nontarget

Phytotoxicity Test: Lab Project Number: LR89

- 15B. Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural

Labor

- atories, Inc. 222 p.

MRID 41396112 Chetram, R. (1989) Hoe 039866 Tier II Vegetative Vigor N ontarget Phytotoxicity Study:

Maximum Application Rate of 0.4 Lbs. ai / Acre: ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: LR89

- 15A.

Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 166 p.

MRID 41396113 Chetram, R. (1989) Hoe 039866 Tier II Veget ative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study:

Maximum Application Rate of 0.8 Lbs. ai / Acre: ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: LR89

- 45.

Unpublished study prepared by Pan

- Agricultural Laboratories, Inc. 131 p.

MRID 40345653 Hughes, J. (1987) The Toxicity of HOE 039866 OH ZC96 Technical to Selenastrum

capricornutum: Project No. 1093

- 01

- 1100

- 1. Unpub

- lished study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 86 p.

MRID 40345654 Davies, L.; Carlile, W.; Bratby, P. (1985) Report on a Laboratory Investigation into the Toxicity of

Formulated HOE 039866 (Basta) to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Report No. A32454. Unpublished study

prepared by Trent Polytechnic, Dept. of Life Science. 8 p.

MRID 142450 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866

- Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):

Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in Male and Female Mallards (Anas platyrhynchos): Report No. 83.0558;

A28840. Translation of unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 15 p.

MRID 142451 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866

- Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):

Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in the Male and Female Bobwhite Quail (Colinus Virginianus): Report No.

83.0619; A28841. Translation of unpublished study prepared by Hoechst AG. 14 p.

MRID 142452 Ebert; Weigand (1983) Hoe 039866

- Active Ingredient (Code: Hoe 039866 OH ZC95 0001):

Testing for Acute Oral Toxicity in Male and Female Japanese Quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica): Report

No. 83/0313; A29033. Translation of unpublished stud y prepared by Hoechst AG. 13 p.

MRID 48444810. Fischer, R. (1988) The effect of Hoe 061517

– substance, technical (identification code: Hoe

061517 OQ ZC99 0005) to Scenedesmus subspicatus CHODAT (green algae) in a growth inhibition test

(method OECD). U npublished study performed and sponsored by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main,

Germany. Study completed June 9, 1988.

MRID 48444811. Heusel, R. (1993) 2

- Methylphosphinico

- acetic acid,

- substance, technical (Hoe 064619 00 ZC98

0001): Effect to Scenedesmus subspicatus (green algae) in a growth inhibition test (method OECD).

Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Hoechst AG, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Study completed

February 11, 1993.

MRID 48444812. Sowig, P., and H. Gosch. (2000) Algal growth inhi bition

– Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata

- AE

F084658; substance, technical (Dinatrium salt of AE F130947; metabolite of Glufosinate

- Ammonium AE

F039866). Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Aventis CropScience GmbH, Frankfurt am Main,

Germany. Study completed December 15, 2000.

### - Page 111 of 135

- MRID 48444813. Heusel, R. (1996) Hoe 099730

- substance, technical

– Code: Hoe 099730 00 ZC92 0001): Effect

to Scenedesmus subspicatus (green algae) in a growth inhibition test (method OECD). Unpublished study

performed and sponsored by Hoechst Schering AgrEvo GmbH, Frankfurt am Main, Germany. Study completed

March 13, 1996.

MRID 48444816. Banman, C.S., J.H. Howerton, and C.V. Lam. (2 011) Toxicity of Glufosinate

- ammonium to the

Blue Green Algae Anabaena flos

- aquae . Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience

(laboratory located in Stilwell, Kansas and sponsor located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). Study

completed March 25, 2011.

MRID 48444817. Banman, C.S., J.H. Howerton, and C.V. Lam. (2011) Toxicity of Glufosinate

- ammonium to the

Saltwater Diatom Skeletonema costatum . Unpublished study performed and sponsored by Bayer CropScience

(laboratory located in Stilwell, Kansas and sponsor located in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina). Study

completed March 24, 2011.

### - Page 112 of 135

- 

## Appendix A . Chemical Names and Structures of G lufosinate and its Degradates

Chemical Name Chemical Structure

glufosinate ammonium

HOE 039866

CAS name

- butonoic acid, (±)

- 2

- amino

- 4

- (hydroxymethylphosphinyl)

- , monoammonium salt

technical is a racemic mixture of the D and L isomers P N H 2

O

O H O

C H 3 - O N H 4 +



### HOE 061517

IUPAC name

- 3

- methylphosphinico

- propionic acid

CAS name

- 3

- (hydroxymethylphosphinyl)

- propionic

acid P H O

C H 3

O O H

O



### HOE 099730

IUPAC name

- L

- 2

- acetamido

- 4

- methylphosphinico

butanoic acid

CAS name

- L

- 2

- (acetylamino)

- 4

- (hydroxymethyl

phosphinyl)butanoic acid

common name: L

- N

- acetyl glufosinate ammonium

the tolerance expression will include both the D and L

isomers P H O

C H 3

O O

O H N H C H 3

O



### HOE 064619

2

- methylphosphinico

- acetic acid P H O

C H 3

O O

O H

### - Page 113 of 135

- 

## Appendix B

. Scenario Descriptions for Surface Water Modeling (PRZM/EXAMS, PFAM)

A discussion of how the application parameters for PRZM/EXAMS and PFAM were developed

for the various glufosinate scenarios follows. Tables at the end of the appendix depict the input

parameters used in PFAM rice modeling.

Agricultural Use and Seed Propagation

Blueberry

– Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product ca n

be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (May 31). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to

weeds on ground.

Canola

– Assumed to be applied aerially, as produ cts can be applied to GMO crop. Product can

be applied from the cotyledon stage through early bolting stage. Application date was selected to

occur 2 weeks after emergence (May 30). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present,

CAM of 2 was select ed.

Citrus

- Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can be

applied at any point in time to control weeds and the emergence and maturation dates span the

entire year, the application date was assumed to occur midway t hrough the year (June 1). CAM

of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.

Corn

– Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. The application

date was assumed to be the midpoint of emergence and maturation (IA

– June 24, IL

– July 11,

MS

– June 16, NC

– June 21, OH

– July 14, and PA

– May 25). As product is applied aerially

and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.

Cotton

– Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product can

be applied from emergence to early bloom stage. It was assumed that 60 days elapse from

planting to bloom (UGA, 2004)

, so application was assume d to occur 14 days after emergence

(MS

– May 15, NC

– June 15). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2

was selected.

Grape

- Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can be

applied at any point in time to control weeds, the ap plication date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA grape

– February 15, CA winegrape

– March 16, NY

grape

– June 16). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.

Olives

- Assumed to be applied via ground appl ication to control weeds. As the product can be

applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (February 24). CAM of 1 was selected as product is

applied to weeds on ground.

Pome fruit

- Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can

### - Page 114 of 135

- 

## be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA

– February 23, NC

– April 1 7, OR

– April 25, PA

– April 28). CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.

Potato vine dessication

– Assumed to be applied aerially to get rid of potato vines after harvest.

Application date was assumed to occur 1 week after harves t (ID

– September 22, ME

– October

12). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.

Rice

– For applications to rice, two applications of 0.44 lb ai/A can be applied to a flooded 8

- inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7

- day holding period. For applications for rice seed

propagation, two applications of 0.73 lb ai/A can be applied, with the f irst application to a dry

field and the second application to a 4

- inch flooded paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 55

- day

holding p eriod.

Soybean

- Assumed to be applied aerially, as products can be applied to GMO crop. Product can

be applied from emergence to early bloom stage. It was assumed that 45 days elapse from

planting to bloom (MSU, 2004)

, so application was assume d to occu r 14 days after emergence

(MS

– April 30). As product is applied aerially and foliage is present, CAM of 2 was selected.

Stone fruit

- Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can

be applied at any point in time to co ntrol weeds, the application date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA

– February 23, GA

– April 7, MI

– June 3). CAM of

1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.

Sugarbeet

- Assumed to be applied aerially, as prod ucts can be applied to GMO crop. Product

can be applied from cotyledon to 10

- leaf stage. It was assumed that the cotyledon stage occurs

21 days after planting (7 days after emergence) and the 10

- leaf stage occurs 54 days after

planting (40 days after emer gence) (Rothe, et. al. , 2004). As such, the application date was

assumed to occur 14 days after emergence (May 30) . As product is applied aerially and foliage

is present, CAM of 2 was selected.

Tree nuts

- Assumed to be applied via ground application to control weeds. As the product can

be applied at any point in time to control weeds, the application date was assumed to be the

midpoint of emergence and maturation (CA

– April 24, GA

– July 4, OR

– March 23). CAM of 1

was selected as product is applied to weeds on ground.

Burndown Applications

Canola

– Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks

before emergence (April 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was

selected.

Corn

– Assumed to b e applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks

before emergence (IA

– April 25, IL

– April 1, MS

– March 11, NC

– March 16, OH

– April 1,

and PA

– March 17). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was selected.

### - Page 115 of 135

- 

## C otton

– Assumed to be applied aerially. Product can be applied for burndown purposes before

planting and after harvesting. For preplant, the application date was selected to occur 4 weeks

before emergence (MS

– April 1, NC

– May 2). As product is applied aerially before planting,

CAM of 1 was selected. For postharvest, the application date was selected to occur 1 week after

harvest ( MS

– September 29, NC

– August 8 ). As product is applied aerially and foliage is

present, CAM of 2 was selected.

Rice

– A single application of 0.66 lbs ai/A applied before 2 weeks before planting.

Soybean

- Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks

before emergence (March 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was

selected.

Sugarbeet

- Assumed to be applied aerially. The application date was selected to occur 4 weeks

before emergence (April 16). As product is applied aerially before planting, CAM of 1 was

selected.

Nonagricultural Uses

Conifer/hardwood tree areas

– Products are used for postemergence weed control in conifer and

hardwood tree plantings and may be used for the control of undesirable plants in site preparation

prior to planting and establishment of conifer and hardwood plantations (conifer release, usually

conducted during the first 2 years of conifer establishment). Seedling plants can be planted in the

treated area after 12 hours have elapsed. According to the crop report for Christmas tree

production in Oregon and Washington (Rinehold, 19 99), Christmas trees require 7 to 10 years to

reach maturity. The labels allow for retreatments, but warn to avoid spraying the products on

foliage or green tissue of desirable plants. Use CAForestryRLF scenario using an aerial

application. According t o the Northwestern Ontario Forest Technology Development Unit,

optimum application of 2,4

- D and glyphosate, herbicides similar to glufosinate, for site

preparation is between the beginning of June and beginning of October and use for conifer

release is opt imum in early August or in early September, when the conifer has hardened off

(Carruthers, et. al., 1997). A table submitted by Bayer Crop Science (BCS) indicates that the

product is applied at a maximum single application rate of 1.5 lbs ai/A, with a max imum

seasonal rate of 4.5 lbs ai/A.

1. Run PRZM in 10 year cycles of three sets of applications, 1 st 

## year site preparation, 2 nd



## and 3 rd 

## years for conifer release. Assume three applications at 1.5 lbs ai/A at an RTI

of 3 days for each set of applications. First application for 1 st 

## year occurs on 6/1.

First application for 2 nd 

## and 3 rd 

## year applications occurs on 8/1. For all applications,

aerial application with a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on

ground. Modified the PRZM input file so emergence occurs on 6/15/61, maturation

occurs on 1/1/65, and harvest occurs on 12/31/70. This allows application to occur

and not be intercepted by canopy.

2. Run PRZM assuming 10% of area is treated 3 times each year for site preparation and

### - Page 116 of 135

- 

## 20% is t reated 3 times each year for conifer release. Assume applications at percent

of 1.5 lbs ai/A at an RTI of 3 days. First application for 1 st 

## set of applications occurs

on 6/1. First application for 2 nd 

## set of applications occurs on 8/1. For all applicat ions,

aerial application with a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on

ground. Modify the scenario so emergence occurs on 6/15/61, maturation occurs on

12/30/61, and harvest occurs on 12/31/61, allowing applications to occur and not be

int ercepted by canopy.

Fallow fields

– Products may be used as a substitute for tillage in fallow fields to control or

suppress weeds. The maximum application rate derived from the labels is 0.53 lbs ai/A, with no

retreatment interval or maximum seasonal ap plication rate specified. As MS cotton gave the

highest EECs for row crops, ran a modified version of MS cotton, where emergence, maturation,

and harvest dates are all set to 12/31, removing canopy interception from modeling. Assume

products are applied weekly at start of spring (3/21) until the start of fall (9/20), for a total of 26

applications. For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied to weeds on

ground. A table submitted by BCS indicates that the product is applied twice a t a maximum

single application rate of 0.4 lbs ai/A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 10 days.

Lawns/gardens

– Products may be applied to control weeds and grasses around trees, shrubs,

fences, walks, patios, driveways, sidewalks, in flower beds, ar ound houses, building, wooded

lots, storage and recreational areas and to spot kill weeds in lawns. The maximum application

rate derived from the labels is 1.36 lbs ai/A, with no retreatment interval or maximum seasonal

application rate specified. The re sidential and impervious surface scenarios were modeled

assuming homeowners apply products at start of spring (3/21) and apply the product weekly until

the start of fall (9/20), for a total of 26 applications. Only 1% of the amount applied is assumed

to be sprayed on impervious surface (overspray), while varying percentages of the residential

lawn were considered (5, 10, 25, and 50%). For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as

product is applied to weeds on ground.

Non

- crop areas

– Products may be ap plied to control undesirable vegetation in non

- crop areas

around farmstead building foundations, shelter belts, along fences, and general nonselective

farmstead weed control. The maximum application rate derived from the labels is 1.5 lbs ai/A,

with no ret reatment interval or maximum seasonal application rate specified. As EFED doesn’t

have a non

- crop area scenario for PE5, the right

- of

- way scenario was considered comparable to

non

- crop areas. The right

- of

- way and impervious surface scenarios were modeled assuming

homeowners apply products at start of spring (3/21) and apply the product weekly until the start

of fall (9/20), for a total of 26 applications. Only 1% of the amount applied will be sprayed on

impervious surface (overspray) and varying percentag es of the right

- of

- way scenario will be

considered (5, 10, and 25%). For all applications a CAM of 1 was selected as product is applied

to weeds on ground. A table submitted by BCS indicates that the product is applied three times

at a maximum single app lication rate of 1.5 lbs ai/A, with a minimum retreatment interval of 10

days.

### - Page 117 of 135

- 

## Table B

- 1 . Typical planting and h arvesting d ates *

State Planting Harvesting

Arkansas April 14

– May 1 Sep 9

– Oct 10

California May 1

- 25 Sep 15

– Nov 1

Louisiana March 28

– May 1 Aug 4

– Sep 15

Texas March 23

– April 26 Aug 7

– Sep 4

Mississippi April 18

– May 16 Sep 5

– Oct 6

* Data from USDA (2010)



## Table B

- 2. Crop

- specific dates used for PFAM m odeling (Crop tab)

State Planting 1 

### Emergence Date 2 

### Release Date 3 

### Harvesting 1



### AR April 22 May 2 September 3 September 24

CA May 13 May 23 September 17 October 8

LA April 14 April 24 August 4 August 25

T X April 9 April 19 July 31 August 21

MS May 2 May 12 August 30 September 20

1 

### Midpo int of dates provided in Table 1

. 2 

### Assumed to occur 10 days after planting.

3 

### Assumed to occur 21 days before harvesting.



## Table B

- 3. Site

- specific input dates used for PFAM modeling (Applications and Floods

tabs), based in agronomic practices reported in crop p rofiles

Use rate, Number of apps,

retreatment interval, water

holding period , application

method (wet or dry) State App 1 App 2 Flood

(Event 1) Release

(Event 2) # days

1.46 lbs ai/acre (1.64 kg

ai/ha), 1, NA, 7 days, dry

and

0.89 lbs ai/acre (1.0 kg ai/ha)

, 1, NA, 7 days, dry AR 2

- May NA 3

- May 10

- May 7

CA 23

- May NA 24

- May 31

- May 7

LA 24

- Apr NA 25

- Apr 2

- May 7

TX 19

- Apr NA 20

- Apr 2 7

- Apr 7

MS 12

- May NA 13

- May 20

- May 7

0.73 lbs ai/acre (0.818 kg

ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days, 1 st



### app dry and 2 nd 

### app flooded 1 

### AR 17

- Apr 27

- Apr 23

- Apr 21

- Jun 59

CA 8

- May 18

- May 14

- May 12

- Jul 59

LA 9

- Apr 19

- Apr 15

- Apr 13

- Jun 59

TX 4

- Apr 14

- Apr 10

- Apr 8

- Jun 59

MS 27

- Apr 7

- May 3

- May 1

- Jul 59

0.73 lbs ai/acre (0.818 kg

ai/ha), 2, 10 days, 7 days, 1 st



### app dry and 2 nd 

### app flooded 2 

### AR 17

- Apr 27

- Apr 23

- Apr 27

- May 34

CA 8

- May 18

- May 14

- May 17

- Jun 34

LA 9

- Apr 19

- Apr 15

- Apr 19

- May 34

TX 4

- Apr 14

- Apr 10

- Apr 14

- May 34

MS 27

- Apr 7

- May 3

- May 6

- Jun 34

0.66 lbs ai/acre (0.732 kg

ai/ha), 1, NA, 7 days, dry AR 21

- Apr NA 23

- Apr 30

- Apr 7

CA 12

- May NA 14

- May 21

- May 7

LA 13

- Apr NA 15

- Apr 22

- Apr 7

TX 8

- Apr NA 10

- Apr 17

- Apr 7

MS 1

- May NA 3

- May 10

- May 7

0.44 lbs ai/acre (0.49 kg

ai/ha) , 2, 10 days, 7 days, dry AR 2

- May 12

- May 13

- May 20

- May 7

CA 23

- May 2

- Jun 3

- Jun 10

- Jun 7

LA 24

- Apr 4

- May 5

- May 12

- May 7

### - Page 118 of 135

- Use rate, Number of apps,

retreatment interval, water

holding period , application

method (wet or dry) State App 1 App 2 Flood

(Event 1) Release

(Event 2) # days

TX 19

- Apr 29

- Apr 30

- Apr 7

- May 7

MS 12

- May 22

- May 23

- May 30

- May 7

0.44 lbs ai/acre (0.49 kg

ai/ha) , 2, 10 days, 7 days,

flooded 3 

### AR 2

- May 12

- May 21

- Apr 19

- May 28

CA 23

- May 2

- Jun 12

- May 9

- Jun 28

LA 24

- Apr 4

- May 13

- Apr 11

- May 28

TX 19

- Apr 29

- Apr 8

- Apr 6

- May 28

MS 12

- May 22

- May 1

- May 2 9

- May 28

1. Applicable for a 4

- inch paddy depth

. # days reflects 55

- day holding period after 2 nd 

### application.

2. Applicable for an 8

- inch paddy depth. # days reflects 30

- day holding period after 2 nd 

### application

3. Release modeled 7 days after 2 nd 

### application.



## Table B

- 4. PFAM inputs specific to g lufosinate /MPP modeling runs

Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Chemical Tab

Water Column Half

- life

(days) at 20°C 63 MRIDs 40345660,

45204402/01 Represents the 90 th 

### percentile upper c onfidence

bound on the mean (39 ) of 5 aerobic aquatic

half

- life values. 1



### Benthic Compartment

Half

- Life (days) at 20°C 1246 MRID 46258601 3 times the anaerobic aquatic half

- life

. 1



### Unflooded Soil Half

- life

(days) at 20°C 19 MRIDs 41323118,

40345659A Represents the 90 th 

### percentile upper confidence

bound on the mean ( 15 ) of 6 aerobic soil half

life values

. 1



### Aqueous Near Surface

Half

- life (days) at 40°

Latitude 1x10 8 

### MRID 41323115 No evidence of aqueous photolysis

.

Hydrolysis Half

- life

(days) 1x10 8 

### MRID 40345656 No evidence of degradation.

Organic Carbon Partition

Coefficient (mL/g

oc 

### ) (K

oc 

### ) 297 MRID 40345662 Average of three KOC values

.

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 198

--- ---

Vapor Pressure (torr) 7.5x10

- 9 

### MRID 44032901

---

Solubility (mg/L) 1

. 37 x10 6 

### MRID 00263025

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 49884

--- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in

EPISuite (see Appendix B)

. Henry Reference

Temperature ( o 

### C) 20

Applications Tab

Number of Applications See Table 9

Application dates See Table 9

Location Tab

Meteorological files AR (w13963)

LA (w13970)

CA (w23232)

MS (w03940)

TX (w13958) --- Meteorological data available in PE5

installation. Stations correspond to

Little Rock, AR (w13963), Baton Rouge, LA

(w13970), Sacramento, CA (w23232), Jackson,

MS (w03940), and Austin, TX (w13958)

### - Page 119 of 135

- Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Floods Tab

Number of Flood Events 2

--- First event is flooding, second event is release

of flood waters.

Date for Event 1 See Table 9

Fill Level (m) , Event 1 0.1016 2



### 0.2032 3 

### --- Crop profiles

Weir Level (m) , Event 1 0.1270 2



### 0.2286 3



### --- Assumed 1 inch clearance between top of weir

and water.

Min. Level (m), Event 1 0.1016 2



### 0.2032 3 

### --- Keeps paddy full

Number of Days, Event 2 See Table 9

Fill Level (m) , Event 2 0

--- Simulate release of water

Weir Level (m) , Event 2 0

--- Simulate release of water

Min. Level (m), Event 2 0

--- Simulate release of water

Turn Over (1/day), Events

1 and 2 0

--- Turnover is used for those systems that use a

continuous flow through the system and are

maintained at a set depth . Set to 0.

Crop Tab

Zero Height Reference AR: 05/02

CA: 05/23

LA: 04/24

TX: 04/19

MS: 05/12 --- Emergence date, assumed to occur 10 days

after planting. See Table 8 for dates.

Days from Zero Height to

Full Height AR: 124

CA: 118

LA: 102

TX: 103

MS: 111 --- Number of days from emergence to maturation.

Maturation expected to occur 21 days prior to

harvesting. See Table 8 for dates.

Days from Zero Height to

Removal AR: 145

CA: 139

LA: 123

TX: 124

MS: 132 --- Number of days from emergence to harvest.

See Table 8 for dates.

Maximum Fractional

Areal Coverage 1.0

--- Conservative assumption

Physical Tab

Reference depth (m) 0.1270 2



### 0.2286 3 

### Set to same depth as weir height, per PFAM

guidance.

Output Tab

Area of Application (m 2 

### ) 4 

### 345,600

--- 20% of the watershed drainage acreage

(1,728,000 m 2 

### ), based on draft HUC

- 8 PCA for

rice

Area of Surrounding

Watershed (m 2 

### ) 4 

### 1,382,400

--- Difference in watershed drainage acreage

(1,728,000 m 2 

### ) and area of application

Curve Number of

Surrounding Watershed 4 

### 83

--- Curve number for a contoured pasture with Fair

hydrologic conditions and a Soil Group of D

### - Page 120 of 135

- Input Parameter Value Source Comment

Degradate 1 Tab

Moles of Degradate

Produced per mole of

Parent

Water

Benthic

Unflooded soil

Photolysis

Hydrolysis 1

0

1

0

0 --- Estimates based on stochiometry of glufosinate

ammonium degradation to MPP and whether

MPP was formed in the particular studies. MPP

was a degradate in the aerobic soil and aerobic

aquatic studies, but not in the anaerobic

aquatic, aqueous photolysis, and hydrolysis

studies for g lufosinate (DP 397388, 1/4/2012).

Water Column Half

- life

(days) at 20°C 3730 MRIDs 40345660,

45204402/01 Represents the 90 th 

### percentile upper c onfidence

bound on the mean (1247 ) of 2 aerobic aquatic

half

- life values. 1



### Benthic Compartment

Half

- Life (days) at 20°C 1x10 8



### --- Assumed stable.

Unflooded Soil Half

- life

(days) at 20°C 2 2 MRIDs 41323118,

40345659A Represents the 90 th 

### percentile upper confidence

bound on the mean (18 ) of 5 aerobic soil half

life values. 1



### Aqueous Near Surface

Half

- life (days) at 40°

Latitude 1x10 8



### --- Assumed stable.

Hydrolysis Half

- life

(days) 1x10 8



### --- Assumed stable.

Organic Carbon Partition

Coefficient (mL/g

oc 

### ) (K

oc 

### ) 145 MRID 40345662 Average of three KOC values for MPP

. A

value of <17 L/kg was assumed to be 17 in the

calculation.

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 152.09

--- EPISuite

Vapor Pressure (torr) 3.7x10

- 5



### --- EPISuite

Solubility (mg/L) 1x10 6



### --- EPISuite

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 49884

--- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in

EPISuite (see Appendix B)

. Henry Reference

Temperature ( o 

### C) 20

1 EFED input parameter guidance is located at: : http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_parameter_guidance.htm

2 Heights used for a 4

- inch paddy.

3 Heights used for an 8

- inch paddy.

4 Used when employing the index reservoir function in PFAM.



## Scenario References

USDA. 2010. Field Crops Usual Planting and Har v esting Dates. United States Department of Agriculture, National

Agricultural Statistics Service. October 29, 2010.

http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/planting/planting

- 10

- 29

- 2010.pdf

University of Georgia (UGA). 2004. Cotton Growth and Development. Cooperative Extension Service, the

University of Georgia College of Agricultural and Environm ental Sciences, Bulletin 1252, September 2004

Mississippi State University (MSU). 2004. Guide to Soybean Growth Stages. Mississippi State University Extension

Service, Publication 2588

Carruthers, M.E.: Towill, W.D. 1997. A Literature Review of Site Prepar ation and Conifer Release Treatments

Using 2,4

- D, Glyphosate or Hexazinone Herbicides Part A: Timing of Application. Northwestern Ontario

Forest Technology Development Unit (NWOFTDU) Technical Report TR

- 18, February 1997

Rinehold, J. 1999. Crop Profile for Christmas Trees in Oregon and Washington.

Rothe, I., Dexter, A., Lueke, J. 2004. Yield of Glufosinate

- Resistant Sugarbeet in Response to Postemergence

Glufosinate. Journal of Sugarbeet Research, Volume 41, Number 4, pp. 137

- 161

### - Page 121 of 135

- 

## Appendix C . PRZM/EXAMS Sample Input/Output Data

Blueberry Scenario

stored as ga_blueberry.out

Chemical: glufosinate

PRZM environment: ORberriesOP.txt modified Thuday, 14 June 2007 at 11:22:40

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at

06:14:08

Metfile: w24232.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:15:54

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.649 1.61 1.464 1.236 1.1 0.4668

1962 1.934 1.896 1.749 1.485 1.337 0.7235

1963 1.94 1.902 1.758 1.504 1.359 0.7577

1964 2 1.96 1.809 1.532 1.379 0.7671

1965 2.015 1.977 1.881 1.658 1.488 0.7803

1966 1.981 1.94 1.786 1.512 1.359 0.7537

1967 1.982 1.939 1.776 1.489 1.325 0.72

1968 2.302 2.255 2.075 1.756 1.588 0.8724

1969 3.207 3.135 2 .873 2.455 2.249 1.215

1970 2.161 2.116 1.945 1.644 1.477 0.902

1971 2.008 1.97 1.826 1.677 1.512 0.8815

1972 2.025 1.985 1.834 1.553 1.391 0.8042

1973 2.035 1.994 1.841 1.56 1.404 0.7853

1974 1.875 1.835 1.685 1.419 1.272 0.6471

1975 1.959 1.92 1.774 1.50 4 1.354 0.7381

1976 1.984 1.947 1.806 1.543 1.393 0.7842

1977 2.11 2.067 1.905 1.62 1.46 0.8694

1978 2.001 1.957 1.791 1.501 1.344 0.7662

1979 2.025 1.984 1.826 1.54 1.38 0.8342

1980 2.079 2.043 1.965 1.727 1.56 0.8698

1981 4.402 4.311 3.994 3.37 2.999 1.4 21

1982 2.276 2.229 2.051 1.747 1.578 1.004

1983 1.966 1.927 1.816 1.562 1.406 0.7822

1984 3.294 3.231 2.98 2.675 2.423 1.209

1985 8.534 8.36 7.662 6.321 5.592 2.713

1986 3.123 3.068 2.859 2.544 2.331 1.826

1987 3.188 3.117 2.85 2.407 2.203 1.4

1988 2.314 2.271 2.111 1.81 1.632 1.027

1989 2.078 2.035 1.872 1.588 1.434 0.8473

1990 1.986 1.945 1.79 1.503 1.339 0.7344

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 8.534 8.36 7.662 6.321 5.592 2.713

0.0645161290322581 4.402 4.311 3.994 3.37 2.999 1.826

0.0967741935483871 3.294 3.231 2.98 2.675 2.423 1.421

0.129032258064516 3.207 3.135 2.873 2.544 2.331 1.4

0.161290322580645 3.188 3.117 2.859 2.455 2.249 1.215

0.193548387096774 3.123 3.068 2.85 2.407 2.203 1.209

0.225806451612903 2.314 2.271 2.111 1.81 1.632 1.027

0.258064516129032 2.302 2.255 2.075 1.756 1.588 1.004

0.290322580645161 2.276 2.229 2.051 1.747 1.578 0.902

### - Page 122 of 135

- 0.32258064516129 2.161 2.116 1.965 1.727 1.56 0.8815

0.354838709677419 2.11 2.067 1.945 1.677 1.512 0.8724

0.3870 96774193548 2.079 2.043 1.905 1.658 1.488 0.8698

0.419354838709677 2.078 2.035 1.881 1.644 1.477 0.8694

0.451612903225806 2.035 1.994 1.872 1.62 1.46 0.8473

0.483870967741936 2.025 1.985 1.841 1.588 1.434 0.8342

0.516129032258065 2.025 1.984 1.834 1.562 1. 406 0.8042

0.548387096774194 2.015 1.977 1.826 1.56 1.404 0.7853

0.580645161290323 2.008 1.97 1.826 1.553 1.393 0.7842

0.612903225806452 2.001 1.96 1.816 1.543 1.391 0.7822

0.645161290322581 2 1.957 1.809 1.54 1.38 0.7803

0.67741935483871 1.986 1.947 1.806 1.532 1.379 0.7671

0.709677419354839 1.984 1.945 1.791 1.512 1.359 0.7662

0.741935483870968 1.982 1.94 1.79 1.504 1.359 0.7577

0.774193548387097 1.981 1.939 1.786 1.504 1.354 0.7537

0.806451612903226 1.966 1.927 1.776 1.503 1.344 0.7381

0.838709677419355 1.959 1.92 1.774 1.501 1.339 0.7344

0.870967741935484 1.94 1.902 1.758 1.489 1.337 0.7235

0.903225806451613 1.934 1.896 1.749 1.485 1.325 0.72

0.935483870967742 1.875 1.835 1.685 1.419 1.272 0.6471

0.967741935483871 1.649 1.61 1.464 1.236 1.1 0.4668

0.1 3 .2853 3.2214 2.9693 2.6619 2.4138 1.4189

Average of yearly averages: 0.963413333333333

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: ga_blueberry

Metfile: w24232.dvf

PRZM scenario: ORberriesOP.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: glufosinate

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weight mwt 198.2 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 1.43e

- 12 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 7.5e

- 9 torr

Solubility sol 1.37e6 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 296.5 mg/L

Photolysis half

- life kdp 0 days Half

- life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 63 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 1245 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 19 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 5 0 days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half

- life

Hydrolysis: pH 9 0 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 1 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0.0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 1.679 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 31

- 05 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm

Interval 1 interval 3 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate 1 apprate 1.679 kg/ha

### - Page 123 of 135

- Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 1

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for In dex Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none, monthly or total(average of

entire run)

### - Page 124 of 135

- 

## Appendix D

. Example T

- REX (v. 1.5) Input and Output for G lufosinate

Table D .1. T

- REX Model Inputs: Chemical Application Scenarios and Body Mass for Assessed

Species.

### - Page 125 of 135

- 

## Table D .2. Avian and Mammalian Toxicity Endpoints for RQ Calculation.

### - Page 126 of 135

- 

## Table D .3. Avian Dose

- and Dietary

- based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs Based on the

Registered Use of G lufosinate on Citrus.

### - Page 127 of 135

- 

## Table D

. 4 . Mammalian Dose

- and Dietary

- based Upper Bound Kenaga EECs and RQs Based

on the Registered Use of G lufosinate on Citrus.

### - Page 128 of 135

- 

## Appendix E . Example Terrplant (v. 1.2.2) Input and Output for G lufosinate

### - Page 129 of 135

- 

## Appendix F

. STIR Results

.

### - Page 130 of 135

- 

## Appendix G

. SIP Results

.

### - Page 131 of 135

- 

## Appendix H . Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for G lufosinate

MRID OCSPP

Guideline Study Type Review

Classification Classification Justifications

(for Supplemental and Unacceptable Studies)

40345656 835.2120 Hydrolysis Acceptable

40345657 835.2240 Aqueous

photolysis Supplemental Study terminated after 120 hours, rather than 30 days,

and artificial light not similar to sunlight.

41323115 835.2240 Aqueous

photolysis Acceptable

40345658 835.2410 Soil photolysis Supplemental Study terminated after 45 hours, rather than 30 days.

41323116 835.2410 Soil photolysis Unacceptable Study conducted at rate many times higher than

expected label rate, adversely affecting dark control.

41323117 835.2410 Soil photolysis Unacceptable Study conducted at rate many times higher than

expected label rate, adversely affecting dark control.

41920102 835.2410 Soil photolysis Acceptable

40345659

A,C,D 835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism Supplemental Study duration insufficient to define formation/decline

pattern of degradates.

40345659

B 835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism Supplemental Provides info on aerobic soil metabolism of

glufosinate ammonium degradate MPA.

40501018 835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism Unacceptable Incomplete material balances, degradates not

characterized.

41323118/

41920103 835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism Acceptable

41323119/

41920103 835.4100 Aerobic soil

metabolism Acceptable

40501014 835.4200 Anaerobic soil

metabolism Supplemental Two degradates were not identified.

41323119/

41920103 835.4200 Anaerobic soil

metabolism Acceptable

41323120 835.4200 Anaerobic soil

metabolism Supplemental Identifies degradates from previous study.

40345660 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic

metabolism Acceptable

45204401/

45204402 835.4300 Aerobic aquatic

metabolism Supplemental Aerobic conditions not adequately assured (pH, redox

potential, DO not reported), sediments not classified.

45215401 835.4400 Anaerobic

aquatic

metabolism Unacceptable System was not anaerobic, sediments not classified,

only one sediment/water system analyzed.

46258601 835.4400 Anaerobic

aquatic

metabolism Supplemental Sediment and water phases not analyzed separately,

sufficient anaerobicity (~100mV) not achieved.

40345661 835.1230/

835.1240 Adsorption/

desorption/ aged

leaching Unacceptable Soil sieved through 250

- 500 μm screen, removes sand

fraction which may cause pesticide to appear more

mobile.

40345662 835.1230/

835.1240 Adsorption/

desorption/ aged

leaching Acceptable

### - Page 132 of 135

- 41323121 835.1230/

835.1240 Adsorption/

desorption/ aged

leaching Supplemental Mobility study for glufosinate ammonium degradate,

MPA.

41323122/

41920104 835.1410 Volatility

- lab Acceptable

40345663 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Supplemental Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate

ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage

stability data not provided.

40345664 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Supplemental Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate

ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage

stability data not provided.

40345665 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Supplemental Pattern of formation and decline of glufosinate

ammonium degradate MPA not addressed, storage

stability data not provided.

41323123 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Unacceptable Application rate not confirmed, lab method not

validated.

41323124 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Supplemental Lab method not validated.

41920106 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Unacceptable Application rate not confirmed, extreme variability in

data.

43110402 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Acceptable

43766915 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Acceptable

43766916 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Acceptable

47542601 835.6100 Terrestrial field

dissipation Upgradeable Missing ILV

40345667 835.6100 Storage stability Unacceptable Recoveries from time 0 samples for glufosinate

ammonium and MPA were below 70%, fortification

rates were much lower than detected soil

concentrations.

40345666 835.6100 Analytical

method in soil Upgradeable Missing ILV

41323123 835.6100 Analytical

method in soil Upgradeable Missing ILV

41920106 835.6100 Analytical

method in soil Upgradeable Missing ILV

43766915 835.6100 Analytical

method in soil Upgradeable Missing ILV

47542606/

47542607 835.6100 Analytical

method in soil Upgradeable Missing ILV

45204403 835.6200 Aquatic field

dissipation Upgradeable Storage stability not addressed, extraction technique

not validated, application recovery at one site low.

40501017 850.1730 Fish

bioaccumulation Supplemental Not all residues characterized, water samples from 3

-

and 21

- day exposure periods not analyzed.

41323130 850.1730 Fish

bioaccumulation Acceptable

### - Page 133 of 135

- 

## Appendix I . Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for

G lufosinate

Guideline

Subdivision J

(OCSPP) Data Requirement MRID Classification Classification Justification

(for Supplemental or

Unacceptable Studies)

7 1

- 1

(850.2100) 

### Avian Oral 00142450

00142451 Acceptable

Acceptable NA

7 1

- 2

(850.2200) 

### A vian Dietary 00150988

00150989 Acceptable

Acceptable NA

71

- 4

(850.2300) 

### Avian Reproduction 4034565 0

4034565 0

48444809 Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

7 2

- 1

(850.1075) 

### Freshwater Fish

– Acute Toxicity 00142454

00142455

00144338

00159913

00159914

48444805 Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable MRID 00144338: No data

requirement for the 19% ai EP at

time of review (1985).

7 2

- 2

(850.1010) 

### Freshwater Invertebrate

– Acute Toxicity 00142456

00159915

00144339

00145067

48444801

48444802

48444803

48444806

48444807

48444808 Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable MRID 00144339: Erratic dose

response; no data requirement for

the 19% ai at time of review (1984).

MRID 00145067: No data

requirement for the 19% ai at the

time of review (1984).

MRID 48444807: W ater quality

information was not provided. Two

fish (7%) died at the limit

concentration, and sublethal effects

were observed in eight or nine fish

(>25%).

7 2

- 3

(850.1075) 

### Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Acute Toxicity 41396104

41396108 Acceptable

Acceptable NA

72

- 3

(850.1025)

(850.1035)

(850.1045)

(850.1055 

### Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate

– Acute

Toxicity 41396107

41396110

41396105

41396109

42262403 Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable MRID 41396109: The range of

concentrations tested was not

sufficient to establish and EC 50



### value.

7 2

- 4

(850.1300) 

### Freshwater Invertebrate

– Life Cycle Test 40501010

48301101

4830110 2

48301103 Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable

Supplemental MRID 48301101 : Low reproduction

in controls; measured test

concentrations were provided in

aged medium only.

MRID: 48301103 : A NOAEC was

not established within the range of

concentrations tested; there was one

instance of negative control

contamination.

72

- 4

(850.1350) 

### Estuarine/Marine

Invertebrate

– Life

Cycle Test Not submitted NA NA

72

- 4

(850.1400) 

### Freshwater Fish

– Early Not submitted NA NA

### - Page 134 of 135

- Guideline

Subdivision J

(OCSPP) Data Requirement MRID Classification Classification Justification

(for Supplemental or

Unacceptable Studies)

Life Stage Test

72

- 4

(850.1400) 

### Estuarine/Marine Fish

– Early Life Stage Test Not submitted NA NA

72

- 5

(850.1500) 

### Fish

– Full Life Cycle

Test Not submitted NA NA

12 3

- 1a

(850.4225) 

### Terrestrial Plant

Toxicity

– Seedling

Emergence, Tier II 41396111

48531301

48718501 Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental MRID 41396111: D id not establish

NOAEL values for multiple species

within the range of concentrations

tested.

123

- 1b

(850.4250) 

### Terrestrial Plant

Toxicity

– Vegetative

Vigor, Tier II 41396112

41396113

47542602 Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental Did not establish NOAEL values for

multiple species within the range of

concentrations tested.

123

- 2

(850.4400) 

### Vascular Aquatic Plant

Toxicity, Tiers I and II 42262404

47542605

48444814

48444815 Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable NA

123

- 2

(850.5400) 

### Algal Toxicity Test,

Tiers I and II 403456 5 3

47542603

47542604

48444810

48444811

48444812

48444813

48444816

48444817 Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Acceptable

Supplemental

Acceptable

Supplemental MRID 47542603: Test did not

achieve 90% inhibition or

stimulation at any exposure

concentration; unable to calculate

reliable EC 50 

### values given limited

range of test concentrations

. MRID 47542604: Duration was only

72 hours instead of 96 hours; light

was higher than recommended in

guideline.

MRID s 48444810,

- 11,

- 13, and

- 17 :

A lgae in controls had not reached

the logarithmic growth phase by test

termination, and the light intensity

was much higher than what is

recommended in the OCSPP

guideline.

141

- 1

(850.3020) 

### Honeybee acute contact

toxicity 41364002

40345654 Acceptable

Acceptable NA

Nonguideline

(OECD 215) 

### 28

- day toxicity to

juvenile freshwater fish 48301104

48301106 Supplemental

Supplemental Nonguideline studies.

Nonguideline

(OECD 204) 

### 21

- day toxicity to

juvenile freshwater fish 48301105 Supplemental Nonguideline study.

NA 

### Not applicable.

### - Page 135 of 135

- 

## Appendix J

. Results of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies for G lufosinate

MRID Soil

Texture Target

App.

Rate

(lb ai/A) Site Plot type DT50 in

days Max. Leaching

Depth (Parent) Major Degradates & Max.

Leaching Depth Residue

Carryover (as

% of applied) App. Type/

Formulation

40345663 Loamy

sand 3.0 Quanitco, MD Bare ground 14 10 cm MPP

– 10 cm 0 Soluble concentrate

40345664 Loamy

sand 2.0 Sunnyside, WA Bare ground 14 3 in MPA

– 3 in 0 Soluble concentrate

40345665 Silt loam 3.0 Geneseo, IL Bare ground 15 10 cm MPP

– 10 cm 0 Soluble concentrate

41323123 Loamy

sand 1.8 Geneseo, IL Bare ground 9.8 10 cm MPP

– 10 cm 0 Soluble concentrate

41323124 Loamy

sand 1.8 Salisbury, MD Cropped plot 8 10 cm MPP

– 10 cm

MPA

– 10 cm 0 Soluble concentrate

41920106 Sandy

loam 3 x 1.5 Porterville, CA Vineyard 39 12 in MPP

– 12 in

MPA

– 8 in 0 Soluble concentrate

43110402 Sand 3 x 1.5 Orlando, FL Orchard 8

- 23 24 in MPP

– 36 in

MPA

– 12 in 0 Soluble concentrate

43766915 Loam 2 x 1.2 Noblesville, IN Bare ground

corn 9

30 6 in

12 in MPP, MPA

– 6 in

MPP, MPA

– 6 in 0 Soluble concentrate

43766916 Clay 2 x 1.2 Leonard, MO Bare ground

Soybean 4

6 6 in

6 in MPP

– 12 in

MPA

– 6 in 0 Soluble concentrate

47542601 Sandy

loam 3 x 1.5 Biola, CA Vineyard 3

- 16 60 cm MPP

– 45 cm

MPA

– 30 cm 0 Soluble concentrate

### AI-1 

## Attachment I. Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature (April 2012 Refresh)

I. Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria a nd Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data ..... 1

II. Acceptable to ECOTOX but not to OPP ............................................................................... 2

III. Acceptable to ECOTOX – Additional Publications ........................................................... 23

IV. Excluded by ECOTOX (Unaccep table Publications) ......................................................... 35

I. Explanation of OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data

Studies located and coded into ECOTOX must meet acceptability criteria, as established in the

Evaluation Guidelines for Ecotoxicity Data in the Open Literature, Office of Pesticide Programs,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, May 9, 2011. Studies that do not meet these criteria are

designated in the bibliography as “Accepted fo r ECOTOX but not OPP.” The intent of the

acceptability criteria is to ensure data quality and verifiability. The criteria parallel criteria used in

evaluating registrant-submitted studies. Specific criteria are listed below, along with the

corresponding rejection code.

 The paper does not report toxicology information for a chemical of concern to OPP;

(Rejection Code: NO COC)

 The article is not published in English language; (Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN)

 The study is not presented as a full article. Ab stracts will not be considered; (Rejection Code:

NO ABSTRACT)

 The paper is not publicly available document; (Rejection Code: NO NOT PUBLIC (typically

not used, as any paper acquired from the ECOTOX holding or through the literature search is

considered public)

 The paper is not the primary source of the data; (Rejection Code: NO REVIEW)

 The paper does not report that treatment(s) were compared to an acceptable control;

(Rejection Code: NO CONTROL)

 The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure; (Rejection Code: NO

DURATION)

 The paper does not report a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or

application rate; (Rejection Code: NO CONC)

 The paper does not report the location of the study (e.g., laboratory vs. field); (Rejection

Code: NO LOCATION)

 The paper does not report a biological effect on live, whole organisms; (Rejection Code: NO

IN-VITRO)

 The paper does not report the species that was tested; and this species can be verified in a

reliable source; (Rejection Code: NO SPECIES)

 The paper does not report effects associated with exposure to a single chemical. (Rejection

Code: NO MIXTURE). It should be noted that all papers including data on pesticide mixtures

are considered.

Additionally, efficacy studies on target species may be listed as acceptable studies but are generally

excluded for the purposes of risk assessment. These studies are coded as NO TARGET in the

ECOTOX bibliography. Data that originated from the OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database are coded

as NO EFED. These data are already available to the chemical team.

### AI-2 

## II. Acceptable to ECOTOX but not to OPP

1. Al-Khatib, K. and Peterson, D. Soybean (Glyci ne max) Response to Simulated Drift from Selected

Sulfonylurea Herbicides, Dica mba, Glyphosate, and Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POP.

khatib@ksu.edu//K. Al-Khatib, Department of Agronomy, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS

66506////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 264-270.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63448

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,NSF,PSF,RIM,THF

2. Ameziane, R.; Bernhard, K., and Lightfoot, D. Expr ession of the Bacterial g dhA Gene Encoding a NADPH

Glutamate Dehydrogenase in Tob acco Affects Plant Growth and Development. PHYSOIL,ENV;

2000; 221, (1): 47-57.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155791

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

3. Anderson, D. M.; Swanton, C. J.; Hall, J. C., and Mersey, B. G. Th e Influence of Temperature and Relative

Humidity on the Efficacy of Gl ufosinate-Ammonium. ACC,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1993; 33, (2): 139-

147.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155660

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

4. Aragao, F. J. L.; Vianna, G. R.; Albino, M. M. C ., and Rech, E. L. Transgenic Dry Bean Tolerant to the

Herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium. MOR,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 42, (4): 1298-

1302.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155792

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GIB

5. Becker, D.; Brettschneider, R., and Lorz, H. Fertile Tran sgenic Wheat from Microprojectile Bombardment of

Scutellar Tissue. PHYSOIL,ENV; 1994; 5, (2): 299-307.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155794

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

6. Bell, C. Weed Control and Economic Evaluation in Glyphosate-, Glufosinate-, Glyphosate AcetyltransferaseResistant, and Conventional Soybean. POPSOIL,ENV; 2011: 104 p. (UMI# 1501555).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155961

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ALSV,CLNS,CLT,CRM,FMX,FSF,FZF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,IMQ,MBZ,MOIL,MTC

,NHSO4,RIM,SFZ,TBNU,THF

7. Bellinder, R. R.; Lyons, R. E.; Scheckler, S. E., and Wilson, H. P. Cellular Alterations Resulting from Foliar

Applications of HOE-39866. CEL,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1987; 35, (1): 27-35.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155635

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

8. Beriault, J. N.; Horsman, G. P., and Devine, M. D. Phloem Transport of D, L-Glufosinate and Acetyl-LGlufosinate in Glufosinate-Resistant an d -Susceptible Brassica napus. ACC.

malcolm.devine@agrevo.com//: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 121, (2): 619-628.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66795

Chemical of Concern: GFS

9. Bethke, R. K. Interaction Evaluation of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Chlorimuron and Thifensulfuron

Combinations. ACC,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 190 p. (UMI# 1487220).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155905

Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CRME,GFSNH,GYPK,MOIL,NHSO4,THFM

### AI-3 10. Bishop-Hurley, S. L.; Zabkiewi cz, R. J.; Grace, L.; Gardner, R. C. ; Wagner, A., and Walter, C. Conifer

Genetic Engineering: Transgenic Pinus radiata (D. Don) and Picea ab ies (Karst) Plants are Resistant

to the Herbicide Buster. MOR,PHYS OIL,ENV; 2001; 20, (3): 235-243.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155760

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

11. Blackshaw, R. E. Control of Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum) in Conservation Fallow Systems.

POPSOIL,ENV; 1991; 5, (3): 557-562.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 151998

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,FZFP,GFSNH,GYP,PQT,SXD

12. Bond, J. A. and Walker, T. W. Control of Volunteer Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean in Rice.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (2): 225-230.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120639

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PQT,TKY,TPRT

13. Bradley, K. W. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Evaluations of Selected Herbicides and Rates for Long-Term Mugwort

(Artemisia vulgaris) Control. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, 164-170.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 62983

Chemical of Concern:

24DIO,24DXY,CPRMES,DMB,DMDP,GFSNH,GYPI,GYPL,MTS,NONA,PCLK,TPRB

14. Brewer, C. E. Arkansas Glyphosate-Resistant Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia).

ACC,GRO,POP. Possibly published as Ecoref 152954////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 96 p.

(UMI# 3257868).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 152883

Chemical of Concern:

24DXY,ACF,BT,CLNS,CRM,DMB,DMM,EPH,F MX,FSF,GFS,GYPK,IMQ,LCF,MBZ,MTC,PQT,

SFZ

15. Broome, M. L.; Triplett, G. B. Jr., and Watson, C. E. Jr. Vegetation Control for No-Tillage Corn Planted into

Warm-Season Perennial Species. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 92, (6): 1248-1255.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155612

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFSNH,GYP,IZP,IZT,PAQT

16. Bruce, J. A. Horseweed (Conyza canadensis (L.) Cronq.) Management in No-Tillage Soybean Production.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989: 88 p. (UMI#1338597).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 116758

Chemical of Concern:

24DXY,ACF,BT,CRM,DMDP,FSF,GFSNH,GYP,IM Q,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MTL,PQT,QNC,SXD

17. Burke, I. C.; Askew, S. D.; Corbett, J. L., and Wilcut, J. W. Glufosinate Antagonizes Clethodim Control of

Goosegrass (Eleusine indica). GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 664-668.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155816

Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,GFS,MOIL

18. Cabrera-Ponce, J. L.; Vegas-Garcia, A., and Herre ra-Estrella, L. Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Papaya

Plants Produced by an Efficient Particle Bomb ardment Transformation Me thod. PHYSOIL,TOP;

1995; 15, (1/2): 1-7.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155747

Chemical of Concern: GFS

19. Calas, A. G.; Richard, O.; Meme, S.; Beloeil, J. C.; Doan, B. T.; Gefflaut, T.; Meme, W.; Crusio, W. E.;

Pichon, J., and Montecot, C. Chronic Exposure to Glufosinate-Ammonium Induces Spatial Memory

Impairments, Hippocampal MRI Modifications and Glutamine Synthetase Activation in Mice.

### AI-4 BCM,BEH,GRO,PHY. Laboratoire de Neurobiologie , UPRES EA 2633, Université d'Orleans,

Orleans, France.//: INJECT; 2008; 29, (4): 740-747.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155482

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

20. Chachalis, D.; Reddy, K. N.; Elmore, C. D., and Steel e, M. L. Herbicide Efficacy, Leaf Structure, and Spray

Droplet Contact Angle Among Ipomoea Species and Smallflower Morningglory.

BCM,CEL,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, (5): 628-634.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66807

Chemical of Concern: ACF,BMN,BT,GFS,GYP

21. Chahal, G. S. Char acterization of Biological and Physical Interactions Among Pesticides and Other

Agrochemicals. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011: 463 p. (UMI# 3463753).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155384

Chemical of Concern:

ACF,ACP,ACR,BORON,BSC,BT,CLNSM,CLT,CTN,DMB,DMDP,FMX,FNZ,FPP,FSF,GFSNH,

GYP,GYPK,IAZ,IZT,LCF,LCYT,MTC,PQT ,PRC,PTBNa,PZL,SXD,TEZ,THFM,TNM

22. Chen, W. P.; Gu, X.; Liang, G. H.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Chen, P. D.; Liu, D. J., and Gill, B. S. Introduction

and Constitutive Expression of a Rice Chitinase Gene in Bread Wheat Using Biolistic Bombardment

and the Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. GROSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1998; 97, (8): 1296-1306.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155761

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

23. Chivinge, O. A. A Herbicide Screening Trial Against Purple Nutsedge (Cyperus rotundus L.) Under

Zimbabwean Conditions. REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 82, (1): 17-20.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 31601

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACR,AMTR,ATZ,BT,BTY,CZE,DU,EPTC,GFSNH,GYP,MCPA,MSMA,MTL,NFZ

24. Choi, H. J.; Chandrasekhar, T.; Lee, H. Y., and Kim, K. M. Production of Herbicide-Resistant Transgenic

Sweet Potato Plants Through Ag robacterium tumefacien s Method. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2007; 91,

(3): 235-242.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155765

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

25. Clayton, G. W.; Brandt, S.; Johnson, E. N.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Harker, K. N.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Smith, E. G.;

Kutcher, H. R.; Vera, C., and Hartman, M. Comparison of Certified and Farm-Saved Seed on Yield

and Quality Characteristics of Canola. BCM ,GRO,POPSOIL,E NV,MIXTURE; 2009; 101, (6):

1581-1588.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 151393

Chemical of Concern: CLT,DFC,EMSF,FDX,GFSNH,IZT,IZX,SXD

26. Clewis, S. B. Weed Management Strategies in Conventional- and Reduced-Tillage Cotton Production

Systems. MOR,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007: 167 p. (UMI# 3293601).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155916

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,CLT,DMDP,FMX,FZF,GFS,GYP,GYPI,GYPT,MSMA,MTC,PAQT,PDM,PMT,PQT,

SXD,THFM,TNM

27. Clough, G. H.; Rondon, S. I.; DeBano, S. J.; David, N., and Hamm, P. B. Reducing Tuber Damage by Potato

Tuberworm (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) with Cultural Practices and Insecticides. POP. Oregon State

University, Hermiston Agricultural Research and Ex tension Center, 2121 S. 1st St. Hermiston, OR

97838, USA. george.clough@oregonstate.edu//: ENV,MIXTURE; 2010; 103, (4): 1306-1311.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 152982

Chemical of Concern: ABM,DQT Br,EFV,GFSNH,IDC,MOM,MTM,SS

### AI-5 28. Coetzer, E. and Al-Khatib, K. Photosynthetic Inhibition and Ammonium Accumulation in Palmer Amaranth

After Glufosinate Application. ACC,BCM ,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 454-459.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66812

Chemical of Concern: GFS

29. Coetzer, E.; Al-Khatib, K., and Loughin, T. M. Glufosinate Efficacy , Absorption, and Translocation in

Amaranth as Affected by Relativ e Humidity and Temperature. ACC,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 8-

13.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59382

Chemical of Concern: GFS

30. Confalonieri, M.; Belenghi, B.; Balestrazzi, A.; Ne gri, S.; Facciotto, G.; Sche none, G., and Delledonne, M.

Transformation of Elite White Poplar (Populus alba L.) cv. 'Villafranca' and Evaluation of Herbicide

Resistance. PHY,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 19, (10): 978-982.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155767

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

31. Culpepper, A. S. and York, A. C. Weed Management in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays).

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (2): 324-333.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 74064

Chemical of Concern: AMTR,ATZ,GFS,MTL,NSF

32. Culpepper, A. S.; York, A. C.; Batts, R. B., and Jennings, K. M. Weed Management in Glufosinate- and

Glyphosate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, (1): 77-

88.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59387

Chemical of Concern: CRM,FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ

33. Curtis, I. S. and Nam, H. G. Transgenic Radish (Raphanus sativus L. Longipinnatus Bailey) by Floral-Dip

Method - Plant Development and Su rfactant are Important in Optimiz ing Transformation Efficiency.

PHYSOIL,ENV; 2001; 10, (4): 363-371.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155795

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

34. D'Hertefeldt, T.; Jorgensen, R. B., and Pettersson, L. B. Long-Term Persistence of GM Oilseed Rape in the

Seedbank. MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 4, (3): 314-317.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155487

Chemical of Concern: FXPM,GFSNH,TBNU

35. Datta, S. K.; Datta, K.; Soltanifar, N.; Donn, G., an d Potrykus, I. Herbicide-Resi stant Indica Rice Plants from

IRRI Breeding Line IR72 After PEG-Mediated Transformation of Protoplasts.

CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 1992; 20, (4): 619-629.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155745

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

36. Davis, B. M. Response of Rice and Wheat to Low Rates of Glufosinate and Glyphosate and Soybean

Response to Glufosinate. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 60 p. (UMI# 1484667).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155898

Chemical of Concern: CMZ,CSF,G FS,GYP,HSF,MTL,MTS,QNC,TBNU,THF

37. Denchev, P. D.; Songstad, D. D.; McDaniel, J. K., and Conger, B. V. Transgenic Orchardgrass (Dactylis

glomerata) Plants by Direct Embryogenesis from Microprojecticle Bombarded Leaf Cells.

PHYSOIL,TOP; 1997; 16, (12): 813-819.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155768

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFSNH

### AI-6 38. Derr, J. F. Biological Assessment of Herbicide Use in Apple Production II. Estimated Impacts Following

Loss of Specific Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 11, (1): 20-25.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 121105

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,CPR,DBN,DU,GFS,GYP,IXB,NFZ,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PAQT,PDM,PZM,SZ,TRB

39. Devendra, R.; Umamahesh, V.; Ramachandra Prasad, T. V.; Prasad, T. G.; Asha, S. T., and Ashok. Influence

of Surfactants on Efficacy of Different Herbicides in Contro l of Cyperus rotundus and Oxalis

latifolia. GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 86, (8): 1148-1151.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 112804

Chemical of Concern: COIL,GFSNH,GYP,IZP,NYP,NaDPA,OXF

40. Dietz-Pfeilstetter, A. and Zwerge r, P. In-Field Frequencies and Charact eristics of Oilseed Rape with Double

Herbicide Resistance. GRO,PHY,POP. Institute fo r Biosafety of Genetically Modified Plants and

Institute for Plant Protection in Field Crops and Grassland, Julius Kühn-Institut, Federal Research

Centre for Cultivated Plants, Braunschweig, Germ any. antje.dietz@jki.bund.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2009;

8, (2): 101-111.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155476

Chemical of Concern: CPR,FX PM,GFSNH,GYPI,IMC,PYD,TBNU

41. Dinehart, S. The Impacts of Roundup WeatherMAX and Ignite 280 SL on Amphibians in the Southern High

Plains. CEL,MORENV; 2009: 111 p. (UMI#3390904).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155897

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK

42. Doohan, D. J.; Felix, J.; Jasinski, J.; Welty, C., and Kleinhenz, M. D. Insect Management and Herbicide

Tolerance in Near-Isogenic Sister Lines of Transgenic and Non-Transgenic Sweet Corn.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2002; 21, (5): 375-381.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 101210

Chemical of Concern: BT,CBL,GFS,LCYT,PMR,TDC

43. Downs, C. G.; Christey, M. C.; Davies, K. M.; King, G. A.; Seelye, J. F.; Sinclair, B. K., and Stevenson, D.

G. Hairy Roots of Brassica napus: II. Glutamine Synthetase Overexpression Alters Ammonia

Assimilation and the Response to Phosphinothricin. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1994; 14, (1): 41-46.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155674

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

44. Droge-Laser, W.; Siemeling, U.; Puhler, A., and Broer, I. The Metabolites of the Herbicide LPhosphinothricin (Glufosinate): Identification, Stability, and Mobility in Transgenic, HerbicideResistant, and Untransformed Plants. ACCSOIL,TOP; 1994; 105, (1): 159-166.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155661

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

45. Eady, C. C.; Reader, J.; Davis, S., and Dale, T. In heritance and Expression of Introduced DNA in Transgenic

Onion Plants (Allium cepa). MOR,PHYSOIL, ENV,TOP; 2003; 142, (2): 219-224.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155789

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

46. Eberlein, C. V.; Guttieri, M. J., and Fletcher, F. N. Broadleaf Weed Control in Potatoes (Solanum tuberosum)

with Postemergence Directed Herbicides. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1993; 7, (2): 298-303.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 96888

Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,SAMA

47. Ellis, J. M. Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistan t Technologies: Weed Management and Off-Target Crop

Response. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001: 127 p. (UMI# 3016543).

### AI-7 Notes: EcoReference No.: 155896

Chemical of Concern: ACF,CRM,DMM, FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ,LCF,MBZ,MTL,PDM,SFZ

48. Ellis, J. M. and Griffin, J. L. Soybean (Glyci ne max) and Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) Response to

Simulated Drift of Glyphosate and Glufosinate. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 16, 580-586.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 69443

Chemical of Concern: FSF,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MTL

49. Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Linscombe, S. D., and Webster, E. P. Crop Response to Simulated Drift of

Roundup Ultra and Liberty Herbicides. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 43, (3): 18-19.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 68623

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI

50. Enriquez-Obregon, G. A.; Vazquez-Padron, R. I.; Prieto-Samsonov, D. L.; De La Riva, G. A., and SelmanHousein, G. Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane (Sacc harum officinarum L.) Pl ants by AgrobacteriumMediated Transformation. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1998; 206, (1): 20-27.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155770

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

51. Ernst, D.; Rosenbrock-Krestel, H.; Kirchhof, G.; Bieber, E.; Giunaschwili, N.; Muller, R.; Fischbeck, G.;

Wagner, T.; Sandermann, H., and Hartmann, A. Molecular Investigations of the Soil, Rhizosphere

and Transgenic Glufosinate-Resistant Rape and Mai ze Plants in Combination with Herbicide (Basta)

Application Under Field Conditions. CEL,POP. Institute of Biochemical Plant Pathology,

Helmholtz Zentrum München, German Research Center for Environmental Health, D-85764

Neuherberg, Germany. ernst@helmholtz-muenchen.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2008; 63, (11/12): 864-872.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155141

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

52. Esbenshade, W. R.; Curran, W. S.; Roth, G. W.; Hartwig, N. L., and Orzolek, M. D. Effect of Row Spacing

and Herbicides on Burcucumber (Sicyos angulatus) Co ntrol in Herbicide-Resistant Corn (Zea mays).

GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (2): 348-354.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66822

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CRM,GFS,IXF, IZP,IZT,IZX,NHSO4,NSF,PSF,RIM,SZ,THF

53. Everman, W. J. Influence of Environmental and Ph ysiological Factors on Glufos inate and Glyphosate Weed

Management. ACC,BCM,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 208 p. (UMI# 3293610).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155903

Chemical of Concern:

ADC,FMU,FMX,FSF,GFS,GFSNH,GYP,GYPI,GYPK,GYPT,MSMA,MTC,MTL,PDM,PMT,PTB,

PTBNa

54. Everman, W. J.; Mayhew, C. R.; Burton, J. D.; York , A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Absorption, Translocation, and

Metabolism of 14C-Glufosinate in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn, Goosegrass (Eleusine indica), Large

Crabgrass (Digitaria sanguinalis), and Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia). ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,TOP;

2009; 57, (1): 1-5.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155525

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

55. Everman, W. J.; Thomas, W. E.; Burton, J. D.; York , A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Absorption, Translocation, and

Metabolism of Glufosinate in Transgenic and Nontransgenic Cotton, Palmer Amaranth (Amaranthus

palmeri), and Pitted Morningglory (Ipomoea lacu nosa). ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2009; 57, (4):

357-361.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155524

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GFSNH

### AI-8 56. Evers, G. W. Herbicide Evaluation as Sod Dessi cants on Dalligrass. PHY,PO PSOIL,ENV; 1987: 60-62.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155647

Chemical of Concern: FZFB,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,SXD

57. Fernandez-Cerejido, M. C.; Bastida, F., and Menend ez, J. The Effect of Several Adjuvants on Glufosinate

Effectiveness in Conyza Species. GRO. Depart amento de Ciencias Agroforestales, Escuela

Politécnica Superior Campus Universitario de La Rábida, Universidad de Huelva.//:

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 74, (2): 525-532.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155477

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,LEC,PPA

58. Figueira Filho, E. S.; Figueiredo, L. F. A., and Monte-Neshich, D. C. Transformation of Potato (Solanum

tuberosum) cv. Mantiqueira Us ing Agrobacterium tu mefaciens and Evaluation of Herbicide

Resistance. GROSOIL,ENV; 1994; 13, (12): 666-670.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155748

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

59. Franssen, A. S. and Kells, J. J. Common Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) Control with Postemergence

Herbicides in No-Tillage Glufosinate-Resistant Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1):

14-17.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155681

Chemical of Concern:

24DXY,ATZ,BMN,BT,CPR,DMB,DMDP,FM C,FTS,GFS,HSF,NHSO4,NSF,RIM,THF

60. Friesen, L. F.; Nelson, A. G., and Van Acker, R. C. Evidence of Contamination of Pedigreed Canola

(Brassica napus) Seedlots in Western Canada w ith Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance

Traits. MOR,PHY,REP. Lyle_Fries en@umanitoba.ca//L.F. Friesen, Dep. of Plant Sci., Univ. of

Manitoba, Winnipeg, Man. R3T 2N2, Canada ////: SOIL,ENV; 2003; 95, (5): 1342-1347.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 82076

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF

61. Galbiati, M.; Moreno, M. A.; Nadzan, G.; Zour elidou, M., and Dellaporta, S. L. Large-Scale T-DNA

Mutagenesis in Arabidopsis for Functional Geno mic Analysis. MOR,PHY. Yale University,

Department of Molecular, Cellular & Developm ental Biology, New Haven, CT 06520-8104, USA.//:

SOIL,ENV; 2000; 1, (1): 25-34.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155797

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

62. Gardner, A. P.; York, A. C.; Jordan, D. L., and Monks, D. W. Management of Annual Grasses and

Amaranthus spp. in Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POP. Department of Cro Science,North Carolina

State University,Raleigh,NC//: SOIL,ENV,M IXTURE; 2006; 10, (4): 328-338.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155507

Chemical of Concern: FMU,FSF, GFSNH,MSMA,PDM,PMT,PTB,PTBNa

63. Girgi, M.; O'Kennedy, M. M.; Morgenstern, A.; Mayer, G.; Lorz, H., and Oldach, K. H. Transgenic and

Herbicide Resistant Pearl Millet (Pennisetum gl aucum L.) R.Br. via Microprojectile Bombardment

of Scutellar Tissue. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2002; 10, (4): 243-252.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155772

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

64. Grangeot, M.; Chauvel, B., and Gauvrit, C. Spray Retention, Foliar Uptake and Translocation of Glufosinate

and Glyphosate in Ambrosia artemisiifolia. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 46, (2): 152-162.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155634

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP

### AI-9 65. Grey, T. L.; Raymer, P. L., and Bridges, D. C. Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus) Response and

Weed Control with Postemergence Herbicides . BCM,MOR,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20, (3):

551-557.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155887

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZX

66. Griffin, R. M. Echinochloa polystachya Management in Louisiana Rice. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006:

91 p. (UMI# 3208159).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154941

Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FNP,GFS,GYP,IZT,PDM,PPN,QNC

67. Griffin, R. M.; Webster, E. P.; Zhang, W., and Blouin, D. C. Biology and Control of Creeping Rivergrass

(Echinochloa polystachya) in Rice. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2008; 22, (1): 1-7.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154940

Chemical of Concern: CMZ,FNP,GFS,GYP,IZT,PPN,QNC

68. Gubbels, G. H.; Bonner, D. M., and Kenaschuk, E. O. Use of Desiccants to Reduce Frost Damage in

Immature Flax. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 1994; 74, (1): 121-123.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155632

Chemical of Concern: DMP,DQT,GFSNH,GYP

69. Hall, L.; Topinka, K.; Huffman, J.; Davis, L ., and Good, A. Pollen Flow Between Herbicide-Resistant

Brassica napus is the Cause of Multiple-Resistant B. napus Volunteers.

MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 48, (6): 688-694.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155626

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZT

70. Hamill, A. S.; Knezevic, S. Z.; Chandler, K.; Sikkema, P. H.; Tardif, F. J.; Shrestha, A., and Swanton, C. J.

Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14,

578-585.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59451

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,GFS

71. Harcourt, R. L.; Kyozuka, J.; Floyd, R. B.; Bateman, K. S.; Tanaka, H.; Decroocq, V.; Llewellyn, D. J.; Zhu,

X.; Peacock, W. J., and Dennis, E. S. Insect- and Herbicide-Resistant Transgenic Eucalypts.

PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2000; 6, (3): 307-315.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155773

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

72. Harker, K. N.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Kirkland, K. J.; Derksen, D. A., and Wall, D. Herbicide-Tolerant Canola:

Weed Control and Yield Comparisons in Western Canada. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000;

80, (3): 647-654.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155677

Chemical of Concern: EMSF,GFS,GYP,SXD

73. Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Blackshaw, R. E., and Stevenson, F. C. Herbicide Timing

and Rate Effects on Weed Management in Three Herbicide-Resistant Canola (Brassica napus)

Systems. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2004; 18, (4): 1006-1012.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155906

Chemical of Concern: BMY,CBF,CYH,DM,GFS,GYP,IMC,IZT,IZX,MLX,SXD

74. Hart, S. E.; Yelverton, F.; Nelson, E. K.; Lycan, D. W., and Henry, G. M. Response of Glyphosate-Resistant

and Glyphosate-Susceptible Bentgrass (Agrostis spp.) to Postemergence Herbicides.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 549-559.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154040

### AI-10 Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLT,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,IMQ,IXF,MBZ,MSMA,SMM

75. Hawkes, T.; Pline-Srnic, W.; Dale, R.; Friend, E. ; Hollinshead, T.; Howe, P.; Thompson, P.; Viner, R., and

Greenland, A. D-Glufosinate as a Male Sterility Agent for Hybrid Seed Production. GRO,REP.

Syngenta, Jealott's Hill Research Centre, Br acknell, Berks, UK. tim.hawkes@syngenta.co//:

SOIL,ENV; 2011; 9, (3): 301-314.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155787

Chemical of Concern: GFS

76. Herold, A.; Wendler, C., and Wild, A. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Glutathione Synthesis

in Plants. BCMSOIL,ENV; 1990; 103, (1): 68-71.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155638

Chemical of Concern: GFS

77. Hoshino, Y.; Turkan, I., and Mii, M. Transgenic Bialaphos-Resistant Snapdrag on (Antirrhinum majus L.)

Produced by Agrobacterium rhizogenes Transformation. GROSOIL,ENV; 1998; 76, (1/2): 37-57.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155749

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

78. Hoss, N. E.; Al-Khatib, K.; Pete rson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. Effi cacy of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, and

Imazethapyr on Selected Weed Species. A CC,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXT URE,TOP; 2003; 51,

(1): 110-117.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155508

Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,GFS,GYP,IZT,MOIL,NHSO4

79. Hu, F.; Zhang, L.; Wang, X.; Ding, J., and Wu , D. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformed Transgenic

Triploid Bermudagrass (Cynodon dactylon x C. transv aalensis) Plants are Highly Resistant to the

Glufosinate Herbicide Liberty. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 83, (1): 13-19.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155459

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

80. Huo, X. W.; Wei, J. H.; Xu, C. B.; Mi, F. G., and Yun, J. F. Plant Regeneration from Immature Inflorescence

Culture and Genetic Transformation of Wheatgrass (Agropyron cristatum x A. desertorum cv.

Hycrest-Mengnong). CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 5, (9): 648-654.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 114599

Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,GFS

81. Ioki, M.; Ohkoshi, M.; Nakajima, N.; Nakahira-Yanaka, Y., and Watanabe, M. M. Isolation of HerbicideResistant Mutants of Botryococcus braunii. POP.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S 0960852411010522//: AQUA; 2012; IN PRESS,

4 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155479

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PQT

82. Ivany, J. A. and Sanderson, J. B. Response of Potato (Solanum tuberosum) Cultivars to GlufosinateAmmonium and Diquat Used as Desiccants. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 15, (3): 505-510.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 67079

Chemical of Concern: DQT,GFSNH

83. Jayaraj, J. and Punja, Z. K. Combined Expre ssion of Chitinase and Lipid Transfer Protein Genes in

Transgenic Carrot Plants Enhances Resistance to Foliar Fungal Pathogens. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007;

26, (9): 1539-1546.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155774

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

### AI-11 84. Jhala, A. J. Environmental Biosafety of Genetically Engineered Crops: Flax (Linum usitatissimum L.) as a

Model System. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 236 p. (UMI# NR60171).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155924

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYPK,IZT,IZX

85. Judge, C. A.; Neal, J. C., a nd Derr, J. F. Preemergence and Postem ergence Control of Japanese Stiltgrass

(Microstegium vimineum). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (1): 183-189.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155880

Chemical of Concern:

BFL,CLT,DTP,FZFP,GFS,GYPI,IXB,MSMA,M TL,NPP,ODZ,OYZ,PDM,PRM,QNC,SXD,TFN

86. Karunaratne, S.; Sohn, A.; Mourad ov, A.; Scott, J.; Steinbiss, H. H., and Scott, K. J. Transformation of Wheat

with the Gene Encoding the Coat Protein of Ba rley Yellow Mosaic Virus. PHYSOIL,TOP; 1996;

23, (4): 429-435.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155788

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

87. Kegode, G. O. and Fronning, B. E. Artemisia bien nis (Biennial Wormwood) Control is Influenced by Plant

Size and Weed Flora at Time of Herbicide Application. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 24, (10):

915-920.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155460

Chemical of Concern: BT,GFS,GYP,NHSO4

88. Kim, S. J.; Lee, J. Y.; Kim, Y. M.; Yang, S. S.; Hwang, O. J.; Hong, N. J.; Kim, K. M.; Lee, H. Y.; Song, P.

S., and Kim, J. I. Agrobacterium-Mediated High -Efficiency Transformation of Creeping Bentgrass

with Herbicide Resistance. PHYSOI L,ENV; 2007; 50, (5): 577-585.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155699

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,DMB,GFSNH

89. King, S. R. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Herbicide Programs for the Control of ALS-Resistant Shattercane (Sorghum

bicolor) in Corn (Zea mays). MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20, (2): 416-421.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155882

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTC,NSF,PAQT,PQT,SZ

90. Knispel, A. L.; McLachlan, S. M.; Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. Gene Flow and Multiple Herbicide

Resistance in Escaped Canola Populations. GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2008; 56, (1): 72-80.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155530

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF

91. Knott, C. M. Control of Volunteer Oilseed Rape in Peas. POP. Processors & Growers Res. Org.,Research

Station, eterborough,UK//: SOIL,ENV, MIXTURE; 1995; 3, 889-894.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155957

Chemical of Concern: BT,CZE,DQTBr,FSF,GFSNH,MCPA,MCPB,MCPBNa,PDM,PMT

92. Kocher, H. and Kocur, J. Influence of Wetting Agents on the Foliar Uptake and Herbicidal Activity of

Glufosinate. ACC,BCM,PHY. Third International Symposium on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals,

Cambridge, England, UK, August 3-7, 1992.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 37, (2): 155-158.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155648

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

93. Koger, C. H.; Burke, I. C.; Miller, D. K.; Kendig, J. A.; Reddy, K. N., and Wilc ut, J. W. MSMA Antagonizes

Glyphosate and Glufosinate Efficacy on Broadleaf and Grass Weeds.

MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1): 159-165.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155532

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK,MSMA

### AI-12 94. Kuai, B.; Dalton, S. J.; Bettany, A. J. E., and Morris, P. Regeneration of Fertile Transgenic Tall Fescue Plants

with a Stable Highly Expressed Foreign Gene. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1999; 58, (2): 149-154.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155781

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

95. Kumar, S. and Timko, M. P. Enhanced Tissue-Specific Expression of the Herbicide Resistance bar Gene in

Transgenic Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L cv. Coker 310FR) Using the Arabidopsis rbcS ats1A

Promoter. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 21, (4): 251-259.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155782

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

96. Langeluddeke, P.; Reuss, H. U.; Ceconi, C.; Manning, T. H., and Rottele, M. Glufosinate (HOE 39866), a

New Non-Selective Contact Herbicide: Results of Several Years' Experimentation in Orchards and

Vineyards from Different European Countries. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1982; 47, (1): 95-104.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 32192

Chemical of Concern: DU,GFSNH,GYP,MCPA,PAQT

97. Langeluddeke, P.; Rottele, M.; Bier, B., and Kocur, J. Methods of Imrpoving the Efficacy of GlufosinateAmmonium. POPSOIL,ENV; 1989: 1033-1038.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155646

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

98. Lanie, A. J.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. Herbicide Combinations for Soybean (Glycine

max) Planted in Stale Seedbed. POP. Dep. Plant Pathol. Crop Physiol., La. Agric. Exp. Stn., La.

State Univ. Agric. Cent., Baton Rouge, LA 70803////: SOIL,ENV; 1994; 8, (1): 17-22.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 107705

Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,PAQT

99. Latha, A. M.; Rao, K. V.; Reddy, T. P., and Reddy, V. D. Development of Transgenic Pearl Millet

(Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R. Br.) Plants Resist ant to Downy Mildew. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2006; 25,

(9): 927-935.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155885

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFSNH

100. Lebouteiller, B.; Gousset-Dupont, A.; Pierre, J. N. ; Bleton, J.; Tchapla, A.; Maucourt, M.; Moing, A.; Rolin,

D., and Vidal, J. Physiological Impacts of Modulating Phosphoenolpyruvate Carboxylase Levels in

Leaves and Seeds of Arabidopsis thaliana. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 172, (2): 265-272.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 115274

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

101. Lee, K. W.; Kim, K. Y.; Kim, K. H.; Lee, B. H.; Kim, J. S., and Lee, S. H. Development of Antibiotic

Marker-Free Creeping Bentgrass Resistance Agains t Herbicides. MOR. Grassland and Forages

Division, National Institute of Animal Science, Cheonan, South Korea.//: SOIL,ENV; 2011; 43, (1):

13-18.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155489

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP

102. Lee, T. T.; Dumas, T., and Jevnikar, J. J. Comparison of the Effects of Glyphosate and Related Compounds

on Indole-3-Acetic Acid Metabolism and Ethylene Production in Tobacco Callus.

BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1983; 20, (3): 354-359.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 32291

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP

103. Li, R. F.; Wei, J. H.; Wang, H. Z.; He, J., and Sun, Z. Y. Development of Highly Regenerable Callus Lines

and Agrobacterium-Mediated Tran sformation of Chinese Lawngrass (Zoysia sinica Hance) with a

### AI-13 Cold Inducible Transcription Factor, CBF1. GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 85, (3): 297-305.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155785

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFS

104. Li, X.; Gong, Z.; Koiwa, H.; Ni u, X.; Espartero, J.; Zhu, X.; Verone se, P.; Ruggiero, B.; Bressan, R. A.;

Weller, S. C., and Hasegawa, P. M. Bar-Expressing Peppermint (Mentha x piperita L. var. Black

Mitcham) Plants are Highly Resistant to the Gl ufosinate Herbicide Liberty. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV;

2001; 8, (2): 109-118.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155784

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

105. Malathi, B.; Ramesh, S.; Venkateswara Rao, K., and Dashavantha Reddy, V. Agrobacterium-Mediated

Genetic Transformation and Production of Semilooper Resistant Transgenic Castor (Ricinus

communis L.). BCM,CEL,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 147, (3): 441-449.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155426

Chemical of Concern: BAD,CTK,GFSNH,GIB,NAA

106. Manickavasagam, M.; Ganapathi, A.; Anbazhagan, V. R.; Sudhakar, B.; Selvaraj, N.; Vasudevan, A., and

Kasthurirengan, S. Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation and Development of

Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane (Saccharum Species Hybrids) Using Axillary Buds.

MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 23, (3): 134-143.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155702

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

107. Martinson, K. B.; Sothern, R. B.; Koukkari, W. L.; Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. Circadian Response of

Annual Weeds to Glyphosate and Glufosinate. PHY,POP. Department of Agronomy and Plant

Genetics, College of Agriculture, Food and Enviro nmental Sciences, Univers ity of Minnesota, St.

Paul 55108, USA. bjork026@tc.umn.edu//: SOIL,ENV; 2002; 19, (2): 405-422.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155541

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI

108. Maschhoff, J. R.; Hart, S. E. , and Baldwin, J. L. Eff ect of Ammonium Sulfate on the Efficacy, Absorption,

and Translocation of Glufosinate. ACC, GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 48, 2-6.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59558

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

109. Matsumura, N.; Kikuchi-Utsumi, K., and Nakaki, T. Activities of 7-Nitroindazole and 1-(2-

(Trifluoromethylphenyl)-Imidazole Independent of Neuronal Nitric-Oxide Synthase Inhibition.

BCM,PHY. Department of Pharmacology, Teikyo University School of Medicine, 2-11-1 Kaga,

Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-8605, Japan.//: INJECT; 2008; 325, (2): 357-362.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155492

Chemical of Concern: GFS

110. McCabe, M. S.; Schepers, F.; Van der Arend, A.; Mohapatra, U.; De Laat, A. M. M.; Power, J. B., and

Davey, M. R. Increased Stable Inheritance of He rbicide Resistance in Transgenic Lettuce Carrying a

petE Promoter-Bar Gene Compared with a CaMV 35S-Bar Gene. MOR. M.R. Davey, Plant Science

Division, School of Biological Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham

NG7 2RD, United Kingdom////: SOIL,ENV; 1999; 99, (3/4): 587-592.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155888

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

111. McCarty, L. B.; Colvin, D. L., and Higgins, J. M. Highbush Blackberry (Rubus argutus) Control in

Bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum). POP. Dep. Hortic ., P and As Build., Box 340375, Clemson Univ.,

Clemson, SC 29634-0375////: SOIL,ENV,M IXTURE; 1996; 10, (4): 754-761.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155881

Chemical of Concern:

### AI-14 24D,24DXY,ALSV,AMTL,DMB,FXP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,MOIL,ODZ,SMU,TPR

112. Meme, S.; Calas, A. G.; Monteco t, C.; Richard, O.; Gautie r, H.; Gefflaut, T.; Doan, B. T.; Meme, W.; Pichon,

J., and Beloeil, J. C. MRI Characterization of Structural Mouse Brain Changes in Response to

Chronic Exposure to the Glufosinate Ammonium Herbicide. BCM,CELINJECT; 2009; 111, (2):

321-330.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155533

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

113. Mersey, B. G.; Hall, J. C.; Anderson, D. M., and Sw anton, C. J. Factors Affecting the Herbicidal Activity of

Glufosinate-Ammonium: Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism in Barley and Green Foxtail.

ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 1990; 37, (1): 90-98.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155606

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

114. Miller, R. P.; Martinson, K. B.; Sothern, R. B.; Durgan, B. R., and Gunsolus, J. L. Circadian Response of

Annual Weeds in a Natural Setting to High and Low Application Rates of Four Herbicides with

Different Modes of Action. GRO,POP. Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, College of

Agriculture, Food and Environmental Sciences,Uni versity of Minnesota,St. Paul,MN//: SOIL,ENV;

2003; 20, (2): 299-324.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155958

Chemical of Concern: CRME,FSF,GFSNH,GYPI,SXD

115. Monks, D. W.; Halcomb, M. A., and Ashburn, E. L. Survey and Control of Musk Thistle (Carduus nutans) in

Tennessee Field Nurseries. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 5, (1): 218-220.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 70261

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DTP,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,IXB,LCF,MTL,NPP,OYZ,SZ

116. Montague, A.; Ziauddin, A.; Lee, R.; Ainley, W. M., and Strommer, J. High-Efficiency PhosphinothricinBased Selection for Alfalfa Transformation. PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2007; 91, (1): 29-36.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155703

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

117. Moreira, I.; Monteiro, A., and Sousa, E. Chemical Control of Common Reed (Phragmites australis) by Foliar

Herbicides Under Different Spray Conditions. POP. ilidimor@esoterica.pt//I.Moreira, Dep. de

Proteccao das Plantas e de Fitoeco l., Inst. Superior de Agronom ia, P-1349-017 Lisboa, Portugal//:

SOIL,ENV; 1999; 415, 299-304.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 69855

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP

118. Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Decreasi ng Rates of Nonselective Herbicides in Double-Crop No-Till

Soybeans (Glycine max). POP. Dep. Plant Pathol . Physiol., Weed Sci., Via Polytech. Inst. State

Univ., Blacksburg, Va. 24061////: SOIL,E NV,MIXTURE; 1991; 5, (1): 198-201.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 116551

Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFSNH,GYP,LNR,PAQT,PQT

119. Moyer, J. R.; Acharya, S. N.; Fraser, J.; Richar ds, K. W., and Foroud, N. Desiccation of Alfalfa for Seed

Production with Diquat and Glufosinate. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 76, (3): 435-439.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155428

Chemical of Concern: DQTBr,GFS

120. Muruganantham, M.; Amutha, S.; Selvaraj, N.; Vengadesan, G., and Ganapathi, A. Efficient AgrobacteriumMediated Transformation of Vigna mungo Using Immature Cotyledonary-Node Explants and

Phosphinothricin as the Selection Agent. PHYSOIL,ENV; 2007; 43, (6): 550-557.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155704

### AI-15 Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

121. Nielson, R. L. Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aesti vum L.) Biological Parameters for the Development of a

Mechanistic Agronomic Model. PHY,POP, REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 158 p. (UMI#

MR45862).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155893

Chemical of Concern: DFC,FDX,GFS,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,QZFPE,SXD,TMX

122. Nikolova, G.; Baeva, G., and Marinkov, P. Post-H arvest Weed Control and Runn er Control with GlufosinateAmmonium in Strawberries. BCM,GRO,POP. Iinternational Conference, Brighton, England, UK,

November 20-23, 1989. XXII+408P.(VOL. 1); XX I+394P.(VOL. 2); XXII +435P.(VOL. 3) British

Crop Protection Council: Surrey, England, UK. Illu s. Paper. ISBN 0-948404-36-1(VOL. 1); ISBN 0-

948404-37-X(VOL. 2); ISBN 0-948404-38-8(VOL. 3); ISBN 0-948404-35-3(SET).; 0 (0). 1989.

1039-1044.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989; 8, 1039-1044.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155605

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHSO4

123. Norsworthy, J. K.; McClelland , M., and Griffith, G. M. Conyza canaden sis (L.) Cronquist Response to PrePlant Application of Residual Herbicides in Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.).

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28, (1): 62-67.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155485

Chemical of Concern: DMB,DU,FMU,FMX,GFS,GYPK,NFZ,NHSO4,OXF,PMT,PTB,THFM

124. Norsworthy, J. K.; Scott, R. C.; Smith, K. L.; Still, J., and Meier, J. Herbicide Options for Rice Cutgrass

(Leersia oryzoides) Control. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (1): 1-5.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154949

Chemical of Concern: ALSV,CLT,CMZ,FN P,GFS,GYP,HSF,IZT, MOIL,PPN,QNC,TBC

125. Oard, J.; Cohn, M. A.; Linscombe, S.; Gealy, D., and Gravois, K. Field Evaluation of Seed Production,

Shattering, and Dormancy in Hybrid Populations of Transgenic Rice (Oryza sativa) and the Weed,

Red Rice (Oryza sativa). GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 157, (1): 13-22.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100609

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PPN,QNC,TBC

126. Oraby, H. F.; Ransom, C. B.; Kravchenko, A. N., and Sticklen, M. B. Barley HVA1 Gene Confers Salt

Tolerance in R3 Transgenic Oat. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 45, (6): 2218-2227.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 105808

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,Halides,NaCl

127. Osuna, M. D. and De Prado, R. Conyza albida: A New Biotype with ALS Inhibitor Resistance.

ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2003; 43, (3): 221-226.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 72252

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,BSF,CPR,CSF,DU,FXP,GFSNH,GLY,GYP,IZP,IZT,MCPA,MCPP1,NSF,QNC,RIM,

SZ,TBNU,TPR,TSF

128. Park, K. W. and Mallory-Smith, C. A. Multiple Herbicide Resistance in Downy Brome (Bromus tectorum)

and Its Impact on Fitness. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (6): 780-786.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154031

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CLT,CMZ,DU,EFS,FZF,GFS,GYP,MBZ,NFZ,PAQT,TFN,TRB

129. Park, S. H.; Rose, S. C.; Zapata, C.; Srivatana kul, M., and Smith, R. H. Cro ss-Protection and Selectable

Marker Genes in Plant Transformation. GROSOIL,ENV; 1998; 34, (2): 117-121.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155430

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

### AI-16 130. Pascual, M. B.; Jing, Z. P.; Kirby, E. G.; Canovas, F. M., and Gallardo, F. Response of Transgenic Poplar

Overexpressing Cytosolic Glutamine Synthetase to Phosphinothricin. BCM,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;

2008; 69, (2): 382-389.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 114035

Chemical of Concern: GFS

131. Pfeilstetter, E.; Matzk, A.; Feldmann, S. D., and Schiemann, J. Rapid and Efficient Screening of

Phosphinothricin Tolerant Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) with a Novel Germination Test.

CEL,PHY,REPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 113, (2): 119-124.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155431

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

132. Pigeaire, A.; Abernethy, D.; Smith, P. M.; Simpson, K.; Fletcher, N.; Lu, C. Y.; Atkins, C. A., and Cornish,

E. Transformation of a Grain Legume (Lupinus an gustifolius L.) via Agro bacterium TumefaciensMediated Gene Transfer to Shoot Apices. CEL,GROSOIL,ENV; 1997; 3, (5): 341-349.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155435

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

133. Pline, W. A.; Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. Absorp tion, Translocation, and Metabolism of Glufosinate in Five

Weed Species as Influenced by Ammonium Sulfate and Pelargonic Acid.

ACCSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 47, (6): 636-643.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63964

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHSO4

134. Pline, W. A.; Wu, J., and Hatz ios, K. K. Effects of Temperature and Chemical Additives on the Response of

Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybeans to Glufosinate and Glyphosate Applications.

ACC,BCMSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1999; 65, (2): 119-131.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63963

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NHSO4,NONA

135. Pniewski, T. and Kapusta, J. Efficiency of Tran sformation of Polish Cultivars of Pea (Pisum sativum L.) with

Various Regeneration Capacity by Using Hypervirulent Agrobacterium tumefaciens Strains.

CEL,MOR,PHY. Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Scie nces, Strzeszynska 34, 60-479

Pozna?, Poland. tpni@igr.poznan.pl//: SOIL,ENV,TOP; 2005; 46, (2): 139-147.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155436

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

136. Popelka, J. C.; Gollasch, S.; Moore, A.; Molvig, L., and Higgins, T. J. V. Genetic Transformation of Cowpea

(Vigna unguiculata L.) and Stable Transmission of the Transgenes to Pr ogeny. PHYSOIL,TOP;

2006; 25, (4): 304-312.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155705

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

137. Prasad, R. and Dixon-Warren, H. Bioherbicides fo r Forestry: Development of Some Procedures for Bioassay

of Phytotoxins. PHYSOIL,ENV; 1992; 7, (4): 154-156.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100945

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

138. Price, A. J.; Koge r, C. H.; Wilcut, J. W.; Miller, D., and Van Santen, E. Efficacy of Residual and NonResidual Herbicides Used in Cotton Production Systems when Applied with Glyphosate,

Glufosinate, or MSMA. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 22, (3): 459-466.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 152895

Chemical of Concern: CFE,DU,FMU ,FMX,GFS,GYP,LCF,LNR,MSMA,OXF,PMT

139. Pritchard, G. H. Control of Br idal Creeper with Herbicides. POPSOI L,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 6, (3): 126.

### AI-17 Notes: EcoReference No.: 120946

Chemical of Concern: BMN,CRME,FZ FB,GFS,GYP,IZT,MCPA,MTSM,THF,TNM

140. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Ha ll, J. C. Effect of Relative Humidity on the Uptake,

Translocation, and Efficacy of Glufosinate Ammonium in Wild Oat (Avena fatua).

ACC,GROSOIL,ENV; 2002; 73, (1): 1-8.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155656

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

141. Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Riley, A.; Cannell, M.; Barcel o, P., and Lazzeri, P. A. Procedures Allowing the

Transformation of a Range of European Elite Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Varieties via Particle

Bombardment. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 52, (357): 865-874.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155437

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,AgN,GFSNH,TDZ

142. Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Riley, A.; Lazzer i, P., and Barcelo, P. A Facile Meth od for Screening for Phosphinothricin

(PPT)-Resistant Transgenic Wheats. PHY. S. Rasc o-Gaunt, Biochemistry and Physiol. Department,

IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL 5 2JQ, United Kingdom////: SOIL,TOP; 1999; 5,

(3): 255-262.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155514

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

143. Rathore, K. S.; Chowdhury, V. K., and Hodges, T. K. Use of Bar as a Selectable Marker Gene and for the

Production of Herbicide-Resistant Rice Plants from Protoplasts. CELSOIL,ENV; 1993; 21, (5):

871-884.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 101445

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH

144. Reddy, K. N.; Bryson, C. T., and Burke, I. C. Ragweed Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus) Control with

Preemergence and Postemergen ce Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 21, (4): 982-986.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154039

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACF,ATZ,BMN,BT,CMZ,CRM,DMM, DU,FMU,FMX,FTS,GFS,GYP,HSF,IMQ,MB

Z,MSMA,MTC,NFZ,PDM,PQT,PTB,QNC,SZ

145. Ribas, A. F.; Kobayashi, A. K.; Pereira, L. F. P., and Vieira, L. G. E. Genetic Transformation of Coffea

canephora by Particle Bombardment. CEL,GRO,REPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 49, (4): 493-497.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155439

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH

146. Richardson, W. G. and West, T. M. Pot Experiments to Investigate Potential Post-Emergence Herbicides for

Weed Control in Swede (Brassica napus). GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1986; 7, 90-91.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 31232

Chemical of Concern: CPR,EFS,FXP,GFS,OXF,PYD

147. Rom, R. C.; Arrington, G., and Stasiak, M. Field Evaluation of Herbicides in Tree Fruits, 1984.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1986; 335, 12 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 31180

Chemical of Concern: FZFB,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT

148. Ruhland, M.; Engelhardt, G., and Pawlizki, K. Distribution and Metabolism of D/L-, L- and D-Glufosinate in

Transgenic, Glufosinate-Tolerant Crops of Mai ze (Zea mays L. ssp. mays) and Oilseed Rape

(Brassica napus L var napus). ACC. Karlheinz.Pawlizki@LfL.bayern.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 60,

(7): 691-696.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 82638

### AI-18 Chemical of Concern: GFS

149. Saito, K.; Yamazaki, M.; Anzai, H.; Yoneyama, K., and Murakoshi, I. Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Atropa

belladonna Using an Ri Binary Vector and Inher itance of the Transgenic Trait. MORSOIL,TOP;

1992; 11, (5/6): 219-224.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155693

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

150. Saji, H.; Nakajima, N.; Aono, M.; Tamaoki, M.; Kubo, A.; Wakiyama, S.; Hatase, Y., and Nagatsu, M.

Monitoring the Escape of Transgenic Oilseed Rape Around Japanese Ports and Roadsides.

BCMSOIL,ENV; 2005; 4, (4): 217-222.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155442

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI

151. Samsoe-Petersen, L. Effects of 67 Herbicides and Plant Growth Regulators on the Rove Beetle Aleochara

bilineata (Col.: Staphylinidae) in the Laboratory. MOR,REPENV ,MIXTURE; 1995; 40, (1): 95-

104.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63490

Chemical of Concern:

ATZ,BMC,BMN,BT,CBL,CQTC, DFPM,DMDP,DPP1,DPP2,EFS,FXP,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,MCP

A,MCPP1,MCPP2,MLNR,MTL,MTSM,NAA,NAD,PDM,PYD,PZM,QZFE,SZ,TKY,TSF

152. Sanders, P. and Rahman, A. Destruction of Un wanted Asparagus Crops. POPSOIL,ENV; 1992: 64-66.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120784

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,MB,MTS

153. Sandesh Kamath, B.; Vidhyavathi, R.; Sarada, R., and Ravishankar, G. A. Enhancement of Carotenoids by

Mutation and Stress Induced Carotenogenic Genes in Haematococcus pluvialis Mutants.

CELAQUA; 2008; 99, (18): 8667-8673.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155472

Chemical of Concern: GFS

154. Sandhu, S.; Altpeter, F., and Blount, A. R. Apomictic Bahiagrass Expressing the Bar Gene is Highly

Resistant to Glufosinate Under Field Conditions. CEL,GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 47,

(4): 1691-1697.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155443

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

155. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P., and Oard, J. H. Genetic Analysis of Glufosinate Resistance in Crosses

Between Transformed Rice (Oryza sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa). BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV;

1998; 12, (2): 209-214.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100971

Chemical of Concern: GFS

156. Sarria, R.; Torres, E.; Angel, F.; Chavarriaga, P. , and Roca, W. M. Transgenic Plants of Cassava (Manihot

esculenta) with Resistance to Basta Obtained by Agrobacterium-Mediat ed Transformation.

GROSOIL,ENV; 2000; 19, (4): 339-344.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155874

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,BAD,GFSNH

157. Sauer, H.; Wild, A., and Ruhle, W. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis II. The

Causes of Inhibition of Photosynthesis. BCM,PHYSOIL,ENV; 1987; 42, (3): 270-278.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155637

Chemical of Concern: GFS,NHCl

### AI-19 158. Scheffler, J. A.; Parkinson, R., and Dale, P. J. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Isolation Distances for Field

Plots of Oilseed Rape (Brassica napus) Using a Herbicide-Resistance Transgene as a Selectable

Marker. POPSOIL,ENV; 1995; 114, (4): 317-321.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155695

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

159. Schrader, K. K. and Harries, M. D. Compounds with Selective Toxicity Toward the Musty-Odor

Cyanobacterium Oscillatoria perornata. POPAQUA; 2001; 66, (6): 801-807.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 62248

Chemical of Concern: ASA,BZO,GFS,LCF,MAT,ODZ,OXF,PMT

160. Schroeder, H. E.; Schotz, A. H.; Wardley-Richardson, T.; Spencer, D., and Higgins, T. J. V. Transformation

and Regeneration of Two Cultivars of Pea (Pisum sativum L.).

GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 101, (3): 751-757.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155444

Chemical of Concern: BAD,GFSNH

161. Schwartz, B. M. Zoysiagrass Evaluation for DNA Content, Sting Nematode Response, Nitrogen

Management, and Estimates of Heritability for Turfgrass Performance Tr aits. PHYSOIL,ENV;

2008: 128 p. (UMI# 3392724).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155932

Chemical of Concern: GFS

162. Seipp, D. Cane Vigour Control in Red Raspberries with Glufosinate-Ammonium. GRO,POP. 5th

International Symposium on Rubus and Ribes, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, June 24-July

2, 1989.//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989; 262, 395-404.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155621

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHSO4

163. Senior, I. J.; Moyes, C., and Dale, P. J. Herb icide Sensitivity of Transgenic Multiple Herbicide-Tolerant

Oilseed Rape. MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 58, (4): 405-412.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155446

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,MCPP1,MTSM,PQT,PZM,SS

164. Shelp, B. J.; Swanton, C. J.; Mersey, B. G., and Hall, J. C. Glufosinate (Phosphinothricin) Inhibition of

Nitrogen Metabolism in Barley and Green Foxta il Plants. BCMSOIL,ENV; 1992; 139, (5): 605-

610.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155604

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

165. Shibaya, T. Herbicides: Fruit Trees. NOCSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 47, 28-30.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 117868

Chemical of Concern:

ACR,ASM,DBN,DQT,DU,FZP,GFS,GYP,LNR,NaClO,ODZ,PAQT,PPN,SXD,TFN

166. Shin, J. S.; Kim, K. M.; Lee, D. J.; Lee, S. B.; Bu rgos, N. R., and Kuk, Y. I. Resistance Levels and Fitness of

Glufosinate-Resistant Transgenic Sweet Potato in Field Experiments.

BCM,CEL,GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 121, (3): 324-332.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155480

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,OXF,PQT

167. Shirgurkar, M. V.; Naik, V. B.; Von Arnold, S.; Nadgauda, R. S., and Clapham, D. An Efficient Protocol for

Genetic Transformation and Shoot Regeneration of Turmeric (Curcuma longa L.) via Particle

Bombardment. GROSOIL,ENV; 2006; 25, (2): 112-116.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155725

### AI-20 Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

168. Skora Neto, F.; Coble, H. D., and Corbin, F. T. Absorption, Translocation, and Metabolism of 14CGlufosinate in Xanthium strumarium, Commelina difusa, and Ipomoea purpurea. ACCSOIL,ENV;

2000; 48, 171-175.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59665

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

169. Smith, D. A. and Hallett, S. G. Interactions Be tween Chemical Herbicides an d the Candidate Bioherbicide

Microsphaeropsis amaranthi. POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 54, (3): 532-537.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 119975

Chemical of Concern: ACF,ATZ,BMN,CFE, CLNS,GFS,GIB,GYP,IZT,LCF,MBZ,PAQT,PMSM

170. Smith, R. L.; Grando, M. F.; Li, Y. Y.; Seib, J. C., and Shatters, R. G. Transformation of Bahiagrass

(Paspalum notatum Flugge). MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,TOP; 2002; 20, (11): 1017-1021.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155734

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

171. Song, X.; Wang, Z.; Zuo, J.; Huangfu, C., and Qi ang, S. Potential Gene Flow of Two Herbicide-Tolerant

Transgenes from Oilseed Rape to Wild B. juncea var. gracilis. MOR. Weed Research Laboratory,

Nanjing Agricultural University, Nanjing, 210095, China.//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 120, (8): 1501-1510.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155493

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI

172. Sripaoraya, S.; Keawsompong, S.; Insupa, P.; Powe r, J. B.; Davey, M. R., and Srinives, P. Genetically

Manipulated Pineapple: Transgene Stability, Gene Expression and Herbicide Tolerance Under Field

Conditions. GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 125, (4): 411-413.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155696

Chemical of Concern: EPH,GFSNH

173. Sripaoraya, S.; Marchant, R.; Power, J. B., and Davey, M. R. Herbicide-Tolerant Transgenic Pineapple

(Ananas comosus) Produced by Microprojectile Bombardment. MOR,PH YSOIL,ENV; 2001; 88,

(4): 597-603.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155448

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

174. Steckel, G. J.; Wax, L. M.; Simmons, F. W., and Phillips II, W. H. Gl ufosinate Efficacy on Annual Weeds is

Influenced by Rate and Growth Stage. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 11, (3): 484-488.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155450

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

175. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E., and Sikkema, P. H. Time of Day Impact s Postemergence Weed Control in Corn.

POPENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (3): 346-355.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 153932

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,BMN,DMB,GFS,GYPK,NSF

176. Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A. ; Lovelace, M. L., and Scherder, E. F. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small

Fruit, Vegetable, and Ornamental Crops, 1999. POPSOIL,ENV; 2000: 1-22.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 153250

Chemical of Concern:

AZF,BT,CLNS,CMZ,CPR,DEF,DMM,DU,FFC,FMC ,FSF,FTS,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT,HSF,IA

Z,IZT,IZX,LCF,LNR,MTC,MTL,OXF,OYZ,PHM D,PYD,RIM,SFZ,SXD,SZ,TFN,TPZ,TSF

177. Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. Influence of Herb icide Application Rate, Timing, and Interrow Cultivation on

Weed Control and Corn (Zea mays ) Yield in Glufosinate-Resistant and Glyphosate-Resistant Corn.

### AI-21 GRO,POP. kells@pilot.msu.edu//: SOIL,E NV,MIXTURE; 1999; 13, (4): 807-813.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63509

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,NHSO4,NSF

178. ---. Residual Herbicides Used in Combination with Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Corn (Zea mays).

GRO,POP. Golden Harvest Seeds, Cordova, IL 61242//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, (2): 274-

281.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155516

Chemical of Concern: ACO,ATZ,FTS,GFS,GYP,MTL,NHSO4,PDM

179. Thomas, W. E.; Everman, W. J.; Allen, J.; Collin s, J., and Wilcut, J. W. Economic Assessment of Weed

Management Systems in Glufosinate-Resistant, Glyphosate-Resistant, Imidazolinone-Tolerant, and

Nontransgenic Corn. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (1): 191-198.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155535

Chemical of Concern: AMTR,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTC

180. Toler, J. E.; Willis, T. G.; Estes, A. G., and Mc Carty, L. B. Postemergent Annual Bluegrass Control in

Dormant Nonoverseeded Bermudagrass Turf. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 42, (3): 670-672.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155804

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,BP,CLT,DQTBr,FZS,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MTS,PZM,RIM,SFS,SZ

181. Tsai, C. J.; Wang, C. S., and Wang, C. Y. Physio logical Characteristics of Glufosinate Resistance in Rice.

ACC,GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2006; 54, (4): 634-640.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100969

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

182. Van Wychen, L. R.; Harvey, R. G.; VanGessel, M. J.; Rabaey, T. L., and Bach, D. J. Efficacy and Crop

Response to Glufosinate-Based Weed Management in PAT-Transformed Sweet Corn (Zea mays).

POP. lrv@montana.edu//: SOIL,ENV,MIXT URE; 1999; 13, (1): 104-111.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 64314

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,MTL

183. Vaseva-Gemisheva, I.; Lee, D., and Karanov, E. Response of Pisum sativum Cytokinin

Oxidase/Dehydrogenase Expression and Specifi c Activity to Drought Stress and Herbicide

Treatments. BCM,CELSOIL,ENV; 2005; 46, (3): 199-208.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155739

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS

184. Whitaker, J. R. Distribution, Biology, and Management of Glyphosate-Resistant Palmer amaranth in North

Carolina. ACC,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009: 247 p. (UMI# 3357856).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155933

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,24DXYBEE,ACP,ADC,CLT,CRM,DCTP,DMT,DU,FMU,FMX,FSF,GFSNH,GYPK,

GYPT,IMC,LCYT,LNR,MBZ,MSMA,MTC,MTL, NHSO4,OML,PDM,PMT,PTB,PTBNa,THFM,T

MX

185. Wild, A.; Sauer, H., and Ruhle, W. The Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis I.

Inhibition of Photosynthesis and Accumulation of Ammonia. PHYSOI L,ENV,MIXTURE; 1987;

42, (3): 263-269.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155676

Chemical of Concern: GFS,KNO3

186. Wilson, D. G. Jr.; York, A. C., and Jordan, D. L. Effect of Row Spacin g on Weed Management in

Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (2): 489-495.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155536

### AI-22 Chemical of Concern:

ACP,ADC,BORON,EPH,FMU,GFSNH,IMC,MQC,MSMA,MTC,NHN,PDM,PTB,TBF,TDZ

187. Wilson, R. G.; Yonts, C. D., and Smith, J. A. Influence of Glyphosate and Glufosinate on Weed Control and

Sugarbeet (Beta vulgaris) Yield in Herbicid e-Tolerant Sugarbeet. BCM,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV;

2002; 16, 66-73.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 62972

Chemical of Concern: CPR,DDP,GFS,GYP,PHMD

188. Winkelmann, T.; Kaviani, K., and Serek, M. Development of a Shoot Regeneration Protocol for Genetic

Transformation in Pelargonium zonale and Pelargonium peltatum Hybrids.

GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 80, (1): 33-42.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155740

Chemical of Concern: BAD,GFS,TDZ

189. Wright, M.; Dawson, J.; Dunder, E.; Suttie, J.; Reed , J.; Kramer, C.; Chang, Y.; Novitzky, R.; Wang, H., and

Artim-Moore, L. Efficient Biolistic Transformati on of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Wheat (Triticum

aestivum L.) Using the Phosphomannose Isomeras e Gene, PMI, as the Selectable Marker.

GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 20, (5): 429-436.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155741

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,GFSNH,GIB,NAA

190. Yi, G.; Shin, Y. M.; Choe, G.; Shin, B.; Kim, Y. S., and Kim, K. M. Production of Herbicide-Resistant Sweet

Potato Plants Transformed with the Bar Gene . MORSOIL,ENV; 2007; 29, (4): 669-675.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155454

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

191. You, W. and Barker, A. V. Herbicidal Actions of Root-Applied Glufosinate Ammonium on Tomato Plants.

BCM,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 127, (2): 200-204.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66763

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NH4

192. Zaragoza, C.; Munoz-Bertomeu, J., and Arrillaga , I. Regeneration of Herbic ide-Tolerant Black Locust

Transgenic Plants by SAAT. GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 22, (11): 832-838.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155743

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

193. Zeldin, E. L.; Jury, T. P.; Serres, R. A., and McCown, B. H. Tolerance to the Herbicide Glufosinate in

Transgenic Cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon Ait.) and Enhancemen t of Tolerance in Progeny.

GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2002; 127, (4): 502-507.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 70927

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GFSNH

194. Zhang, N.; Linscombe, S., and Oard, J. Out-Crossing Frequency and Genetic Analysis of Hybrids Between

Transgenic Glufosinate Herbicide-Resistant Ri ce and the Weed, Red Rice. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV;

2003; 130, (1): 35-45.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 101221

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

### AI-23 

## III. Acceptable to ECOTOX – Additional Publications

The following publications were cons idered Acceptable according to ECOT OX screening criteria but were not

incorporated directly into the current risk assessment b ecause they (1) primarily address pesticide efficacy, and/or

(2) do not provide information of suitable quality with more sensitive endpoints than those currently used in risk

estimation.

1. Ahn, I. P. Glufosinate Ammonium-Induced Pathogen Inhibition and Defense Responses Culminate in Disease

Protection in bar-Transgenic Rice. BCM,CEL,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 146, (1): 213-227.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 152808

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

2. Balyan, R. S. Effect of Sulfosulfuron, Chlorsulfuron and Glufosinate-Treated Water on Mungbean, Soybean,

Pearlmillet, Maize and Sorghum. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1998; 132, (Suppl.): 36-37.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155495

Chemical of Concern: BT,CSF,GFSNH

3. Bennett, A. C. and Shaw, D. R. Effect of Prehar vest Desiccants on Weed Seed Production and Viability.

GRO,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 530-538.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59336

Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,GYP,NaClO,OXF,PQT

4. Blackshaw, R. E. HOE-39866 Use in Chemical Fa llow Systems. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1989; 3,

(2): 420-428.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155611

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,CSF,GFSNH,GYP,MTS,NHSO4,PAQT

5. Blair-Kerth, L. K.; Dotray, P. A.; Keeling, J. W.; Gannaway, J. R.; Oliver, M. J., and Quisenberry, J. E.

Tolerance of Transformed Cotton to Glufosinate. GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2001; 49, 375-380.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66801

Chemical of Concern: GFS

6. Bovey, R. W.; Dahlberg, J. A.; Senseman, S. A. ; Miller, F. R., and Madera-Torres, P. Desiccation and

Germination of Grain Sorghum as Affected by Glufosinate. PHY,REP. 18906//: SOIL,ENV; 1999;

91, (3): 373-376.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 81633

Chemical of Concern: GFS

7. Brabham, C. The Inheritance, Fitness, an d Control of Glyphosate-Resistant Giant Ragweed.

GRO,MOR,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2011: 95 p. (UMI# 1502120).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155907

Chemical of Concern: FSF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,NHSO4

8. Braverman, M. P. Control of Mannagrass (Glyceria declinata) and Southern Watergrass (Luziola fluitans) in

Water-Seeded Rice (Oryza sativa). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 10, (1): 68-71.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 96386

Chemical of Concern: CLT,FN P,FZF,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT,SXD

9. Brown, L.; Soltani, N.; Shropshire, C.; Spieser, H., and Sikkema, P. H. Efficacy of Four Corn (Zea mays L.)

Herbicides when Applied with Flat Fan and Air Induction Nozzles. POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 7, (1):

55-61.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155609

Chemical of Concern: BMN,DMB,GFS,NSF

10. Buckmann, H.; Petersen, J.; Schlinker, G., and Marlander, B. Weed Control in Genetically Modified Sugar

### AI-24 Beet - Two Year Experiences of a Field Trial Se ries in Germany. BCM,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 17,

353-362.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155540

Chemical of Concern: CPR,DDP,EFS,GFSNH,GYPI,PHMD

11. Carpenter, D. and Boutin, C. Sublethal Effects of the Herbicide Glufosinate Ammonium on Crops and Wild

Plants: Short-Term Effects Compared to Vegetative Recovery and Plant Reproduction.

GRO,MOR,POP,REP. Science & Technology, Environment Canada, Carleton University, 1125

Colonel By Drive (Raven Road), Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0H3, Canada.//: SOIL,ENV; 2010; 19, (7):

1322-1336.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155486

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

12. Cathcart, R. J.; Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. Fertilizer Nitrogen Rate an d the Response of Weeds to

Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 52, (2): 291-296.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155883

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS,GYP,NSF

13. Clay, D. V.; Dixon, F. L., and Willoughby, I. Na tural Products as Herbicides for Tree Establishment.

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 20 05; 78, (1): 1-9.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 111710

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI

14. Czarnota, M. A. and Derr, J. Controllin g Bamboo (Phyllostachys spp.) with Herbicides.

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2007 ; 21, (1): 80-83.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154909

Chemical of Concern: CLT,DBN,DTP, FNP,FZF,GFS,GYP,IZP,MSMA,QNC,SXD

15. De Greef, W.; Delon, R.; De Block, M.; Leemans, J., and Botterman, J. Evaluation of Herbicide Resistance in

Transgenic Crops Under Field Conditions. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1989; 7, (1): 61-64.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155790

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

16. De Snoo, G. R.; De Jong, F. M. W.; Van Der Poll, R. J., and Van der Linden, M. G. A. M. Effects of

Glufosinate-Ammonium on Off Crop Vegetation - Interim Results. PHY,POP. Centre of

Environmental Science, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9518, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands.//:

SOIL,ENV; 2001; 66, (2b): 731-741.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155654

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

17. DeFelice, M. S. and Henning, J. C. Renovation of Endophyte (Acremonium coenophialum)-Infected Tall

Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) Pastures with Herb icides. POPSOIL,ENV; 19 90; 38, (6): 628-633.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100973

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,SXD

18. Degenhardt, R. F.; Harker, K. N.; Topinka, A. K.; Mc Gregor, W. R., and Hall, L. M. Effect of Herbicides on

Field Violet (Viola arvensis) in Four Direct-Seeded Canola Management Systems.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 608-622.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120677

Chemical of Concern: CPR,EMSF,GFS,GYP,IZT,IZX,SXD,THF

19. Derr, J. F. Common Reed (Phragmites australis ) Response to Mowing and Herbicide Application.

GRO,POPSOIL,ENV; 2008; 1, (1): 12-16.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 103875

Chemical of Concern: CLT,DTP,FNP,FZF,GFS,GYPI,MSMA,QNC,SXD

### AI-25 20. Dinehart, S. K.; Smith, L. M.; McMurry, S. T.; Ande rson, T. A.; Smith, P. N., and Haukos, D. A. Toxicity of

a Glufosinate- and Several Glyphosate-Based Herb icides to Juvenile Amphibians from the Southern

High Plains, USA. MORSOIL,ENV; 2009; 407, (3): 1065-1071.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 152560

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK

21. Dinehart, S. K.; Smith, L. M.; McMurry, S. T.; Smith, P. N.; Anderson, T. A., and Haukos, D. A. Acute and

Chronic Toxicity of Roundup Weathermax and Ignite 280 SL to Larval Spea multiplicata and S.

bombifrons from the Southern High Plains, USA. MOR. simon.dinehart@okstate.edu//Department

of Zoology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater , OK 74078//: AQUA; 2010; 158, (8): 2610-2617.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155517

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK

22. Druart, C.; Millet, M.; Scheifler, R.; Delhomme, O.; Raeppel, C., and De Vaufleury, A. Snails as Indicators

of Pesticide Drift, Deposit, Transfer and E ffects in the Vineyard. ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;

2011; 409, (20): 4280-4288.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155488

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,SFR,TEZ

23. Druart, C.; Scheifler, R.; Millet, M., and De Vauf leury, A. Landsnail Eggs Bioassays: A New Tool to Assess

Embryotoxicity of Contaminants in the Solid, Liquid or Gaseous Phase of Soil. MORENV; 2012;

53, (0): 56-64.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155483

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,SFR,TEZ

24. Eleftherohorinos, I. G. and Dhima, K. V. Re d Rice (Oryza sativa) Control in Rice (O. sativa) with

Preemergence and Postemergen ce Herbicides. POPAQUA; 2002; 16, (3): 537-540.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 95840

Chemical of Concern: ACO,ACR,DMM,GFS,GYP,MTL,PQT,QZFE

25. Ellis, J. M.; Shaw, D. R., and Barrentine, W. L. Herbicid e Combinations for Preharvest Weed Desiccation in

Early Maturing Soybean (Glycine max). BCM,PHY, POP. Prof. J.M. Ellis, Dept. of Plant and Soil

Sciences, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762, United States//:

SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 12, (1): 157-165.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63873

Chemical of Concern: BMN,GFS,GYPI,NaClO,OXF,PAQT

26. Esekhade, T. U.; Imarhiagbe, E. O.; Ugwa, I. K.; Aigbekaen, E. O., and Ojikepon, F. I. Efficacy and

Comparative Cost of Weed Control Methods in a Mature Rubber Plantation in Nigeria.

POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 9, (2): 117-122.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155644

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT

27. Eubank, T. W.; Poston, D. H.; Nandula, V. K.; Koger, C. H.; Shaw, D. R., and Reynolds, D. B. GlyphosateResistant Horsewood (Con yza canadensis) Control Using Glypho sate-, Paraquat-, and GlufosinateBased Herbicide Programs. POP. Place of Meeting: Delta Research and Extension

Center,Mississippi State University,Stoneville,M S////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2 008; 22, (1): 16-21.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155518

Chemical of Concern:

24DIO,24DXY,CRM,DMB,FMX,GFSNH,GYP,GYPK,LNR,MBZ,MTC,OXF,PQT,SFZ,THFM

28. Everman, W. J.; Burke, I. C. ; Allen, J. R.; Collins, J., and Wilcut , J. W. Weed Control and Yield with

Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Weed Management Systems. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007;

21, (3): 695-701.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155523

Chemical of Concern: GFS,MSMA,MTC,PMT,PTB

### AI-26 29. Everman, W. J.; Clewis, S. B.; York, A. C., and Wilcut, J. W. Weed Control and Yield with Flumioxazin,

Fomesafen, and S-Metolachlor Systems for Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton Residual Weed

Management. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 23, (3): 391-397.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155935

Chemical of Concern: FMX,FSF,GFSNH,MTC,PDM,PMT

30. Evers, G. W. Herbicides for Desiccating Da llisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) - Bermudagrass (Cynodon

dactylon) Pasture Sod Prior to Overseeding w ith Annual Ryegrass, (Lolium multiflorum).

POPSOIL,ENV; 2002; 16, 235-238.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 62987

Chemical of Concern: FZFP,GFS,GYP,PAQT

31. Fabian, D.; Bystriansky, J.; Burkus, J.; Rehak, P.; Legath, J., and Koppel, J. Th e Effect of Herbicide BASTA

15 on the Development of Mouse Preimplantation Embryos In Vivo and In Vitro. CEL,GRO.

Institute of Animal Physiology, Slovak Academy of Sciences, Koaice, Slovak Republic.

fabian@saske.sk//: ENV,ORAL; 2011; 25, (1): 73-79.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155484

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

32. Fischer, A. J.; Ateh, C. M.; Bayer, D. E., and H ill, J. E. Herbicide-Resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E.

phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa Fields. MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 48, (2): 225-230.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59421

Chemical of Concern: BP,CMZ,FNPE,GFS,GYP,MLT,PDM,PPN,TBC

33. Fodorpataki, L.; Bartha, C., and Keresztes, Z. G. Stress-Physiological Reactions of the Green Alga

Scenedesmus opoliensis to Water Pollu tion with Herbicides. BCM,PHY,POP.

lfodorp@gmail.com//Department of Biology, Babes-Bolyai University, 1 Kogalniceanu Str., 400084

Cluj-Napoca, Romania////: AQUA; 2009; 16, (1): 51-56.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 150127

Chemical of Concern: DU,GFS,PQT

34. Griffin, J. L. and Dabney, S. M. Preplant-Postemergence Herbicides for Legume Cover-Crop Control in

Minimum Tillage Systems. POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 4, (2): 332-336.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155679

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,PAQT

35. Groninger, J. W.; Zedaker, S. M., and Seiler, J. R. Herbicides to Control Tree Roots in Sewer Lines.

PHYSOIL,ENV; 1997; 23, (5): 169-180.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 111591

Chemical of Concern: ASM,DCPA ,EPTC,GFSNH,GYPI,MSMA,NaClO,TPRT

36. Grossmann, K.; Berghaus, R., and Retzlaff, G. Hete rotrophic Plant Cell Suspension Cultures for Monitoring

Biological Activity in Agrochemical Research. Co mparison with Screens Using Algae, Germinating

Seeds and Whole Plants. POP,REPSOIL,AQUA,ENV; 1992; 35, (3): 283-289.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 78497

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACFNa,ACR,ASM,ATZ,BT,CPP,CSF,DBN,DFPM,DU,GFSNH,GYP,IMQ,IZT,MBZ,

MCPA,NFZ,NP,OXF,PAQT,PDM,PHMD,PMT,PPN,SXD

37. Hagood, E. S. Jr. Herbicide Treatments for No-Till Alfalfa, Medicago sativa L., Establishment in Sod.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1988; 2, (3): 327-332.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155456

Chemical of Concern: FZF,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,PAQT,PQT,SXD

38. Hare, M. D.; Rolston, M. P.; Foote, A. G.; Archie, W. J., and Hagerty, G. Herbicide Tolerance of Grasslands

### AI-27 Puna Chicory. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993; 46, 282-287.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 77601

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ATZ,BMN,BT,CPP,CP R,CRM,DMB,DU,EFL,FTS,GFS NH,GYP,MBZ,MCPB,PCL,P

QT,PZM,TFN,TRB

39. Harrington, K. C. Herbicide Tolerance of Three Gr ound Cover Species with Pote ntial for Use in Orchards.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1993: 11-14.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120532

Chemical of Concern:

AMTL,ASM,CPR,DBN,DMDP,DQT,DU,GFS,GYP,LNR,MCPA,NFZ,ODZ,OXC,OXF,OYZ,PAQ

T,PDM,SZ,TNM,TRB

40. Harrington, K. C. and Rahman, A. Tolerance to Herbicides of Ground Co ver Species for New Zealand

Orchards. PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1998; 13, (3): 111-115.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 70295

Chemical of Concern:

AMTL,ASM,CLT,CPR,CSF,DBN,DMB,DMDP,DQT Br,DU,EFS,FZF,GFS,GYP,LNR,MCPA,MC

PP2,NFZ,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PAQT,PDM,PQT,SXD,SZ,TBNU,TPR

41. Harrington, K. C. and Zhang, T. Herbicides for Controlling Weeds in Mercury Bay Weed.

GRO,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 50, 462-466.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120479

Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,AMTL,ASM,CPP,CPR,CSF,DMB,DMDP,DQT,DU,GFS,GFSNH,GYP,GYPI,LNR,M

CPA,MCPP2,NFZ,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PQT,SZ,TBNU,TNM,TPR,TPRB

42. Harshavardhan, D.; Santha, B.; Rani, T. S.; Ulaganathan, K.; Madhulety, T. Y.; Laxminarayana, C., and

Seetharama, N. Simple and Economical Assay Systems for Evaluation of Phosphinothricin Resistant

Transgenics of Sorghum, Sorghum bicolor. (L.) Mo ench., and Pearl Millet, Pennisetum glaucum (L.)

R. Br. MOR,REPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 41, (2): 141-148.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155759

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

43. Higgins, J. M.; Whitwell, T., and Toler, J. E. Common Lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) Control with

Non-Selective Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 1991; 5, (4): 884-886.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155458

Chemical of Concern: ACR,GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT,PAQT

44. Howard, S. W.; Cameron, J. S., and MacConnell, C. B. Evaluation of Cane Burning Materials for Red

Raspberry. GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1989; 262, 365-372.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155952

Chemical of Concern: ACF,GFS,LCF,OXF

45. Humara, J. M. and Ordas, R. J. The Toxicity of Antibiotics and Herbicides on In Vitro Adventitious Shoot

Formation on Pinus pinea L. Cotyledons. GRO,MOR. R.J. Ordas, Universidad de Oviedo, Depto.

Biol. de Organismos y Sist., Unidad de Fisiologia Vegetal, C/ Catedratico Rodrigo Uria s /n, E33071 Oviedo, Asturias, Spain//: ENV; 1999; 35, (4): 339-343.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 64628

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

46. Hutchinson, P. J. S.; Beutler, B. R., and Ha ncock, D. M. Desiccant Evaluations: Late-Season Hairy

Nightshade (Solanum sarrachoides) Control and Seed Response. POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 20,

(1): 37-40.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155624

Chemical of Concern: CFE,DQT,GFSNH,PAQT,SUA

### AI-28 47. Hydrick, D. E. and Shaw, D. R. Effects of Tank -Mix Combinations of Non-Selective Foliar and Selective

Soil-Applied Herbicides on Three Weed Species. GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 8, (1): 129-

133.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155527

Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,IMQ,MBZ,PAQT,PQT

48. ---. Non-Selective and Selective Herbicide Combinations in Stale Seedbed (Glycine max).

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 9, (1): 158-165.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155529

Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFS,GYP,GYPT,IMQ,MBZ,PAQT

49. Ikuenobe, C. E. Field Evaluation of Glufosinate-Ammonium and Glyphosate-Trimesium Against Siam Weed

(Chromolaena odorata (L.)). POPSOIL,ENV; 1992; 13, 44-45.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155610

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,GYPT

50. Ipor, I. B. an d Tawan, C. S. Efficacy of Fo ur Herbicides Applied with a Rope-Wick Wiper to Ischaemum

magnum. ACC,POPSOIL,ENV; 1993; 6, (2): 141-151.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155608

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT

51. Jhala, A. J.; Raatz, L. L.; Dexter, J. E., and Hall, L. M. Adven titious Presence: Volunteer Flax (Linum

usitatissimum L.) in Herbicide Resistant Canola (B rassica napus L.). POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2010;

24, 244-252.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155934

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYPK

52. Koger, C. H.; Price, A. J.; Faircloth, J. C.; Wilcut, J. W., and Nichols, S. P. Effect of Residual Herbicides

Used in the Last POST-Directed Application on Weed Control and Cotton Yield in Glyphosate- and

Glufosinate-Resistant Cotton. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007; 21, (2): 378-383.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155461

Chemical of Concern: DU,FMU,GFSNH,GYPK,LNR,OXF,PDM,PMT

53. Kumaratilake, A. R.; Lorraine-Colwill, D. F., and Pr eston, C. A Comparative St udy of Glufosinate Efficacy

in Rigid Ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) and Sterile Oat (Avena sterilis). ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV;

2002; 50, (5): 560-566.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155509

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

54. Kumaratilake, A. R. and Preston, C. Low Temper ature Reduces Glufosinate Activity and Translocation in

Wild Radish (Raphanus raphanistrum). ACC,GRO,MORSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (1): 10-16.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155510

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

55. Lanie, A. J.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, P. R., and Reynolds, D. B. Weed Control with Non-Selective Herbicides

in Soybean (Glycine max) Stale Seedbed Culture. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 8, (1): 159-

164.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155470

Chemical of Concern: FSF,FZFP,GFS,GYP,GYPT,PAQT

56. Legleiter, T. R. and Bradley, K. W. Evaluation of Herbicide Programs for the Management of GlyphosateResistant Waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) in Maize. POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28,

(11): 917-922.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155490

Chemical of Concern: ACO,ATZ,FFC,GFS,GYP,IXF,MTC

### AI-29 57. Lombard, A.; Gauvrit, C., and Chauvel, B. Chemical Control of Ambrosia artemisiifolia on Non-Crop Areas:

Are There Alternatives to Glyphosate? ACC,GRO, POP,REP. Unité mixte de recherche Biologie et

Gestion des Adventices, INRA, BP 86510, F-21065 Dijon Cedex, France .//: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE;

2005; 70, (3): 447-457.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155631

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,MTSM,NHSO4

58. Maruska, D. W. Glufosin ate Efficacy and Phytotoxicity in Field Corn (Zea mays L.).

GRO,PHY,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996: 131 p. (UMI# 0665827).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155481

Chemical of Concern: CBF,DMB,GFS,NH3,NSF

59. McCullough, P. E.; Hart, S. E.; Askew, S.; Dernoeden, P. H.; Reicher, Z., and Weisenberger, D. Kentucky

Bluegrass Control with Postemergence Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 2006; 41, (1): 255-258.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 87931

Chemical of Concern: CLT,GFSNH,GYPI,RIM,SXD

60. Merkel, U.; Rathke, G. W.; Schuster, C.; Warnstorff, K., and Diepenbrock, W. Use of GlufosinateAmmonium to Control Cruciferous Weed Species in Glufosinate-Resistant Winter Oilseed Rape.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2004; 85, (2/3): 237-249.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155542

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

61. Metzger, J. A. and Pfeiffer, D. G. Topical Toxicity of Pesticides Used in Virginia Vineyards to the Predatory

Mite, Neoseiulus fallacis (Garman). MOR. dgpf eiff@vt.edu//: TOP; 2002; 37, (4): 329-337.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 73149

Chemical of Concern:

AZ,AZX,CBL,CHX,DCF,DU,FBOX,FO,FRM,GFS,GFSNH,KRSM,MZB,OXF,PQT,PRB,PSM,PZ

M,TEZ,TFZ

62. Miliszkiewicz, D.; Wieczorek, P.; Lejcazk, B.; Kowalik, E., and Kafarski, P. Herbicidal Activity of

Phosphonic and Phosphinic Acid Analogues of Glutamic and Aspartic Acid. GROSOIL,ENV,TOP;

1992; 34, (4): 349-354.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155682

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

63. Miller, D. K.; Downer, R. G.; Burris, E.; Leonard, B. R., and Williams, B. J. Control of Selected Broadleaf

Weeds with Glufosinate as Influenced by Insecticide Coapplication.

GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 719-723.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155512

Chemical of Concern: ACP,ACT,BFT,CYF, DCTP,EMMB,GFSNH,IDC,IMC,LCYT,MFZ,SS,TMX

64. Miller, D. K.; Downer, R. G.; Leonard, B. R.; Holm an, E. M., and Kelly, S. T. Response of Non-GlufosinateResistant Cotton to Reduced Rates of Glufosinat e. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 51, (5): 781-

785.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155511

Chemical of Concern: GFS

65. Moseley, C. M. and Hagood, E. S. Jr. Reduci ng Herbicide Inputs when Establishing No-Till Soybeans

(Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1990; 4, (1): 14-19.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 73993

Chemical of Concern: CRM,GFSNH ,GYP,IMQ,IMZ,LNR,MBZ,MTL,PAQT

66. Nelson, K. A. Soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr) Growth and Development, White Mold (Sclerotinia

sclerotiorum (Lib.) de Bary) Incidence, and Yello w Nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus L.) Control as

### AI-30 Affected by Glyphosate and Other Herbicides.

BCM,GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,INJECT,MIXTURE; 2000: 279 p. (UMI# 9971967).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120063

Chemical of Concern:

ACF,ACFNa,BT,CLNS,CLT,CRM,FMC,FSF,FTCM ,GFS,GYPI,HSF,IZP,IZT,IZX,LCF,NHSO4,O

DZ,OXF,PTB,RIM,SFZ,SXD,THF

67. Nielson, R. L. Volunteer Wheat (Triticum aesti vum L.) Biological Parameters for the Development of a

Mechanistic Agronomic Model. PHY,POP, REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008: 158 p. (UMI#

MR45862).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155893

Chemical of Concern: DFC,FDX,GFS,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,QZFPE,SXD,TMX

68. Nolte, S. A. Characterizing the Response of gdhA Transformed Tobacco to Glufsoinate.

ACC,BCM,GRO,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2009: 163 p. (UMI# 3390866).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155899

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

69. Oard, J. H.; Linscombe, S. D.; Braverman, M. P.; Jodari, F.; Blouin, D. C. ; Leech, M.; Kohli, A.; Vain, P.;

Cooley, J. C., and Christou, P. Development, Field Evaluation, and Agronomic Performance of

Transgenic Herbicide Resistant Rice. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 2, (4): 359-368.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 101235

Chemical of Concern: GFS

70. Onsando, J. M.; Magambo, M. J. S., and Omolo, J. G. Evaluation of Basta on Kikuyu Grass (Pennisetum

clandestinum chiov.), in Kenya. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 36, (4): 346-348.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155607

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT

71. Panwar, R. S.; Balyan, R. S., and Malik, R. S. Ev aluation of Glufosinate for Control of Weeds in Cotton.

POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 2000; 32, (1/2): 94-95.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 69001

Chemical of Concern: GFS,PDM,TFN

72. Park, S. H.; Pinson, S. R. M., and Smith, R. H. T-DNA Integration into Ge nomic DNA of Rice Following

Agrobacterium Inoculation of Is olated Shoot Apices. CEL,MOR, REPSOIL,ENV; 1996; 32, (6):

1135-1148.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100946

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

73. Peng, G. and Byer, K. N. Interactions of Pyricula ria setariae with Herbicides for Control of Green Foxtail

(Setaria viridis). GRO,POP,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2005; 19, (3): 589-598.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155678

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,PPN,TKY

74. Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. Influence of Climatic Conditions and Plant Physiology on Glufosinate-Ammonium

Efficacy. BCM,GROSOIL,ENV,MIXTU RE; 2001; 41, (1): 31-39.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155422

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHSO4

75. Pline, W. A.; Hatzios, K. K. , and Hagood, E. S. Weed and Herbic ide-Resistant Soybean (Glycine max)

Response to Glufosinate and Glyphosate Plus Ammonium Sulfate and Pelargonic Acid.

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2000; 14, 667-674.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59606

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NONA

### AI-31 76. Qian, H.; Chen, W.; Li, J.; Wang, J.; Zhou, Z.; Liu, W., and Fu, Z. The Effect of Exogenous Nitric Oxide on

Alleviating Herbicide Damage in Chlorella vulgaris.

BCM,CEL,POPAQUA,MIXTURE,Unspecified; 2009; 92, (4): 250-257.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 118900

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFS

77. Qian, H.; Chen, W.; Sheng, G. D.; Xu, X.; Liu, W., and Fu, Z. Effects of Glufosinate on Antioxidant

Enzymes, Subcellular Structure, and Gene Expression in the Unicellular Green Alga Chlorella

vulgaris. BCM,CEL,POP. College of Biological and Environmental Engineering, Zhejiang

University of Technology, Hangzho u 310032, People's Republic of China////: AQUA; 2008; 88, (4):

301-307.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 114622

Chemical of Concern: GFS

78. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. Effect of Humectants on the Uptake and Efficacy of

Glufosinate in Wild Oat (Avena fatua) Plants and Isolated Cuticles Under Dry Conditions.

GRO,MORSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 54, (2): 205-211.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155513

Chemical of Concern: DEG,GFSNH,PEG,TEG

79. Ratnayake, S. and Sh aw, D. R. Effects of Harvest-Aid Herbicides on Sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) Seed

Yield and Quality. POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1992; 6, (4): 985-989.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155438

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,PQT

80. Riemens, M. M.; Dueck, T., and Kempenaar, C. Pr edicting Sublethal Effects of Herbicides on Terrestrial

Non-crop Plant Species in the Field from Greenhouse Data. GRO,PHY,POP,REP. Wageningen

University and Research Centre, Plant Resear ch International B.V., P.O. Box 16, 6700 AA

Wageningen, The Netherlands////: SOIL,ENV; 2008; 155, (1): 141-149.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 112387

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

81. Ritter, R. L. and Menbere, H. Weed Management Systems Utilizing Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays)

and Soybean (Glycine max). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (1): 89-94.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 66932

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CRM,FNP,FZFP,GFS,MBZ,MTL

82. Rothe, R.; Hartung, H.; Marks, G.; Bergmann, H.; Gotz, R., and Schone, F. Glucosinolate Contents in

Vegetative Tissues of Winter Rape Cultivars. BCM,MOR.

Rothe,R.//Hartung,H.//M arks,G.//Bergmann,H.//Gotz,R.//Schon e,F.////: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 78, (1):

41-47.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155645

Chemical of Concern: GFS

83. Sahid, I. and Kalithasan, K. Effects of Glufos inate-Ammonium and Terbuthylazine on Germination and

Growth of Two Weed Species. GRO,REPSOIL,ENV,TOP; 1994; 9, (1): 15-19.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120312

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,TBZ

84. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P.; Jodari, F.; Linscombe, S. D., and Oard, J. H. Evaluation of Glufosinate on

Rice (Oryza sativa) Transformed with the BAR Gene and Red Rice (Oryza sativa).

GRO,PHY,POPAQUA; 1997; 11, (1): 70-75.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100972

Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-32 85. Sankula, S.; Braverman, M. P., and Linscombe, S. D. Glufosinate-Resistant, BAR-Transformed Rice (Oryza

sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Response to Glufosinate Alone and in Mixtures.

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (4): 662-666.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100966

Chemical of Concern: ACF,BSF,BT,GFS,PDM,PPN,QNC,TBC,TPR

86. ---. Response of BAR-Transformed Rice (Oryza sativa) and Red Rice (Oryza sativa) to Glufosinate

Application Timing. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1997; 11, (2): 303-307.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100970

Chemical of Concern: BMY,GFS

87. Sellers, B. A.; Smeda, R. J., and Li, J. Glut amine Synthetase Activity and Ammonium Accumulation is

Influenced by Time of Glufosinate Application. ACC,BCM,GROSOIL,ENV; 2004; 78, (1): 9-20.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155445

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

88. Shiboleth, Y. M.; Arazi, T.; Wang, Y., and Gal- On, A. A New Approach for Weed Control in a Cucurbit

Field Employing an Attenuated Potyviru s-Vector for Herbicide Resistance.

CEL,MOR,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 92, (1): 37-46.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155447

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,NHSO4

89. Shrestha, A.; Rajcan, I.; Chandl er, K., and Swanton, C. J. An Integr ated Weed Management Strategy for

Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2001; 15, (3): 517-522.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 67103

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,MTL

90. Simard, M. J.; Legere, A.; Seguin-Swartz, G.; Nair, H., and Warwick, S. Fitness of Double vs. Single

Herbicide-Resistant Canola. POPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (4): 489-498.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155886

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,IZT

91. Simard, M. J.; Rouane, S., and Leroux, G. D. Herbicide Rate, Glyphosate/Glufosinate Sequence and

Corn/Soybean Rotation Effects on Weed Seed Banks. POPSOIL,ENV; 2011; 59, (3): 398-403.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155473

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPK

92. Smeda, R. J.; Snipes, C. E., and Barrentine, W. L. Id entification of Graminicid e-Resistant Johnsongrass

(Sorghum halepense). PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (1): 132-137.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155808

Chemical of Concern: CLT,FNPE,FZFP,GFS,GYP,GYPT,IZT,LNR,MSMA,NSF,PAQT,PQT,SXD

93. Smith, A. E. Herbic ides for Killing Tall Fescue (Festuca aru ndinacea) Infected with Fescue Endophyte

(Acremonium coenophialum). POPSOIL,ENV; 1989; 3, (3): 485-489.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 70588

Chemical of Concern: FZFP,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,PQT,SXD,SZ

94. Smith, J. F. Early-Season Management of Twospotted Spider Mite on Cotton and Impacts of Infestation

Timing on Cotton Yield Loss. POP,REPENV,MIXTURE; 2010: 124 p. (UMI# 3398552).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155894

Chemical of Concern:

ABM,ACP,ADC,BFT,DCF,DMB,EXZ,FDX,GFSNH,GYPI,IMC,PAQT,PPG,PQT,SPM,TMX

95. Steckel, G. J.; Hart, S. E., and Wax, L. M. Absorption and Translocation of Glufosinate on Four Weed

Species. ACC,POP. l-wax@uiuc.edu//: SOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (3): 378-381.

### AI-33 Notes: EcoReference No.: 64483

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

96. Steckel, L. E.; Craig, C. C., and Hayes, R. M. Glyphosate-Resistant Horseweed (Conyza canadensis) Control

with Glufosinate Prior to Planting No-Till Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum).

POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2006; 20, (4): 1047-1051.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155515

Chemical of Concern: 24D,24DXY,DMB,DU,FMX,GFS,GYP,PDM,PMT

97. Steckel, L. E.; Craig, C. C.; Hayes, R. M., and Miller, D. K. Response of Three Nonglufosinate-Resistant

Cotton Varieties to Reduced Rates of Glufosin ate. GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2007;

21, (3): 780-784.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155451

Chemical of Concern: ACP,BORON,DMB,EPH,GFS,GYP,IMC,MQC,NHN,TBF,TDZ

98. Stewart, C. L.; Nurse, R. E. ; Cowbrough, M., and Sikkema, P. H. How Long can a Herbicide Remain in the

Spray Tank Without Losing E fficacy? POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28, (12) : 1086-1090.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154055

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DM B,DMM,GFSNH,GYP,IXF,MTC,RIM

99. Talbert, R.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A.; Curless, J. K., and Miesner, J. Field Evaluations of

Herbicides on Small Fruit Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1995.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 452, 43 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155618

Chemical of Concern:

ACFNa,BT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,DCPA,DDP,DMDP,DU ,EPTC,FSF,GFSNH,GYPI,IXB,IZT,MBZ,MT

L,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PHMD,PQT,PRM,SXD,TFN,TPZ

100. Talbert, R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Strebe, T. A.; Curless, J. K., and Miesner, J. Field Evaluation of

Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegeta ble and Ornamental Crops, 1995.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1996; 452, 38 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 73745

Chemical of Concern:

24DXY,ACFNa,ACO,BT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CYC,DC PA,DDP,DMDP,DMM,DU,EPTC,FSF,FTS,FZ

FP,GFSNH,GSF,GYP,GYPI,HSF,IXB,IZT,MBZ, MTL,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PHMD,PQT,PRM,SXD,TF

N,TPZ

101. Talbert, R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Burgos, N. R.; Stre be, T. A., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on

Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1994. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1995; 447,

53 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 73916

Chemical of Concern:

BT,CLT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CYC,DCPA,DEE,DMDP,DMM,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF,FTS,FZP,GFSNH,G

YPI,IZT,MBZ,MTL,NPP,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,P QT,QNC,SFZ,SXD,TFN,TPRT,TPZ,Ziram

102. Talbert, R. E.; Tierney, M. J.; Carey III, V. F., and Kitt, M. J. Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit,

Vegetable and Ornamental Crops, 1993. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1994; 440, 60 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 73236

Chemical of Concern:

ACF,ATZ,BT,CLT,CMZ,CPP,CP R,CYC,DCPA,DEE,DMB,DMDP, DMM,DTP,EFL,EFS,EPTC,FS

F,GFSNH,GYP,IXB,LCF,MCPA,MCPP1,MSMA,MTL,NPP,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,PYZ,P

ZM,QNC,SXD,TBC,TFN,TPR,TPZ

103. Talbert, R. E.; Wich ert, R. A.; Carey III, V. F.; Johnson, D. H.; Ruff, D. F., and Kendig, J. A. Field

Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops 1991.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1992; 417, 58 p.

### AI-34 Notes: EcoReference No.: 70759

Chemical of Concern:

ACFNa,ATZ,BS,BT,CLT,CMZ, CRM,DCPA,DTP,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF,FZFP,GFSNH,GYPI,IMQ,I

XB,IZT,MBZ,MTL,NPM,NPP,OXF,OYZ,PD M,PQT,PYD,SXD,SZ,TFN,TPZ,TRB

104. Talbert, R. E.; Wichert, R. A. ; McCarty, J. T.; Johnson, D. H.; Ruff, D. R.; Kendig, J. A., and Carey, V. F.

Field Evaluation of Herbicides on Small Fruit, Vegetable and Ornamental Crops 1990.

PHY,POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 412, 56 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155813

Chemical of Concern:

ACF,ACFNa,ACR,ATZ,BS,BT, CLT,CMZ,CPR,CRME,CYC,DCPA ,DEE,DTP,DU,EFL,EPTC,FSF

,GFSNH,GYPI,IAZ,IMQ,IXB,IZT,LCF,MB,M TL,MTZ,NPM,NPP,NSF,OXF,OYZ,PDM,PHMD,P

QT,PRM,SXD,TFN,TRB

105. Taylor, S. E. and Oliver, L. R. Sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) Seed Production and Viability as Influenced by

Late-Season Postemergence Herbicide Applications . POP,REPSOIL,ENV; 1997; 45, (4): 497-501.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155452

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFS,GYP,PAQT

106. Todorova, S. I.; Coderre, D.; Duchesne, R. M., and Cote, J. C. Compatibility of Beauveria bassiana with

Selected Fungicides and Herbicides. MOR,POP,REPENV; 1998; 27, (2): 427-433.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 97417

Chemical of Concern: CTN,DQTBr,GFSNH,MMM,MZB,Maneb,TPM,Zineb

107. Van Eerd, L. L.; Stephenson, G. R.; Kwiatkowski, J.; Grossmann, K., and Hall, J. C. Physiological and

Biochemical Characterization of Quinclorac Resi stance in a False Cleavers (Galium spurium L.)

Biotype. ACC,BCM,GRO,MOR. Department of Environmental Biology, University of Guelph,

Guelph, Ontario, N1G 2W1 Canada////: SOIL,ENV; 2005; 53, (4): 1144-1151.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154924

Chemical of Concern:

24DNH,BT,CPR,DMB,ETL,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,MCPAD,PCLK,QNC,THF,TPR

108. Vermey, D. J. Interactions Between Nitrogen an d Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) Densities on Glufosinate

and Glyphosate Efficacy. GRO, POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008 : 82 p. (UMI# MR41875).

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155895

Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,NHSO4

109. Wang, Y.; Kausch, A. P.; Chandlee, J. M.; Luo, H.; Ruemmele, B. A.; Browning, M.; Jackson, N., and

Goldsmith, M. R. Co-Transfer and Expression of Chitinase, Glucanase, and Bar Genes in Creeping

Bentgrass for Conferring Fungal Disease Resistance. MOR,POPSOIL,ENV; 2003; 165, (3): 497-

506.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155697

Chemical of Concern: DMB,GFSNH

110. Webster, T. M.; Hanna, W. W., and Mullinix , B. G. Jr. Bermudagrass (Cynodon spp.) Dose-Response

Relationships with Clethodim, Glufosinate and Glyphosate. GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV; 2004; 60, (12):

1237-1244.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155802

Chemical of Concern: CLT,GFS,GYP

111. Wherrett, A. D.; Sivasithamparam, K., and Barbetti, M. J. Establishing the Relationship of Ascospore Loads

with Blackleg (Leptosphaeria m aculans) Severity on Canola (Brassica napus). POPSOIL,ENV;

2004; 55, (8): 849-854.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 100967

Chemical of Concern: FTF,GFSNH

### AI-35 112. Wibawa, W.; Mohamad, R.; Omar, D., and Juraimi, A. S. Less Hazardous Alterna tive Herbicides to Control

Weeds in Immature Oil Palm. GRO,POP, REPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 7, (4): 242-247.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155423

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,PQT

113. Wilson, H. P.; Hines, T. E.; Bellinder, R. R., and Grande, J. A. Comparisons of HOE-39866, SC-0224,

Paraquat, and Glyphosate in No-Till Corn (Zea ma ys). POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1985; 33, (4):

531-536.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 31424

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,GFSNH,GYP,GYPT,MTL,PQT

114. Wilson, R. G. and Smith, J. A. Influence of Harvest-Aid Herbicides on Dry Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)

Desiccation, Seed Yield, and Quality. BCM,POP ,REPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2002; 16, 109-115.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 62977

Chemical of Concern: ACR,GFS,GYP,PAQT

115. Yadav, A.; Banga, R. S.; Balyan, R. S.; Malik, R. K., and Punia, S. S. Evaluation of Herbicides Against

Dodder (Cuscuta reflexa) Infesting the Hedge s of Bougainvillea (Bouga invillaea purpurea) and

Cleridendron (Cleridendron splendena). POPSOIL,ENV; 2007; 77, (7): 462-463.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155499

Chemical of Concern: 24DIO,24DXY,GFSNH,GYPI



## IV. Excluded by ECOTOX (Unacceptable Publications)

1. . Activity of Glufosinate Liberty Against Red Rice Biotyes in Glufosinate-Resi stant Gulfmont Rice. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

2. . Annual Assessment of Subsistence Bowhead Whaling Near Cross Island, 2001 and 2002: ANIMIDA Task

4. (GRA&I), Issue 07, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

3. . ASBESTOS CONCENTRATIONS IN GASKET STORAGE AREA PREPARED BY LIBERTY

MUTUAL. #878210178.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

4. . ASBESTOS SURVEY IN GASKET STORAGE AREA PREPARED BY LEBERTY MUTUAL.

#878210177.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

5. . Bar Gene Transfer From Transgenic Rice Oryza Sativa to Red Rice Oryza Sativa. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

6. . EFFECT OF THE HERBICIDES BASTA STARANE AND FUSILADE SUPER ON THE WEEDS

MICROFLORA AND CERTAIN AGROPHYSICAL SOIL PROPERTIES IN AN APPLE

PLANTATION AU - STAMATOV I. 24 (7). 1987. 34-40..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

7. . Ellis Island Development Concept Plan. Draft Envi ronmental Impact Statement. (GRA&I), Issue 22, 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

8. . Environmental Audit, Western Area Power Administration, Phoenix Area. Phoenix Area Operation and

Maintenance Complex, Amargosa Substation, Basic Substation, Mead Substation, Coolidge

Substation,Liberty Substation, Phoenix Substation. (GRA&I), Issue 13, 2091.

### AI-36 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

9. . Environmental Management Systems: Systematically Improving Your Performance. Meat Processing

Sector. (GRA&I), Issue 16, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

10. . EVALUATION OF AIRBORNE IN K MIST WITH COVER LETTER. #878211188.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

11. . EVALUATION OF EMPLOYEE EXPOSURE TO METHYL CHLOROFORM IN THE INK

DEPARTMENT AND TO PAPER DUST IN THE BALE ROOM WITH COVER LETTER.

#878211189.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

12. . Genetic transformation of aspen (Populus tremula X Populus alba) by Agrobacterium rhizogenes and

regeneration of plants tolerant to herbicide. AU - DEVILLARD C. 314 (6). 1992. 291-298K..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

13. . Health Consultation: National Energy Technology Laboratory-Albany, Albany, Oregon (Formerly Known

As: Albany Research Center), United States Depa rtment of Energy. EPA Facility ID: OR214159008.

(GRA&I), Issue 26, 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

14. . Health Consultation: Proposed Shellfish Harves ting Site, Liberty Bay, Kitsap County, Washington. EPA

Facility ID: ILD053219259. (GRA&I), Issue 25, 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

15. . Liberty Development and Production Plan: Draft Environmental Impact Statement (on CD-ROM).

(GRA&I), Issue 09, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

16. . Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 1. (Executive

Summary, Sections I through IX, Bibliography, Index). (GRA&I), Issue 11, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

17. . Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 2 (Tables,

Figures, and Maps for Volume 1). (GRA&I), Issue 11, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

18. . Liberty Development and Production Plan. Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Volume 3 (Appendices).

(GRA&I), Issue 11, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

19. . Liberty Development Project. Environmental Report. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

20. . McCullough to Liberty fiber optics project. (GRA&I), Issue 04, 2098.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

21. . NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation Report: HE TA No. 2005-0033-2984 an d 2005-0234-2984, Liberty

Central School District, Liberty, New York, November 2005. (GRA&I), Issue 06, 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

22. . [Optimization of Biological and Physical Parameters for Biolistic Genetic Transformation of Common

Wheat (Triticum Aestivum L.) Us ing a Particle Inflow Gun].

### AI-37 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

23. . Pesticide Fact Sheet: Glufosinate Ammonium. (GRA&I), Issue 21, 2093.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

24. . Public Health Assessment for Liberty Industrial Finishing Corporation, Farmingdale, Nassau County, New

York, March 22, 2005. EPA Facility ID: NY D000337295. (GRA&I), Issue 14, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

25. . Public Health Assessment for Petro-Chemical, Inc. (Turtle Bayou) Liberty, Liberty County, Texas, Region

6. CERCLIS No. TXD980873350. (GRA&I), Issue 14, 2093.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

26. . Public Health Assessment for Village of Liberty Water Supply System - Elm Street Well, Liberty, Sullivan

County, New York, May 6, 2005. EPA Facility ID: NYXCRA673000. (GRA&I), Issue 17, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

27. . SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS FOR D5 (DECAMETHYLCYCLOPENTASILOXANE) AT SELECTED

WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS WITH COVER LETTER DATED 08/31/93.

#86940001688.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

28. . Sources, Concentrations and Dispersion Pathways for Suspended Sediment in the Coastal Beaufort Sea:

ANIMIDA Task 5. (GRA&I), Issue 08, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

29. . Superfund Record of Decision Amendment (EPA Region 6): Petro-Chemical Systems (Turtle Bayou),

Liberty County, TX., April 30, 1998. (GRA&I), Issue 16, 2099.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

30. . Superfund Record of Decision (EPA Region 6): Petro-Chemical (Turtle Bayou), Liberty County, TX.

(Second Remedial Action), September 1991. (GRA&I), Issue 18, 2092.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

31. . Superfund Record of Decision (EPA Region 7): Lee Chemical Site, Liberty, MO. (First Remedial Action),

March 1991. (GRA&I), Issue 18, 2092.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

32. Abdeen, A. and Miki, B. The Pleiotropic Effects of the Bar Gene and Glufosinate on the Arabidopsis

Transcriptome.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

33. Abell, L. M. ; Schineller, J.; Keck, P. J., and Villafranca, J. J. Effect of Metal-Ligand Mutations on

Phosphoryl Transfer Reactions Catalyzed by Escherichia Coli Glutamine Synthetase.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

34. Accinelli, Cesare; Screpanti, Cla udio; Vicari, Alberto, and Catizone, Pietro. Influence of insecticidal toxins

from Bacillus thuringiensis subsp. kurstaki on the degradation of glyphosate and glufosinateammonium in soil samples. 2004 Aug; 103, (3): 497-507.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

35. Agostinetto, D.; Fleck, N. G.; Menezes, V. G., and Nunes Costa, E. L. Suppression of Red Rice Seed

Production by Herbicides Applied to Irrigated Rice (Supressao Da Producao De Sementes De ArrozVermelho Pela Aplicacao De Herbic idas Em Arroz Irrigado). 2002 ; 37, (1): 57-65(POR) (ENG

ABS). 135098.

### AI-38 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,PAQT

36. Ahuja, Manmeet and Punekar, Na rayan S. Phosphinothricin resistance in Aspergillus niger and its utility as a

selectable transformation marker. 2008 Jul; 45, (7): 1103-1110.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

37. Alarcon, C. M.; Umthun, A. R., and Register III, J. C. Use of Epitope Tags for Routine Analysis of Transgene

Expression. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

38. Alijah, R.; Dorendorf, J.; Talay, S.; Puhler, A., and Wohlleben, W. Genetic Analysis of the PhosphinothricinTripeptide Biosynthetic Pathway of Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Tu494. 34 (6), 749-755.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

39. Allen-King, R. M.; Butler, B. J., and Reichert, B. Fate of the Herbicide Glufosinate-Ammonium in the Sandy,

Low-Organic-Carbon Aquifer at Cfb Borden, Ontario, Canada. 1995.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

40. ALTMANN, T.; JESSOP, A.; MORRIS, P. C.; SCHMIDT, R., and WILLMITZER, L. DEVELOPMENT OF

A TRANSPOSON MUTAGENESIS SYSTEM FOR ARABIDOPSIS-THALIANA. 1910 Jan 20-

1991 Jan 17; 0 (15 PART A). 1991. 110..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

41. AMBROSE, C. and HOGGARD, P. E. METAL COMPLEXES OF GLUFOSINATE. 37 (5). 1989. 1442-

1444..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

42. Anders, M. W. and Dekant, W. Aminoacylases. 1994(27): 431-448. 174081.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,HCB

43. ANON. Meeting on Molecular Biology to Advan ce Plant Protection in the 2000s held at the Annual

Convention of the Israeli Fund for Advancement of Research on and Developm ent of Pesticides (Bet

Dagan, Israel; November 5, 1997). 26 (2). 1998. 149-152..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

44. Aono, M.; Wakiyama, S.; Nagatsu, M.; Nakajima, N. ; Tamaoki, M.; Kubo, A., and Saji, H. Detection of Feral

Transgenic Oilseed Rape With Multiple-Herbicide Resistance in Japan. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

45. Appenzeller, Laura M.; Malley, Linda; MacKenzie, Susan A.; Hoban, Denise, and Delaney, Bryan.

Subchronic feeding study with genetically modified stacked trait lepidopteran and coleopteran

resistant (DAS-+  ̇ 15+  ̇ 7-1xDAS-59122-7) maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2009 Jul; 47, (7):

1512-1520.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

46. Aris, A. and Leblanc, S. Maternal and Fetal Exposure to Pesticides Associated to Genetically Modified Foods

in Eastern Townships of Quebec, Canada.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

47. Asami, T. and Imura, H. Absolute Determinati on Method for Trace Quantities of Enantiomer of Glufosinate

by Gamma-Cyclodextrin Modified Capillary Zone Electrophoresis Combined With Solid-Phase

Extraction and on-Capillary Concentration.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

48. Asami, T.; Imura, H.; Ohashi, A.; Ohashi, K., and Ishiwata, T. Absolute Determination Method Using

### AI-39 Chirality for Glufosinate and Bialaphos by Gamma-Cyclodextri n Modified Capillary Zone

Electrophoresis.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

49. Asanuma, Y.; Jinkawa, T.; Tanaka, H.; Gondo, T.; Zaita, N., and Akashi, R. Assays of the Production of

Harmful Substances by Genetically Modified Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus L.) Plants in

Accordance With Regulations for Evaluating the Impact on Biodiversity in Japan.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

50. Atkins, D. J. Applying Space Technology to Enhance Control of an Artificial Arm for Ch ildren and Adults

With Amputations. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2099.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

51. Aulinger, I. E.; Peter, S. O.; Schmid, J. E., and Stamp, P. Rapid Attainment of a Doubled Haploid Line From

Transgenic Maize (Zea Mays L.) Plants by Means of Anther Culture. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

52. Aulrich, K.; Bohme, H.; Daenicke, R.; Halle, I., and Flachowsky, G. Novel feeds - a review of experiments at

our Institute. 2002; 35, (2-3): 285-293.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

53. Aumaitre, A. Safety assessment and feeding value for pigs, poultry and ruminant animals of pest protected

(Bt) plants and herbicide tolerant (glyphosate, gl ufosinate) plants: interpretation of experimental

results observed worldwide on GM plants. 2004; 3, (2): 107-121.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

54. Autio, Sari; Siimes, Katri; Laitinen, Pirkko; Ramo, Sari; Oinonen, Seija, and Eronen, Liisa. Adsorption of

sugar beet herbicides to Finnish soils. 2004 Apr; 55, (2): 215-226.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

55. Autran, J. C.; Be(acute)ne(acute)trix, F.; Bloc, D.; Burghart, P.; Chaurand, M.; Comb e, N., and Melcion, J. P.

Composition and Technological Value of Genetically Modified and Conventional Maize (Zea Mays

L.) Grains. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

56. Avila, C.; Garcia-Gutierrez, A.; Crespillo, R., and Canovas, F. M. Ef fects of phosphinotricin treatment on

glutamine synthetase isoforms in Scots pine seedlings. 1998; 36, (12): 857-863.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

57. Aziz, A. N.; Sauve(acute), R. J., and Zhou, S. Gene tic Transformation of Stella De Oro Daylily by Particle

Bombardment. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

58. Aziz, Aris. Response to Bayer CropScience's positio n on the findings of glufosinate and its metabolite. 2011;

32, (4): 496-497.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

59. Babic, V.; Datla, R. S.; Scoles, G. J., and Kelle r, W. A. Development of an Efficient AgrobacteriumMediated Transformation System for Brassica Carinata. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

60. BAHAT, A. and AGROCHEM, D. E. P. STAFF. GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM FOR GENERAL WEED

CONTROL IN VINEYARDS CITRUS AND OTHER FRUIT ORCHARDS AND

UNCULTIVATED AREAS. 13 (3-4). 1985 (RECD. 1986). 239..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-40 61. BAHRY, R. W. CONTROL OF CANADA THISTLE CIRSIUM ARVENSE L. SCOP. WITH

GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN HCN92 CANOLA. 1994; 75 (1). 1995. 302..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

62. BAKER-FULCO, C. J.; BUCHBINDER, J. C., and TORRI, S. A. DIETARY INTAKES OF MARINES ON

LIBERTY. 1995 Jan 9-1995 Jan 13; 9 (3). 1995. A176..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

63. Balci, B.; Oturan, M. A.; Oturan, N.; SirÉ, and S, I. Decontamination of Aqueous Glyphosate,

(Aminomethyl)Phosphonic Acid, and Glufosinate Solutions by Electro-Fenton-Like Process With

Mn2+ as the Catalyst.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

64. Baldwin, F. L. The value and exploitation of herbicide-tolerant crops in the US. 1999: 653-660.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

65. Bales, &Nbsp and C. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne L.) for

cold tolerance. 2010.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

66. Balestrazzi, A.; Bonadei, M.; Zelasco, S.; Quattrini, E. ; Calvio, C.; Galizzi, A., and Carbonera, D. Recovery

of Useful Traits From Isolates Inhabiting an Ag ricultural Soil Cultivated With Herbicide-Resistant

Poplars.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

67. Balkcom, Kipling S.; Price, Andrew J.; Van Santen, Edzard; Delaney, Dennis P.; Boykin, Deborah L.;

Arriaga, Francisco J.; Bergtold, Jason S.; Kornecki, Ted S., and Raper, Randy L. Row spacing,

tillage system, and herbicide technology affects co tton plant growth and yield. 2010 Jun 3-; 117,

(2  Çô3): 219-225.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

68. Baranger, A. ; Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F., and Renard, M. Effect of Oilseed Rape Genotype on the Spontaneous

Hybridization Rate With a Weedy Species: an Assessment of Transgen e Dispersal. 91 (6/7), 956-

963.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

69. Baranger, A. ; Delourme, R.; Foisset, N.; Eber, F. ; Barrett, P.; Dupuis, P.; Renard, M., and Chevre, A. M.

Wide Mapping of a T-Dna Insertion Site in O ilseed Rape Using Bulk Segregant Analysis and

Comparative Mapping. 116 (6), 553-560.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

70. Barazani, O. and Friedman, J. Allelopathic Bacteria and Their Impact on Higher Plants. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

71. ---. Allelopathic Bacter ia and Their Impact on Higher Plants (NOT DUPLICATE). 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

72. Barker, Allen V. and Prostak, Randall G. Alternative Management of Roadside Vegetation. 2009; 19, (2):

346-352.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

73. Baron, A.; Tobin, A., and Wallsgrove, R. M. The Kinetics of Azaserine and Phosphinothricin Inhibition of

Glutamate Synthase Cycle Enzyme s From Barley Leaves. 1994.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-41 74. Barrell, P. J.; Yongjin, S.; Cooper, P. A., and C onner, A. J. Alternative Sel ectable Marker s for Potato

Transformation Using Minimal T-Dna Vectors. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

75. Barrett, M. Herbicide Selectivity Mechanisms in Maize: Using What We Know for the Future. 1997: 587-

596.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,

GYP,SXD,GFS,,IZT,CPR,PYD,BT,BMN,DMB,FTS,NSF,ATZ,EPTC,ACO

76. Barrios-Llerena, Martin E.; Pritchard, Julie C.; Kerr , Lorraine E., and Le Bihan, Thierry. The use of a novel

quantitation strategy based on Reductive Isotopic Di-Ethylation (RIDE) to evaluate the effect of

glufosinate on the unicellular al gae Ostreococcus tauri: Pharmacopr oteomics and Toxicoproteomics.

2011 Nov 18-; 74, (12): 2798-2809.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

77. Barro, F.; Barcelo, P.; Lazzeri , P. A.; Shewry, P. R.; Martin, A., an d Ballesteros, J. Field Evaluation and

Agronomic Performance of Transgenic Wheat. 105 (6/7), 980-984.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

78. Barro, F.; Cannell, M. E.; La zzeri, P. A., and Barcelo, P. The Infl uence of Auxins on Transformation of

Wheat and Tritordeum and Analysis of Transgene Integration Patterns in Transformants. 97 (5/6),

684-695.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

79. Barsch, Aiko ; Carvalho, Helena G.; Cullimore, Julie V., and Niehaus, Karsten. GC-MS based metabolite

profiling implies three interdependent ways of ammonium assimilation in Medicago truncatula root

nodules. 2006 Dec 15; 127, (1): 79-83.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

80. Barthes, L.; Deleens, E.; Bousser, A.; Hoarau, J., and Prioul, J. L. Xylem Exud ation Is Related to Nitrate

Assimilation Pathway in Detopped Maize Seedlin gs: Use of Nitrate Reductase and Glutamine

Synthetase Inhibitors as Tools. 47 (297), 485-495.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

81. Bartsch, D.; Brand, U.; Morak, C.; Pohl-Orf, M.; Schuphan, I., and Ellstrand, N. C. Biosafety of Hybrids

Between Transgenic Virus-Resistant Sugar Beet, and Swiss Chard. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

82. BARTSCH, K.; DICHMANN, R.; SCHMITT, P.; UHLMANN, E., and SCHULZ, A. Stereospecific

production of the herbicide phosphinothricin (glufosinate) by transamination: Cloning,

characterization, and overexpression of the gene encoding a phosphinothricin-specific transaminase

from Escherichia coli. 56 (1). 1990. 7-12..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

83. Bartsch, K.; Schneider, R., and Schulz, A. Stereospecific Production of the Herbicide Phosphinothricin

(Glufosinate): Purification of Aspartate Transami nase From Bacillus Stearot hermophilus, Cloning of

the Corresponding Gene, Aspc, and Application in a Coupled Transaminase Process.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

84. BARTSCH, K. and TEBBE, C. C. INITIAL STEPS IN THE DEGRADATION OF PHOSPHINOTHRICIN

GLUFOSINATE BY SOIL BACTERIA. 55 (3). 1989. 711-716..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

85. Bauer-Weston, B.; Schulz, A.; Oelck, M. M., and Deschamps, R. J. A. Determination of Phosphinothricin

Acetyltransferase in Genetically Transformed Canola Seed by a Two-Antibody Sandwich Enzyme

### AI-42 Immunoassay. 14 (2), 134-142.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

86. Bechtold, N. ; Jaudeau, B.; Jolivet, S.; Maba, B.; Vezon, D.; Voisin, R., and Pelletier, G. The Maternal

Chromosome Set Is the Target of the T-Dna in the in Planta Transformation of Arabidopsis

Thaliana. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

87. Beckie, H. J. and Holm, F. A. Response of Wild Oat (Avena fatua) to Residual and Non-Residual Herbicides

in Canola (Brassica napus) in Western Canada. SOIL; 2002; 82, (4): 797-802.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: EFL,GFS,GYPI,IZT,IZX,SXD,TRL

88. Beckie, H. J.; Warwick, S. I.; Nair, H., and Seguin-S wartz, G. Gene Flow in Comm ercial Fields of HerbicideResistant Canola (Brassica Napus). 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

89. Begg, G. S.; Elliott, M. J.; Cullen, D. W.; Ianne tta, P. P. M., and Squire, G. R. Heterogeneity in the

distribution of genetically modified and conventional oilseed rape within fields and seed lots. 2008;

17, (5): 805-816.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

90. BEHKI, R. M. DEGRADATION OF THIOCARBAMATE HERBICIDES AND ORGANOPHOSPHORUS

INSECTICIDES BY RHODOCOCCUS SPECIES. 515p 27; 0 (0). 1994. 234-255..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

91. BEHRENDT, H. ; MATTHIES, M.; GILDEMEISTER , H., and GOERLITZ, G. Leaching and transformation

of glufosinate-ammonium and its main metabolite in a layered soil column. 9 (5). 1990. 541-550..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

92. Belligno, A. ; Sambuco, F., and Izzo, R. Action of glyphosate ammonium (GPA) on the nitrification potential

of soil treated with two different slow-releas e N-fertilizers. 2000; 9, (7-8): 489-498.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

93. Bellinder, R. R.; Hatzios, K. K. , and Wilson, H. P. Mode of Action I nvestigations with the Herbicides HOE39866 and SC-0224. SOIL; 1985; 33, (6): 779-785.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPT

94. Berlicki, L. and Kafarski, P. Computer-aided analys is of the interactions of glutamine synthetase with its

inhibitors. 2006; 14, (13): 4578-4585.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

95. BIER, B.; LANGELUEDDEKE, P., and SCHUMACHER, H. WEED CONTROL IN POTATOES A NEW

USE FOR BASTA. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-D AHLEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT

PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.

XXVII+524P. KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.

MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 245-246..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

96. BLACK, B. D. ; RUSSIN, J. S.; GRIFFIN, J. L., and SNOW, J. P. IMPACT OF SOYBEAN GLYCINE

MAX HERBICIDES ON GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF RHIZOCTONIA SOLANI AG-1

IN VITRO AND IN FIELD. 1928 Jan 1-1995 Feb 1; 85 (4). 1995. 508..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

97. Blacker, A.; Breum, R.; Dacus, S.; Kwiatkowski, P. ; Laporte, F.; Mallyon, B.; Rupprecht, K., and Stumpf, K.

### AI-43 Bayer CropScience's Position on the Findings of Glufosinate and Its Metabolite. 2011; 32, (4): 494-

495.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

98. Blair, L. K. ; Dotray, P. A.; Keeling, J. W.; Gannaw ay, J. R.; Lyon, L. L.; Quisenberry, J. E., and Oliver, M.

J. Crop Tolerance and Weed Management in Liberty (Glufosinate)-Tolerant Cotton. 2, 1458-1459.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

99. Blanke, M. M. Soil Respiration in an Apple Orchard . 36 (3), 339-348.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

100. BLEIFELD, H. and HUFF, H. P. LOWE R LEAF TREATMENT IN MAIZE AN INDICATION FOR

BASTA. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAH LEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT

PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.

XXVII+524P. KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.

MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 206..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

101. Block, M. de and Debrouwer, D. Two T-Dna's Co-Transformed Into Brassica Napus by a Double

Agrobacterium Tumefaciens In fection Are Mainly Integrated at the Same Locus. 82 (3), 257-263.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

102. Blodgett, J. A.; Thomas, P. M.; Li, G.; Velasquez, J. E. ; Van Der Donk, W. A.; Kelleher, N. L., and Metcalf,

W. W. Unusual Transformations in the Biosynthesis of the Antibiotic Phosphinothricin Tripeptide.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

103. BLUMENFELD, T.; KLEIFELD, Y.; HERZ LINGER, G.; BUCSBAUM, H., and GOLAN, S.

TERMINATING APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES IN DRIP-IRRIGATED COTTON. 1990 Feb

26-1990 Feb 27; 18 (3). 1990. 265..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

104. BOEGER, P. and SANDMANN, G. ACTION OF MODERN HERBICIDES. (ED.). PHOTOSYNTHESIS: A

COMPREHENSIVE TREATISE. XVIII+376P. CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS: NEW

YORK, NEW YORK, USA; CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-521-57000-X.; 0 (0). 1998.

337-351..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

105. Bohme, H.; Aulrich, K.; Daenicke, R., and Flachowsk y, G. Genetically Modified Feeds in Animal Nutrition.

2nd Communication: Glufosinate Tolerant Sugar Beets (Roots and Silage) and Maize Grains for

Ruminants and Pigs. 2001; 54, (3): 197-207. 137937.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

106. Bohorova, N.; Zhang, W.; Julstrum, P.; McLean, S. ; Luna, B.; Brito, R. M.; Diaz, L.; Ramos, M. E.; Estanol,

P.; Pacheco, M.; Salgado, M., and Hoisington, D. Production of Transgenic Tropical Maize With

Cryiab and Cryiac Genes Via Microprojectile Bombardment of Immature Embryos. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

107. Borjesson, E. and Torstensson, L. New methods for determination of glyphosate and

(aminomethyl)phosphonic acid in water and soil. 2000; 886, (1-2): 207-216.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

108. Born, G. L. ; Lucas, S. V.; Scott, R. D.; DeFries, T. H., and Kishan, S. Effect of Use of Low Oxygenate

Gasoline Blends upon Emissions from California Vehicles. (GRA&I), Issue 23, 2094.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-44 109. Botterman, J.; Gossele, V.; Thoen, C., and Lauwereys, M. Characteri zation of Phosphinothricin

Acetyltransferase and C-Terminal Enzymatically Active Fusion Proteins. 102 (1), 33-37.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

110. BOUHARMONT, P. and ABOLO, D. EFFICACY OF SOME HERBICIDE TREATMENTS IN COFFEE

PLANTATIONS IN CAMEROON. 1993; 37, (2): 129-138.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

111. Bower, R.; Elliott, A. R.; Potier, B. A. M., an d Birch, R. G. High-Efficien cy, Microprojectile-Mediated

Cotransformation of Sugarcane, Using Visible or Selectable Markers. 2 (3), 239-249.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

112. Bradley, K. Killing Frost-Damaged Corn - It's Not as Easy as It Sounds. 17, (6).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

113. Bradley, Kevin. Missouri New Herbicide/Label Update for 2009. 18, (18): 123, 126-123, 127.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

114. Brar, G. S.; Cohen, B. A.; Vick, C. L., and Johnson, G. W. Recovery of Transgenic Peanut (Arachis

Hypogaea L.) Plants From Elite Cultivars U tilizing Accell Technology. 5 (5), 745-753.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

115. Braverman, M. P. and Linscombe, S. D. Field Evaluation of Genetically Engineered Glufosinate Resistant

Rice Lines (NO DUP). 37 (3), 29.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

116. Braverman, M. P.; Zhang, W.; Wilde, R. O., an d Habetz, R. J. Simulated Glufosinate Drift on Rice and

Soybean. 51, 269.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

117. Bregitzer, P.; Cooper, L. D.; Hayes, P. M.; Lemaux, P. G.; Singh, J., and Sturbaum, A. K. Viability and Bar

Expression Are Negatively Correlated in Oreg on Wolfe Barley Dominant Hybrids. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

118. Bregitzer, P.; Halbert, S. E., and Lemaux, P. G. Somaclonal Variation in the Progeny of Transgenic Barley.

96 (3/4), 421-425.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

119. Bregitzer, P. and Tonks, D. Crop Breeding, Genetics & Cytology: Inheritance and Expression of Transgenes

in Barley. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

120. ---. Inheritance and expression of transgenes in barley. 2003; 43, (1): 4-12.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

121. Breitler, J. C.; Meynard, D.; Van Boxtel, J.; Ro yer, M.; Bonnot, F.; Cambillau, L., and Guiderdoni, E. A

novel two T-DNA binary vector allows efficient gene ration of marker-free transgenic plants in three

elite cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa L.). 2004; 13, (3): 271-287.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

122. Brettschneider, R.; Becker, D., and Lorz, H. Efficient Transformation of Scutellar Tissue of Immature Maize

Embryos. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

123. Brommer, C. L.; Shaw, D. R., and LaMastus, F. E. Weed Control in Liberty-Link Soybean. 51, 269-270.

### AI-45 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

124. Brouk, M. J.; Cvetkovic, B.; Rice, D. W.; Smith, B. L.; Hinds, M. A.; Owens, F. N.; Iiams, C., and Sauber,

T. E. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from

genetically modified corn containing event DAS-59122-7 compared to a nontransgenic, nearisogenic control. 2011 Apr; 94, (4): 1961-1966.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

125. ---. Performance of lactating dairy cows fed corn as whole plant silage and grain produced from genetically

modified corn containing event DAS-59122-7 compared with a nontran sgenic, near-isogenic control.

2011; 94 , (4): 1961-1966.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

126. Brown, J. ANIMADA Task 2. Hydrocarbon and Metal Characterization of Sediment Cores in the ANIMIDA

Study Area. (GRA&I), Issue 22, 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

127. BROWN, J.; THILL, D. C.; BROWN, A. P. , and BRAMMER, T. A. GENE TRANSFER BETWEEN

GENETICALLY ENGINEERED CANOLA BRASSICA NAPUS L. AND RELATED WEED

SPECIES. 1996 Aug 3-1996 Aug 3; 83 (6 SUPPL.). 1996. 55..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

128. Brukhin, V. ; Clapham, D.; Elfstrand, M., and Von Arnold, S. Basta Tolerance as a Selectable and Screening

Marker for Transgenic Plants of Norway Spruce. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

129. Brunelle, S. A.; Hazard, E. S. ; Sotka, E. E., and Van Dolah, F. M. Characterization of a Dinoflagellate

Cryptochrome Blue-Light Receptor With a Possible Role in Circadian Control of the Cell Cycle.

2007; 43, (3): 509-518.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

130. Buckelew, L. D.; Pedigo, L. P.; Mero, H. M.; Owen, M. D. K., and Tylka, G. L. Effects of Weed

Management Systems on Canopy Insects in Herbicide-Resistant Soybeans. SOIL; 2000; 93, (5):

1437-1443.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,MBZ,NHSO4

131. Buising, C. M. and Benbow, R. M. Molecular An alysis of Transgenic Plants Generated by Microprojectile

Bombardment: Effect of Petunia Transformation Booster Sequence.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

132. BURGE, M. N. MICROBES AND MICROBIAL PHYTOTOXINS AS HERBICIDES. (ED.). ELLIS

HORWOOD SERIES IN PHARMACEUTICAL TECHNOLOGY: DRUGS FROM NATURAL

PRODUCTS: PHARMACEUTICALS AND AGROCHEMICALS. VII+171P. ELLIS HORWOOD:

NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA; CHICHESTER, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-13-096546-4.; 0 (0).

1993. 82-98..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

133. Burnie, D. Ecotourists in Paradise. 1994.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

134. Burton, N. C.; Edmonds, M. A.; Decker, J. A., an d Kovein, R. J. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 92-

044-2265, General Castings Co., Liberty Road F acility, Delaware, Ohio. (GRA&I), Issue 19, 2093.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

135. Butterfield, M. K.; Irvine, J. E.; Valdez Garza, M., and Mirkov, T. E. Inheritance and Segregation of Virus

### AI-46 and Herbicide Resistance Transgenes in Sugarcane. 104 (5), 797-803.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

136. BYRD, J. C. ; SHAPIRO, R. S., and SCHIEDERMAYER, D. L. PASSIVE SMOKING A REVIEW OF

MEDICAL AND LEGAL ISSUES. 79 (2). 1989. 209-215..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

137. Cabrera-Ponce, J. L.; Lopez, L.; Assad-Garcia, N.; Medina-Arevalo, C.; Bailey, A. M., and Herrera-Estrella,

L. An Efficient Particle Bombardment System for the Genetic Transformation of Asparagus

(Asparagus Officinalis L.). 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

138. Cantone, Frank A. and Vandenberg, John D. Use of the Green Fluorescent Protein for Investigations of

Paecilomyces fumosoroseus in Insect Hosts. 1999 Sep; 74, (2): 193-197.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

139. Cao, J.; Duan, X. L.; McElroy, D., and Wu, R. Regeneration of Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Rice Plants

Following Microprojectile-Mediated Transformation of Suspension Culture Cells. 11 (11), 586-

591.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

140. Cao Ming Qing; Fan, L.; Lei, Y.; Bouchez, D.; Tourneur, C.; Yan, L., and Robaglia, C. Transformation of

Pakchoi (Brassica Rapa L. Ssp. Chinensis) by Agrobacterium Infiltration. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

141. Caplan, A.; Dekeyser, R., and Van Montagu, M. Selectable Markers for Rice Transformation.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

142. Carroll, B. J.; Klimyuk, V. I.; Thomas, C. M.; Bishop , G. J.; Harrison, K.; Scofield, S. R., and Jones, J. D. G.

Germinal Transpositions of the Maize Element Dissociation From T-Dna Loci in Tomato. 139 (1),

407-420.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

143. Carvalho, H. G.; Lopes-Cardoso, I. A.; Lima, L. M.; Melo, P. M., and Cullimore, J. V. Nodule-Specific

Modulation of Glutamine Synthetase in Transg enic Medicago Truncatula Leads to Inverse

Alterations in Asparagine Synthetase Expression. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

144. Casas, A. M.; Kononowicz, A. K.; Haan, T. G.; Zhang, L.; Tomes, D. T.; Bressan, R. A., and Hasegawa, P.

M. Transgenic Sorghum Plants Obtained Afte r Microprojectile Bombardment of Immature

Inflorescences. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

145. CASAS, A. M.; KONONOWICZ, A. K.; ZEHR, U. B.; TOMES, D. T.; AXTELL, J. D.; BUTLER, L. G.;

BRESSAN, R. A., and HASEGAWA, P. M. Transg enic sorghum plants via microprojectile

bombardment. 90 (23). 1993. 11212-11216..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

146. Castillo, A. M.; Vasil, V., and Vasil, I. K. Ra pid Production of Fertile Tran sgenic Plants of Rye (Secale

Cereale L.). 12 (13), 1366-1371.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

147. Castro-Sowinski, S.; Herschkovitz, Y.; Okon, Y., an d Jurkevitch, E. Effects of inoculation with plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria on resident rhizosphere microorganisms. 2007; 276, (1): 1-11.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-47 148. Cathcart, R. J.; Topinka, A. K.; Kharbanda, P.; Lange, R.; Yang, R. C., and Hall, L. M. Rotation Length,

Canola Variety and Herbicide Resistance System A ffect Weed Populations and Yield. SOIL; 2006;

54, (4): 726-734.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24DIO,24DXY,BMN,DFC,EMSF,FXP,GFSNH,GYPI,IZT,IZX,MCPA,SXD,TBNU,THF,TKY

149. Cervino James M; Winiarski-Cervino Kathryn; Polson Shawn W; Goreau Thomas, and Smith Garriet W.

Identification of Bacteria Associat ed With a Disease Affecting the Ma rine Sponge Ianthella Basta in

New Britain, Papua New Guinea. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

150. Chair, H.; Legavre, T., and Guiderdoni, E. Transformation of Haploid, Microspore-Derived Cell Suspension

Protoplasts of Rice (O ryza Sativa L.). 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

151. Chan, Y. C. ; Chang, S. C.; Hsuan, S. L.; Chien, M. S.; Lee, W. C.; Kang, J. J.; Wang, S. C., and Liao, J. W.

Cardiovascular Effects of Herbic ides and Formulated Adjuvants on Isolated Rat Aorta and Heart.

2007; 21, (4): 595-603.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

152. Chang, S. Y. and Liao, C. H. Analysis of Glyphosate, Glufosinate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid by

Capillary Electrophoresis With Indi rect Fluorescence Detection.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

153. CHELIDZE, P. G.; VON FIRCKS HA, and CHOGOSHYILI, A. G. EFFECTS OF HERBICIDES TO

THYLAKOID MEMBRANES OF SPINACIA-OLERACEA L. 1990 Aug 5-1990 Oct 5; 79 (2

PART 2). 1990. A49..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

154. Chemli, H. Results of Trials on the Chemcial Control of the Rhomboid Salpichroa-Rhomboidea Biology

Harmfulness and Means for Control (Resultats D'Essais de Lutte Chimique Contre la Rhomboide

(Salpichroa rhomboidea)). SOIL; 1991: 33 p.(FRE) (ENG ABS).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMC,GFSNH,GYP

155. Chen, W. P. and Punja, Z. K. Agrobacterium-Mediat ed Transformation of American Ginseng With a Rice

Chitinase Gene. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

156. Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F.; Baranger, A.; Hureau, G.; Barret, P.; Picault, H., and Re nard, M. Characterization of

Backcross Generations Obtained Under Field Co nditions From Oilseed Rape-Wild Radish F1

Interspecific Hybrids: an Assessmen t of Transgene Dispersal. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

157. Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F.; Darm ency, H.; Fleury, A.; Picault, H.; Letann eur, J. C., and Renard, M. Assessment

of Interspecific Hybridization Be tween Transgenic Oilseed Rape and Wild Radish Under Normal

Agronomic Conditions. 100 (8), 1233-1239.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

158. Chew, O.; Rudhe, C.; Glaser, E., and Whelan, J. Characterization of the Targe ting Signal of Dual-Targeted

Pea Glutathione Reductase. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

159. Chiu, H. Y.; Lin, Z. Y.; Tu, H. L., and Whang, C. W. Analysis of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic

acid by capillary electrophoresis with electroch emiluminescence detection. 2008; 1177, (1): 195-

198.

### AI-48 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

160. Cho, M. A.; Moon, C. Y.; Liu, J. R., and Choi, P. S. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation in Citrullus

lanatus. 2008; 52, (2): 365-369.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

161. Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Buchanan, B. B., and Lemaux, P. G. Inheritance of Tissue-Specific Expression of

Barley Hordein Promoter-Uida Fusions in Transg enic Barley Plants. 98 (8), 1253-1262.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

162. Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Jiang, W.; Ha, C. D., and Lemaux, P. G. Endosperm-Specific Expression of Green

Fluorescent Protein Driven by the Hordein Promoter Is Stably Inherited in Transgenic Barley

(Hordeum Vulgare) Plants. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

163. Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W., and Lemaux, P. G. Transformed T<Inf>0</Inf> Orchardgrass (Dactylis Glomerata

L.) Plants Produced From Highly Regenerative Tissues Derived From Mature Seeds. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

164. Cho, M. J.; Choi, H. W.; Okamoto, D.; Zhang, S., and Lemaux, P. G. Expression of Green Fluorescent

Protein and Its Inheritance in Transgenic Oat Plan ts Generated From Shoot Meristematic Cultures.

2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

165. Cho, M. J.; Ha, C. D., and Lemaux, P. G. Production of Transgenic Tall Fescue and Red Fescue Plants by

Particle Bombardment of Mature Seed-Derived Highly Regenerative Tissues. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

166. CHOI, K.; JEON, J.; KIM, H.; JOUNG, Y., and JOUNG, H. Stability of transgenic potato plants and their

progenies expressing herbicide resistant gene. 40 (1). 1999. 31-34..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

167. Choi, Y. E. ; Jeong, J. H.; Baek, S. H., and Seo, H. Y. Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Genetic

Transformation of Eleutherococcus Sessiliflorus by Phosphinothricin Acet yl Transferase Gene.

2004; 40, (1): 51-56.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

168. Chompoo, Jamnian and Pornprom, Tosapon. RT-PCR based detection of resistance conferred by an

insensitive GS in glufosinate-resistant maize cell lines. 2008 Mar; 90, (3): 189-195.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

169. Christiansen, P.; Andersen, C. H.; Didion, T.; Folling, M., and Nielsen, K. K. A Rapid and Efficient

Transformation Protocol for the Grass Brachypodium Distachyon. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

170. Chugh, A. and Khurana, P. Herbicide-Resistant Transgenics of Bread Wheat (T. Aestivum) and Emmer

Wheat (T. Dicoccum) by Particle Bombardment and Agrobacterium-Mediat ed Approaches. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

171. Ciavatta, V. T.; Egertsdotter, U.; Clapham, D.; Von Arnold, S., and Cairney, J. A Promoter From Loblolly

Pine Ptnip1;1 Gene Directs Expression in an Ea rly-Embryogenesis and Susp ensor-Specific Fashion.

2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

172. Cicchillo, R. M.; Zhang, H. J.; Bl odgett, J. A. V.; Whitteck, J. T.; Li, G. Y.; Nair, S. K.; van der Donk, W. A.,

### AI-49 and Metcalf, W. W. An unusual carbon-carbon bond cleavage reaction during phosphinothricin

biosynthesis. 2009; 459, (7248): 871-NIL_10.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

173. Claessen, D.; Gilligan, C. A., and van den Bosch, F. Which traits promote persiste nce of feral GM crops? Part

2: implications of metapopulation structure. 2005; 110, (1): 30-42.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

174. Clapham, D. ; Demel, P.; Elfstrand, M.; Koop, H. U.; Sabala, I., and Von Arnold, S. Gene Transfer by

Particle Bombardment to Embryogenic Cultures of Picea Abies and the Production of Transgenic

Plantlets. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

175. Clayton, G. W.; Harker, K. N.; O'Donovan, J. T.; Blackshaw, R. E.; Dosdall, L.; Stevenson, F. C.; Johnson,

E. N., and Ferguson, T. Polymer Seed Coating of Early- and Late-Fall-Seed ed Herbicide-Tolerant

Canola (Brassica napus L.) Cultivars. SOIL; 2004; 84, (4): 971-979.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP

176. Clewis, S. B.; Thomas, W. E.; Everman, W. J., an d Witcut, J. W. Glufosinate-resistant corn interference in

glufosinate-resistant cotton. 2008; 22, (2): 211-216.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

177. Coates, W. Effect of Harvest Method and Date on Lesquerella Seed Yields. 5 (2), 125-132.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

178. Cook, &Nbsp and M. Development of new tools for the application of biotechnology to agricultural

improvement and assessing risks of biotechnology and its products. 2008.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

179. Cook, S. K. and Freer, J. B. S. Effects of Harvesting Methods on Yield of Linseed Varieties. 132-133.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

180. Cooley, J.; Ford, T., and Christou, P. Molecular an d Genetic Characterization of Elite Transgenic Rice Plants

Produced by Electric-Discharge Particle Acceleration. 90 (1), 97-104.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

181. Cornelissen, M. Nuclear and Cytoplasmic Sites for Anti-Sense Control.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

182. Cornelissen, M. and Vandewiele, M. Both Rna Level and Translation Efficiency Are Reduced by Anti-Sense

Rna in Transgenic Tobacco.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

183. Costello, R. W.; Miller, D. K.; Leonard, B. R.; Ho lman, E. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Vi drine, P. R.; Wilson, C. F.,

and Lee, D. R. Effect of Simulated Drift Rates of Roundup Ultra (Glyphosate), Buctril

(Bromoxynil), and Liberty (Glufosinate) on Growth and Yield of Conventional Cotton. 2, 1488.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

184. Coutinho, C. F. B.; Coutinho, L. F. M.; Mazo, L. H.; Nixdorf, S. L., and Camara, C. A. P. Rapid and direct

determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water using anion-exchange

chromatography with coulometric detection. 2008; 1208, (1-2): 246-249.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

185. Cox, C. Herbicide Factshee t: Glufosinate. 16 (4), 15-19.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-50 186. Creissen, G.; Reynolds, H.; Xue, Y., and Mullin eaux, P. Simultaneous Targeting of Pea Glutathione

Reductase and of a Bacterial Fusion Protein to Chloroplasts and Mitochondria in Transgenic

Tobacco.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

187. Cromwell, G. L.; Henry, B. J.; Scott, A. L.; Gerngross, M. F.; Dusek, D. L., and Fletcher, D. W. Glufosinate

Herbicide-Tolerant (Libertylink) Rice Vs. Conventio nal Rice in Diets for Growing-Finishing Swine.

2005; 83, (5): 1068-1074. 141077.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

188. CRUEGER, G. and BRAMMEIER, H. Developments of plant protection in agriculture and horticulture:

From the proceedings of the German Plant Protection Service (1950-1997). 348;

(COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM , NO. 348. 100 YEARS RESEARCH IN

PLANT PROTECTION: INFORMATION, LAW, HISTORY). 131P.+++PAREY BUCHVERLAG

BERLIN: BERLIN, GERMANY. ISBN 3-82 63-3202-4.; 0 (348). 1998. 19-62..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

189. D'halluin, K.; De Block, M.; Denecke, J.; Janssens , J. ; Leemans, J.; Reynaerts, A., and Botterman, J. The Bar

Gene as Selectable and Screenable Marker in Plant Engineering.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

190. D'halluin, K.; Vanderstraeten, C.; Stals, E.; Corn elissen, M., and Ruiter, R. Homologous Recombination: a

Basis for Targeted Genome Optimization in Crop Species Such as Maize.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

191. Dang, Wei and Wei, Zhi-ming. An optimized Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for soybean for

expression of binary insect resistance genes. 2007 Oct; 173, (4): 381-389.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

192. Darmency, H.; Lefol, E., and Fleury, A. Spontaneous Hybridizations Between Oilseed Rape and Wild

Radish. 7 (11), 1467-1473.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

193. Dave, Kashyap and Punekar, Narayan S. Utility of Aspergillus niger citrate synthase promoter for

heterologous expression. 2011 Sep 10-; 155, (2): 173-177.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

194. Davies, Anna M.; Tata, Ren+ e; Snape, Alison; Sutton, Brian J., and Brown, Paul R. Structure and substrate

specificity of acetyltransferase ACIAD1637 from Acinetobacter baylyi ADP1. 2009 Apr; 91, (4):

484-489.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

195. DE BLOCK M. Factors influencing the tissue culture and the Agrobacter ium tumefaciens mediated

transformation of hybrid aspen and poplar clones. (BETHESDA); 93 (3). 1990. 1110-1116..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

196. DE BLOCK M; BOTTERMAN, J.; VANDEWIE LE, M.; DOCKX, J.; TH OEN, C.; GOSSELE, V.;

MOVVA, N. R.; THOMPSON, C.; VAN MONTAGU M, and LEEMANS, J. ENGINEERING

HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN PLANTS BY EXPRESSION OF A DETOXIFYING ENZYME.

1987; 6, (9): 2513-2518.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

197. De Block, M.; D'Halluin, K.; Botterman, J., and L eemans, J. The Use of Phosphinothricin Resistance as a

Selectable Marker in Tobacco Protoplast Transformation. 389-390.

### AI-51 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

198. De Block, M.; De Sonville, A., and Debrouwer, D. The Selection Mechanism of Phosphinothricin is

Influenced by the Metabolic Status of the Tissue. SOIL; 1995; 197, (4): 619-626.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,NHCl

199. De Freitas, D. S.; Coelho, M. C. F.; Souza, M. T. Jr.; Marques, A., and Ribeiro, B. M. Introduction of the

Anti-Apoptotic Baculovirus p35 Gene in Passio n Fruit Induces Herbicide Tolerance, Reduced

Bacterial Lesions, but does not Inhibits Passion Fruit Woodiness Disease Progress Induced by

Cowpea Aphid-Borne Mosaic Virus (CABMV). SOIL; 2007; 29, (1): 79-87.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

200. De Villiers, S. M.; Kamo, K.; Thomson, J. A.; Born man, C. H., and Berger, D. K. Biolistic Transformation of

Chincherinchee (Ornithogalum) and Rege neration of Transgenic Plants. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

201. Delhomme, Olivier; Raeppel, Caroline; Briand, Olivier, and Millet, Maurice. Analytical Method for

Assessing Potential Dermal Exposure to Pesticid es of a Non-Agricultural Occupationally Exposed

Population. 399, (3): 1325-1334.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

202. Delporte, F.; Li, S., and Jacquemin, J. M. Calluses Initiated From Thin Mature Embryo Fragments Are

Suitable Targets for Wheat Transformation as A ssessed by Long-Term Gus Expression Studies.

2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

203. Demeke, T.; Giroux, R. W.; Reitmeier, S., and Simon, S. L. Development of a polymerase chain reaction

assay for detection of three canola transgenes. 2002; 79, (10): 1015-1019.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

204. Demont, Matty; Rodenburg, Jonne; Diagne, Mandiaye, and Diallo, Souleymane. Ex ante impact assessment

of herbicide resistant rice in the Sahel. 2009 Sep; 28, (9): 728-736.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

205. Denecke, J. ; Botterman, J., and Deblaere, R. Protein Secretion in Plant Cells Can Occur Via a Default

Pathway.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

206. Deng, F.; Jelesko, J.; Cramer, C. L.; Wu, J., and Hatzios, K. K. Use of an Antisense Gene to Characterize

Glutathione S-Transferase Functions in Transf ormed Suspension-Cultured Rice Cells and Calli.

2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

207. Denis, M.; Delourme, R.; Gourret, J. P.; Mariani, C., and Renard, M. Expression of Engineered Nuclear Male

Sterility in Brassica Napus. Genetics, Morphology, Cytology, and Sensitivity to Temperature. 101

(4), 1295-1304.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

208. Depeiges, A.; Degroote, F.; Espagnol, M. C., an d Picard, G. Translation Initiation by Non-Aug Codons in

Arabidopsis Thaliana Transgenic Plants. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

209. Depeiges, A.; Farget, S.; Degroote, F., and Pi card, G. A New Transgene Assay to Study Microsatellite

Instability in Wild-Type and Mismatch-Repair Defective Plant Progenies . 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-52 210. Dever, L. V.; Bailey, K. J.; Lacuesta, M.; Leegood, R. C., and Lea, P. J. The Isolation and Characterization

of Mutants of the C4 Plant Amaranthus Edulis. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

211. Devine, M. D. Why Are There Not More Herbicide-Tolerant Crops? 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

212. DiÉ Guez, M. J.; Vaucheret, H.; Paszkows ki, J., and Mittelsten Scheid, O. Cytosine Methylation at

Cg and Cng Sites Is Not a Prerequisite for the Initia tion of Transcriptional Gene Silencing in Plants,

but It Is Required for Its Maintenance.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

213. Diaz, A.; Lacuesta, M., and Munoz-Rueda, A. Comparative Effects of Phosphinothricin on Nitrate and

Ammonium Assimilation and on Anaplerotic Co Inferior 2 Fixation in N-Deprived Barley Plants.

1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

214. Dietz-Pfeilstetter, A. and Kirchner, M. Analysis of Gene Inheritance and Expression in Hybrids Between

Transgenic Sugar Beet and Wild Beets. 7 (12), 1693-1700.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

215. DIMITROVA, T. Weed control with the aid of single-purpose lucerne seed production seedings. 27 (6).

1990. 11-16..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

216. Dong, N.; Montanez, B.; Creelman, R. A., and Cornish, K. Low Light and Low Ammonium Are Key Factors

for Guayule Leaf Tissue Shoot Organogenesis and Transformation. 2006; 25, (1): 26-34.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

217. Dong, Y. and Von Arnim, A. G. Novel Plant Activation-Tagging Vectors Designed to Minimize 35s

Enhancer-Mediated Gene Silencing. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

218. DONN, G.; KNIPE, B.; MALVOISIN, P., and ECKES, P. FIELD EVALUATION OF GLUFOSINATE

TOLERANT CROPS BEARING A MODIFIED PPT-ACETYLTRANSFERASE GENE FROM

STREPTOMYCES VIRIDOCHROMOGENES. 1916 Apr 19; 0 (14 PART E). 1990. 298..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

219. Donn, G.; Tischer, E.; Smith, J. A., and Goodman, H. M. Herbicide-Resistant Al falfa Cells: an Example of

Gene Amplification in Plants.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

220. DOUCE, R.; JOB, D., and JOYARD, J. New approaches about crop protection: Towards the creation of new

herbicides and transgenic plants resistant to herb icides. 81 (6). 1995. 47-62. AB - BIOSIS

COPYRIGHT: BIOL ABS. The impressive increases in crop productivity achieved over the last

forty years have largely resulted from the use of herbicides. In this article we describe the mode of

action of various known herbicides as well as new approaches for the design of chemicals behaving

as herbicides. Resistance conferred by the transfer of engineered genes encoding either lesssuceptible proteins or enzyme capable to metabolize the herbicide is also described..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

221. DOURSON, M. L. and LU, F. C. Safety/risk assessment of chemicals compared for different expert groups.

8 (1). 1995. 1-13..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-53 222. Downard, R. W. and Morishita, D. W. Effect of Application Rate, Method, and Ammonium Sulfate on

Glufosinate Efficacy. 51, 103-104.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

223. Droge, W.; Broer, I., and Puhler, A. Transgenic Plants Containing the Phosphi nothricin-N-Acet yltransferase

Gene Metabolize the Herbicide L-Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate ) Differently From Untransformed

Plants. 187 (1), 142-151.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

224. Druart, Coline; Delhomme, Olivier; De Vauf leury, Annette; Ntcho, Evodie, and Millet, Maurice.

Optimization of Extraction Procedure and Chromatographic Separation of Glyphosate, Glufosinate

and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Soil. 399, (4): 1725-1732.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

225. Dudek, W. D.; Clark, W., and Lucas, S. V. Effect of Phase 1 and Phase 2 Gasolines on Evaporative and

Exhaust Emissions from Light Duty Vehicles. (GRA&I), Issue 24, 2096.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

226. Duke, S. O. Taking Stock of Herbicide-Resistant Crops Ten Years After Introduction. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

227. ---. The use of transgenes for weed management. 2006: 3-10.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

228. Duke, S. O. and Cerdeira, A. L. Transgenic He rbicide-Resistant Crops: Current Status and Potential for the

Future. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

229. Duke, S. O. ; Dayan, F. E.; Romagni, J. G., and Rimando, A. M. Natural Products as Sources of Herbicides:

Current Status and Fu ture Trends. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

230. Duke, S. O. and Lydon, J. Herbicides from Natural Compounds. SOIL; 1987; 1, (2): 122-128.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: AMTL,ASM,DBN,DFP,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT

231. DUKE, S. O. and LYDON, J. NATURAL PHYTOTOXINS AS HERBICIDES. 524; 203RD NATIONAL

MEETING OF THE AMERICAN CHEMICAL SO CIETY, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA,

USA, APRIL 5-10, 1992. X+357P. AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY: WASHINGTON, DC,

USA. ISBN 0-8412-2638-5.; 0 (0). 1993. 110-124..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

232. Duke, S. O. ; Rimando, A. M.; Baerson, S. R.; Scheffler, B. E.; Ota, E., and Belz, R. G. Strategies for the Use

of Natural Products for Weed Management. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

233. Duke, S. O. ; Wedge, D. E.; Cerdeira, A. L., an d Matallo, M. B. Herbicide Eff ects on Plant Disease. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

234. Dunst, R. M.; Mahoney, M. J., and Pool, R. M. Results of Chemical Suckering Trials in 'concord' Grapevines.

43, 140-141.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

235. Dusi, D. M. A.; Dubald, M.; Almeida, E. R. P.; Ca ldas, L. S., and Gander, E. S. Transgenic Plants of Ramie

(Boehmeria Nivea Gaud.) Obtained by Agrobacterium Mediated Transformation. 12 (11), 625-628.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-54 236. Earnest, L. D.; Webster, E. P., and Hooks, G. G. Systems for Weed Control in Liberty Tolerant Corn. 51,

261-262.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

237. Eason, J. R.; O'Donoghue, E. M., and King, G. A. Asparagine Synthesis and Localization of Transcripts for

Asparagine Synthetase in Tips of Harvested Asparagus Spears. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

238. EBERT, E.; LEIST, K. H., and MAYER, D. Summary of safety evaluation toxicity studies of glufosinate

ammonium. 28 (5). 1990. 339-350..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

239. Eckes, P.; Schmitt, P.; Daub, W., and Wengenmayer, F. Overproduction of Alfalfa Glutamine Synthetase in

Transgenic Tobacco Plants.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

240. ECKES, P.; UIJTEWAAL, B., and DONN, G. A SYNTHETIC GENE CONFERS RESISTANCE AGAINST

THE BROAD SPECTRUM HERBICIDE L PHOSPHINOTHRICIN IN PLANTS. 1989 Apr 18; 0

(13 PART D). 1989. 334..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

241. Ehlhardt, M. and Comer, D. Rely: a New Herbicide for Trees and Vines. 58.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

242. El-Banna, Antar; Hajirezaei, Mohammad-Reza; Wissing, Joseph; Ali, Za hid; Vaas, Lea; Heine-Dobbernack,

Elke; Jacobsen, Hans-J+ rg; Schumacher, Heinz Martin, and Kiesecker, Heiko. Over-expression of

PR-10a leads to increased salt and osmotic tolerance in potato cell cultures. 2010 Nov; 150, (3): 277-

287.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

243. El-Itriby, H. A.; Assem, S. K.; Hussein, E. H. A.; Abdel-Galil, F. M., and Madkour, M. A. Regeneration and

Transformation of Egyptian Maize Inbred Lines Via Immature Embryo Culture and a Biolistic

Particle Delivery System. 39 (5), 524-531.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

244. Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Linscombe, S. D.; We bster, E. P., and Godley, J. L. Crop Response to Roundup

Ultra and Liberty Simulated Drift. 52, 256-257.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

245. Ellis, J. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Vi drine, P. R., and Godley, J. L. Corn Response to Simulated Drift of Roundup

Ultra and Liberty and Utility of Drift Agents. 51, 21.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

246. Emani, C.; Sunilkumar, G., and Rathore, K. S. Transgene Silencing and Reactivation in Sorghum. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

247. Erickson, F. L. and Lemaux, P. G. Issues Related to the Development and Use of Engineered HerbicideTolerant Crops in California. 45-53.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

248. Etheridge, R. E.; Womac, A. R., and Mueller, T. C. Characterization of the spray droplet spectra and patterns

of four venturi-type drift reduction nozzles. 1999; 13, (4): 765-770.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

249. Eto, M. Functions of Phosphorus Moiety in Agrochemical Molecules. 1997; 61, (1): 1-11.

### AI-55 Notes: Chemical of Con cern: ACP,DDVP,DZ,FNF,FNT, FOSNH,FST,GFS,GYP,MLN,PFF,TCF

250. EUROPEAN, A. N. D. MEDITERRANEAN PLANT PROTECTION ORGANIZATION. GUIDELINE ON

GOOD PLANT PROTECTION PRACTICE PO TATO. 1994; 24 , (4): 825-845.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

251. European Commission DG Environment. Endocrine Disrupters: Study on Gathering Information on 435

Substances with Insufficient Data. 2002: 279 p.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 110504

Chemical of Concern:

24DB,ABM,ADC,AMZ,AZD,Al, BAP,BFT,BMC,BMN,BMY,BTN, CBF,CBL,CPY,CPZ,CTZ,CZE

,Cd,Cu,DDT,DDVP,DFC,DFZ,DM,DMBA,DMT,ECZ,EDB,EFV,EFX,ETU,FGSNH,FML,FNB,FN

T,FPN,FRM,FRN,FTF,FVL,FYC,FZFB,GFS,G YP,Hg,ILL,IODN,LCYT,MBZ,MEM,MLT,MOM,

MVP,MXC,MYC,MZB,NATL,Nabam,OXD,OXN,OYZ,PAH,PCL,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PHTH,PL,PMR

,PMT,PPB,PPCP,PPHD,PYN,Pb,QZFE,RSM,SMT,TCF,TDM,TEZ,TFN,TPZ,TVP,TZA

252. ---. Endocrine Disrupters: Study on Gathering Information on 435 Substances With Insufficient Data. 2002:

279 p. 208542.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24DB,ABM,ADC,AMZ,AZD,Al, BAP,BFT,BMC,BMN,BMY,BTN, CBF,CBL,CPY,CPZ,CTZ,CZE

,Cd,Cu,DDT,DDVP,DFC,DFZ,DM,DMBA,DMT,ECZ,EDB,EFV,EFX,ETU,FGSNH,FML,FNB,FN

T,FPN,FRM,FRN,FTF,FVL,FYC,FZFB,GFS,G YP,Hg,ILL,IODN,LCYT,MBZ,MEM,MLT,MOM,

MVP,MXC,MYC,MZB,NATL,Nabam,OXD,OXN,OYZ,PAH,PCL,PCP,PCZ,PDM,PHTH,PL,PMR

,PMT,PPB,PPCP,PPHD,PYN,Pb,QZFE,RSM,SMT,TCF,TDM,TEZ,TFN,TPZ,TVP,TZA

253. Evers EAIM and deJong APJM. Bouw van een Eigen Ontwerp Electrospray Ionisatiebron voor een

Quadrupool Massa-Spectrometer en Enkele Toepassingen (Manufacturing of Home-Built

Electrospray Ionisation Source for a Quadrupole Mass-Spectrometer and Some Applications).

(GRA&I), Issue 03, 2095.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

254. Evstigneeva, Z. G.; Solov'eva, N. A., and Sidel'nikova, L. I. [Methionine Sulfoximine and Phosphinothricin--

Glutamine Synthetase Inhibitors and Activators and Their Herbicidal Activity (a Review)].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

255. Ezell, A. W. and Nelson, L. R. Site Prep Applications of Dicamba Mixed With Glyphosate, Imazapyr,

Triclopyr, Glufosinate, and Fosamine-Brownout Results. 52, 103.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

256. FABER, M. J.; STEPHENSON, G. R., and THOMPSON, D. G. Persistence and leachability of glufosinateammonium in a northern Ontario terrestrial environment. 45 (9). 1997. 3672-3676..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

257. Facella, P. ; Lopez, L.; Chiappetta, A.; Bitonti, M. B.; Giuliano, G., and Perrotta, G. Cry-Dash Gene

Expression Is Under the Control of the Circadian Clock Machinery in Tomato. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

258. Fan, Yanhua ; Zhang, Shizhu; Kruer, Nathan, and Keyhani, Nemat O. High-throughput insertion mutagenesis

and functional screening in the entomopathogenic fungus Beauveria bassiana. 2011 Feb; 106, (2):

274-279.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

259. Faria, J. C.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; Ca ncado, L. J.; da Cunha, N. B.; Silva, L. D.; Vianna, G. R.,

and Aragao, F. J. L. Partial resistance to Bean golden mosaic virus in a transgenic common bean

(Phaseolus vulgar L.) line expressing a mutated rep gene. 2006; 171, (5): 565-571.

### AI-56 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

260. Faria, J. C.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; Ca ncado, L. J.; Da Cunha, N. B.; Silva, L. M.; Vianna, G. R.,

and Aragao, F. J. L. Partial Resi stance to Bean Golden Mosaic Vi rus in a Transgenic Common Bean

(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Line Expressing a Mutated Rep Gene. SOIL; 2006; 171, (5): 565-571.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

261. Faria, J. C.; Carneiro, G. E., and Arag Ć o, F. J. Gene flow from transgenic common beans expressing the bar

gene.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

262. Feng, Yuanyuan; Yang, Tao; Zhang, Wei; Jiang, Chen, and Jiao, Kui. Enhanced sensitivity for

deoxyribonucleic acid electrochemical impedance sensor: Gold nanoparticle/polyaniline nanotube

membranes. 2008 Jun 2-; 616, (2): 144-151.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

263. FernÁ and Nd ez Da Silva, R. [Establisment of a Gene tic Transformation Method of Coffee (Coffea

Arabica Cv. Catimor) and Incorporation of Bar Gene for Ammonium Glufosinate Resistance].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

264. Ferna(acute)ndez Da Silva, R. Establishment of a Genetic Transforma tion Method of Coffee (Coffea Arabica

Cv. Catimor) and Incorporation of Bar Gene for Ammonium Glufosinate Resistance. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

265. Figueiredo, J. G.; Goulin, E. H.; Tanaka, F.; Stri ngari, D.; Kava-Cordeiro, V.; Galli-Terasawa, L. V.; Staats,

C. C.; Schrank, A. , and Glienke, C. Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of

Guignardia citricarpa. 2010 Feb; 80, (2): 143-147.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

266. Fleeger, J. W.; Carman, K. R., and Nisbet, R. M. Indirect Effects of Contaminants in Aquatic Ecosystems.

2003; 317, 207-233. 219638.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

ATZ,BNZ,CBD,CBL,CPY,CYP,Cd,Cu,DM,EFV,ES,FNV,GFS,HCCH,LNR,LPS,PAH,PCP,PFOS,

PMR,PPCP,TBT,TMP

267. Flores, T.; Karpova, O.; Su, X. J.; Zeng, P. Y.; B ilyeu, K.; Sleper, D. A.; Nguyen, H. T., and Zhang, Z. J.

Silencing of GmFAD3 gene by siRNA leads to low alpha-linolenic acids (18 : 3) of fad3-mutant

phenotype in soybean Glycine max (Merr.). 2008; 17, (5): 839-850.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

268. Folta, K. M.; Dhingra, A.; Howard, L.; Stewart, P. J. , and Chandler, C. K. Characterization of Lf9, an

Octoploid Strawberry Genotype Selected for Rapid Regeneration and Transformation.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

269. Fornstrom, K. J. and Miller, S. D. Weed Manage ment After Mid-Season Sugarbeet Defoliation. 51, 102.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

270. Franco, A. R.; Diaz, M. E.; Pineda, M., and Card enas, J. Characterization of a Mutant of Chlamydomonas

Reinhardtii That Uses L-Methionine-S-Sulfoximine and Phosphinothricin as Nitrogen Sources for

Growth. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

271. Fredshavn, J. R.; Poulsen, G. S.; Huybrechts, I ., and Rudelsheim, P. Competitiv eness of Transgenic Oilseed

Rape. 4 (2), 142-148.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-57 272. Freese, L.; Scholdberg, T. A.; Burton, D. D.; Norden, T. D.; Shokere, L. A., and Jenkins, G. R. Evaluating

Homogeneity of Ll601 Rice in Commercial Lots Using Quantitative Real-Time Pcr. 55, (15): 6060-

6066.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

273. Freuze, I.; Jadas-Hecart, A.; Royer, A., and Communal, P. Y. Influence of complexation phenomena with

multivalent cations on the analysis of glyphosat e and aminomethyl phosphonic acid in water. 2007;

1175, (2): 197-206.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

274. Fu, X.; Le Tan Duc; Fontana, S.; Bui Ba Bong; Tinjuangjun, P.; Sudhakar, D.; Twyman, R. M.; Christou, P.,

and Kohli, A. Linear Transgene Constructs Lacking Vector Backbone Sequences Generate LowCopy-Number Transgenic Plants With Simple Integration Patterns. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

275. FUGGI, A.; ABENAVOLI, M. R.; MUSCOLO, A., and PANUCCIO, M. R. GLUTAMINE SYNTHETASE

IN CELLS FROM CARROT DAUCUS CAROTA L. INTERACTION BETWEEN

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AND GLUTAMATE. 1922; VIIITH INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON

PLANT TISSUE AND CELL CULTURE, FLORENCE, ITALY, JUNE 12-17, 1994. XV+697P.

KLUWER ACADEMIC PUBLISHERS: DORDRECHT, NETHERLANDS; NORWELL,

MASSACHUSETTS, USA. ISBN 0-7923-3322-5. ; 22 (0). 1995. 589-594..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

276. FUJII, T. and OHATA, T. ALTERATION IN THE RESPONS E TO KAINIC ACID IN RATS EXPOSED

TO GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM DURING INFANTILE PERIOD OR FETAL LIFE. 1994 Jun

9-1994 Jun 9; 19 (4). 1994. 328..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

277. FUJINO, Y. and FUJII, T. EFFECTS OF A HERBICIDE GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON ADRENAL

CHROMAFFIN CELLS IN RATS. 1995 Mar 25-1995 Mar 28; 67 (SUPPL. 1). 1995. 246P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

278. Fukumoto, M.; Hori, Y.; Iseki, T.; Fukuie, C.; Na mera, A., and Yashiki, M. [Proposal of an Analytical

Pathway for the Treatment of Poisonings--Application of Blood Concentration to the Evaluation of

Toxicity: Nomogram and Outcome].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

279. Funk, Tristan; Wenzel, Gerhard, and Schwarz, Gerhard. Outcrossing frequencies and distribution of

transgenic oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.) in the nearest neighbourhood. 2006 Jan; 24, (1): 26-34.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

280. Gallina, M. A. and Stephenson, G. R. Dissipation of [14c]Glufosinate Ammonium in Two Ontario Soils. 40

(1), 165-168.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

281. GALLINA, M. A. and STEPHENSON, G. R. Dissipation of (carbon-14) glufosinate ammonium in two

Ontario soils. 40 (1). 1992. 165-168..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

282. Gallo-Meagher, M. and Irvine, J. E. Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Sugarcane Plants Containing the bar

Gene. SOIL; 1996; 36, (5): 1367-1374.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

283. Gao, C.; Jiang, L.; Folling, M.; Han, L., and Ni elsen, K. K. Generation of Large Numbers of Transgenic

Kentucky Bluegrass (Poa Pratensis L.) Plants Following Biolistic Gene Transfer. 2006.

### AI-58 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

284. GARCIA, A. M.; BENAVIDES, F. G.; FLETCHER, T., and ORTS, E. Paternal exposure to pesticides and

congenital malformations. 24 (6). 1998. 473-480..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

285. Garcia-Ortega, S.; Holliman, P. J., and Jones, D. L. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal and Commercial

Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine Sediment. 2006; 366, (2-3): 826-836.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PTP

286. ---. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal and Commercial Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine

Sediment. 2006; 366, (2-3): 826-836. 144762.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,PTP

287. Garcia-Ortega Susana; Holliman Peter J, and Jones Davey L. Toxicology and Fate of Pestanal[Registered]

and Commercial Propetamphos Formulations in River and Estuarine Sediment. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

288. Gay, G.; Bovio, M.; Minati, J. L.; Morando, A.; Novello, V., and Ambrosoli, R. Soil Management in Relation

to Training System in a Steep Vineyard. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

289. Gebhard, F. and Smalla, K. Monitoring Field Releases of Genetically Modified Sugar Beets for Persistence

of Transgenic Plant Dna and Ho rizontal Gene Transfer. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

290. Gertz, J. M.; Vencill, W. K., an d Hill, N. S. Tolerance of transgenic soybean (Glycine max) to beat stress.

1999: 835-840.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

291. Gertz, J. M. J. and Vencill, W. K. Heat Stre ss Tolerances of Transgenic Soybeans. 52, 171.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

292. Giovannetti, M.; Sbrana, C., and Turrini, A. The impact of genetically modified crops on soil microbial

communities. 2005; 98, (3): 393-417.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

293. GIRARDET, I.; ALTENBURGER, R.; FAUST, M., and GRIMME, L. H. THE EFFECT OF GLYPHOSATE

AND PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON SINGLE CELLED GREEN ALGAE AU - LUETJEN K. 1988;

(COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE

AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAH LEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT PROTECTION

CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988. XXVII+524P.

KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS. MAPS.

PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 396. 245. 46. DEUTSCHE PFLANZENSCHUTZTAGUNG.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

294. Givens, W. A.; Shaw, D. R.; Johnson, W. G.; Welle r, S. C.; Young, B. G.; Wilson, R. G.; Owen, M. D. K.,

and Jordan, D. A Grower Surv ey of Herbicide Use Patterns in Glyphosate-Resistant Cropping

Systems. 2009; 23, (1): 156-161.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

295. GLOMB, V.; ARTNER, P., and SEQUENS, J. Inj ections of chemical prepar ations to stimulate resin

production in trees. (PRAGUE); 37 (4-5). 1991. 327-332..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-59 296. Goldman, J. J.; Hanna, W. W.; Fleming, G., and Oz ias-Akins, P. Fertile Transg enic Pearl Millet [Pennisetum

Glaucum (L.) R. Br.] Plants Recovered Through Microprojectile Bombardment and

Phosphinothricin Selection of Apical Meristem-, Inflorescence-, and Immature Embryo-Derived

Embryogenic Tissues. 2003; 21, (10): 999-1009. 145421.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

297. Goldman, J. J.; Hanna, W. W.; Fleming, G. H., and Ozias-Akins, P. Ploidy Variation Among HerbicideResistant Bermudagrass Plants of Cv. Tifeag le Transformed With the Bar Gene. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

298. Gonza(acute)lez-Moro, M. B.; Iriberri, N.; Dun(tilde)abeitia, M. K.; Lour eiro-Beldarrain, I., and

Gonza(acute)lez-Murua, C. Effect of Phosphinothric in Herbicide on Nitrogen Metabolism in Pinus

Radiata and Laccaria Bicolor. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

299. Gonzales-Moro, M. B.; Lacuesta, M.; Iriberri, N.; Munoz-Rueda, A., and Gon zalez-Murua, C. Comparative

Effects of Ppt and Aoa on Photos ynthesis and Fluorescence Chlorophyll Parameters in Zea Mays.

1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

300. Gonzalez-Martinez, M. A.; Brun , E. M.; Puchades, R.; Ma quieira, A.; Ramsey, K., and Rubio, F. Glyphosate

immunosensor. Application for water and soil analysis. 2005; 77 , (13): 4219-4227.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

301. Gonzalez-Moro, B.; Mena-Petite, A.; Lacuesta, M. ; Gonzalez-Murua, C., and Munoz-Rueda, A. Glutamine

Synthetase From Mesophyll and Bundle Sheath Maize Cells: Isoenzyme Complements and Different

Sensitivities to Phosphinothricin. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

302. GONZALEZ-MORO, B.; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A., and GONZALEZ-MURUA, C. EFFECT OF

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON PHOTOSYNTHESIS IN ZEA-MAYS. 79 (2 PART 2). 1990. A48..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

303. GONZALEZ-MORO, M. B.; LACUESTA, M. ; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A.; BECE RRIL-SOTO, J. M., and

GONZALEZ MURUA C. EFFECT OF PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON NITROGEN METABOLISM

IN ZEA-MAYS. 1990 Jul 29-1990 Aug 2; 93 (1 SUPPL.). 1990. 151..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

304. Goodwin, L. ; Hanna, M.; St artin, Jr.; Keely, B. J., and Goodall, D. M. Isotachophoretic separation of

glyphosate, glufosinate, AMPA and MPP with contactless conductivity detection. 2002; 127, (2):

204-206.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

305. Goodwin, L.; Startin, J. R.; Goodall, D. M., and Keely, B. J. Ta ndem Mass Spectrometric Analysis of

Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid and Methylphosphinicopropionic Acid.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

306. Goodwin, L. ; Startin, J. R.; Keely, B. J., and Goodall, D. M. Analysis of Glyphosate and Glufosinate by

Capillary Electrophoresis-Mass Spectrometry Utilis ing a Sheathless Microelectrospray Interface.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

307. Gopalakrishna, S.; Singh, P., and Singh, N. K. Transient Expression of Foreign Genes in Mature Wheat

Embryo Explants Following Particle Bombardment. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-60 308. Gotz, R. and Ammer, F. Results of Liberty Application in Transgenic Winter Rape in Thuringia (Ergebnisse

Der Anwendung Von Liberty in Transgenem Winterraps in Thuringen). 2000; 17, 397-401(GER)

(ENG ABS). 145604.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

309. Grammel, N. ; Schwartz, D.; Wohlleben, W., and Keller, U. Phosphinothricin-Tripeptide Synthetases From

Streptomyces Viridochromogenes.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

310. Gray, M. E. Relevance of Traditional Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies for Commercial Corn

Producers in a Transgenic Agroecosystem: A Bygone Era? 2011; 59, (11): 5852-5858.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

311. Green, J. M. Evolution of Glyphosate-Resistant Crop Technology. 2009; 57, (1): 108-117.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

312. Gressel, J. Indiscriminate Use of Selectable Markers--Sowing Wild Oats? 10 (11), 382.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

313. Gressel, J. and Valverde, B. E. A Strategy to Provide Long-Term Control of Weedy Rice While Mitigating

Herbicide Resistance Transgene Flow, and Its Potential Use for Other Crops with Related Weeds.

John Wiley & Sons, Baffins Lane Chichester W. Sussex PO19 1UD UK,

[mailto:customer@wiley.co.uk], [U RL:http://www.wiley.co m/]//: SOIL; 2009; 65, (7): 723-731.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: BT,GFS,GYP

314. Griffin, J. L.; Clay, P. A.; Grymes, C. F., and Hanks, J. E. Bermudagrass Control With Roundup Using a

Sensor Controlled Hooded Sprayer in Sugarcane. 51, 23.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

315. Gubbels, G. H.; Bonner, D. M., and Kenaschuk, E. O. Effect of Swathing and Desiccation Time on Seed

Yield and Quality of Flax. 73 (2), 397-404.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

316. Gueritaine, G.; Sester, M.; Eb er, F.; Chevre, A. M., and Darmency, H. Fitness of Backcross Six of Hybrids

Between Transgenic Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus) and Wild Radish (Raphanus Raphanistrum).

2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

317. Guo, Jinchao; Chen, Lili; Liu, Xin; Gao, Ying; Zh ang, Dabing, and Yang, Litao. A multiplex degenerate PCR

analytical approach targeting to ei ght genes for screening GMOs. (0).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

318. Guo, Z. X.; Cai, Q., and Yang, Z. Ion Chromatography/Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrometry for

Simultaneous Determination of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Fosamine and Ethephon at Nanogram

Levels in Water.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

319. Guo, Z. X.; Cai, Q. T., and Yang, Z. G. Determination of glyphosate and phosphate in water by ion

chromatography - inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry detection. 2005; 1100, (2): 160-

167.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

320. Gyamfi, Stephen; Pfeifer, Ulrike; Stierschneid er, Michael, and Sessitsch, Ange la. Effects of transgenic

glufosinate-tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus ) and the associated he rbicide application on

eubacterial and Pseudomonas communities in the rh izosphere. 2002 Sep; 41, ( 3): 181-190.

### AI-61 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

321. HÖ Fte, H., and Ch rispeels, M. J. Protein Sortin g to the Vacuolar Membrane.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

322. Hahn, Bum Soo; Sim, Joon Soo; Kim, Hyeong Mi; Ahn, Mi Young; Pak, Hyo Kyung; Kim, Nan A., and

Kim, Yong Hwan. Expression and Characterization of Human Tissue-Plasminogen Activator in

Transgenic Tobacco Plants. 27, (2): 209-216.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

323. Hails, R. S.; Rees, M.; Kohn, D. D., and Crawley, M. J. Burial and Se ed Survival in Brassica Napus Subsp.

Oleifera and Sinapis Arvensis Including a Comparison of Transgenic and Non-Transgenic Lines of

the Crop. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

324. Hall, R. D. ; Riksen-Bruinsma, T.; Weyens, G. J.; Rosq uin, I. J.; Denys, P. N.; Evans, I. J.; Lathouwers, J. E.;

Lefebvre, M. P.; Dunwell, J. M.; Van Tunen, A., and Krens, F. A. A High Efficiency Technique for

the Generation of Transgenic Sugar B eets From Stomatal Guard Cells. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

325. Han, J. S.; Kim, C. K.; Park, S. H.; Hirschi, K. D., and Mok, I. G. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation

of Bottle Gourd (Lagenaria Siceraria Standl.). 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

326. Hanke, Irene; Si nger, Heinz, and Hollender, Juliane. Ultratrace-Level Dete rmination of Glyphosate,

Aminomethylphosphonic Acid and Glufosinate in Natural Waters by Solid-Phase Extraction

Followed by Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Performance Tuning of

Derivatization, Enrichment and Detection. 391, (6): 2265-2276.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

327. Hansch, R.; Mendel, R. R., and Schulze, J. A Ra pid and Sensitive Method to Evaluate Genotype Specific

Tolerance to Phosphinothricin-Based Selec tive Agents in Cereal Transformation.

R.R.Mendel,Botanical Institute,Technical Univers ity of Braunschweig,Humboldtstrasse 1,D-38106

Braunschweig,Germany////: SOIL; 19 98; 152, (2/3): 145-150.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

328. Hao, C. Y.; Morse, D.; Morra, F.; Zhao, X. M.; Yang, P., and Nunn, B. Direct aqueous determination of

glyphosate and related compounds by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry using

reversed-phase and weak anion-exchange mixed-mode column. 2011; 1218, (33): 5638-5643.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

329. Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; Blackshaw, R. E.; O'Donovan, J. T., and Stevenson, F. C. Seeding Rate,

Herbicide Timing and Competitive Hybrids Contribute to Integrated Weed Management in Canola

(Brassica napus). SOIL; 2003; 83, (2): 433-440.

Notes: Chemical of Concer n: GFS,GYP,HCCH,PPCP,THM

330. Hart, S. E. and Wax, L. M. Review and Future Prospectus on the Impacts of Herbicide Resistant Maize on

Weed Management. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

331. Harth, G. and Horwitz, M. A. An Inhibitor of Exported Mycobacterium Tuberculosis Glutamine Synthetase

Selectively Blocks the Growth of Pathogenic Mycobacteria in Axenic Culture and in Human

Monocytes: Extracellular Proteins as Potential Novel Drug Targets .

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-62 332. Harvey, A.; Moisan, L.; Lindup, S., and Lonsdale, D. Wheat Regenerated From Scutellum Callus as a Source

of Material for Transformation. 57 (2), 153-156.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

333. Haskew, H. M.; Eng, K. D.; Liberty, T. F., and Reuter, R. M. Running Loss Emissions from In-Use Vehicles

(CRC Project No. E-35-2). (GRA&I), Issu e 21, 2099.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

334. Haskew, H. M. and Liberty, T. F. Diurnal Em issions from In-Use Vehicles. CRC Project E-9. (GRA&I),

Issue 02, 2099.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

335. Haskew, H. M.; Liberty, T. F., and McClement, D. Fuel Permeation from Automotive Systems. (GRA&I),

Issue 26, 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

336. Hassan, Fathi; Meens, Jochen; Jacobsen, Hans-J + rg, and Kiesecker, Heiko. A family 19 chitinase (Chit30)

from Streptomyces olivaceoviridis ATCC 11238 expressed in transgenic pea affects the

development of T. harzianum in vitro. 2009 Sep 25-; 143, (4): 302-308.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

337. Hayashi, M. ; Toriyama, K.; Kondo, M.; Hara-Nis himura, I., and Nishimura, M. Accumulation of a Fusion

Protein Containing 2s Albumin Induces Novel Vesicles in Vegetative Cells of Arabidopsis. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

338. He, X.; Hall, M. B.; Gallo-Meagher, M., and Smith, R. L. Improvement of forage quality by downregulation

of maize O-methyltransferase. 2003; 43, (6): 2240-2251.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

339. He, X. Y.; Huang, K. L.; Li, X.; Qin, W.; Delaney, B., and Luo, Y. B. Comparison of grain from corn

rootworm resistant transgenic DAS-59122-7 mai ze with non-transgenic maize grain in a 90-day

feeding study in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2008 Jun; 46, (6): 1994-2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

340. Heinzelmann, E.; Kienzlen, G.; Kaspar, S.; R ecktenwald, J.; Wohlleben, W., and Schwartz, D. The

Phosphinomethylmalate Isomerase Ge ne Pmi, Encoding an Aconitase-Like Enzyme, Is Involved in

the Synthesis of Phosphinothricin Tripeptide in Streptomyces Viridochromogenes.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

341. Heisey, R. M. and Heisey, T. K. Herbicidal effects under field conditi ons of Ailanthus altissima bark extract,

which contains ailanthone. 2003; 256, (1): 85-99.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

342. HENRIQUES, W.; JEFFERS, R. D.; LACHER, T. E JR, and KENDALL, R. J. Agrochemical use on banana

plantations in Latin America: Perspectives on ecological risk. 16 (1). 1997. 91-99..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

343. Herouet, C. ; Esdaile, D. J.; Mallyon, B. A.; Debr uyne, E. ; Schulz, A.; Currier, T.; Hendrickx, K.; van der

Klis, R. J., and Rouan, D. Safety Evaluation of the Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase Proteins

Encoded by the Pat and Bar Sequences That Confer Tolerance to Glufosinate-Ammonium Herbicide

in Transgenic Plants. 2005; 41, (2): 134-149.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

344. Hess, F. D. Light-dependent herbicides: an overview. 2000; 48, (2): 160-170.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-63 345. Hessler, M. D.; Chandler, J. M., and McCauley, G. N. Glufosinate Sensitivity Among Texas Red Rice (Oryza

Sativa) Ecotypes. 51, 36 .

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

346. Hidalgo, C.; Rios, C.; Hidalgo, M.; Salvado, V.; Sancho, J. V., and Hernandez, F. Improved coupled-column

liquid chromatographic method for the determination of glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic

acid residues in environmental waters. 2004; 1035, (1): 153-157.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

347. Hirose, Y.; Kobayashi, M.; Koyama, K.; Kohda, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Honda, H.; Hori, Y.; Yoshida, K., and

Kikuchi, M. A Toxicokinetic Analysis in a Pa tient With Acute Glufosinate Poisoning. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

348. HOAGLAND, R. E. BIOCHEMICAL INTERACTIONS OF THE MICROBIAL PHYTOTOXIN

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AND ANALOGS WITH PLANTS AND MICROBES. 1997 Sep 7-1997

Sep 7; 214 (1-2). 1997. AGRO 50..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

349. Hoagland, R. E. Microbial al lelochemicals and pathogens as bioherbic idal agents. 2001; 15, (4): 835-857.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

350. Hoerlein, G. Glufosinate (Phosphinothricin), a Natu ral Amino Acid With Unexpected Herbicidal Properties.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

351. HOFFAMN, M. G. and ZEISS, H. J. A novel and convenient route to L-homoserine lactones and Lphosphinothricin from L-aspartic acid. 33 (19). 1992. 2669-2672..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

352. Hogendoorn, E. A.; Ossendrijver, F. M.; Dijkman, E., and Baumann, R. A. Rapid determination of glyphosate

in cereal samples by means of pre-column deriva tisation with 9-fluorenylmethyl chloroformate and

coupled-column liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection. 1999; 833, (1): 67-73.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

353. Hommel, B. and Pallutt, B. Evaluation of Herbicid e Resistance From a Point of View of Integrated Plant

Protection Within a System of a 4-Field Crop Rotation Including Glufosinate-Resistant Rape and

Maize (Bewertung Der Herbizidresistenz Fur Den Integrierten Pflanzenschutz Im System Einer 4-

Feldrigen Fruchtfolge Mit Glufosinatresistentem Raps Und Mais). 2000; 17, 411-420(GER) (ENG

ABS). 147763.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

354. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K., and Hiro se, Y. Determination of Glufosinate Ammonium and Its

Metabolite, 3-Methylphosphinicopropionic Acid, in Human Serum by Gas Chromatography-Mass

Spectrometry Following Mixed-Mode Solid-Phase Extraction and T-Bdms Derivatization.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

355. ---. Determination of the Herbicide Glyphosat e and Its Metabolite in Biological Specimens by Gas

Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry. A Case of Poisoning by Roundup Herbicide .

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

356. ---. Determination of the herbicide glyphosate and its metabolite in biological specimens by gas

chromatography-mass spectrometry. A case of poisoning by Roundup (R) herbicide . 2003; 27, (3):

162-166.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

357. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Sato, M.; Honda, M., and Hirose, Y. En antioselective Analysis of

### AI-64 Glufosinate Using Precolumn Derivatization With (+)-1-(9-Fluorenyl)Ethyl Chloroformate and

Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

358. Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M.; Shimada, K.; Sato, M. ; Kikuchi, M.; Honda, M., and Hirose, Y. Quantitative

determination of glufosinate in biological samples by liquid chromatography with ultraviolet

detection after p-nitrobenzoyl derivatization. 2002; 767, (2): 255-262.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

359. Hori, Y.; Iwasaki, Y.; Kudo, K.; Kuroki, Y.; Komiyayama, Y.; Nakaya, Y.; Namera, A.; Yashiki, M., and

Yamaguchi, Y. [Practical Analysis of Toxic Substances Useful for Clinical Toxicology--

Glufosinate].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

360. Hori, Y.; Tanaka, T.; Fujisawa, M., and Shimada, K. Toxicokinetics of Dl-Glufosinate Enantiomer in Human

Basta Poisoning.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

361. Hori Yasushi; Koyama Kanji; Fujisawa Manami; Nakajima Mariko; Shimada Kenji; Hirose Yasuo; Kohda

Yukinao, and Akuzawa Hisashi. Protein Binding of Glufosinate and Factors Affecting It Revealed

by an Equilibrium Dialysis Technique. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

362. HOROWITZ, M. and GOTLIEB, Y. CONT ROL OF THE WEED WANDERING JEW IN RUSCUS

PLOTS. 1990 Feb 26-1990 Feb 27; 18 (3). 1990. 267..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

363. Hoyle, E. R. and Holloway, P. J. Enhancement Eff ects of Alkyl Polyglucosides on the Herbicidal Activity of

Glufosinate-Ammonium. 99-104.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

364. Hsiao, C. L.; Young, C. C., and Wang, C. Y. Screening and identification of glufosinate-degrading bacteria

from glufosinate-treated soils. 2007; 55, (6): 631-637.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

365. HUANG, M. N.; RUPPRECHT, J. K.; STUMPF, K. A., and SMITH, S. M. METABOLISM OF-14CGLUFOSINATE AND-14-N-ACETYL-GLUFOSINATE IN LACTATING GOATS AND

LAYING HENS. 1996 Mar 24-1996 Mar 28; 211 (1-2). 1996. AGRO 54..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

366. Huang, Y.; Baxter, R.; Smith, B. S.; Partch, C. L. ; Colbert, C. L., and Deisenhof er, J. Crystal Structure of

Cryptochrome 3 From Arabidopsis Thaliana and Its Implications for Photolyase Activity. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

367. Hurst, Paul L.; King, Graeme A., and Borst, Wilh elmina M. Postharvest inhibition of glutamine synthetase

activity with phosphinothricin reduces the shelf-life of asparagus. 1993 Dec; 3, (4): 327-334.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

368. Iamtham, S. and Day, A. Removal of Antibiotic Resistance Genes From Transg enic Tobacco Plastids . 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

369. IbÁ Ñ Ez, M.; Pozo, O. J.; Sancho, J. V.; LÓ Pez, F. J.; HernÁ, and Ndez, F.

Residue Determination of Glyphosate, Glufosinate and Aminomethylphosphonic Acid in Water and

Soil Samples by Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Electrospray Tandem Mass Spectrometry.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-65 370. Ibanez, M.; Pozo, O. J.; Sancho, J. V.; Lopez, F. J., and Hernandez, F. Re-evaluation of glyphosate

determination in water by liquid chromatography coupled to electrospray tandem mass spectrometry.

2006; 1134, (1-2): 51-55.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

371. Ignacimuthu, S. Agrobacterium Mediated Transformation of Vigna Sesquipedalis Koern (Asparagus Bean).

2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

372. Ilcheva, V. ; San, L. H.; Zagorska, N., and Dimi trov, B. Production of Male Sterile Interspecific Somatic

Hybrids Between Transgenic N. Tabacum (Bar) and N. Rotundifolia (Npt Ii) and Their Identification

by Aflp Analysis. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

373. Isaac, W. A. P.; Brathwaite, R. A. I.; Cohen, J. E., and Bekele, I. Effects of Alternative Weed Management

Strategies on Commelina diffusa Burm. Infestations in Fairtrade Banana (Musa spp.) in St. Vincent

and the Grenadines. Department of Food Production, Faculty of Science and Agriculture,The

University of the West Indies,St. Augustine,Tr inidad/Tobago////: SOIL; 2007; 26, (8): 1219-1225.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ACAC,FAS,FSF,GFSNH

374. Ishida, Y.; Murai, N.; Kuraya, Y.; Ohta, S.; Saito , H.; Hiei, Y., and Komari, T. Improved Co-Transformation

of Maize With Vectors Carrying Two Separate T- Dnas Mediated by Agro bacterium Tumefaciens.

2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

375. Ishida, Y.; Saito, H.; Ohta, S.; Hiei, Y.; Komari, T., and Kumashiro, T. High Efficiency Transformation of

Maize (Zea Mays L.) Mediated by Agrobacter ium Tumefaciens. 14 (6), 745-750.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

376. Ishiwata, T.; Ishijima, C.; Ohashi, A.; Okada, H., and Ohashi, K. Solid Phase Extraction of PhosphorusContaining Amino Acid-Type Herbicides and Their Metabolites From Human Blood With Titania

for Determination by Cap illary Electrophoresis.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

377. ISKANDAROVA, G. T. EXPERIMENTAL MATERIALS TO JUSTIFY MACS FOR NEW HERBICIDES

BASTA FURORE-SUPER IN THE AIR OF WORKPLACE. 0 (11). 1997. 35-38..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

378. Ismail, B. S. and Ahmad, A. R. Attenuation of the herbicidal activities of glufosinate-ammonium and

imazapyr in two soils. 1994 Jan; 47, (4): 279-285.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

379. ISMAIL, B. S. and WONG, L. K. Effects of herbicid es on cellulolytic activity in peat soil. 78 (315). 1994.

117-123..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

380. ITO, K.; TAKAMATSU, M., and HIROI, K. The ecology and control of Paspalum distichum L.: Growth of

cut stems and the effect of herbic ide use. 0 (28). 1996. 37-42..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

381. IVANOVIC, D. and IVANOVIC, M. New approaches in maize breeding for resistance to bioagents and

herbicides. 49 (1). 1998. 5-27..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

382. Ivany, Jerry A. Desiccation of potato cultivars with endothal and adjuvants. 2004 Apr; 23, (4): 353-359.

### AI-66 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

383. Jacobs, C. M.; Utterback, P. L.; Parsons, C. M. ; Rice, D.; Smith, B.; Hinds, M.; Liebergesell, M., and Sauber,

T. Performance of laying hens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared with diets

containing nontransgenic maize grain. 2008; 87, (3): 475-479.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

384. Jahne, A.; Becker, D.; Brettschneider, R., and Lorz, H. Regeneration of Transgenic, Microspore-Derived,

Fertile Barley. 89 (4), 525-533.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

385. Jain, S.; Durand, H., and Tira by, G. Development of a Transformati on System for the Thermophilic Fungus

Talaromyces Sp. Cl240 Based on the Use of Phle omycin Resistance as a Dominant Selectable

Marker. 234 (3), 489-493.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

386. Jansen, C.; Schuphan, I., and Schmidt, B. Glufosinate Metabolism in Excised Shoots and Leaves of Twenty

Plant Species. 2000; 48, 319-326.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 59495

Chemical of Concern: GFS

387. Jiang, J. D.; Linscombe, S. D.; Wang, J. L., and Oard, J. H. High efficiency transformation of US rice lines

from mature seed-derived calli and segregation of glufosinate resistance under field conditions.

2000; 40, (6): 1729-1741.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

388. Jiang, Qiong; Ying, Sheng-Hua, and Feng, Ming-Guang. Enhanced frequency of Beauveria bassiana

blastospore transformation by restriction enzyme -mediated integration and electroporation. 2007

Jun; 69, (3): 512-517.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

389. Johannessen, M. M.; Damgaard, C.; Andersen, B. A., and Jo(slash)rgensen, R. B. Competition Affects the

Production of First Backcross Offspring on F 1-Hybrids, Brassica Napus X B. Rapa. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

390. JOHNSON, C. R.; BOETTCHER, B. R.; CHERPECK, R. E., and DOLSON, M. G. Design and synthesis of

potent inhibitors of glutamine synthetase: 1. Cyclic analogs of phosphinothricin. 18 (2). 1990. 154-

159..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

391. Johnson, W. R.; Marshall, C. F., and Lear, E. M. Oil-Spill Risk Analysis: Liberty Development and

Production Plan. (GRA&I), Issue 13, 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

392. Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E., and Gerik, T. J. Liberty Plus Preemergence or Postemergence

Herbicides and Row Spacing for Weed Control in Liberty-Link Corn. 52, 24.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

393. Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E. J., and Gerik, T. J. Evaluation of Glufosinate Tank-Mixes and

Row Spacing in Weed Management of Corn. 51, 261.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

394. Jones, C. A.; Chandler, J. M.; Morrison, J. E. Jr.; Senseman, S. A., and Tingle, C. H. Glufosinate

Combinations and Row Spacing for Weed Control in Glufosinate-Resistant Corn (Zea mays). SOIL;

2001; 15, (1): 141-147.

### AI-67 Notes: Chemical of Co ncern: ATZ,GFS,PDM,PSF

395. Jones, Curtis A. and Griffin, James L. Re d Morningglory (Ipomoea Coccinea) Response to Tillage and

Shade. 30, 11-20.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

396. Jones, H. D. and Sparks, C. A. Selection of Transformed Plants.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

397. Jones, Huw D. Wheat transformation: current technology and applications to grain development and

composition: New Approaches in Cereal Science. 2005 Mar; 41, (2): 137-147.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

398. Joos, H. J. ; Mauch-Mani, B., and Slusarenko, A. J. Molecular Mapping of the Arabidopsis Locus Rpp11

Which Conditions Isolate-Specific Hypersensitive Resistance Against Downy Mildew in Ecotype

Rld. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

399. Jordan, M. C. and McHughen, A. Transformation in Linum Usitatissimum L. (Flax). 22, 244-252.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

400. Kamo, K.; Blowers, A., and McElroy, D. Effect of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus 35s, Actin, and Ubiquitin

Promoters on Uida Expression From a Bar-Uida Fusion Gene in Transgenic Gladiolus Plants. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

401. Kamo, K.; Blowers, A.; Smith, F.; Eck, J. van, and Lawson, R. Stable Transformation of Gladiolus Using

Suspension Cell and Callus. 120 (2), 347-352.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

402. Kamo, K.; McElroy, D., and Chamberlain, D. Transforming Embryogenic Cell Lines of Gladiolus With

Either a Bar-Uida Fusion Gene or Cobombardment. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

403. Kang, T. J. ; Kim, B. G.; Yang, J. Y., and Yang, M. S. Expression of a Synthetic Cholera Toxin B Subunit in

Tobacco Using Ubiquitin Promoter and Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. 2 006; 32, (2): 93-100.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

404. Kang, T. J. ; Seo, J. E.; Loc, N. H., and Yang, M. S. Herbicide Resistance of Tobacco Chloroplasts

Expressing the Bar Gene. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

405. Kataoka, H.; Ryu, S.; Sakiyama, N., and Makita , M. Simple and Rapid Determination of the Herbicides

Glyphosate and Glufosinate in River Water, Soil and Carrot Samples by Gas Chromatography With

Flame Photometric Detection. 726 (1/2), 253-258.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

406. KATAOKA, H. ; RYU, S.; SAKIYAMA, N., and MAKITA, M. Simple and rapid determination of the

herbicides glyphosphate and glufosinate in river water, soil and carrot samples by gas

chromatography with flame photometric det ection. 726 (1-2). 1996. 253-258..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

407. Katsura, N. Herbicides: Vege table Fields. SOIL; 1985; 47, 30-32.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DQT,GFS,LNR,MTL,PQT,SXD

408. Katsura, N. Herbicides: Vegetable Fields. 1985; 47, 30-32. 149698.

### AI-68 Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DQT,GFS,LNR,MTL,PQT,SXD

409. Kawai, M.; Iwamuro, Y.; Iio-Ishimaru, R.; Chinaka, S.; Takayama, N., and Hayakawa, K. Analysis of

phosphorus-containing amino acid-type herbicides by sheathless capillary

electrophoresis/electrospray ionization-mass spectrome try using a high sensitivity porous sprayer.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

410. Kerlan, M. C.; Chevre, A. M., and Eber, F. Inte rspecific Hybrids Between a Transgenic Rapeseed (Brassica

Napus) and Related Species: Cytogenetical Characteriza tion and Detection of the Transgene. 36 (6),

1099-1106.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

411. Khenifi, Aicha; Derriche, Zoubir; Forano, Cla ude; Prevot, Vanessa; Mousty, Christine; Scavetta, Erika;

Ballarin, Barbara; Guadagnini, Lorella, and Tonelli, Domenica. Glyphosate and glufosinate

detection at electrogenerated NiAl-LDH thin films. 2009 Nov 10-; 654, (2): 97-102.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

412. Khrolenko, M. V. and Wieczorek, P. P. Determination of glyphosate and its metabolite

aminomethylphosponic acid in fruit juices using supported-liquid membrane preconcentration

method with high-performance liquid chromatography and UV detection after derivatization with ptoluenesulphonyl chloride. 2005; 1093, (1-2): 111-117.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

413. Kim, J. K.; Bae, S. C.; Baek, H. J.; Seo, H. W.; R yu, T. H.; Kim, J. B.; Won, S. Y.; Sohn, S. I.; Kim, D. H.;

Kim, S. J., and Cho, M. R. Simple and Sensitive Liquid Chromatography Electrospray Ionization

Mass Spectrometry Method for Determination of Glycoalkaloids in Potato (Solanum tuberosum L.).

2009; 18, (1): 113-117.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

414. Kim, J. K.; Duan, X.; Wu, R.; Soon Jong Seok; Bo ston, R. S.; Jang, I. C.; Eun, M. Y., and Baek Hie Nahm.

Molecular and Genetic Analysis of Transgenic Rice Plants Expressing the Maize RibosomeInactivating Protein B-32 Gene and th e Herbicide Resistance Bar Gene. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

415. Kim, S.; Song, J., and Choi, H. T. Genetic Transformation and Mutant Isolation in Ganoderma Lucidum by

Restriction Enzyme-Mediated Integration. 233, (2): 201-204.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

416. Kim, Y. S.; Kim, B. G.; Kim, T. G.; Kang, T. J., and Yang, M. S. Expression of a Cholera Toxin B Subunit in

Transgenic Lettuce (Lactuca Sativa L.) Using Ag robacterium-Mediated Transformation System.

2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

417. Kinsella, T. E. and Kahley , G. R. Filmless Radiography for Aero space NDT. (GRA& I), Issue 08, 2098.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

418. Kirkbride, R.; Pearse, D.; Ulrich, D.; Mullins, H., and Kleinlein, L. Assessment of the Safety of Onboard

Refueling Vapor Recovery Systems. (GRA&I), Issue 24, 2091.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

419. Kirsten, S. ; Siersleben, S., an d Knogge, W. A GFP-based assay to quan tify the impact of effectors on the ex

planta development of the slowly growing barley pathogen Rhynchosporium commune.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

420. Kishchenko, E. M.; Komarnitskii, I. K., and Kuchuk, N. V. Production of Transgenetic Sugarbeet (Beta

### AI-69 Vulgaris L.) Plants Resistant to Phosphinothricin. 2005; 29, (1): 15-19. 150298.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

421. Kittlaus, S.; Lipinski, J., and Speer, K. New Approaches for Determination of Glyphosate and

Aminomethylphosphonic Acid from Different Tea Samples-Prospects and Limits of Cleanup with

Molecularly Imprinted Polymer and Titanium Dioxide. 2009; 92, (3): 703-714.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

422. Klar, T.; Pokorny, R.; Moldt, J.; Batschauer, A., and Essen, L. O. Cryptochrome 3 From Arabidopsis

Thaliana: Structural and Functional Analysis of Its Complex With a Folate Light Antenna. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

423. KLEINSCHMIDT, H. QUEENSLAND DEPARTMENT OF PRIMARY INDUSTRIES INFORMATION

SERIES QI90037 SUBURBAN WEEDS SECOND EDITION. 7242 5; 0 (0). 1991. V+86P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

424. Kleter, G. A.; Unsworth, J. B., and Harris, C. A. The impact of altered herbicide residues in transgenic

herbicide-resistant crops on standard setting for herbicide residues. 2011; 67, (10): 1193-1210.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

425. Knispel, A. L. Post-release Monitoring of Ge netically Modified Canola (Brassica napus L.) in Western

Canada: Escape, Persistence and Spread of Novel Traits. SOIL; 2010: 245 p. (UMI# NR70338).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP,THF

426. Kniss, A. R.; Vassios, J. D.; Nissen, S. J., an d Ritz, C. Nonlinear Regression Analysis of Herbicide

Absorption Studies. 2011; 59, (4): 601-610.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

427. Kobrich, D. and Kubiak, R. Ecological Valuation of Mechanical and Chemical Weed Control in Vineyards

Within the Scope of an Eco-Balance. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

428. KOECHLIN, D. and WITTKE, A. SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS AND THE PESTICIDE BUSINESS A

COMPARISON. 19847 Jan; ISBN 1-85383-430-0(CLOTH).; 0 (0). 1998. 107-135..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

429. Kohli, A.; Gahakwa, D.; Vain, P.; Laurie, D. A., and Christou, P. Transgene Expression in Rice Engineered

Through Particle Bombardment: Molecular Factors Controlling Stable Expression and Transgene

Silencing. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

430. Kohne, S.; Neumann, K.; Puhler, A., and Broer, I. The Heat-Treatment Induced Reduction of the Pat Gene

Encoded Herbicide Resistance in Nicotiana Tabacum Is Influenced by the Transgene Sequence.

1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

431. Komo[ss]a, Dieter and Sandermann, Heinrich . Plant metabolism of herbicides with C---P bonds:

Phosphinothricin. 1992 Jun; 43, (2): 95-102.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

432. Koprek, T.; Rangel, S.; McElroy, D.; Louwerse , J. D.; Williams-Carrier, R. E., and Lemaux, P. G.

Transposon-Mediated Single-Copy Gene Deliver y Leads to Increased Transgene Expression

Stability in Barley. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-70 433. Koyama, K. Glufosinate and a Surfactant: Which Component Produces Effects on the Central Nervous

System in Acute Oral Basta Poisoning?

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

434. KOYAMA, K.; ANDOU, Y.; SARUKI, K., and MATSUO, H. DELAYED AND SEVERE TOXICITIES OF

A HERBICIDE CONTAINING GLUFOSINATE AND A SURFACTANT. 36 (1). 1994. 17-18..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

435. KOYAMA, K.; MATSUO, H.; SARUKI, K., and ANDOU, Y. THE ACUTE ORAL TOXIC DOSE OF A

HERBICIDE CONTAINING GLUFOSINATE. 1995 Sep 16-1995 Sep 19; 33 (5). 1995. 519..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

436. Kramer, C.; DiMaio, J.; Carswe ll, G. K., and Shillito, R. D. Selection of Transformed Protoplast-Derived Zea

Mays Colonies With Phosphinothricin and a Novel Assay Using the Ph Indicator Chlorophenol Red.

190 (4), 454-458.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

437. Krausz, R. F.; Kapusta, G.; Ma tthews, J. L.; Baldwin, J. L., and Ma schoff, J. Evaluation of GlufosinateResistant Corn (Zea mays) and Gluf osinate: Efficacy on Annual W eeds. SOIL; 1999; 13, (4): 691-

696.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 63151

Chemical of Concern: ACR,ATZ,BMN,GFS,NHSO4,NSF

438. KRIEG, L. C.; WALKER, M. A.; SENARATNA, T., and MCKERSIE, B. D. EFFECTS OF

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ON GROWTH AMMONIUM ACCUMULATION AND GLUTAMINE

SYNTHETASE ACTIVITY IN ALFALFA SHOOT TISSUE AND CELL CULTURES. 1989 Jul

30-1989 Aug 3; 89 (4 SUPPL.). 1989. 9..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

439. Kuai, B.; Perret, S.; Wan, S. M.; Dalton, S. J.; Bettany, A. J. E., an d Morris, P. Transformation of Oat and

Inheritance of Bar Gene Expression. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

440. Kudzin, Z. H.; Gralak, D. K.; Andrijewski, G.; Drabowicz, J., and Luczak, J. Simultaneous analysis of

biologically active aminoalkanephosphonic acids. 2003; 998, (1-2): 183-199.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

441. Kumada, Y.; Imai, S., and Nagaoka, K. Conversion of Bialaphos to Other Oligopeptides Containing

Phosphinothricin by Streptomyces Hygroscopicus. 1991; 44, (9): 1006-1012. 151182.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

442. Kumar, A.; Rakow, G., and Downey, R. K. Genetic Characterization of Glufosinate-Ammonium Tolerant

Summer Rape Lines. 1998; 38, (6): 1489-1494. 151189.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

443. ---. Isogenic Analysis of Glufosinate-Ammonium Tolerant and Susceptible Summer Rape Lines. 1998; 78,

(3): 401-408. 151190.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

444. Kurepa, J.; Karangwa, C.; Duke, L. S., and Sma lle, J. A. Arabidopsis Sensitivity to Protein Synthesis

Inhibitors Depends on 26s Proteasome Activity.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

445. KURISAKI, E.; SAYAMA, S., and HIRAIWA, K. Identif ication of the structure of surfactants in herbicides.

34 (0). 1991. 129-136..

### AI-71 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

446. Kurtz, M. E. and Street, J. E. Rice Injury From Roundup Ultra Drift. 51, 38.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

447. Kyong, Y. Y.; Choi, K. H.; Oh, Y. M., and Lee, K. U. "Hyperammonemia following glufosinate-containing

herbicide poisoning: A potential marker of severe neurotoxicity" by Yan-Chido Mao et al., Clin

Toxicol (Phila) 2011; 49:48-52. 2011; 49, (6): 510-512.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

448. Kyong, Y. Y.; Choi, K. H.; Oh, Y. M., and Lee, K. U. &Quot;Hyperammonemia Following GlufosinateContaining Herbicide Poisoning: a Potential Marker of Severe Neurotoxicity&Quot; by Yan-Chido

Mao Et Al., Clin Toxicol (Phila) 2011; 49:48-52.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

449. Lacuesta, M.; Dever, L. V. ; Munoz-Rueda, A., and Lea, P. J. A Study of Photorespiratory Ammonia

Production in the C4 Plant Amaranthus Edulis , Using Mutants With Altered Photosynthetic

Capacities. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

450. LACUESTA, M.; DIAZ, A.; GONZALEZ-MURUA, C., and MUNOZ-RUEDA, A. EFFECT OF

GLUFOSINATE IN PHOTOSYNTHETIC ELECTRON TRANSPORT. 1991 Jul 28-1991 Aug 1;

96 (1 SUPPL.). 1991. 165..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

451. LACUESTA, M.; MUNOZ-RUEDA, A.; GONZALEZ-MURUA, C., and SIVAK, M. N. Effect of

phosphinothricin (glufosinate) on photosynthesis and chlorophyll fluorescence emission by barley

leaves illuminated under photorespiratory and non-pho torespiratory conditions. 43 (247). 1992. 159-

165..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

452. ---. PARTIAL PROTECTION OF PHOTOSYNTHESIS FROM PHOSPHINOTHRICIN PPT EFFECT BY

AMINO ACID FEEDING. 1990 Aug 5-1990 Oct 5; 79 (2 PART 2). 1990. A48..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

453. Lafleuriel, J.; Degroote, F.; Depeiges, A., and Picard, G. Impact of the Loss of Atmsh2 on Double-Strand

Break-Induced Recombination Betw een Highly Diverged Homeologous Sequences in Arabidopsis

Thaliana Germinal Tissues. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

454. Laitinen, P.; Ramo, S.; Nikunen, U.; Jauhiainen, L. ; Siimes, K., and Turtola, E. Glyphosate and phosphorus

leaching and residues in boreal sandy soil. 2009; 323, (1-2): 267-283.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

455. Laitinen, P.; Siimes, K.; Eronen, L.; Ra(dieresis)mo (dieresis), S.; Welling, L.; Oinonen, S.; Mattsoff, L., and

Ruohonen-Lehto, M. Fate of the Herbicides Glyphosate, Glufosinate-Ammonium, Phenmedipham,

Ethofumesate and Metamitron in Two Finnish Arable Soils. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

456. Laitinen, P.; Siimes, K.; RÄ MÖ S; Jauhia inen, L.; Eronen, L.; Oinonen, S., and Hartikainen, H.

Effects of Soil Phosphorus Status on Enviro nmental Risk Assessment of Glyphosate and

Glufosinate-Ammonium.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

457. LAMB, D. S. and BREITHAUPT, S. A. PROJECT COMPLETION SUMMARY OF THE EFFECTS OF

### AI-72 RESTORATION PROCEDURES AT LIBERTY LAKE WASHINGTON USA. 1985 Nov 13-1985

Nov 16; 5 (0). 1986 (RECD. 1987). 204-209..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

458. Lanclos, D. Y.; Webster, E. P., and Zhang, W. Glufosinate-Resistant Rice Lines Treated With Glufosinate at

Intervals Throughout the Season. 52, 213.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

459. LANGELUEDDEKE, P.; BIER, B., and KREBS, B. C. THE USE OF BASTA FOR KILLING POTATO

VINE. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAH LEM, NO. 245. 46TH GERMAN PLANT

PROTECTION CONVENTION); REGENSBURG, WEST GERMANY, OCTOBER 3-7, 1988.

XXVII+524P. KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, WEST GERMANY. ILLUS.

MAPS. PAPER. ISBN 3-489-24500-8.; 0 (0). 1988. 158-159..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

460. Larkin, P. J.; Gibson, J. M.; Mathesius, U.; Weinman, J. J.; Gartner, E.; Hall, E.; Tanner, G. J.; Rolfe, B. G.,

and Djordjevic, M. A. Transgenic White Clover. Studies With the Auxin-Responsive Promoter, Gh3,

in Root Gravitropism and Lateral Root Development. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

461. Lawson, R. and Estrade-Chapellaz, E. [S elf-Induced Poisoning With Glufosinate (Basta)].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

462. Lea, P. J.; Joy, K. W.; Ramos, J. L., and Guerrero, M. G. The Action of 2-Amino-4-(Methylphosphinyl)-

Butanoic Acid (Phosphinothricin) and Its 2-Oxo-Derivative on the Metabolism of Cyanobacteria and

Higher Plants. 23 (1), 1-6.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

463. Lea, Peter J. and Miflin, Ben J. Glutamate synthase and the synthesis of glutamate in plants. 2003 Jun; 41, (

6-7): 555-564.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

464. Leckband, G. and Lorz, H. Tran sformation and Expression of a Stilbene Synthase Gene of Vitis Vinifera L.

In Barley and Wheat for Increas ed Fungal Resistance. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

465. LeClere, S. and Bartel, B. A Library of Arabidopsis 35s-Cdna Lines for Identifying Novel Mutants. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

466. Lee, E. A.; Strahan, A. P., and Thurman, E. M. Method of Analysis by the Geological Survey Organic

Geochemistry Research Group-Determination of Glyphosate, Aminomethylphosphonic Acid, and

Glufosinate in Water using Online Solid-Phase Extraction and High-Performance Liquid

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

467. Lee, H. Y.; Song, S. Y.; Lee, S. H.; Lee, S. Y. ; Kim, S. H., and Ryu, S. W. Vasogenic Edema in Striatum

Following Ingestion of Glufosinate-Containing Herbicide.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

468. Lee, Si Myung; Lee, Yoen Hee; Kim, Hyun uk; Seo, Suk chul; Kwon, Sun jong; Cho, Hyun suk; Kim, Su Il;

Okita, Thomas, and Kim, Donghern. Characterization of the Potato Upreg1gene, Encoding a

Mutated Adp-Glucose Pyrophosphorylase Large Subunit, in Transformed Rice. 102, (2): 171-179.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-73 469. Leibbrandt, N. B. and Snyman, S. J. Stability of Gene Expression and Agronomic Performance of a

Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Sugarcane Line in South Africa. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

470. LEISTRA, M. and BOESTEN, J. J TI. PESTICIDE CONTAMINATION OF GROUNDWATER IN

WESTERN EUROPE. 26 (3-4). 1989. 369-390..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

471. Leroux, P. Effect of Ph, Amino Acids and Various Organic Compounds on the Fungitoxicity of Pyrimethanil,

Glufosinate, Captafol, Cymoxanil and Fenpiclonil in Botrytis Cinerea (Influence Du Ph, D'acides

Amines Et De Diverses Substances Organiques Sur La Fongitoxicite Du Pyrimethanil, Du

Glufosinate, Du Captafol, Du Cymoxanil Et Du Fenpiclonil Vis-a-Vis De Certaines Souches De

Botrytis Cinerea). 1994; 14, (8): 541-554(FRE) (ENG ABS). 152064.

Notes: Chemical of Co ncern: CAP,CMX,GFS,PYM

472. Li, D. D.; Shi, W., and Deng, X. X. Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Embryogenic Calluses of

Ponkan Mandarin and the Regeneration of Plants Containing the Chimeric Ribonuclease Gene.

2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

473. Li, Fei Fei ; Wu, Shen Jie; Chen, Tian Zi; Zhan g, Jie; Wang, Hai Hai; Guo, Wang Zhen, and Zhang, Tian

Zhen. Agrobacterium-Mediated Co-Transformation of Multiple Genes in Upland Cotton. 97, (3):

225-235.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

474. Li, H.; Wylie, S. J., and Jones, M. G. K. Transgenic Yellow Lupin (Lupinus Luteus). 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

475. Li, J.; Xue, L.; Yan, H.; Wang, L.; Liu, L.; Lu, Y. , and Xie, H. The Nitrate Reductase Gene-Switch: a System

for Regulated Expression in Transformed Cells of Dunaliella Salina.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

476. Li, J. L.; Meilan, R.; Ma, C.; Barish, M., and Stra uss, S. H. Stability of herbicide resistance over 8 years of

coppice in field-grown, genetically engineered poplars. 2008; 23, (2): 89-93.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

477. Li, L. and Arumuganathan, K. Microcloning of Maize Chromosome 9 by Using a Flow-Sorting Technique.

2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

478. Li, L.; Arumuganathan, K.; Gill, K. S., and Song, Y. Flow Sorting and Microcloning of Maize Chromosome

1. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

479. Li, M.; Li, H.; Jiang, H.; Pan, X., and Wu, G. Es tablishment of an Agrobacteriuim-Mediated Cotyledon Disc

Transformation Method for Jatropha Curcas. 2008.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

480. Li, Z.; Upadhyaya, N. M.; Meena, S.; Gibbs, A. J., and Waterhouse, P. M. Comparison of Promoters and

Selectable Marker Genes for Use in Indi ca Rice Transformation. 3 (1), 1-14.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

481. LIAO, W.; JOE, T., and CUSICK , W. G. Multiresidue screening method for fresh fruits an d vegetables with

gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric detection. 74 (3). 1991. 554-565..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-74 482. Ligaj, Marta; Tichoniuk, Mariusz, and Filipiak, Marian. Detection of bar gene encoding phosphinothricin

herbicide resistance in plants by electrochemical biosensor: Special Issue: Cellular Electrochemistry

Proceedings of the XIXth International Symposium on Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics. 2008

Nov; 74, (1): 32-37.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

483. Lin, B.; Tan, Z. L.; Xiao, G. Y.; Wang, M.; Cong, Z. H.; Wang, S. P.; Tang, S. X.; Zhou, C. S.; Sun, Z. H.,

and Wang, W. J. Evaluation of compositional and nutritional equivalence of genetically modified

rice to conventional rice using in situ and in vitro techniques. 2009; 89, (9): 1490-1497.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

484. Lin, H. S.; Toorn, C. van der; Raemakers, K. J. J. M.; Visser, R. G. F.; Jeu, M. J., and Jacobsen, E. Genetic

Transformation of Alstroemeria Using Particle Bombardment. 6 (4), 369-377.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

485. LIPECKI, J. and BERBEC, S. Soil management in perennial crops: Orchards and hop gardens. 1997; 43,

(1/2): 169-184.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

486. Liscum, F.; Goss, R. L., and Rast, W. Characteri stics of Water-Quality Data for Lake Houston, Selected

Tributary Inflows to Lake Houston, and the Trinity River near Lake Houston (a Potential Source of

Interbasin Transfer), August 1983-September 1990. (GRA&I), Issue 07, 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

487. Liu, N.; Zhu, P.; Peng, C.; Kang, L.; Gao, H.; Clarke, N. J., and Clarke, J. L. Effect on Soil Chemistry of

Genetically Modified (Gm) Vs. Non-Gm Maize.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

488. Liu, S. J.; Wei, Z. M., and Huang, J. Q. Th e effect of co-cultivation and selection parameters on

Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Chinese soybean varieties. 2008; 27, (3): 489-498.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

489. LluÍ S, M.; NoguÉ S; MirÓ , and O. Severe Acute Poisoning Due to a Glufosinate

Containing Preparation Without Mitochondrial Involvement.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

490. Locke, M. A.; Zablotowicz, R. M., and Reddy, K. N. Integrating soil conservation practices and glyphosateresistant crops: impacts on soil. 2008; 64, (4): 457-469.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

491. LOGUSCH, E. W.; WALKER, D. M.; MCDONALD, J. F., and FRANZ, J. E. CYCLIC P-GLYCOSIDIC

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN ANALOGUES AS GLUTAMINE SYNTHETASE INHIBITORS AND

HERBICIDES. 1994 Mar 13-1994 Mar 17; 207 (1-2). 1994. AGRO 45..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

492. Logusch, E. W.; Walker, D. M.; McDonald, J. F., and Franz, J. E. Inhibition of Plant Glutamine Synthetases

by Substituted Phosphinothricins. 95 (4), 1057-1062.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

493. LOGUSCH, E. W.; WALKER, D. M.; MCDONALD, J. F., and FRANZ, J. E. Inhibition of plant glutamine

synthetases (EC 6.3.1.2) by substituted phosphinothr icins. (BETHESDA); 95 (4). 1991. 1057-1062..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

494. Lohar, D. P.; Schuller, K.; Buzas, D. M.; Gresshof f, P. M., and Stiller, J. Transformation of Lotus Japonicus

Using the Herbicide Resistance Bar Gene as a Selectable Marker. 2001.

### AI-75 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

495. Long, D. F. ; Wu, X. L.; Yang, Z. M.; Lenk, I.; Nielsen, K. K., and Gao, C. X. Comparison of three selectable

marker genes for transformation of tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea Schreb.) plants by particle

bombardment. 2011; 47, (6): 658-666.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

496. Lorenzetti, S.; Marcoccia, D.; Narciso, L., an d Mantovani, A. Cell viability and PSA secretion assays in

LNCaP cells: A tiered in vitro approach to screen ch emicals with a prostate-mediated effect on male

reproduction within the ReProTect project. 2010; 30, (1): 25-35.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

497. Lorz, H.; Becker, D., and Lutticke, S. Molecu lar Wheat Breeding by Direct Gene Transfer. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

498. Lu(dieresis), Y. M.; Jiang, G. Z.; Niu, X. L.; Hou, G. Q.; Zhang, G. X., and Xue, L. X. Cloning and

Functional Analyses of Promoters of Two Carbonic Anhydrase Genes From Dunaliella Salina. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

499. LUETJEN, K. ; ALTENBURGER, R.; FAUST, M., and GRIMME, L. H. AMINO ACID

SUPPLEMENTATION AND THE EFFECT GLYP HOSPHATE AND GLUFOSINATE. 1990;

(COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 266. FORTY-SEVENTH GERMAN

PLANT PROTECTION CONVENTION); BERLIN, GERMANY, OCTOBER 1-5, 1990.

XXXIX+515P. KOMMISSIONSVERLAG PAUL PAREY: BERLIN, GERMANY. ILLUS.

PAPER. ISBN 3-489-26600-5.; 0 (0). 1990. 403. 266. 47. DEUTSCHE PFLANZENSCHUTZTAGUNG.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

500. Luetjen, K.; Girardet, I.; Altenburger, R.; Faust, M., and Grimme, L. H. The Effect of Glyphosate and

Phosphinothricin on Single Celled Green Algae. 1988: 396-(GER).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

501. Luo, H.; Hu, Q.; Nelson, K.; Longo, C.; Kausch, A. P.; Chandlee, J. M.; Wipff, J. K., and Fricker, C. R.

Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Creeping Bentgrass (Agrostis Stolonifera L.) Transformation

Using Phosphinothricin Selection Results in a High Frequency of Single-Copy Transgene

Integration. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

502. Luo, H.; Kausch, A. P.; Hu, Q.; Nelson, K.; Wipff, J. K.; Fricker, C. C. R.; Owen, T. P.; Moreno, M. A.; Lee,

J. Y., and Hodges, T. K. Controlling Transgen e Escape in Gm Creeping Bentgrass. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

503. LUPOTTO, E. ; LUSARDI, M. C.; NIELSEN, E., and FORLANI, G. RESISTANCE TO HERBICIDES IN

MAIZE IN-VITRO SELECTION AND CHAR ACTERIZATION OF EMBRYOGENIC CELL

LINES RESISTANT INHIBITORS OF GLUTAMINE SYNTHETASE. 1926 Oct 28-1988 Oct 28;

42 (4). 1988. 466..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

504. Lupwayi, N. Z.; Harker, K. N.; Clayton, G. W.; Turkington, T. K.; Rice, W. A., and O'Donovan, J. T. Soil

microbial biomass and diversity after herbicide application. 2004; 84, (2 ): 677-685.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

505. Lutman, P. J. W. and Berry, K. Herbicide-Tolerant Crops - Good or Bad for Europe? 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-76 506. Lutman, P. J. W.; Berry, K.; Payne, R. W.; Si mpson, E.; Sweet, J. B.; Champion, G. T.; May, M. J.;

Wightman, P.; Walker, K., and Lainsbury, M. Persistence of Seeds From Crops of Conventional and

Herbicide Tolerant Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus). 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

507. Lutz, K. A. ; Knapp, J. E., and Maliga, P. Ex pression of Bar in the Plastid Genome Confers Herbicide

Resistance. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

508. Lydon, J. The Molecular Genetics of Bacterial Phytotoxins. 24 (3), 111-139.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

509. Ma, B. L.; Subedi, K.; Evenson, L., and Stewart, G. Evaluation of detection methods for genetically modified

traits in genotypes resistant to European corn borer and herbicides. 2005; 40, (4): 633-644.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

510. Ma(dieresis)rla(dieresis)nder, B. Weed Control in Sugar Beet Using Genetically Modified Herbicide-Tolerant

Varieties - a Review of the Economics for Cultivation in Europe. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

511. MacKenzie, Susan A.; Lamb, Ia n; Schmidt, Jean; Deege, Lora; Morris ey, Michael J.; Harper, Marc; Layton,

Raymond J.; Prochaska, Lee M.; Sanders, Craig; Locke, Mary; Mattsson, Joel L. ; Fuentes, Angel,

and Delaney, Bryan. Thirteen week feeding stud y with transgenic maize grain containing event

DAS-O15O7-1 in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2007 Apr; 45, (4): 551-562.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

512. Madduri, Krishna M. and Snodderley, Erika M. Expression of phosphinothricin N-acetyltransferase in

Escherichia coli and Pseudomonas fluorescens: Influence of mRNA secondary structure, host, and

other physiological conditions. 2007 Oct; 55, (2): 352-360.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

513. Madsen, K. H.; Blacklow, W. M.; Jensen, J. E., and Streibig, J. C. Simulation of Herbicide Use in a Crop

Rotation with Transgenic Herbic ide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape.

Kathrine.H.Madsen@agsci.kvl.dk//K.H. Madsen, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Royal

Veterinary /Agricultural Univ., 40 Thorvaldsens vej, DK-1871 Frederiksb erg C, Denmark//: SOIL;

1999; 39, (2): 95-106.

Notes: Chemical of Co ncern: CPR,GFS,GYP,PZM

514. MAERLAENDER, B. ECONOMIC VALUATION OF A POSSIBLE GLUFOSINATE-RESISTANT

SUGAR BEET CROP. 321; (COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL

INSTITUTE FOR AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 321); 50TH

GERMAN MEETING ON PLANT PROTECTION, MUENSTER, GERMANY, SEPTEMBER 23-

26, 1996. LX+662P. BIOLOGISCHE BUNDESANSTALT FUER LAND- UND

FORSTWIRTSCHAFT: BERLIN-DAHLEM, GERMANY. ISBN 3-8263-3126-5.; 0 (321). 1996.

132..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

515. Mahan, J. R.; Dotray, P. A.; Light, G. G., and Dawson, K. R. Thermal Dependence of Bioengineered

Glufosinate Toleran ce in Cotton. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

516. MAIER, A.; MUELLER, J.; SCHNEIDER, P.; FIEDLER, H. P.; GROTH, I.; TAYMAN, F. SK;

TELTSCHIK, F.; GUENTHER, C., and BRINGM ANN, G. (2E,4Z)-decadienoic acid and

(2E,4Z,7Z)-decatrienoic acid, two herbicidal metabolites from Streptomyces viridochromogenes Tue

6105. 1999; 55 , (7): 733-739.

### AI-77 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

517. Malley, Linda A.; Everds, Nancy E.; Reynolds, Julia; Mann, Peter C.; Lamb, Ian; Rood, Tracy; Schmidt,

Jean; Layton, Raymond J.; Prochaska, Lee M.; Hinds, Mark; Locke, Mary; Chui, Chok-Fun;

Claussen, Fred; Mattsson, Joel L. , and Delaney, Bryan. Subchronic feeding study of DAS-59122-7

maize grain in Sprague-Dawley rats. 2007 Jul; 45, (7): 1277-1292.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

518. Malone, R. W.; Shipitalo, M. J.; Wauchope, R. D., and Sumner, H. Residual and Contact Herbicide Transport

Through Field Lysimeters Via Preferential Flow.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

519. MANABE, K.; DEGUCHI, H.; MIKI, M.; YABUKI, H., and ITOH, M. Chemical control of weeds in

orchard: Comparison of postemergence herbicides in activity and their practical application. 42 (1).

1990. 123-130..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

520. MANABE, K. and ITOH, M. Soil conservation and ch emical weed management in hillside orchard. 46 (2).

1994. 163-168..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

521. MANSDORF, S. Z.; HENRY, N.; ANDERSON, D.; STRONG, M., and ROSSI, D. The permeation of

substituted chlorosilanes through selected prot ective clothing. 58 (2). 1997. 110-115..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

522. Mao, Y. C.; Wang, J. D.; Hung, D. Z.; Deng, J. F., and Yang, C. C. Hyperammonemia Following

Glufosinate-Containing Herbicide Poisoning: a Potential Marker of Severe Neurotoxicity.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

523. Mao, Y. C. and Yang, C. C. Response to "Hyperammonemia following glufosinate-containing herbicide

poisoning: A potential marker of severe neurotoxicity" by Yan-Chido Mao et al., Clin Toxicol

(Phila) 2011; 49:48-52. 2011; 49, (6): 513-513.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

524. Maqbool, S. B.; Zhong, H.; El-Maghraby, Y.; Ahma d, A.; Chai, B.; Wang, W.; Sabzikar, R., and Sticklen, M.

B. Competence of Oat (Avena Sativa L.) Shoot Ap ical Meristems for Integrative Transformation,

Inherited Expression, and Osmotic Tolerance of Transgenic Lines Containing Hva1. 105 (2/3),

201-208.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

525. MARINI, R.; BARDEN, J., and SOWERS, D. PERFORMANCE OF NINE APPLE CULTIVARS GROWN

WITH SIX FUNGICIDE REGIMES. 1996 Oct 6-1996 Oct 10; 31 (4). 1996. 675..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

526. MARTIN, C. C. Weed control in tropical ley farming systems: A review. 36 (8). 1996. 1013-1023..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

527. Martin, S. G.; Van Acker, R. C., and Friesen, L. F. Critical period of weed control in spring canola. 2001; 49,

(3): 326-333.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

528. Masani, Mat Yunus Abdul; Parveez, Ghulam Kadir Ahmad; Izawati, Abang Masli Dayang; Lan, Chan Pek,

and Siti Nor Akmar, Abdullah. Construction of PHB and PHBV multiple-gene vectors driven by an

oil palm leaf-specific promoter. 2009 Nov; 62, (3): 191-200.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-78 529. Masuta, C.; Yamana, T.; Tacahashi, Y.; Uyeda, I. ; Sato, M.; Ueda, S., and Matsumura, T. Development of

Clover Yellow Vein Virus as an Efficient, Stab le Gene-Expression System for Legume Species.

2000; 23, (4): 539-546.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

530. Matthews, S. G.; Rhodes, G. N. J.; Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. Roundup Ultra Effects on Roundup

Ready Cotton. 51, 39-40.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

531. Matthies, M.; Behrendt, H.; Trapp, S., and McFa rlane, C. Modellierung und Simulation des Verhaltens von

Umweltchemikalien in Boeden und Pflanzen (Modeling and Simulation of the Effect of

(Environmental) Chemicals in Soil and in Plants). (GRA&I), Issue 09, 2092.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

532. McAlpin, C. E. and Mannarelli, B. Construction and Characterization of a Dna Probe for Distinguishing

Strains of Aspergillus Flavus. 1995.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

533. McNamara, N. P.; Black, H. I. J.; Beresford, N. A., and Parekh, N. R. Effects of acute gamma irradiation on

chemical, physical and biological properties of soils. 2003 Oct; 24, (2 ): 117-132.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

534. McNaughton, James L.; Roberts, Mick; Rice, Davi d; Smith, Brenda; Hinds, Mark; Schmidt, Jean; Locke,

Mary; Bryant, Angela; Rood, Tracy; Layton, Ray; Lamb, Ian, and Delaney, Bryan. Feeding

performance in broiler chickens fed diets containing DAS-59122-7 maize grain compared to diets

containing non-transgenic maize grain. 2007 Jan 15; 132, (3-4): 227-239.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

535. Mcneill, H. V.; Sinha, K. A.; Hormaeche, C. E.; Lee, J. J., and Khan, C. M. Development of a Nonantibiotic

Dominant Marker for Positively Se lecting Expression Plasmids in Multivalent Salmonella Vaccines.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

536. McVetty, Peter B. E. and Zelmer, Carla D. Breeding Herbicide[hyphen (true graphic)]Tolerant Oilseed Rape

Cultivars. Surinder Kumar Gupta, M. Delseny and J. hyphen true graphic C. Kader. Advances in

Botanical Research: Rapeseed Breeding. Volu me 45 ed. Academic Press; 2007: 233-270.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

537. Meagher, T. R.; Belanger, F. C., and Day, P. R. Using Empirical Data to Model Transgene Dispersal. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

538. Melchiorre, M. N.; Lascano, H. R., and Trippi, V. S. Transgenic Wheat Plants Resistant to Herbicide Basta

Obtained by Microprojectile Bombardment. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

539. Mena-Petite, Amaia; Lacuesta, Maite, and Munoz-Ru eda, Alberto. Ammonium assimilation in Pinus radiata

seedlings: effects of storage treatments, transplanting stress and water regimes after planting under

simulated field conditions. 2006 Jan; 55, (1-2): 1-14.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

540. Merkel, U.; Schuster, C.; Schubert, A., and Diepenbrock, W. Development and Control of Sisymbrium

Loeselii L. In Glufosinate-Tolerant Winter Rapeseed. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

541. Messeguer, J.; Fogher, C.; Guiderdoni, E.; Marfa , V.; Catala, M. M.; Baldi, G., and Mele, E. Field

Assessments of Gene Flow From Transgenic to Cultivated Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) Using a Herbicide

### AI-79 Resistance Gene as Tracer Marker. 103 (8), 1151-1159.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

542. Messeguer, J.; Marfa, V.; Catala, M. M.; Guiderdoni, E., and Mele, E. A Field Study of Pollen-Mediated

Gene Flow From Mediterranean Gm Rice to Conv entional Rice and the Red Rice Weed. 13, (1):

103-112.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

543. Metz, P. L. J.; Jacobsen, E.; Nap, J. P.; Pereira, A., and Stiekema, W. J. The Impact on Biosafety of the

Phosphinothricin-Tolerance Transgene in Inter-Sp ecific B. Rapa X B. Napus Hybrids and Their

Successive Backcrosses. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

544. Metz, P. L. J.; Jacobsen, E., and Stiekema, W. J. Occasional Loss of Expression of Phosphinothricin

Tolerance in Sexual Offspring of Transgenic Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus L.). 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

545. Metz, P. L. J.; Stiekema, W. J., and Nap, J. P. A Transgene-Centered Appr oach to the Biosafety of

Transgenic Phosphinothricin-Tolerant Plants. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

546. MEYER, H. and WOLTERS, V. Ecological effects of the use of broad-spectrum herbicides in herbicideresistant tansgenic crops. . ISBN 3-437-25476-6.; 28 (0). 1997 (1998). 337-344..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

547. Middleton, A. T. and Stone, E. M. DNA extraction from bulked sa mples of canola seed and the use of

multiplex PCR for detection of adventitious contamination with genetically modified seed. 2003; 31,

(2): 487-495.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

548. Miethling, R. and Tebbe, C. C. Resilience of a Soil-Established, Genetically Modified Sinorhizobium

Meliloti Inoculant to Soil Management Practices. 25, (2): 161-167.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

549. Migge, A.; Meya, G.; Carrayol, E.; Hirel, B., and Becker, T. W. Regulation of the Subunit Composition of

Tomato Plastidic Glutamine Synthetase by Light and the Nitrogen Source. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

550. Mika, A.; Krzewinska, D., and Olszewski, T. Ef fects of Mulches, Herbicides and Cultivation as Orchard

Groundcover Management Systems in Young Apple Orchard. SOIL; 1998; 6, (1): 1-13.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,FZFB,GFSNH,GYPI,NHSO4,OXF,PZM,SZ

551. Miller, D. K.; Vidrine, P. R ., and Stewart, A. M. Assessing Libert y Link Transgenic Technology for Weed

Control in Cotton. 50, (1): 22.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

552. MINEAU, P.; BOERSMA, D. C., and COLLINS, B. An analysis of avian reproduction studies submitted for

pesticide registration. 29 (3). 1994. 304-329..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

553. Mishutkina, I. A. V.; Kamionskaia, A. M., and Skriabin, K. G. [Generation of Sugar Beet Transgenic Plants

Expressing Bar Gene].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

554. MIYAZAKI, A. PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS OF OPTICALLY ACTIVE PESTICIDES. 22 (2). 1997.

### AI-80 136-155. .

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

555. Mohr, K. I. and Tebbe, C. C. Field Study Results on the Probability and Risk of a Horizontal Gene Transfer

From Transgenic Herbicide-Resist ant Oilseed Rape Pollen to Gut B acteria of Bees. 2007; 75, (3):

573-582. 154914 .

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

556. Molina, M. and Silva, M. Analytical potential of fluorescein analogues for ultrasensitive determinations of

phosphorus-containing amino acid herbicides by micellar electrokinetic chromatography with laserinduced fluorescence detection. 2002; 23, (7-8): 1096-1103.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

557. ---. Simultaneous Determination of Phosphorus-Containing Amino Acid-Herbicides by Nonionic Surfactant

Micellar Electrokinetic Chromatography With Laser-Induced Fluorescence Detection.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

558. Moore, S.; Croughan, T.; Myers, G., and Vidrine, P. R. Investigation of Transferring the Bar Gene Into

Soybean Via the Pollen-Tube Pathway. 65-66.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

559. ---. Using Pollen Tubes to Transfer Genes in Cotton. 43-44.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

560. Moore, S. H. and Croughan, T. P. Transferring the Bar Gene Into Cotton. 48.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

561. Moore, S. H.; Croughan, T. P., and Myers, G. O. Investigation of Transferring the Bar Gene Into Cotton Via

the Pollen-Tube Pathway. 1, 483.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

562. MOORMAN, T. B. and KELLER, K. E. CROP RESISTANCE TO HERBICIDES EFFECTS ON SOIL

AND WATER QUALITY. LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 1-56670-045-0.; 0 (0). 1996. 283-

302..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

563. Moreland, D. E. Biochemical Mechanisms of Action of Herbicides and the Impact of Biotechnology on the

Development of Herbicides. SOIL; 1999; 24, (3): 299-307.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24DXY,ATZ,CBL,DDT,DMB,GFS,HCCH,IZP,PCP,PDM,PL,PPCP,SXD,SZ

564. MORI, H.; SATO, T.; NAGASE, H.; ANDOU, M.; SAKAI, Y.; YAMAGUCHI, S., and YAMAZAKI, F.

Rapid screening method for the cause pesticides of acute toxicosis patient by TLC. 42 (1). 1996.

101-109..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

565. MORI, H.; SATO, T.; NAGASE, H.; TAKADA, K.; NAGASAKA, M., and YAMAZAKI, F. Analytical

method for screening and quantification of phosphated amino acid herbicides in the serum of acutely

intoxicated patients using HPLC with a diode-array-detector. 44 (4). 1998. 245-255..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

566. Motojyuku, M.; Saito, T.; Akieda, K.; Otsuka, H.; Yamamoto, I., and Inokuchi, S. Determination of

Glyphosate, Glyphosate Metabolites, and Glufosinate in Human Serum by Gas ChromatographyMass Spectrometry.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-81 567. MOYER, J. R.; ROMAN, E. S.; LINDWALL, C. W., and BLACKSHAW, R. E. Weed management in

conservation tillage systems for wheat production in North and South America. 13 (4). 1994. 243-

259..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

568. Mu(dieresis)ller, B. P.; Zumdick, A.; Schuphan, I. , and Schmidt, B. Metabolism of the Herbicide GlufosinateAmmonium in Plant Cell Cultures of Transgenic (Rhizomania-Resistant) and Non-Transgenic

Sugarbeet (Beta Vulgaris), Carrot (Daucus Carota), Purple Foxglove (Digitalis Purpurea) and Thorn

Apple (Datura Stramonium). 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

569. Mueller, T. C.; Mitchell, P. D.; Young, B. G., and Culpepper, A. S. Proactive versus reactive management of

glyphosate-resistant or -tolerant weeds. 2005; 19, (4): 924-933.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

570. MUELLNER, H.; DONN, G., and ECKES, P. ENGINEERING CROP RESISTANCE TO NATURALLY

OCCURRING GLUTAMINESYNTHETASE INHIBITORS. 1992 Apr 5-1992 Apr 5; 203 (1-3).

1992. AGRO143..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

571. Mullner, H. ; Eckes, P., and Donn, G. Engineer ing Crop Resistance to the Na turally Occurring Glutamine

Synthetase Inhibitor Phophinothricin. 38-47.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

572. Murdock, E. C. Tolerance of Roundup Ready Cotto n to Multiple Postemergence Applications of Glyphosate.

52, 5-6.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

573. Murphy, T. R. Selective Control of Winter A nnual Weeds Using Non-Selective Herbicides in Dormant

Bermudagrass Turf. 51, 84-85.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

574. Nadolska-Orczyk, A. and Orczyk, W. Study of the Factors Influencing Agrobacterium-Mediated

Transformation of Pea (Pisum Sativum L.). 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

575. Nadolska-Orczyk, A.; Pietrusinska, A.; Binka-Wyrwa, A.; Kuc, D., and Orczyk, W. Diploid Potato (Solanum

Tuberosum L.) As a Model Crop to Study Transgene Expression. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

576. Nagy, A.; Pauk, J.; Takacs, K., and Gelencser, E. Nutritional evaluation of the proteins of broad range

herbicide resistant spring wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) lines. II. Resistance to digestion of marker

proteins in rat model. 2008; 37, (2): 159-166.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

577. Nair, Satish K. and van der Donk, Wilfred A. Structure and mechanism of enzymes involved in biosynthesis

and breakdown of the phosphonates fosfomycin, dehydrophos, and phosphinothricin: Special

Section: Trends in Enzymology 2010. 2011 Jan 1-; 505, (1): 13-21.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

578. NAKAKI, T.; MISHIMA, A.; SUZUKI, E.; SHINTANI, F., and FUJII, T. Glufosinate ammonium, a

herbicide, stimulates nitric oxide production in rat cerebellum. 1999 Mar 22-1999 Mar 25; 79

(SUPPL. 1). 1999. 42P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-82 579. Nakamura, S.; Mano, S.; Tanaka, Y.; Ohnishi, M.; Nakamori, C.; Araki, M. ; Niwa, T.; Nishimura, M.;

Kaminaka, H.; Nakagawa, T.; Sato, Y., and Ishiguro, S. Gateway Binary Vectors with the Bialaphos

Resistance Gene, bar, as a Selection Marker for Plant Transformation. 2010; 74, (6): 1315-1319.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

580. Nakazato, L.; Dutra, V.; Broetto , L.; Staats, C. C.; Vainstein, M. H., and Schrank, A. Development of an

expression vector for Metarhizium anisopliae based on the tef-1 alpha homologous promoter. 2006;

72, (3): 521-528.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

581. Nam, J.; Mysore, K. S.; Zheng, C.; Knue, M. K.; Matthysse, A. G., and Gelvin, S. B. Identification of T-Dna

Tagged Arabidopsis Mutants That Are Resistan t to Transformation by Agrobacterium. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

582. Nam, J. S.; Mysore, K. S., and Gelvin, S. B. Agrobacterium Tumefaciens Transformation of the Radiation

Hypersensitive Arabidopsis Thaliana Mutants Uvh1 and Rad5. 11 (11), 1136-1141.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

583. Nelson, B. K.; Cai, X., and Ne benfu(dieresis)hr, A. A Multicolored Set of in Vivo Organelle Markers for CoLocalization Studies in Arabidopsis and Other Plants. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

584. NEWMARK, P. PLANT GENETIC SYSTEMS GETS BASTA RESISTANCE. (N Y); 5 (4). 1987. 321..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

585. Nigro, S. A.; Makunga, N. P.; Jones, N. B., and Van Staden, J. A Biolistic Approach Towards Producing

Transgenic Pinus Patula Embryonal Suspensor Masses. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

586. Nogue, S.; Lluis, M.; Miro, O.; Medina, M.; Gonzalez, C., and Munne, P. Central Nervous System

Depression, Acute Respiratory Insufficiency and Alterations in Heart Rate Associated With

Glufosinate Poisoning. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

587. Norris, J. L.; Shaw, D. R.; Snipes, C. E., and Ak in, D. S. Influence of Row Spacing and Residual Herbicides

on Weed Control in Roundup Ready and Liberty Link Soybean. 52, 53.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

588. Novak, W. K. and Haslberger, A. G. Substantial equivalence of antinutrients and inherent plant toxins in

genetically modified novel foods. 2000 Jun; 38, (6): 473-483.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

589. NUBBE, M. E.; ADAMS, V. D.; WATTS, R. J., and CLARK, Y. R. ORGANICS. 62 (4). 1990. 359-383..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

590. Obojska, A. ; Berlicki, L.; Kafarski, P.; Lej czak, B.; Chicca, M., and Forlani, G. Herbicidal Pyridyl

Derivatives of Aminomethylene-Bisphosphonic Acid Inhibit Plant Glutamine Synthetase.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

591. Odell, Luke R.; Nilsson, Mikael T.; Gising, Jo han; Lagerlund, Olof; Muthas, Daniel; Nordqvist, Anneli;

Karl+_n, Anders, and Larhed, Mats. Functionalized 3-amino-imidazo[1,2-a]pyridines: A novel class

of drug-like Mycobacterium tuberculosis glutamine synthetase inhibitors. 2009 Aug 15-; 19, (16):

4790-4793.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-83 592. Oh, S. M.; Shin, D. Y.; Yang, J. S., and Han, H. J. Studies on the Application Method of Herbicides for

Control of Regrowing Rye and Weeds in Nonplowing Direct Sowing Culture of Silage Corn (Zea

mays L.) Cropped After Rye. SOIL; 1992; 34, (2): 57-62(KOR) (ENG ABS).

Notes: Chemical of Concer n: GFSNH,MTL,PDM,PMT,SZ

593. OHNO, C.; OTAKI, M.; MORI, Y.; HISAMATSU, Y., and NAKAZAWA, H. Simultaneous determination

of residual phosphorus-containing amino acid herbicides in agricultural products by HPLC. 40 (1).

1999. 75-79..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

594. Ohtake, T.; Yasuda, H.; Takahashi, H.; Goto, T.; Suzuki, K.; Yonemura, K., and Hishida, A. Decreased

plasma and cerebrospinal fluid glutamine concentrations in a patient with bialaphos poisoning. 2001;

20, (8): 429-434.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

595. Ohtani, Yoshimi; Hayashi, Harutoshi, and Higuchi, Yoichiro. Simultaneous Determination of Glufosinate,

Glyphosate and Phenoxyalkanoic Acid Herbicides in River Water With Ion-Exchange Cartridge.

1997; 20, (2): 108-111.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

596. Olguin, E. R.; Arrieta-Espino za, G.; Lobo, J. A., and Espinoza-Esquiv el, A. M. Assessment of Gene Flow

From a Herbicide-Resistant Indica Rice (Oryza Sa tiva L.) To the Costa Rican Weedy Rice (Oryza

Sativa) in Tropical America: Factors Affecting Hybridization Rates and Characterization of F1

Hybrids.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

597. Olofsdotter, M.; Valverde, B. E., and Madsen, K. H. Herbicide Resistant Rice (Oryza Sativa L.): Global

Implications for Weedy Rice and Weed Management. 2000; 13, (3): 279-295.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

598. Omirulleh, S.; Ismagulova, A.; Feher, A.; Bilgin , M.; Morocz, S., and Dudits, D. Differential Activity of

Wheat Histone H4 Promoter in Tran sgenic Maize. 81, 549-558.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

599. Omura, S.; Hinotozawa, K.; Imamura, N., and Mu rata, M. The Structure of Ph osalacine, a New Herbicidal

Antibiotic Containing Phosphinothricin.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

600. ONO, S.; IWAGAKI, I., and TAKAHARA, T. EFFECTS OF LIGHT AND FACTORS RELATED TO

CULTURE ON THE PHOTOSYNTHESIS OF CITRUS TREES. (KUCHINOTSU); 0 (9). 1987.

25-50..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

601. Orejuela, E. and Silva, M. Rapid and Sensitiv e Determination of Phosphorus-Containing Amino Acid

Herbicides in Soil Samples by Capillary Zone Electrophoresis With Diode Laser-Induced

Fluorescence Detection.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

602. Orson, J. H.; Oldfield, J. F., and Bcpc. Gene flow and the practical management of genetically modified crops

in the UK. 1999(72): 247-252.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

603. OUDEJANS, J. HM. Wageningen Agricultural University Papers, 99. 1. Studies on IPM policy in SE Asia:

Two centuries of plant protection in Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. 1999 Oct 1; 99 (1). 1999.

XVIII+316P..

### AI-84 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

604. Owen, M. D. K. Current Use of Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Soybean and Corn in the USA. 2000; 19, (8-

10): 765-771.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

605. OXTOBY, E. and HUGHES, M. A. BREEDING FOR HERBICIDE RESISTANCE USING MOLECULAR

AND CELLULAR TECHNIQUES. 40 (1-2). 1989. 173-180..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

606. Padegimas, L.; Shul'ga, O. A., and Skriabin, K. G. [Creation of Transgenic Plants Nicotiana Tabacum and

Solanum Tuberosum, Resistant to the Herbicide Phosphinothricin].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

607. PADGETTE, S. R.; DELLA-CIOPPA, G.; SHAH , D. M.; FRALEY, R. T., and KISHORE, G. M.

SELECTIVE HERBICIDE TOLERANCE THROUGH PROTEIN ENGINEERING. (ED.). CELL

CULTURE AND SOMATIC CELL GENETICS OF PLANTS, VOL. 6. MOLECULAR BIOLOGY

OF PLANT NUCLEAR GENES. XXVI+494P. ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.: TROY, MISSOURI,

USA; LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ILLUS. ISBN 0-12-715006-4.; 0 (0). 1990. 441-476..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

608. Pallutt, B. and Hommel, B. The Concept and the Firs t Results of the Assesment of Glufosinate-Tolerant Rape

and Maize in a 4-Field Crop Rotation (Konzept Und Erste Ergebnisse Zur Bewertung Von

Glufosinat-Tolerantem Raps Und Mais Im Rahmen Einer 4-Feldrigen Fruchtfolge). 1998; 16, 427-

433(GER) (ENG ABS). 157153.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

609. PALMER, C. E. and OELCK, M. The relationship of phosphinothricin to growth and metabolism in cell

cultures of Brassica napus L. 141 (1). 1993. 105-110..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

610. Paoletti, M. G. and Pimentel, D. Environmental risk s of pesticides versus genetic engineering for agricultural

pest control. 2000; 12, (3): 279-303.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

611. Park, H. Y. ; Lee, P. H.; Shin, D. H., and Kim, G. W. Anterograde Amnesia With Hippocampal Lesions

Following Glufosinate Intoxication.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

612. Park, S. H. ; Lee, B. M.; Salas, M. G.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Shorter T-Dna or Additional

Virulence Genes Improve Agrobactrium-Mediated Transformation. 101 (7), 1015-1020.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

613. Pascual, M. B.; Molina-Rueda, J. J.; CÁ Novas, F. M., and Gallardo, F. Spatial Distribution of

Cytosolic Nadp(+)-Isocitrate Dehydrogen ase in Pine Embryos and Seedlings.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

614. Patnaik, D. and Khurana, P. Genetic Transformation of Indian Bread (T. Aestivum) and Pasta (T. Durum)

Wheat by Particle Bombardment of Mature Embryo-Derived Calli. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

615. Pawlowski, W. P.; Torbert, K. A.; Rines, H. W., and Somers, D. A. Irregular Patterns of Transgene Silencing

in Allohexaploid Oat. 38 (4), 597-607.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-85 616. Paz, M. M.; Martinez, J. C.; Kalvig, A. B.; Fonger, T. M. , and Wang, K. Improved Cotyledonary Node

Method Using an Alternative Explant Derived From Mature Seed for Efficient AgrobacteriumMediated Soybean Tr ansformation. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

617. Peck, S. C. ; Cooke, H. A.; Cicchillo, R. M.; Ma lova, P.; Hammerschmidt, F.; Na ir, S. K., and Van Der Donk,

W. A. Mechanism and Substrate Recognition of 2-Hydroxyethylphosphonate Dioxygenase.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

618. Pellegrineschi, A.; Brito, R. M.; Velazquez, L.; N oguera, L. M.; Pfeiff er, W.; McLean, S., and Hoisington, D.

The Effect of Pretreatment With Mild Heat and Drought Stresses on the Explant and Biolistic

Transformation Frequency of Three Durum Wheat Cultivars. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

619. Perales, Lorena; Pe+_arrubia, Lola, and Cornejo, Mar+ a-Jes+ s. Induction of a polyubiquitin gene promoter

by dehydration stresses in transformed rice cells. 2008 Feb 1-; 165, (2): 159-171.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

620. Perrella, G.; Cremona, G.; Consiglio, F.; Errico, A.; Bressan, R. A., and Co nicella, C. Screening for

mutations affecting sexual repro duction after activation tagging in Arabidopsis thaliana. 2006; 47,

(2): 109-111.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

621. Perret, S. J.; Valentine, J.; Leggett, J. M., and Morris, P. Integration, Expression and Inheritance of

Transgenes in Hexaploid Oat (Avena Sativa L.). 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

622. Peterman, D. R.; Elias, B., and Frittelli, J. Transp ortation Security: Issues for th e 110th Congress. (GRA&I),

Issue 01, 2008.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

623. Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. Control of Cleavers Wi th Liberty in Glufosinate-Resistant Winter Oilseed Rape.

2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

624. Petersen, W.; Umbeck, P.; Hokanson, K., and Ha lsey, M. Biosafety Considerations for Selectable and

Scorable Markers Used in Cassava (Man ihot Esculenta Crantz) Biotechnology.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

625. Petrillo, C. P.; Carneiro, N. P.; Purcino, A. A. C. ; Carvalho, C. H. S.; Alves, J. D., and Carneiro, A. A.

Optimization of particle bombardment parameters for the genetic transformation of Brazilian maize

inbred lines. 2008; 43, (3): 371-378.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

626. Phillipson, B. A.; Pimpl, P.; DaSilva, L. L. P.; Cr ofts, A. J.; Taylor, J. P.; Mo vafeghi, A.; Robinson, D. G.,

and Denecke, J. Secretory Bulk Flow of Soluble Proteins Is Efficient and Copii Dependent. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

627. Phipps, R. H.; Jones, A. K.; Tingey, A. P., and Abeyasekera, S. Effect of Corn Silage From an HerbicideTolerant Genetically Modified Variety on Milk Pr oduction and Absence of Transgenic Dna in Milk.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

628. Phogat, S. K.; Burma, P. K., and Pental, D. High Frequency Regeneration of Brassica Napus Varieties and

Genetic Transformation of Stocks Containing Fe rtility Restorer Genes for Two Cytoplasmic Male

Sterility Systems. 2000.

### AI-86 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

629. PiÑ Eiro, M.; GarcÍ A-Olmedo, F., and Diaz, I. Redox Modulation of the Expression of

Bacterial Genes Encoding Cysteine-Rich Proteins in Plant Protoplasts.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

630. Pinheiro, P. V.; de Faria, J. C.; Nogueira, Eopel, and Aragao, F. J. L. Transgene inheritances and genetic

similarities of near isogenic lines of genetically modified common beans. 2009; 44, (9): 1168-1176.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

631. Piriyapittaya, M.; Jayanta, S.; Mitra, S., a nd Leepipatpiboon, N. Micro-scale membrane extraction of

glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water followed by high-performance liquid

chromatography and post-column derivatization with fluorescence detector. 2008; 1189, (1-2): 483-

492.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

632. Pline, W. A. and Hatzios, K. K. Interactions of Ammonium Sulfate or Pelargonic Acid With Glufosinate or

Glyphosate on Two Perennial and Three Annual Weed Species. 52, 60-61.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

633. ---. Temperature Effects on the Response of Liberty-Link and Roundup-Ready Soybeans to Glufosinate and

Glyphosate Treatments. 52, 172-173.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

634. Pline, W. A.; Lacy, G. H.; Stromberg, V., an d Hatzios, K. K. Antibacterial Activity of the Herbicide

Glufosinate on Pseudomonas syringae Pathovar Glycinea. 2001; 71, (1): 48-55.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

635. Pniewski, T.; Kapusta, J.; Bocią G, P.; Wojciechowicz, J.; Kostrzak, A.; Gdula, M.; FedorowiczStroń Ska, O.; WÓ Jcik, P.; Otta, H.; Samardakiewicz, S.; Wolko, B.; Pł, and

Ucienniczak, A. Low-Dose Oral Immunization With Lyophilized Tissue of Herbicide-Resistant

Lettuce Expressing Hepatitis B Su rface Antigen for Prototype Pl ant-Derived Vaccine Tablet

Formulation.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

636. Pogorelko, Gennady V.; Fursova, Oksana V.; Ogarkova, Olga A., and Tarasov, Valentin A. A new technique

for activation tagging in Arabidopsis. 2008 May 15-; 414, (1  Çô2): 67-75.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

637. POHLNER, D. EMEX AUSTRALIS AND DRIED VINE FRUIT PRODUCTION IN SUNRAYSIA. 1996;

11 (4). 1996. 150-153..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

638. POOL, R. M. ; DUNST, R. M.; KAMAS, J. S., and FENDINGER, A. G. VINEYARD WEED

MANAGEMENT USING NON-PERSISTENT HERBICIDES. 1997 Jul; 48 (2). 1997. 250..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

639. Pornprom, T.; Prodmatee, N., and Chatchawankanphanich, O. Glutamine Synthetase Mutation Conferring

Target-Site-Based Resistance to Glufos inate in Soybean Cell Selections.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

640. Pornprom, T.; Surawattananon, S., and Srinives, P. Ammonia Accumulation as an Index of GlufosinateTolerant Soybean Cell Lines. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-87 641. PORTER, W. C. and PARISH, R. L. HOODED SPRAY APPLICATION OF POSTEMERGENCE

HERBICIDES FOR SOUTHERNPEA PRODUCTION. 1996 Feb 3-1996 Feb 5; 31 (5). 1996. 748..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

642. Prasertsongskun, S.; Sangduen, N.; Suwanwong, S. ; Santisopasri, V., and Matsumoto, H. Increased Activity

and Reduced Sensitivity of Glutamine Synthetase in Glufosinate-Resistant Vetiver (Vetiveria

Zizanioides Nash) Cells. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

643. Preuss, S. B.; Jiang, C. Z.; Baik, H. K.; Kado, C. I., and Britt, A. B. Radiation-Sensitive Arabidopsis Mutants

Are Proficient for T-Dna Transformation. [Erratum: Dec 1999, V. 262 (4/5), P. 909.]. 261 (4/5),

623-626.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

644. Przetakiewicz, A.; Karas, A.; Orczyk, W., and Nadolska-Orczyk, A. Agrobacterium-Mediated

Transformation of Polyploid Cereals. The Efficien cy of Selection and Transgene Expression in

Wheat. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

645. Puchta, H.; Dujon, B., and Hohn, B. Two Differ ent but Related Mechanisms Are Used in Plants for the

Repair of Genomic Double-Strand Breaks by Homologous Recombination. 93 (10), 5055-5060.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

646. PUEHLER, A. FIELD EXPERIMENTS EVALUATION OF THE CONSEQUENCES OF TECHNOLOGY

AND RISK ASSESSMENT WITH THE HELP OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS AND

GENETICALLY MODIFIED MICROORGANISMS.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

647. Punja, Z. K. Transgenic Carrots Expressing a Thaumatin-Like Protein Disp lay Enhanced Resistance to

Several Fungal Pathogens. 2005; 27, (2): 291-296. 158427.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

648. Qian, K.; He, S.; Tang, T.; Shi, T. Y.; Li, J. Q., and Cao, Y. S. A rapid liquid chromatography method for

determination of glufosinate residue in maize after derivatisation. 2011; 127, (2): 722-726.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

649. Quinn, J. P. Biochemistry: Uncharted Route for Antibiotics.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

650. Raemakers CJJM; Sofiari, E.; Jacobsen, E., and Visser, R. G. F. Regeneration and Transformation of

Cassava. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

651. Raemakers, K.; Schreuder, M.; Pereira, I.; Muny ikwa, T.; Jacobsen, E., and Visser, R. Progress Made in Fec

Transformation of Cassava. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

652. Ramesh, S.; Nagadhara, D.; Reddy, V. D., and Rao, K. V. Production of Transgenic Indica Rice Resistant to

Yellow Stem Borer and Sap-Sucking Insects, Using Super-Binary Vectors of Agrobacterium

Tumefaciens. 2004; 166, (4): 1077-1085.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

653. RAMOS, J. L.; DUQUE, E., and RAMOS-GONZALEZ, M. I. Survival in soils of an herbicide-resistant

Pseudomonas putida strain bearing a recombinant TOL plasmid. 57 (1). 1991. 260-266..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-88 654. RAMOS TOMBO GM and BELLUS, D. Chirality and crop protection.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

655. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, J. C. A review of the effects of humidity, humectants, and

surfactant composition on the absorption and efficacy of highly water-soluble herbicides. 2005 Jun;

82, (2): 162-175.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

656. Rankins, A. ; Byred, J. D.; Mask, D. B.; Barnett, J. W., and Gerard, P. D. Survey of soybean weeds in

Mississippi. 2005; 19, (2): 492-498.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

657. Rasche, E. and Gadsby, M. Glufosinate Ammonium Tolerant Crops - International Commercial

Developments and Experiences. VOLS. 1-3, INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE, BRIGHTON,

ENGLAND, UK, NOVEMBER 17-20, 1997. XX IV+442P.//: SOIL; 1997; 9, 941-946.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

658. Rasco-Gaunt, S.; Liu, D.; Li, C. P.; Doherty, A.; Hagemann, K.; Riley, A.; Thompson, T.; Brunkan, C.;

Mitchell, M.; Lowe, K.; Krebbers, E.; Lazzeri, P.; Jayne, S., and Rice, D. Characterisation of the

Expression of a Novel Constitutive Maize Promoter in Transgenic Wheat and Maize. 2003; 21, (6):

569-576.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

659. Read, M. A. and Hewson, R. T. Glufosinate-Ammonium: a New De siccant for Peas, Beans and Linseed .

379-384.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

660. Reboud, X. Effect of a Gap on Gene Flow Between Otherwise Adjacen t Transgenic Brassica Napus Crops.

106 (6), 1048-1058.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

661. REDMANN, R. E.; QI, M. Q., and BELYK, M. Growth of transgenic and standard canola (Brassica napus

L.) varieties in response to soil salinity. 74 (4). 1994. 797-799..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

662. REHEUL, D. THE APPLICATION OF HERBICIDES IN GRASS BREEDING. 54 (2 PART A). 1989. 391-

394..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

663. Ren, Yanfei ; Lv, Jun; Wang, Hua; Li, Linchuan; Peng, Yufa, and Qu, Li-Jia. A comparative proteomics

approach to detect unintended eff ects in transgenic Arabidopsis. 2009 Oct; 36, (10 ): 629-639.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

664. Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. Classifi cation of Herbicides by Site of Action for Weed Resistance

Management Strategies. SOIL; 1997; 11, (2): 384-393.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACF,ACO,ACR,AMTL,AMTR,ASM,A TZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BSF,BT,BTC,BTY,C

LT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CRM,CSF,CYC, CZE,DDP,DFP,DFQ,DMB,DMM,DPP1,DQTBr,DSMA,DTP,

DU,EFL,EFS,EMSF,EPTC,FDE,FMC,FNP,FSF,FT CM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I

XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MC PP1,MLNR,MLT,MSMA,MTL,MTS,NFZ,NPM,N

PP,NSF,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PCH,PCL,PDM,PEB,PHMD,PMT,PPN,PPZ,PQT,PRO,PSF,PTB,PYD,PY

Z,PZM,QNC,RIM,SFZ,SID,SMU,SXD,SZ,TBC, TBNU,TET,TFN,THF,TKY,TPR,TRB,TRL,TSF,

VNT

665. Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. Classifi cation of Herbicides by Site of Action for Weed Resistance

### AI-89 Management Strategies. 1997; 11, (2): 384-393. 127138.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACF,ACO,ACR,AMTL,AMTR,ASM,A TZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BSF,BT,BTC,BTY,C

LT,CMZ,CPP,CPR,CRM,CSF,CYC, CZE,DDP,DFP,DFQ,DMB,DMM,DPP1,DQTBr,DSMA,DTP,

DU,EFL,EFS,EMSF,EPTC,FDE,FMC,FNP,FSF,FT CM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I

XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MC PP1,MLNR,MLT,MSMA,MTL,MTS,NFZ,NPM,N

PP,NSF,ODZ,OXF,OYZ,PCH,PCL,PDM,PEB,PHMD,PMT,PPN,PPZ,PQT,PRO,PSF,PTB,PYD,PY

Z,PZM,QNC,RIM,SFZ,SID,SMU,SXD,SZ,TBC, TBNU,TET,TFN,THF,TKY,TPR,TRB,TRL,TSF,

VNT

666. Rhodes, G. N. J.; Mueller, T. C., and Hayes, R. M. Performance of Roundup Ready Corn Weed Control

Systems in Tennessee. 51, 20.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

667. Riches, C. R. and Valverde, B. E. Agricultural and biological diversity in Latin America: Implications for

development, testing, and commercialization of herbicide-resistant crops. 2002; 16, (1): 200-214.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

668. RIEGER, M. A.; PRESTON, C., and POWLES, S. B. Risks of gene flow from transgenic herbicide-resistant

canola (Brassica napus) to weedy relatives in southern Australian cropping systems. 50 (2). 1999.

115-128..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

669. RIOUX R and RUBE, Y. EFFECT OF GLUFOSINATE ON DEFOLIATION OF POTATOES AND

GERMINATION OF TUBERS . 71 (3). 1990. 146..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

670. Risse, J. M.; Pu(dieresis)hler, A., and Flaschel, E. Production of N-Acetyl-Phosphinothricin: a Substance

Used for Inducing Male Sterility in Transgenic Plants. 2005; 5, (1): 38-45.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

671. Robertson, D. L. and Alberte, R. S. Isolation and Characterization of Glutamine Synthetase From the Marine

Diatom Skeletonema Costatum. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

672. Robinson, D. W. Weed Control in Amenity Plantings. 15-24.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

673. Rodenburg, Jonne and Demont, Matty. Potential of Herbicide-Resistant Rice Technologies for Sub-Saharan

Africa. 12, (3-4): 313-325.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

674. Rojano-Delgado, A. M.; Ruiz-Jimenez, J.; de Castro , M. D. L., and De Prado, R. Determination of glyphosate

and its metabolites in plant material by reversed-pol arity CE with indirect ab sorptiometric detection.

2010; 31, (8): 1423-1430.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

675. Romano, E.; Proite, K.; Soares , A.; Torres, A.; Arieta, J.; Jach, G. ; Mentaberry, A., and Monte, D. New

Binary Vectors for Plant Co-Transformation. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

676. Roy-Barman, S.; Sautter, C., and Chattoo, B. B. Expression of the Lipid Transfer Protein Ace-Amp1 in

Transgenic Wheat Enhances Antifungal Activity and Defense Responses. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-90 677. Royer, A.; Beguin, S.; Sochor, H., and Communal, P. Y. Determination of Glufosinate Ammonium and Its

Metabolite (Ae F064619 and Ae F061517) Resi dues in Water by Gas Chromatography With

Tandem Mass Spectrometry After Ion Exch ange Cleanup and Derivatization.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

678. Royer, A.; Beguin, S.; Tabet, J. C.; Hulot, S. ; Reding, M. A., and Communal, P. Y. Determination of

glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid residues in water by gas chromatography with tandem

mass spectrometry after exchange ion resin purification and derivatization. Application on vegetable

matrixes. 2000; 72, (16): 3826-3832.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

679. RUBOW, T. STATUS FOR HERBICIDE USE IN ORNAMENTALS NURSERIES AND FORESTRY IN

DENMARK. 324; (COMMUNICATIONS FROM THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE

FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, NO. 324); 2ND

INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON MINOR USES CALLED BY THE FEDERAL

BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH CENT RE FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, JUNE 11-13,

1996. 145P. BIOLOGISCHE BUNDESANSTAL T FUER LAND- UND FORSTWIRTSCHAFT:

BERLIN-DAHLEM, GERMANY. ISBN 3-8263-3129-X.; 0 (324). 1996. 111-113..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

680. Ruhland, M. ; Engelhardt, G., and Pawlizki, K. A Comparative Investigation of the Metabolism of the

Herbicide Glufosinate in Cell Cultures of Transg enic Glufosinate-Resist ant and Non-Transgenic

Oilseed Rape (Brassica Napus) and Corn (Zea Mays).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

681. Ruiter, R.; Brande, I. van den; Stals, E.; Delaure, S.; Cornelissen, M., and D'Halluin, K. Spontaneous

Mutation Frequency in Plants Obscures the Eff ect of Chimeraplasty. 53, (5): 675-689.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

682. RUPPRECHT, J. K.; DACUS, S. C.; DANIEL, L. E.; SINGER, S. S.; STUMPF, K. A., and SMITH, S. M.

METABOLISM OF-14C-GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN TRANSGENIC SOYBEANS

TREATED UNDER NORMAL FIELD CONDITIONS. 1996 Mar 24-1996 Mar 28; 211 (1-2).

1996. AGRO 56..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

683. Sabri, N.; Pelissier, B., and Teissie, J. Transien t and Stable Electrotransformati ons of Intact Black Mexican

Sweet Maize Cells Are Obtained After Pr eplasmolysis. 15 (12), 924-928.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

684. SACHS, A. UPHOLDING HUMAN RIGHTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE. 1996; W. W.

NORTON AND CO., LTD.: LONDON, ENGLAND, UK. ISBN 0-393-31393-X(PAPER); ISBN 0-

393-03851-3(CLOTH).; 1996 (0). 1996. 133-151..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

685. Sadanandam, A.; Uhrig, H., and Salamini, F. Protoplast Culture of 2n S. Tuberosum as a Source of Mutant

Phenotypes. 379-380.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

686. Sadi, B. B. ; Vonderheide, A. P., and Caruso, J. A. Analysis of Phosphorus Herbicides by Ion-Pairing

Reversed-Phase Liquid Chromatography Coupled to Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass

Spectrometry With Octapole Reaction Cell.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

687. Saeglitz, C.; Pohl, M., and Bartsch, D. Monito ring Gene Flow From Transgenic Sugar Beet Using

Cytoplasmic Male-Sterile Bait Plants. 2000.

### AI-91 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

688. Saito, T.; Aoki, H.; Namera, A.; Oikawa, H.; Miyazaki, S.; Nakamoto , A., and Inokuchi, S. Mix-mode TiOC18 monolith spin column extraction and GC-MS for the simultaneous assay of organophosphorus

compounds and glufosinate, and glyphosate in human serum and urine.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

689. Sakhno, L. O.; Komarnyts'kyĭ Ik; Cherep, M. N., and Kuchuk, M. V. [Phosphinothricin-Resistant

Somatic Hybrids Brassica Napus + Orychophragmus Violaceus].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

690. Salas, M. G.; Park, S. H.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Temperature Influence on Stable T-Dna

Integration in Plant Cells. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

691. Salerno, S.; DaiPra, L., and DelleFratte, A. Ana lisi ambientale di due aziende di produzione di manufatti

ceramici nel comprensorio di Civita Castellana. (Environmental analysis in two manufacturing firms

of Civita Castellana disctrict (I taly)). (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2095.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

692. SANCHO, J. V.; HERNANDEZ, F.; LOPEZ, F. J.; HOGENDOORN, E. A.; DIJKMAN, E., and VAN

ZOONEN P. Rapid determination of glufosinate, glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in

environmental water samples using precolumn fluorogenic labeling and coupled-column liquid

chromatography. 737 (1). 1996. 75-83..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

693. SANCHO, J. V.; LOPEZ, F. J.; HERNANDEZ, F.; HOGENDOORN, E. A., and VAN ZOONEN P. RAPID

DETERMINATION OF GLUFOSINATE IN EN VIRONMENTAL WATER SAMPLES USING 9-

FLUORENYLMETHOXYCARBONYL PRECOLUMN DERIVATIZATION LARGE-VOLUME

INJECTION AND COUPLED-COLUMN LIQUID CHROMATOGRAPHY. 678 (1). 1994. 59-67..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

694. Sandhu, S. Generation, Characterization and Risk Assessment of Transgenic Apomictic Bahaigrass. SOIL;

2008: 117 p. (UMI# 0822783).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

695. Sandhu, S.; Blount, A. R.; Quesenberry, K. H., and Altpeter, F. Apomixis and ploidy barrier suppress pollenmediated gene flow in field grown transgenic turf and forage grass (Paspalum notatum Flugg,).

2010; 121, (5): 919-929.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

696. Sato, K.; Jin, J. Y.; Takeuchi, T.; Miwa, T.; Suen ami, K.; Takekoshi, Y., and Ka nno, S. Integrated Pulsed

Amperometric Detection of Glufosinate, Bialapho s and Glyphosate at Gold Electrodes in AnionExchange Chromatography.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

697. SAUTER, H.; LAUER, M., and FRITSH, H. METABOLIC PROFILING OF PLANTS A NEW

DIAGNOSTIC TECHNIQUE. 1991, 288-299.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

698. SAWAHEL, W. A. Ultrasound-mediated stable transformation of potato tuber discs. 10 (11). 1996. 821-

824..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

699. Schabenberger, O.; Tharp, B. E.; Kells, J. J., and Penner, D. Statistical Tests for Hormesis and Effective

### AI-92 Dosages in Herbicide Dose Response. SOIL; 1999; 91, (4): 713-721.

Notes: Chemical of Co ncern: GFS,GYPI,NHSO4

700. Schafers, C.; Hommen, U.; Dembinski, M., and Go nzalez-Valero, J. F. Aquatic Macroinvertebrates in the

Altes Land, an Intensely Used Orchard Region in Germany: Correlation Between Community

Structure and Potential for Pesticide Exposure. 2006; 25, (12): 3275-3288. 160438.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMY,Ca ptan,FPY,GFS,GYP,KRSM ,MZB,PPX,PYM,SFR

701. Schaufele, W. R. and Pfleiderer, U. E. Trials to Control Volunteer Rape Seed, Potatoes and Weed Beets in

Herbicide Resistant Sugar Beets - First Results. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

702. Schenk, B.; Weimer, M.; Bremer, S.; van der Burg , B.; Cortvrindt, R.; Freyberg er, A.; Lazzari, G.; Pellizzer,

C.; Piersma, A.; Schafer, W. R.; Seiler, A.; Witte rs, H., and Schwarz, M. The ReProTect Feasibility

Study, a novel comprehensive in vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants. 2010; 30, (1): 200-

218.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

703. Schenk, Barbara; Weimer, Marc; Bremer, Susanne; van der Burg, Bart; Cortvrindt, Rita; Freyberger, Alexius;

Lazzari, Giovanna; Pellizzer, Cris tian; Piersma, Aldert; Sch+ ń fer, Wolfgang R.; Seiler, Andrea;

Witters, Hilda, and Schwarz, Michael. The ReProT ect Feasibility Study, a novel comprehensive in

vitro approach to detect reproductive toxicants: ReProTect Special Issue. 2010 Aug; 30, ( 1): 200-

218.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

704. Schinko, Eva; Schad, Klaus; Eys, Sema; Keller, Ullrich, and Wohlleben, Wolfgang. Phosphinothricintripeptide biosynthesis: An original version of bacterial secondary metabolism?: Evolution of

Metabolic Diversity. 2009; 70, (15  Çô16): 1787-1800.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

705. Schmalenberger, A. and Tebbe, C. C. Bacterial Diversity in Maize Rhizospheres: Conclusions on the Use of

Genetic Profiles Based on Pcr-Amplified Partial Sma ll Subunit Rrna Genes in Ecological Studies.

12 (1), 251-262.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

706. Schmalenberger, A. and Tebbe, C. C. Genetic prof iling of noncultivated bacteria from the rhizospheres of

sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) reveal field and annual va riability but no effect of a transgenic herbicide

resistance. 2003; 49, (1): 1-8.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

707. Schmalenberger, Achim and Tebbe, Christoph C. Bacterial community composition in the rhizosphere of a

transgenic, herbicide-resistant maize (Zea mays) and comparison to its non-transgenic cultivar

Bosphore. 2002 Apr; 40, (1): 29-37.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

708. Schmidt, C. P. and Pannell, D. J. The Role and Value of Herbicide-Resistant Lupins in Western Australian

Agriculture. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

709. Schmidt, M. A.; LaFayette, P. R.; Artelt, B. A. , and Parrott, W. A. A comparison of strategies for

transformation with multiple genes via microprojec tile-mediated bombardment . 2008; 44, (3): 162-

168.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

710. Scholte, M. ; D'Erfurth, I.; Rippa, S.; Mondy, S. ; Cosson, V.; Durand, P.; Breda, C.; Trinh, H.; Rodriguez-

### AI-93 Llorente, I.; Kondorosi, E.; Schultze, M.; Kondorosi, A., and Ratet, P. T-Dna Tagging in the Model

Legume Medicago Truncatula Allows Efficient Gene Discovery. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

711. Schulte-Hermann, R.; Wogan, G. N.; Berry, C.; Br own, N. A.; Czeizel, A.; Giavini, E.; Holmes, L. B. ;

Kroes, R.; Nau, H.; Neubert, D.; Oesch, F.; Ott, T.; Pelkonen, O. ; Robert-Gnansia, E., and Sullivan,

F. M. Analysis of Reproductive Toxicity and Classification of Glufosinate-Ammonium.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

712. SCHULZ, A.; TAGGESELLE, P.; TRIPIER, D., and BARTSCH, K. Stereospecific production of the

herbicide phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) by transamination: Isolation and characterization of a

phosphinothricin-specific transaminase from Escherichia coli. 56 (1). 1990. 1-6..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

713. Schwartz, B. M.; Kenworthy, K. E.; Engelke, M. C.; Genovesi, A. D., and Quesenberry, K. H. Heritability

Estimates for Turfgrass Performance and Stress Response in Zoysia spp. 2009; 49, (6): 2113-2118.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

714. Schwartz, D.; Alijah, R.; Nussbaumer, B.; Pelzer, S., and Wohlleben, W. The Peptide Synthetase Gene Phsa

From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Is Not Juxtaposed With Other Genes Involved in

Nonribosomal Biosynthesis of Peptides.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

715. ---. The Peptide Synthetase Gene Phsa From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Is Not Juxtoposed With Other

Genes Involved in Nonribosomal Biosynthesis of Peptides. 62 (2), 570-577.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

716. Schwartz, D.; Berger, S.; Hein zelmann, E.; Muschko, K.; Welzel, K., and Wohlleben, W. Biosynthetic Gene

Cluster of the Herbicide Phosphinothricin Tripeptide From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes

TÜ494.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

717. Schwartz, D.; Kaspar, S.; Kien zlen, G.; Muschko, K., and Wohlleben, W. Inactivation of the Tricarboxylic

Acid Cycle Aconitase Gene From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes TÜ494 Impairs

Morphological and Physiological Differentiation.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

718. Schwarzlose, G. L.; Ehlhardt, M. H.; Odom, P. N.; Smith, T. L., and Strachan, W. F. Evaluation of Liberty in

Rice. 51, 221.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

719. Scott, M. Paul; Peterson, Joan M.; Moran, Da niel L.; Sangtong, Varaporn, and Smith, LaTrice. A Wheat

Genomic Dna Fragment Reduces Pollen Transmissi on of Maize Transgenes by Reducing Pollen

Viability. 16, (5): 629-643.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

720. Screpanti, C.; Accinelli, C.; Vicari, A., and Catizone, P. Glyphosate and Glufosinate-A mmonium Runoff

From a Corn-Growing Area in Italy. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

721. SEAMAN, S. R.; BRETTLE, R. P. , and GORE, S. M. Mortality from ov erdose among injecting drug users

recently released from prison: Database lin kage study. 316 (7129 ). 1998. 426-428..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

722. See, H. H.; Hauser, P. C.; Ibrahim, W. A., and Sanagi, M. M. Rapid and Direct Determination of Glyphosate,

### AI-94 Glufosinate, and Aminophosphonic Acid by Online Preconcentration Ce With Contactless

Conductivity Detection.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

723. SHAH, D. M. ; GASSER, C. S.; DELLA-CIOPPA, G., and KISHORE, G. M. GENETIC ENGINEERING

OF HERBICIDE RESISTANCE GENES. (E D.). PLANT GENE RESEARCH: BASIC

KNOWLEDGE AND APPLICATION: TEMPORAL AND SPATIAL REGULATION OF PLANT

GENES. XIII+344P. SPRINGER-VERLAG: VIENNA, AUSTRIA; NEW YORK, NEW YORK,

USA. ILLUS. ISBN 3-211-82046-9; ISBN 0-387-82046-9.; 0 (0). 1988. 297-312..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

724. Shaner, D. L. Herbicide safety relative to comm on targets in plants and mammals. 2004; 60, (1): 17-24.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

725. SHANER, D. L. and SINGH, B. K. HOW DOES INHIBITION OF AMINO ACID BIOSYNTHESIS KILL

PLANTS? 7TH ANNUAL PENN STATE SYMPOSIUM IN PLANT PHYSIOLOGY,

UNIVERSITY PARK, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, MAY 28-30, 1992. XIII+386P. AMERICAN

SOCIETY OF PLANT PHYSIOLOGISTS: ROCKVILLE, MARYLAND, USA. ISBN 0-943088-

23-2.; 0 (0). 1992. 174-183..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

726. Shaner, D. L.; Wiles, L., and Hansen, N. Behavior of Atrazine in Limited Irrigation Cropping Systems in

Colorado: Prior Use is Important. SOIL; 2009; 38, (5): 1861-1869.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ATZ,CPR,DMB,GFS,GYP, MTL,MTS,PDM,SFZ,TBNU,THF

727. ---. Behavior of Atrazine in Limited Irrigation Cropping Systems in Colorado: Prior Use Is Important. 2009;

38, (5): 1861-1869. 161045.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ATZ,CPR,DMB,GFS,GYP, MTL,MTS,PDM,SFZ,TBNU,THF

728. Sharma, Vijendra K.; Monostori, Tamas; Gobel, Cornelia; Hansch, Robert; Bittner, Florian; Wasternack,

Claus; Feussner, Ivo; Mendel, Ralf R.; Hause, Bettin a, and Schulze, Jutta. Transgenic barley plants

overexpressing a 13-lipoxygenase to modify oxylipin signature. 2006 Feb; 67, ( 3): 264-276.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

729. Shen, G. Z. ; Wang, X. Q.; Yin, L. Q.; Wang, J.; Li , L., and Zhang, J. L. [Genetic Analysis of a Rolled-Leaf

Mutant in Rice Population of T-Dna Insertion].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

730. Shen, W. H. and Hohn, B. Vectors Based on Maize Streak Virus Can Replicate to High Copy Numbers in

Maize Plants. 1995.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

731. SHERMA, J. DETERMINATION OF PESTICID ES BY THIN LAYER CHRO MATOGRAPHY. 7 (4).

1994. 265-272..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

732. Shigaki, T. ; Vyzasatya, R. R.; Sivitz, A. B.; Wa rd, J. M. ; Sze, H., and Hirschi, K. D. The Cre-Loxp

Recombination-Based Reporter System for Plant Transcriptional Expression Studies. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

733. SHILLITO, R. D.; DIMAIO, J. J.; LE, T.; CARSWELL, G. K., an d KRAMER, C. M. THE ACID TEST A

PH INDICATOR-BASED TEST TO IDENTIFY TRANSFORMANTS EXPRESSING PPT

ACETYL-TRANSFERASE. 1992 Apr 10-1992 Apr 16; 0 (16 PART F). 1992. 238..

### AI-95 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

734. Shim, Y. Y. ; Shin, W. S.; Moon, G. S., and Kim, K. H. Quantitative Analysis of Phosphinothricin-NAcetyltransferase in Genetically Modified He rbicide Tolerant Pepper by an Enzyme-Linked

Immunosorbent Assay. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

735. Shinohara, M.; Tsuchida, A.; Abe, Y.; Sadakata, H.; Nada, Y.; Koizumi, R.; Matsushima, K.; Yano, S., and

Naruse, T. Hemodialysis and Hemoperfusion in the Successful Treatment of a Poisoning With a

Herbicide Containing Glufosinate Ammonium and a Surfactant.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

736. Shipitalo, M. J.; Malone, R. W., and Owens, L. B. Impact of Glyphosate-Tolerant Soybean and GlufosinateTolerant Corn Production on Herbicide Losses in Surface Runoff. American Society of Agronomy,

677 South Segoe Rd Madison WI 53711 USA//: 2008; 37, (2): 401-408.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ACR,ATZ,GFSNH,LNR,MBZ

737. Shlapentokh, D. Drunkenness in the Context of Political Culture: The Case of Russian Revolutions.

(GRA&I), Issue 05, 2095.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

738. SHORT, P. and COLBORN, T. Pesticide use in the U.S. and policy implications: A focus on herbicides. 15

(1-2). 1999. 240-275..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

739. Shrawat, Ashok K.; Becker, Dirk, and L+¦rz, Horst. Agrobacterium tume faciens-mediated genetic

transformation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). 2007 Feb; 172, (2): 281-290.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

740. Siimes, K.; Ra(dieresis)mo(dieresis), S.; Welling, L.; Nikunen, U., and Laitinen, P. Comparison of the

Behaviour of Three Herbicides in a Field Experiment Under Bare Soil Conditions. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

741. Simmonds, D. H. and Donaldson, P. A. Genotype Screening for Proliferative Embryogenesis and Biolistic

Transformation of Short-Season Soybean Genotypes. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

742. Simon, S.; Defrance, H., and Sauphanor, B. Effect of Codling Moth Management on Orchard Arthropods.

2007; 122, (3): 340-348.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACP,ALSV,AMTL,AZ,CPY,CYF,Captan,Cu,DMT,DOD,DU,FRM,GFSNH,GYP,HC

Z,IMC,MOIL,MP,MZB,OXD ,PHSL,PRB,QZFE,RTN,SFR,SZ,TDF,THM,TPM

743. Simon, S.; Defrance, H., and Sauphanor, B. Effect of Codling Moth Management on Orchard Arthropods.

2007; 122, (3): 340-348. 289425.

Notes: Chemical of Concern:

24D,24DXY,ACP,ALSV,AMTL,AZ,CPY,CYF,Captan,Cu,DMT,DOD,DU,FRM,GFSNH,GYP,HC

Z,IMC,MOIL,MP,MZB,OXD ,PHSL,PRB,QZFE,RTN,SFR,SZ,TDF,THM,TPM

744. Singh, V.; Baitha, A., and Srivastava, S. Young and Fast Growing Plants as Better Feeding Material for

Deltocephalus Vulgaris, a Leafhopper Vector of Sugarcane Grassy Shoot Phytoplasma. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

745. Siriworakul, M and Benyasut, P. Control a nd Utilization of Cattail (Typha Latifolia L.). 1992.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-96 746. SKUTERUD, R.; KROK, R.; MOLLERHAGEN, P. J., and STEINSHOLT, P. Y. Potato haulm desiccation:

Alternatives to diquat. 9 (1-2). 1995. 39-49..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

747. Slack, C. H.; Obermeier, M. R.; Moreno, R. E., and Martin, J. R. Johnsongrass (Sorghum halepense (L.)

Pers.) Control in Corn with Glufosinate an d Glyphosate. SOIL; 1997; 37, 99-(ABS).

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,GYP

748. SMITH, A. TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14-LABELED GLUFOSINATE IN

SOILS. 37 (1). 1989. 267-271..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

749. SMITH, A. E. FATE OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14 GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN PRAIRIE

SOILS. 1987 Aug 30-1987 Sep 4; 194 (0). 1987. AGRO 123..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

750. Smith, A. E. Persistence and Transformation of the Herbicide [14c]Glufosinate-Ammonium in Prairie Soils

Under Laboratory Conditions. 36 (2), 393-397.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

751. SMITH, A. E. PERSISTENCE AND TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14-

LABELED GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN PRAIRIE SOILS UNDER LABORATORY

CONDITIONS. 36 (2). 1988. 393-397..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

752. Smith, A. E. Transformation of the Herbicide [14c]Glufosinate in Soils. 37 (1), 267-271.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

753. SMITH, A. E. TRANSFORMATION OF THE HERBICIDE CARBON-14 GLUFOSINATE IN SOILS.

1988 Sep 25-1988 Sep 30; 196 (0). 1988. AGRO-125..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

754. SMITH, A. E. and BELYK, M. B. FIELD PERSISTENCE STUDIES WITH THE HERBICIDE

GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM IN SASKATCHEWAN CANADA SOILS. 18 (4). 1989. 475-479..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

755. Smith, H. C.; Street, J. E.; Kurtz, M. E., and Reynolds, D. B. Response of Non-Transgenic Rice to Liberty.

52, 12.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

756. Snow, A. A. ; Andersen, B., and Jorgensen, R. B. Costs of Transgenic Herb icide Resistance Introgressed

From Brassica Napus Into Weedy B. Rapa. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

757. Snow, A. A. ; Jorgensen, R. B., and Bcpc. Fitne ss costs associated with tran sgenic glufosinate tolerance

introgressed from Brassica napus ssp oleifera (oils eed rape) into weedy Br assica rapa. 1999(72):

137-142.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

758. SOCHOR, H. GLUFOSINATE. (ED.). MANUAL OF PESTICIDE RESIDUE ANALYSIS, VOL. 2.

XVI+483P. VCH VERLAGSGESELLSCHAFT MBH: WEINHEIM, GERMANY; VCH

PUBLISHERS, INC.: NEW YORK, NEW YORK, USA. ISBN 3-527-27017-5; ISBN 0-89573-957-

7.; 0 (0). 1992. 217-227..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-97 759. SOKOLOV, M. S.; ISMAILOV, V. YA, and TISHCHENKO, Z. A. MAIN RESULTS STATE OF AND

PROSPECTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SYSTEM OF ECOLOGICAL PLANT

PROTECTION RESEARCH OF THE ALL-RUSSIA SCIENTIFIC-RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF

BIOLOGICAL PLANT PROTECTION. 0 (5). 1994. 80-89..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

760. Soltani, N.; Vyn, R. J.; Van Eerd, L. L.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Effect of Reduced Herbicide

Rates on Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Corn. SOIL; 2009; 89, (5): 969-

975.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,DMM,GFS,IXF,NSF,RIM

761. Soltani, N. ; Vyn, R. J.; Van Eerd, L. L.; Shropshire, C., and Sikkema, P. H. Effect of Reduced Herbicide

Rates on Weed Control, Environmental Impact and Profitability of Corn. 2009; 89, (5): 969-975.

285411.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,DMM,GFS,IXF,NSF,RIM

762. Somerville, L.; Walker, R. H., and Belcher, J. Ma naging Weeds in Liberty Link Cotton. 52, 239-240.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

763. Somleva, M. N.; Tomaszewski, Z., and Conger, B. V. Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation of

Switchgrass. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

764. Song, X.; Liu, L.; Wang, Z., and Qiang, S. Pote ntial Gene Flow From Transgenic Rice (Oryza Sativa L.) To

Different Weedy Rice (Oryza Sativa F. Spontanea) Accessions Based on Reproductive

Compatibility.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

765. Song, X.; Wang, Z., and Qiang, S. Agronomic Performance of F1, F2 and F3 Hybrids Between Weedy Rice

and Transgenic Glufosin ate-Resistant Rice.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

766. Songa, E. A.; Arotiba, O. A.; Owino, J. H. O.; Jahed, N.; Baker, P. G. L., and Iwuoha, E. I. Electrochemical

detection of glyphosate herbicide using horseradis h peroxidase immobilized on sulfonated polymer

matrix. 2009; 75, (2): 117-123.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

767. SORENSEN, P. B.; MOGENSEN, B. B.; GYLDENKAERNE, S., and RASMUSSEN, A. G. Pesticide

leaching assessment method for ra nking both single substances and scenarios of multiple substance

use. 36 (10). 1998. 2251-2276..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

768. Souza, J. r. MT; Venturoli, M. F.; Coelho, M. C. F., and Rech Filho, E. L. Analysis of Marker Gene/Selective

Agent Systems Alternatives to Positive Selection of Transgenic Papaya (Carica Papaya L.) Somatic

Embryos. 2001.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

769. SPAAR, D. PLANT PROTECTION AND BIOTECHNOLOGY. 1987; 36, (10): 853-859.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

770. SPENCER, T. M.; GORDON-KAMM, W. J.; DAINES, R. J.; START, W. G., and LEMAUX, P. G.

Bialaphos selection of stable transformants from maize cell culture. 79 (5). 1990. 625-631..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

771. SPOONER, J. ; WYATT, L.; BRICHFORD, S. L.; LANIER, A. L.; COFFEY, S. W., and SMOLEN, M. D.

### AI-98 NONPOINT SOURCES. 62 (4). 1990. 537-546..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

772. Squire, G. R.; Brooks, D. R.; Bohan, D. A.; Champion, G. T.; Daniels, R. E.; Haughton, A. J.; Hawes, C.;

Heard, M. S.; Hill, M. O. ; May, M. J.; Osborne, J. L.; Perry, J. N.; Roy, D. B.; Woiwod, I. P., and

Firbank, L. G. On the rationale and interpretation of the Farm Scale Evaluations of genetically

modified herbicide-tolerant crops. 2003; 358, (1439): 1779-1799.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

773. Stalikas, C. D. and Konidari, C. N. Analytical methods to determine phosphonic and amino acid groupcontaining pesticides. 2001; 907, (1-2): 1-19.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

774. Stalikas, C. D. and Pilidis, G. A. Development of a method for the simultaneous determination of phosphoric

and amino acid group containing pesticides by gas chromatography with mass-selective detection -

Optimization of the derivatization procedure using an experimental design approach. 2000; 872, (1-

2): 215-225.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

775. Stalikas, C. D.; Pilidis, G. A., and Karayannis, M. I. An integrated gas chromatographic method towards the

simultaneous determination of phosphoric and amino acid group containing pesticides. 2000; 51,

(11-12): 741-746.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

776. STALKER, D. M. DEVELOPING HERBICIDE RESISTANCE IN CROPS BY GENE TRANSFER

TECHNOLOGY. BLACKIE AND SONS LTD.: GLASGOW, SCOTLAND, UK. ILLUS. ISBN 0-

412-02521-3; ISBN 0-216-92914-8.; 0 (0). 1990. 82-104..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

777. Stapleton, G.; Wayland, M., and Dilbeck, J. Influence of Weed Removal Timing on Corn Grain Yield

Utilizing Lightning and Liberty Herbicide Systems. 52, 26-27.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

778. Starke, R. J. and Oliver, L. R. Evaluation of Chlorimuron, Fomesa fen, and Imazethapyr as Potential TankMixture Partners for Glufosinate. 51, 11.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

779. STEER GROUP CHEM ASPECTS FOOD SURVEILL. GREAT BRITAIN MINISTRY OF

AGRICULTURE FISHERIES AND FOOD SURV EILLANCE PAPER NO. 41. STEERING

GROUP ON CHEMICAL ASPECTS OF FOOD SURVEILLANCE ANNUAL REPORT 1993.

1941 Oct; 0 (0). 1994. XI+94P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

780. Stein, H. H.; Rice, D. W.; Smith, B. L.; Hinds, M. A. ; Sauber, T. E.; Pedersen, C.; Wulf, D. M., and Peters,

D. N. Evaluation of corn grain with the geneti cally modified input trait DAS-59122-7 fed to

growing-finishing pigs. 2009; 87, (4): 1254-1260.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

781. Stewart, J. F.; Thorsness, K. B.; Maruska, D. W., and Mayberry, T. W. Weed Control With Glufosinate

Ammonium in Transgenic Herbicide-Resistant Sugarbeets. 51, 103.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

782. Stiff, C. M.; Kilian, A.; Zhou Huaping; Kudrna, D. A. , and Kleinhofs, A. Stab le Transformation of Barley

Callus Using Biolisticr Particle Bombardment and the Phosphinothricin Ac etyltransferase (Bar)

Gene. 1995.

### AI-99 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

783. Streb, P. and Feierabend, J. Significance of Antioxidants and Electron Sinks for the Cold-Hardening-Induced

Resistance of Winter Rye Leaves to Photo-Oxidative Stress. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

784. Stringam, G. R.; Ripley, V. L.; Love, H. K., an d Mitchell, A. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Canola - the

Canadian Experience. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

785. Strizhov, N.; Keller, M.; Mathur, J.; Koncz-Kalm an, Z.; Bosch, D.; Prudovsky, E.; Schell, J.; Sneh, B.;

Koncz, C., and Zilberstein, A. A Synthetic Cryi c Gene, Encoding a Bacillus Thuringiensis Delta -

Endotoxin, Confers Spodoptera Resistance in Alfalfa and Tobacco. 1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

786. SUZUKI, A. and KAWANA, M. RAPID AND SIMPLE METHOD FOR IDENTIFICATION OF

GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM USING PAPER CHROMATOGRAPHY. 43 (1). 1989. 17-21..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

787. SWEENEY, M. W. Geographic information systems. 71 (5). 1999. 551-556..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

788. Sweet, J. B. and Shepperson, R. The impact of releases of genetically modified herbicide tolerant oilseed rape

in UK. 1998; 97, (459): 225-234.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

789. Tabe, L. M. ; Wardley-Richardson, T.; Ceriotti, A. ; Aryan, A.; Mcnabb, W.; Moore, A., and Higgins, T. J. A

Biotechnological Approach to Improving the Nutritiv e Value of Alfalfa. 1995; 73, (9): 2752-2759.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

790. Tadesse, Y. ; Sa(acute)gi, L.; Swennen, R., and Jacobs, M. Optimisation of Transformation Conditions and

Production of Transgenic Sorghum (Sorghum Bicolor) Via Microparticle Bombardment. 2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

791. Takagi, K.; Teshima, R.; Nakajima, O.; Okunuki, H., and Sawada, J. Improved Elisa Method for Screening

Human Antigen-Specific Ige and Its Application for Monitoring Specific Ige for Novel Proteins in

Genetically Modified Foods.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

792. Takahashi Hiroshi; Toya Tsuyoshi; Matsumiya Naok i, and Koyama Kanji. A Case of Transient Diabetes

Insipidus Associated With Poisoning by a Herbicide Containing Glufosinate. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

793. Takahashi, M.; Nishihara, M.; Yamamura, S.; Nishizawa, S.; Irifune, K., and Morikawa, H. Stable

Transformation of Eustoma Grandiflorum by Particle Bombardment. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

794. TAKANAKA, A. RECENT PROCESS OF RI SK ASSESSMENT FOR CHEMICAL SUBSTANCES IN

FOOD. 33 (3). 1992. 316-320..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

795. Takayama, M.; Sekiguchi, H.; Hori, Y.; Fujisawa, M., and Hirose, Y. [Analysis of Bialaphos and Its Active

Metabolite L-Glufosinate in Biological Specimens by Hplc].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-100 796. Takenaka, M.; Verbitskiy, D.; van der Merwe, J. A.; Zehrmann, A.; Plessmann, U.; Urlaub, H., and

Brennicke, A. In Vitro Rna Editing in Plant M itochondria Does Not Requ ire Added Energy. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

797. Takimoto, I.; Christensen, A. H.; Quail, P. H.; Uchimiya, H., and Toki, S. Non-Systemic Expression of a

Stress-Responsive Maize Polyubiquitin Gene (Ubi-1) in Transgenic Rice Plants.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

798. Tan, S.; Evans, R., and Singh, B. Herbicidal Inhibitors of Amino Acid Biosynthesis and Herbicide-Tolerant

Crops. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

799. TANAKA, J.; YAMASHITA, M., and YAMAMOTO, T. A comparative study of direct hemoperfusion and

hemodialysis for the removal of glufosinate ammonium. 33 (6). 1995. 691-694..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

800. Tanaka Junsuke; Yamashita Mamoru; Yamashita Masatomo; Matsuo Hidenori, and Yamamoto Toshinori.

Two Cases of Glufosinate Poisoning With Late Onset Convulsions. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

801. tAndersen, Mathias Neumann; Sausse, Christophe; Lacroix, Bernard; Caul, Sandra, and Messean, Antoine.

Agricultural studies of GM maize and the field experimental infrastructure of ECOGEN: SOIL

ECOLOGICAL AND ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF GENETICALLY MODIFIED CROPS -

ECOGEN. 2007 Aug 15; 51, (3): 175-184.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

802. Tebbe, C. C. and Reber, H. H. Degradation of [14c]Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) in Soil Under Laboratory

Conditions: Effects of Concentration and Soil Amendments on 14co2 Production. 11 (1), 62-67.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

803. TEBBE, C. C. and REBER, H. H. Degradation of carbon-14 phosphinothricin (glufosinate) in soil under

laboratory conditions: Effects of concentration and soil amendments on carbon-14 carbon dioxide

production. 11 (1). 1991. 62-67..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

804. TEBBE, C. C. and REBER, H. H. UTILIZATION OF THE HERBICIDE PHOSPHINOTHRICIN AS A

NITROGEN SOURCE BY SOIL BACTERIA. 29 (1). 1988. 103-105..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

805. Termorshuizen, A. J. and Lotz, L. A. P. Does large-scale cropping of herbicide-resistant cultivars increase the

incidence of polyphagous soil-borne plant pathogens? 2002; 31, (1): 51-54.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

806. Tharp, B. E.; Schabenberger, O., and Kells, J. J. Response of Annual Weed Species to Glufosinate and

Glyphosate. SOIL; 1999; 13, (3): 542-547.

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155453

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI,NHSO4

807. THOMPSON, C. J.; MOVVA, N. R.; TIZARD, R.; CRAMERI, R.; DAVIES, J. E.; LAUWEREYS, M., and

BOTTERMAN, J. CHARACTERIZATION OF THE HERBICIDE-RESISTANCE GENE BAR

FROM STREPTOMYCES-HYGROSCOPICUS. (EUR MOL BIOL ORGAN) J; 6 (9). 1987. 2519-

2524..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

808. Thompson, D. G.; Chartrand, D. T., and Kreutzwe iser, D. P. Fate and effects of azadirachtin in aquatic

### AI-101 mesocosms - 1: fate in water and bottom sediments. 2004; 59, (2): 186-193.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

809. Timmons, A. M.; Charters, Y. M.; Crawford, J. W. ; Burn, D.; Scott, S. E.; Du bbels, S. J.; Wilson, N. J.;

Robertson, A.; O'brien, E. T.; Squire, G. R., and Wilkinson, M. J. Risks From Transgenic Crops.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

810. TING, K. C. and KHO, P. GC/AED method for pes ticide residue determination in fruits and vegetables. 74

(6). 1991. 991-998..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

811. TING, K. C. and KHO, P. K. Determination of trace 2, 4-dichlorophenoxyacetic aci d in fresh produce by gas

chromatography with boron trichloride/2-chloroethanol derivatization. 81 (1). 1998. 93-98..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

812. TING, K. C. and TAMASHIRO, G. S. Off-line high-performance liquid chromatography and solid-phase

extraction clean-up for confirmation of pesticide residues in fresh produce by gas chromatographymass spectrometry. 754 (1-2). 1996. 455-462..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

813. Tingay, S.; McElroy, D.; Kalla, R.; Fieg, S.; Wa ng, M. B.; Thornton, S., and Brettell, R. Agrobacterium

Tumefaciens-Mediated Barley Transf ormation. 11 (6), 1369-1376.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

814. Tingle, C. H.; Chandler, J. M.; Prostko, E. P., and Bradshaw, L. D. Herbicide Combinations for Residual

Weed Control in Roundup Ready Corn. 51, 21-22.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

815. TIPPLE, J. RJ and LEONARD, D. RP. The residence time of stocked hatchery-reared brown trout, Salmo

trutta L., and rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss (Walbaum), in Lake Trawsfynydd, and their

accumulation of radioactive caes ium. 2 (1). 1995. 1-10..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

816. Tissier, A. F.; Marillonnet, S.; Klimyuk, V.; Patel, K.; Torres, M. A.; Murphy, G., and Jones, J. D. G.

Multiple Independent Defective Suppressor-Mutator Transposon Insertions in Arabidopsis: a Tool

for Functional Genomics. 1999.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

817. TOLDI, O.; TOTH, S.; OREIFIG, A. S.; GONZALES, A. S.; KISS, E., and JENES, B. Phosphinothricin: A

herbicide or a synthetic cytokinin? 1999 Mar 22-1999 Mar 26; 50 (SUPPL.). 1999. 56..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

818. Traver, M. L. Interlaboratory Crosscheck of Heavy-Duty Vehicle Chassis Dynamometers. (GRA&I), Issue

24, 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

819. Trefry, J. H.; Rember, R. D.; Trocine, R. P., an d Brown, J. S. ANIMIDA Task 7. Partitioning of Potential

Anthropogenic Chemicals between Dissolved and Pa rticulate Phases in Arctic Rivers and the

Coastal Beaufort Sea. (GRA&I), Issue 09, 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

820. Trieu, A. T. and Harrison, M. J. Rapid Transformation of Medicago Truncatula: Regeneration Via Shoot

Organogenesis. 1996; 16, (1/2): 6-11.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-102 821. Tsaftaris, A. S.; Sapountzakis, G., and Nianiou-Obeidat, I. Foreign Detoxification Genes Expressed in Plants

for Developing Herbicide Tolerant Genotypes: Development of Glufosinate-Tolerant Vegetables.

SOIL; 1997: 325-336.

Notes: Chemical of Con cern: 24D,24DXY,BMN,GFS

822. Tsai, Y. C. ; Chien, T. C.; Yi, T. H., and Ching, H. K. The Toxicity Induced by Phosphinothricin and

Methionine Sulfoximine in Rice Leaves Is Mediated Through Ethylene but Not Abscisic Acid. 2002.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

823. Tsai, Y. C. ; Hsu, Y. T., and Kao, C. H. Proline Accumulation Induced by Phosphinothricin in Rice Leaves.

2003.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

824. Tseng, S. H.; Lo, Y. W.; Chang, P. C.; Chou, S. S., and Chang, H. M. Simultaneous Quantification of

Glyphosate, Glufosinate, and Their Major Metabolites in Rice and Soybean Sprouts by Gas

Chromatography With Pulsed Flame Photometric Detector.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

825. TSUNODA, N. Simultaneous determination of the herbicides glyphosate, glufosinate and bialaphos and their

metabolites by capillary gas chromatography-ion-trap mass spectrometry. 637 (2). 1993. 167-173..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

826. TUBEROSA, R.; FORLAN I, G.; LUCCHESE, C., and NIELSEN, E. SELECTION AND PARTIAL

CHARACTERIZATION OF MAIZE CALLUS LI NES TOLERANT TO THE NON-SELECTIVE

HERBICIDE BASTA. 1926 Oct 28-1988 Oct 28; 42 (4). 1988. 489-490..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

827. TYAGLOV, B. V.; BULENKOVA, M. T.; VAIBURG, A. F., and DEGTYAR', V. G. HPLC and TLC used

for the quantitative determination of bialaphos in culture broth. 0 (1). 1992. 80-82..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

828. Unno, H.; Uchida, T.; Sugawara, H.; Kurisu, G.; Sugiyama, T.; Yamaya, T.; Sakakibara, H.; Hase, T., and

Kusunoki, M. Atomic Structure of Plant Glutamine Synthetase: a Key Enzyme for Plant

Productivity. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

829. Upadhyay, B. M.; Smith, E. G.; Clayton, G. W.; Harker, K. N., and Blackshaw, R. E. Economics of

Integrated Weed Management in Herbicide-Resistant Canola. SOIL; 2006; 54, (1): 138-147.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: BMY,CBF,DM,GFS,HCCH,IMC,IZT,LCYT,PPCP,SXD,THM

830. Uze, M.; Potrykus, I., and Sautter, C. Single-Str anded Dna in the Genetic Transformation of Wheat (Triticum

Aestivum L.): Transformation Frequency and Integration Pattern. 99 (3/4), 487-495.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

831. Van Boxtel, J.; Eskes, A., and Berthouly, M. Glufosinate as an Efficient Inhibitor of Callus Proliferation in

Coffee Tissue. 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

832. VAN, D. E. N. BERG R and VAN, D. E. R. LINDEN T MA. AGRICULTURAL PESTICIDES AND

GROUNDWATER. 1911; BASEL, SWITZERLAND. ISBN 0-8247-8991-1.; 11 (0). 1994. 293-

313..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

833. Van Der Biezen, E. A.; Brandwagt, B. F.; Van Leeu wen, W.; Nijkamp, H. J., an d Hille, J. Identification and

Isolation of the Feebly Gene From Tomato by Transposon Tagging. 1996; 251, (3): 267-280.

### AI-103 Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

834. van der Hoeven, C.; Dietz, A., and Landsmann, J. Expression of Phosphinothrici n Acetyltransferase From the

Root Specific Par Promoter in Tr ansgenic Tobacco Plants Is Sufficient for Herbicide Tolerance.

1994.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

835. Van Schaik, C. E.; Van der Toorn, C.; De Jeu, M. J.; Raemakers CJJM, and Visser, R. G. F. Towards Genetic

Transformation in the Monocot Alstroemeria L. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

836. Vasil, I. K. Phosphinothricin-Resistant Crops. SOIL; 1996; 5, 85-92.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFSNH

837. Vasil, V.; Castillo, A. M.; Fromm, M. E., and Va sil, I. K. Herbicide Resist ant Fertile Transgenic Wheat

Plants Obtained by Microprojectile Bombardment of Regenerable Embryogenic Callus. 10 (6),

662-674.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

838. Vasil, V.; Srivastava, V.; Castillo, A. M.; Fromm, M. E., and Vasil, I. K. Ra pid Production of Transgenic

Wheat Plants by Direct Bombardment of Cultured Immature Embryos. 11 (13), 1553-1558.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

839. Vaughan, L. K.; Ottis, B. V.; Pr azak-Havey, A. M.; Bormans, C. A.; Sn eller, C.; Chandler, J. M., and Park,

W. D. Is all red rice found in commercial rice really Oryza sativa? 2001; 49, (4): 468-476.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

840. Vaughn, K. C. and Duke, S. O. Biochemical Basis of Herbicide Resistance. 7, 141-169.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

841. Vega, J. M. ; Yu, W. C.; Kennon, A. R.; Chen, X. L., and Zhang, Z. Y. J. Improvement of Agrobacteriummediated transformation in Hi-II maize (Zea mays) using standard binary vectors. 2008; 27, (2):

297-305.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

842. Velini, E. D.; Trindade, M. L. B.; Alves, E.; Cata (circumflex)neo, A. C.; Marino, C. L.; de Godoy Maia, I.;

Mori, E. S.; Furtado, E. L.; Guerrini, I. A., and W ilcken, C. F. Eucalyptus Ests Corresponding to the

Enzyme Glutamine Synthetase and the Protein D1, Sites of Action of Herbicides That Cause

Oxidative Stress. 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

843. Vencill, W. K.; MacDonald, G. E., and Eastin, E. F. Comparison of Weed Management Systems in Roundup

Ready, Liberty Link, Sr, and Non-Transgenic Corn. 52, 26.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

844. Vendruscolo, Eliane Cristina Gr uszka; Schuster, Ivan; Pileggi, Marcos ; Scapim, Carlos Alberto; Molinari,

Hugo Bruno Correa; Marur, Celso Jamil, and Vieira, Luiz Gonzaga Esteves. Stress-induced

synthesis of proline confers tolerance to water deficit in transgenic wheat. 2007 Oct 19-; 164, (10):

1367-1376.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

845. Vengadesan, G.; Amutha, S.; Muruganantham, M. ; Anand, R. P., and Ganapa thi, A. Transgenic Acacia

Sinuata From Agrobacterium Tu mefaciens-Mediated Transfor mation of Hypocotyls. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-104 846. Vengadesan, G.; Prem Anand, R.; Selvaraj, N.; Perl-Treves, R., and Ganapathi, A. Transfer and Expression of

Npt Ii and Bar Genes in Cucumber (Cucumis Sativus L.). 2005.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

847. VERMEULEN, A. C. Elaborating chironomid deformities as bioindicators of toxic sediment stress: The

potential application of mixture toxicity concepts. 32 (3). 1995. 265-285..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

848. Vermij, P. Liberty Link rice raises specter of tightened regulations. 2006; 24, (11): 1301-1302.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

849. Vianna, G. R.; Albino, M. M. C.; Dias, B. B. A.; S ilva, L. de; Rech, E. L., and Aragao, F. J. L. Fragment Dna

as Vector for Genetic Transformation of Bean (Phaseolus Vulgaris L.). 99, (3-4): 371-378.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

850. VIAUX, P. and BODET, J. M. SET-ASIDE IN FRANCE HOW TO USE FRENCH REGULATION? 1950;

SYMPOSIUM, CAMBRIDGE, ENGLAND, UK, SE PTEMBER 15-18, 1992. XI+283P. BRITISH

CROP PROTECTION COUNCIL: FARNHAM, ENGLAND, UK. ILLUS. MAPS. PAPER. ISBN

0-948404-61-2.; 0 (0). 1992. 243-248..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

851. Vinnemeier, J.; Droge-Laser, W. ; Pistorius, E. K., and Broer, I. Puri fication and Partial Characterization of

the Streptomyces Viridochromogenes Tu494 Phosphinothricin-N-Acetyltransferase Mediating

Resistance to the Herbicide Phosphinothricin in Transgenic Plants. 1995.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

852. Visarada KBRS and Sarma, N. P. Transformation of Indica Rice Through Particle Bombardment: Factors

Influencing Transient Expression and Selection. 2004; 48, (1): 25-31.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

853. VREEKEN, R. J.; SPEKSNIJDER, P.; BOBELDIJK-PASTOROVA, I., and NOIJ, T. HM. Selective analysis

of the herbicides glyphosate and aminomethylphosphonic acid in water by on-line solid-phase

extraction-high-performance liquid chromatography-electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. 794

(1-2). 1998. 187-199..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

854. WALTER, C.; BROER, I.; HILLEMANN, D., and PUEH LER, A. High frequency, heat-treatment-induced

inactivation of the phosphinothricin resistance gene in transgenic single cell suspension cultures of

Medicago sativa. 235 (2-3). 1992. 189-196..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

855. WALTER, C.; SMITH, D. R., and GRACE, L. J. MAKING A HERBICIDE SELECTIVE BY GENETIC

ENGINEERING OF PINUS RADIATA. ROTORUA, NEW ZEALAND, MARCH 20-24, 1995.

VII+197P. NEW ZEALAND FOREST RESEARCH INSTITUTE: ROTORUA, NEW ZEALAND.;

0 (0). 1995. 167-169..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

856. Wang, C. J. and Liu, Z. Q. Foliar uptake of pesticides--Present status and future challenge. 2007 Jan; 87, (1):

1-8.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

857. Wang, K. C.; Chen, S. M.; Hsu, J. F.; Cheng, S. G., and Lee, C. K. Simultaneous detection and quantitation

of highly water-soluble herbicides in serum using ion-pair liquid chromatography-tandem mass

spectrometry. 2008; 876, (2): 211-218.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-105 858. Wang, M. B. and Waterhouse, P. M. A Rapid and Simple Method of Assaying Plants Transformed With

Hygromycin or Ppt Resistance Genes. 15 (3), 209-215.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

859. Wang, Y. L. ; Xu, M. X.; Yin, G. X.; Tao, L. L.; Wang, D. W., and Ye, X. G. Transgenic Wheat Plants

Derived from Agrobacterium-mediated Transformation of Mature Embryo Tissues. 2009; 37, (1): 1-

12.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

860. Wang, Z. Y. ; Takamizo, T.; Iglesias, V. A.; Osusky, M.; Nagel, J.; Potrykus, I., and Spangenberg, G.

Transgenic Plants of Tall Fescue (Festuca Arundinacea Schr eb.) Obtained by Direct Gene Transfer

to Protoplasts. 10 (6), 691-696.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

861. Wang, Zinan ; Xiao, Ying; Chen, Wansheng; Tang, Kexuan, and Zhang, Lei. Functional expression of

Vitreoscilla hemoglobin (VHb) in Arabidopsis relie ves submergence, nitrosative, photo-oxidative

stress and enhances antioxidants metabolism. 2009 Jan; 176, (1): 66-77.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

862. Watanabe, M.; Sumida, N.; Murakami, S.; Anzai, H.; Thompson, C. J.; Tateno, Y., and Murakami, T. A

Phosphonate-Induced Gene Which Promotes Penicillium-Mediated Bioconversion of CisPropenylphosphonic Acid to Fosfomycin.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

863. Watanabe, S. [Rapid Analysis of Glufosinate by Improving the Bulletin Method and Its Application to

Soybean and Corn].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

864. ---. [Simultaneous Analysis of Glyphosate and Glufosinate in Vegetables and Fruits by Gc-Fpd].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

865. WATANABE, T. DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON MAMMALIAN

EMBRYOS IN VITRO. 1927 Jul 29-1995 Jul 29; 35 (3). 1995. 371..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

866. ---. DEVELOPMENTAL EFFECTS OF GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM ON MAMMALIAN EMBRYOS

IN VITRO (NOT DUPLICATE). 1995 Jul 27-1995 Jul 29; 52 (4). 1995. 25B-26B..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

867. WATANABE, T.; SAKURADA, K.; ISHIKAWA, H., and IWASE, T. INDUCTION OF APOPTOSIS BY

GLUFOSINATE AMMONIUM IN DEVELOPING RAT EMBRYOS IN CULTURE. 1914 Jul 16-

1997 Jul 16; 37 (3). 1997. 295..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

868. Watanabe, T. and Sano, T. Neurological Effects of Glufosinate Poisoning With a Brief Review . 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

869. Wauchope, R. D.; Estes, T. L.; Allen, R.; Baker, J. L.; Hornsby, A. G.; Jones, R. L.; Richards, R. P., and

Gustafson, D. I. Predicted Imp act of Transgenic, Herbicidetoleran t Corn on Drinking Water Quality

in Vulnerable Watersheds of the Mid-Western Usa.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

870. Wehrkamp-Richter, Sophie; Degroote, Fabienne; La ffaire, Jean-Baptiste; Paul, Wyatt; Perez, Pascual, and

Picard, Georges. Characterisation of a new reporter system allowing high throughput in planta

screening for recombination events before and afte r controlled DNA double strand break induction.

### AI-106 2009 Apr; 47, (4): 248-255.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

871. Weigel, D.; Ji Hoon Ahn; Blazquez, M. A.; Borevitz , J. O. ; Christensen, S. K. ; Fankhauser, C.; Ferrandiz,

C.; Kardailsky, I.; Malancharuvil, E. J.; Neff, M. M.; Nguyen, J. T.; Sato, S.; Wang, Z. Y.; Xia, Y.;

Dixon, R. A.; Harrison, M. J.; Lamb, C. J.; Yanof sky, M. F., and Chory, J. Activation Tagging in

Arabidopsis. 2000.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

872. Wendler, C.; Barniske, M., and Wild, A. Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis and

Photorespiration of C3 and C4 Plants. SOIL; 1990; 24, (1): 55-61.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

873. Wendler, C. and Wild, A. Effect of Phosphinothricin (Glufosinate) on Photosynthesis and Photorespiration.

INTERNATIONAL WORKSHOP ON HERBICIDES ACTIVE IN THE CHLOROPLAST,

MONHEIM, WEST GERMANY, AUGUST 13-15, 19 89.//: SOIL; 1990; 45, (5): 535-537.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

874. West, &Nbsp and T. Incorporating multiresolutio n analysis with multiclassifiers and decision fusion for

hyperspectral remote sensing. 2009.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

875. WESTON, L. A. and SCOTT, J. E. COVER CROP AND HERBICIDE EFFECT ON SEEDLING

ESTABLISHMENT IN NO-TILL SYSTEM S. 0 (SUPPL.). 1989. 94..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

876. Wheeler, C. C.; Baldwin, F. L. ; Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A., an d Rutledge, J. S. Potential for BroadSpectrum Control of Weeds in Glufos inate-Tolerant Rice. 52, 14.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

877. Wheeler, C. C.; Baldwin, F. L.; Talbert, R. E., and Webster, E. P. Weed Control in Glufosinate-Tolerant Rice.

51, 34-35.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

878. Whitham, S. A.; Yamamoto, M. L., and Carington , J. C. Selectable Viruses and Altered Susceptibility

Mutants in Arabidopsis Thaliana. 96 (2), 772-777.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

879. WIEN, H. C. COLLOQUIUM ON SUSTAINABLE COMMERCIAL VEGETABLE PRODUCTION WITH

MINIMAL USE OF SYNTHETIC FERTILIZERS AND PESTICIDES HELD AT THE 85TH

AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR HORTICULTUR AL SCIENCE ANNUAL MEETING EAST

LANSING MICHIGAN USA AUGUST 9 1988. 25 (2). 1990. 154-171..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

880. Wiesbrook, M. L.; Johnson, W. G.; Hart, S. E.; Bradley, P. R., and Wax, L. M. Comparison of Weed

Management Systems in Narrow-Row, Glyphosate- and Glufosinate-Resistant Soybean (Glycine

max). SOIL; 2001; 15, (1): 122-128.

Notes: Chemical of Concer n: CMZ,FSF,GFS,GYP,IZT,PDM

881. Wild, A. and Wendler, C. Effect of Glucosinate (Phosphinothricin) on Amino Acid Content, Photorespiration

and Photosynthesis. SEVENTH INTERNATIONA L CONGRESS OF PESTICIDE CHEMISTRY,

HAMBURG, GERMANY, AUGUST 1990.//: SOIL; 1990; 30, (4): 422-424.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

882. Williams, B. J. and Linscombe, S. D. Barnyard grass (Echinochloa Crus-Galli) Control in Dry-Seeded

### AI-107 Glufosinate Tolerant Rice. 52, 12.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

883. WILLMS, L. GLUFOSINATE A NEW AMINO ACID WITH UNEXPECTED PROPERTIES. 27 (2).

1989. 219-221..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

884. WILLOUGHBY, I. and CLAY, D. FOREST RY COMMISSION FIELD BO OK 14. HERBICIDES FOR

FARM WOODLANDS AND SHORT ROTATION COPPICE. 0 (14). 1996. III+60P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

885. WILLOUGHBY, I. and DEWAR, J. FORESTRY COMMISSION FIELD BOOK NO. 8. THE USE OF

HERBICIDES IN THE FOREST 1995. 1971 Mar 30; 0 (8). 1995. VIII+318P..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

886. Willoughby, I. and Palmer, C. Forestry Commission Field Book 15. Weed Control in Christmas Tree

Plantations. SOIL; 1997: 41 p.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS,PZM

887. WILSON, R. D.; GERONIMO, J., and ARMBRUSTER, J. A. 2,4-D Dissipation in field soils after

applications of 2,4-D dimethylamine salt and 2,4-D 2-ethylhexyl ester. 16 (6). 1997. 1239-1246..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

888. Winterhagen, Patrick; Dubois, Cornelia; Sinn, Me lanie; Wetzel, Thierry, and Reustle, G+ tz M. Gene

silencing and virus resistance based on defective interfering constructs in transgenic Nicotiana

benthamiana is not linked to accumulation of siRNA. 2009 Aug; 47, (8): 739-742.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

889. Witrzens, B.; Brettell, R. I. S.; Murray, F. R.; McElroy, D.; Li, Z., and Dennis, E. S. Comparison of Three

Selectable Marker Genes for Transformation of Wheat by Microprojectile Bombardment. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

890. Wohlleben, W.; Arnold, W.; Broer, I.; Hillema nn, D.; Strauch, E.; PÜ, and Hler, A. Nucleotide

Sequence of the Phosphinothricin N-Acetyltransferase Gene From Streptomyces Viridochromogenes

TÜ494 and Its Expression in Nicotiana Tabacum.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

891. WOHLLENBEN, W.; ARNOLD, W.; BROER, I.; HILLEMANN, D.; STRAUCH, E., and PUEHLER, A.

NUCLEOTIDE SEQUENCE OF THE PHOSPHINOTHRICIN N-ACETYLTRANSFERASE

GENE FROM STREPTOMYCES-VIRIDOCHROMOGENES TU494 AND ITS EXPRESSION IN

NICOTIANA-TABACUM. (AMST); 70 (1). 1988. 25-38..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

892. Wright, M. S.; Launis, K.; Bowman, C.; Hill, M.; DiMaio, J.; Kramer, C., and Shillito, R. D. A Rapid Visual

Method to Identify Transformed Plants. 32 (1), 11-13.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

893. WRIGHT, M. S.; SHILLITO, R. D.; LAUNIS, K.; BOWMAN, C.; HILL, M., and DIMAIO, J. SCREENING

OF ZEA MAYS PLANTS FOR PHOSPHINOTHRICIN RESISTANCE USING THE

CHLOROPHENOL RED TEST. 1994 Jun 4-1994 Jun 4; 30A (3 PART 2). 1994. 59..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

894. Wu, A. Z.; Tang, K. X.; Pan, J. S.; Cai, R.; Shen , D. L., and Pan, C. G. [Production of Herbicide-Resistant

Rice With Transforming Heterogene].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-108 895. Wu, H.; McCormac, A. C.; Elliott, M. C., and Chen , D. F. Agrobacterium-Mediat ed Stable Transformation of

Cell Suspension Cultures of Barley (Hordeum Vulgare). 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

896. Wuilloud, R. G.; Shah, M.; Kannamkumarath, S. S., and Altamirano, J. C. The potential of inductively

coupled plasma-mass spectrometric detection for ca pillary electrophoretic analysis of pesticides.

2005; 26, (7-8): 1598-1605.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

897. YAMANO, T. and MORITA, S. Effects of pestic ides on isoLAted rat hepatocytes, mitochondria, and

microsomes II. 1995 Jan 28.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

898. YAMAZAKI, M.; SAITO, K.; MURAKOSHI, I.; ANZAI, H.; YONEYAMA, K., and YAMAGUCHI, I.

INTRODUCTION OF BAR GENE INTO ATROPA-BELLADONNA USING RI-BINARY

VECTOR SYSTEM AND HERBICIDE RESISTANCE OF TRANSGENIC PLANTS. 1991 Jul 28-

1991 Aug 1; 96 (1 SUPPL.). 1991. 161..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

899. Yamazaki, M.; Son, L.; Hayashi, T.; Morita, N. ; Asamizu, T.; Mourakoshi, I., and Saito, K. Transgenic

Fertile Scoparia Dulcis L., A Folk Medicinal Pl ant, Conferred With a Herbicide-Resistant Trait

Using an Ri Binary Vector. 15 (5), 317-321.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

900. YAMAZAKI, M.; SON, L.; SAITO, K.; MURAKOSHI, I.; HAYASHI, T.; MORITA, N., and ASAMIZU, T.

TRANSGENIC HERBICIDE-RESISTANT PLANTS OF SCOPARIA-DULCIS L. A FOLK

MEDICINAL PLANT BY USING AN RI BINARY VECTOR. 1993 Jul 31-1993 Aug 4; 102 (1

SUPPL.). 1993. 176..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

901. Yan, N.; Zhou, L.; Zhu, Z. F.; Zhang, H. G.; Zhou, X. M., and Chen, X. G. Constant pressure-assisted headcolumn field-amplified sample injection in combination with in-capillary derivatization for

enhancing the sensitivity of capillary electrophoresis. 2009; 1216, (20): 4517-4523.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

902. Yang, L. T. ; Pan, A. H.; Zhang, H. B.; Guo, J. C.; Yin, C. S., and Zh ang, D. B. Event-specific qualitative and

quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis for ge netically modified canol a T45. 2006; 54, (26):

9735-9740.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

903. Yang, R. C. ; Thiagarajah, M. R.; Bansal, V. K.; Stringam, G. R., and Rahman, M. H. Detecting and

Estimating Segregation Distortion and Linkage Between Glufosinate Tolerance and Blackleg

Resistance in Brassi ca Napus L. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

904. YANG, S. L. ; ZENG, J. Z.; WU, Y. Q.; ZHU, X. P.; WANG, D. J., and ZHANG, J. Stability expression of

herbicide resistant gene and luciferase gene in calli derived from wheat protoplasts. 35 (11). 1993.

825-830..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

905. Yang, Tao; Zhou, Na; Zhang, Yongchun; Zhang, Wei; Jiao, Kui, and Li, Guicun. Synergistically improved

sensitivity for the detection of specific DNA sequences using polyaniline nanofibers and multiwalled carbon nanotubes composites. 2009 Mar 15-; 24, (7): 2165-2170.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-109 906. Yao, Q. A.; Simion, E.; William, M.; Krochko, J. , and Kasha, K. J. Biolistic Transformation of Haploid

Isolated Microspores of Barley (Hordeum Vulgare L.). 1997.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

907. Ye, G. N.; Colburn, S. M.; Xu, C. W.; Hajdukiewicz, P. T. J., and Staub, J. M. Persistence of Unselected

Transgenic Dna During a Plastid Transformation and Segregation Approach to Herbicide Resistance.

133, (1): 402-410.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

908. YE, J.; LETCHER, S. V., and RAND, A. G. Piezoelectric biosensor for detection of Salmonella

typhimurium. 62 (5). 1997. 1067-1071, 1086..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

909. Ye, X. G. and Qin, H. [Obtaining Marker-Free Transgenic Soybean Plants With Optimal Frequency by

Constructing Three T-Dnas Binary Vector].

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

910. Yeiser, J. L. Krenite or Finale Mixed With Arsenal Ac for Site Preparation--a Demonstration. 49, 119-121.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

911. YOO, W. and RAND, A. R. Antibacterial effect of glucose oxidase on growth of Pseudomonas fragi as

related to pH. 60 (4). 1995. 868-871, 879..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

912. York, A. C. and Culpepper, A. S. Weed Management in Liberty Link Corn. 52, 24-25.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

913. Yoshimura, Y.; Beckie, H. J., and Matsuo, K. Tran sgenic Oilseed Rape Along Transportation Routes and Port

of Vancouver in Western Canada. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

914. Yoshioka, N.; Asano, M.; Kuse, A.; Mitsuhashi, T.; Nagasaki, Y., and Ueno, Y. Rapid Determination of

Glyphosate, Glufosinate, Bialaphos, and Their Major Metabolites in Serum by Liquid

Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry Using Hydrophilic Interaction Chromatography.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

915. YOU, W. and BARKER, A. V. EFFECT OF ROOT-APPLIED GLUFOSINATE-AMMONIUM ON FREE

AMMONIUM ACCUMULATION IN TOMATO PLANTS. 33 (2). 1998. 209..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

916. Yun, C. S.; Hasegawa, H.; Nanamiya, H.; Terakawa, T., and Tozawa, Y. Novel Bacterial N-Acetyltransferase

Gene for Herbicide Detoxification in Land Plants and Selection Maker in Plant Transformation.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

917. ZAKHARENKO, V. A. and MEL'NIKOV, N. N. PESTICIDES IN PRESENT-DAY WORLD. 0 (1). 1996.

100-108..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

918. ZEISS, H. J. AN EFFICIENT ASYMM ETRIC SYNTHESIS OF BOTH ENANTIOMERS OF

PHOSPHINOTHRICIN. 28 (12). 1987. 1255-1258..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

919. ---. Enantioselective synthesis of both enantiomers of phosphinothricin via asymmetric hydrogenation of

alpha-acylamido acrylates. 56 (5). 1991. 1783-1788..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-110920. ZEISS, H. J. Enantioselective synthesis of L-phosphinothricin from L-methionine and L-glutamic acid via Lvinylglycine. 48 (38). 1992. 8263-8270..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

921. ZEISS, H. J. Recent advances in the stereoselective synthesis of L-phos phinothricin. 41 (3 ). 1994. 269-277..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

922. ZELDIN, E. L.; SERRES, R. A., and MCCO WN, B. H. HERBICIDE TOLERANCE OF TRANSGENIC

'STEVENS' CRANBERRY PLANTS DEPENDS ON THE TEST ENVIRONMENT. 1998 Jul 12-

1998 Jul 15; 33 (3). 1998. 516..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

923. Zhang, C. and Ghabrial, S. A. Development of Bean Pod Mottle Virus-Based Vectors for Stable Protein

Expression and Sequence-Specific Virus-Induced Gene Silencing in Soybean. 2006.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

924. Zhang, S.; Warkentin, D.; Sun, B.; Zhong, H., and Sticklen, M. Variation in the Inheritance of Expression

Among Subclones for Unselected (Uida) and Selected (Bar) Transgenes in Maize (Zea Mays L.).

1996.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

925. Zhang, W.; Webster, E. P.; Lanclos, D. Y., and Griffin, J. L. Hybridization Potential From GlufosinateResistant Rice Lines to Red Rice (Oryza Sativa). 52, 232-233.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

926. Zhao, Y.; Qian, Q.; Wang, H., and Huang, D. Hereditary Behavior of Bar Gene Cassette Is Complex in Rice

Mediated by Particle Bombardment. 2007.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

927. Zhong, Heng ; Zhang, Shibo; Warkentin, Donal; Sun, Baolin; Wu, Tiyun; Wu, Ray, and Sticklen, Mariam B.

Analysis of the functional activity of the 1.4-kb 5'-region of the rice actin 1 gene in stable transgenic

plants of maize (Zea mays L.). 1996 Apr 19; 116, (1): 73-84.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

928. Zhou, L.; Luo, Z.; Wang, S.; Hui, Y.; Hu, Z., and Chen, X. In-Capillary Derivatization and Laser-Induced

Fluorescence Detection for the Analysis of Organophosphorus Pesticides by Micellar Electrokinetic

Chromatography.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

929. Zhou, X.; Chandrasekharan, M. B., and Hall, T. C. High Rooting Frequency and Functional Analysis of Gus

and Gfp Expression in Transgenic Medicago Truncatula A17. 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

930. Zhu, H.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Krishnaveni, S.; Wilde, G.; Jeoung, J. M., and Liang, G. H. Biolistic

Transformation of Sorghum Using a Rice Chitinase Gene. 1998.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

931. Zhu, T.; Peterson, D. J.; Tag liani, L.; St Clair, G.; Baszczynski, C. L., and Bowen, B. Ta rgeted Manipulation

of Maize Genes in Vivo Using Chimeric Rna/Dna Oligonucleotides.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

932. ZIEGLER, C. and WILD, A. THE EFFECT OF BIALAPHOS ON AMMONIUM-ASSIMILATION AND

PHOTOSYNTHESIS II. EFFECT ON PHOTOSYN THESIS AND PHOTORESPIRATION. 44 (1-

2). 1989. 103-108..

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

### AI-111 933. Zimmerman, L. R.; Thurman, E. M., and Ziegler, A. C. Method of Analysis an d Quality Assurance Practices

by the U.S. Geological Survey Organic Geochemistry Research Group-Determination of Geosmin

and Methylisoborneol in Water using Solid-Phase Microextraction and Gas Chromatography/Mass

Spectrometry. (GRA&I), Issue 15, 2004.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS

934. Zuver, K. A.; Bernards, M. L.; Kells, J. J.; Spra gue, C. L.; Medlin, C. R., and Loux, M. M. Evaluation of

Postemergence Weed Control Strategies in Herbicid e-Resistant Isolines of Corn (Zea mays). SOIL;

2006; 20, (1): 172-178.

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTL,NSF,RIMAII-1Attachment II. ECOTOX DataTable (sorted by effect)The following table provides a complete list of glufosinate-ammonium studies accepted into the ECOTOX database since 2008, grouped by effect. Any studies accepted intoECOTOX prior to that date were considered in the Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D345696, Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2008-0190).The complete code list for ECOTOX can be found athttp://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdf.Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMFLRSLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMH2O2LOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMMLDHLOAEL2dF10mg/L100114622aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMMLDHLOAEL1dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMNOCONOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMENZCTLSLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMENZPODALOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMENZSODALOAEL2dF10mg/L100114622aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeBCMENZSODALOAEL0.5dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeCELGENCLBMLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeCELGENPSBMLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeCELGENPSCMLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeCELGENRBCMLOAEL2dF10mg/L100114622aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaeCELGENRBCMLOAEL0.25dF10mg/L100114622aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaePOPPOPABNDLOAEL0.5dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaePOPPOPCHLALOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaePOPPOPCHLBLOAEL2dF10mg/L100118900aquaticChlorellavulgarisGreenAlgaePOPPOPCHLOLOAEL2dF10mg/L100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100AII-2Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dA0.6AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dA0.6AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROWGHTLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROWGHTLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROWGHTNOAEL21dA0.4AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROWGHTNOAEL21dA0.6AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRiceGROGROWGHTNOAEL21dA0.6AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA0.3AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100AII-3Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJLOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA0.4AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA1.1AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100AII-4Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha100100972aquaticOryzasativaRicePHYINJGINJNOAEL21dA2.2AIkg/ha10095840aquaticOryzasativaRicePOPPOPABNDLOAEL1gsA1AIkg/ha10095840aquaticOryzasativaRicePOPPOPBMASNOAEL1hvA1AIkg/ha100150127aquaticScenedesmusopoliensisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMASBTNOAEL10dF10uM100150127aquaticScenedesmusopoliensisGreenAlgaeBCMBCMTBARLOAEL10dF10uM100150127aquaticScenedesmusopoliensisGreenAlgaeBCMENZCTLSLOAEL10dF10uM100150127aquaticScenedesmusopoliensisGreenAlgaePHYPHYPSYNLOAEL10dF10uM100150127aquaticScenedesmusopoliensisGreenAlgaePOPPOPDBMSLOAEL10dF10uM100155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTLC012dA1.41aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTLC012dA1.75aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTLC502dA3.55aemg/L24.5AII-5Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTLC502dA3.7aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA0.5aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeabombifronsPlainsSpadefootMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA0.5aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTLC012dA4.2aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTLC012dA2.78aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTLC502dA4.85aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTLC502dA5.55aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA0.5aemg/L24.5155517aquaticSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA0.5aemg/L24.5155445terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintGROGROWGHTLOAEL3dF0.1424lb/acre100155445terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintGROGROWGHTLOAEL3dF0.1424lb/acre10064483terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPBMASED5014dA0.17711lb/acre100154055terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA400aeg/ha100155883terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dF0.267lb/acre100155883terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dF0.267lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.089lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.24475lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.1335lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.2225lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.356lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.2225lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.356lb/acre100155895terrestrialAbutilontheophrastiButterPrintPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dA0.2225lb/acre100AII-6Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity111710terrestrialAcerpseudoplatanusSycamoreGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialAcerpseudoplatanusSycamorePHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre10070759terrestrialAgeratumhoustonianumAgeratumPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialAgeratumsp.WhiteweedPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100155486terrestrialAlliumcepaCommonOnionMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialAlliumcepaCommonOnionPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.3994142lb/acre100155486terrestrialAlliumcepaCommonOnionPOPPOPBMASIC5091dA0.594075lb/acre10073236terrestrialAlliumvinealeFieldGarlicPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dF3.1%v/v100155813terrestrialAlyssumsp.AlyssumPHYINJDAMGLOAEL35dA0.73144lb/acre100155461terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155935terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialAmaranthuspalmeriPalmer'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialAmaranthuspowelliiPowell'SAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155512terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthMORMORMORTNR‐LETH7dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthMORMORMORTNR‐14dA0.4183lb/acre100AII-7Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%PurityLETH155512terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155481terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100154055terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA400aeg/ha100155883terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dF0.098612lb/acre100155883terrestrialAmaranthusretroflexusGreenAmaranthPOPPOPDBMSEC5014dF0.035155lb/acre100155490terrestrialAmaranthusrudisCommonWaterhempPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dAlb/acre100155490terrestrialAmaranthusrudisCommonWaterhempPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dAlb/acre100155490terrestrialAmaranthusrudisCommonWaterhempREPREPSEPDLOAELhvAlb/acre10070759terrestrialAmaranthussp.AmaranthPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155631terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedGROGROBMASNOAEL29dF0.6675lb/acre100155631terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPBMASNOAEL29dF0.6675lb/acre100155813terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155935terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10031424terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL74dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL44dF0.5352lb/acre100154055terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA400aeg/ha100155523terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155631terrestrialAmbrosiaartemisiifoliaCommonRagweedREPREPSEEDNOAEL29dF0.6675lb/acre100155907terrestrialAmbrosiatrifidaBloodRagweedGROGROHGHTLOAEL21dF24floz/acre100AII-8Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity70759terrestrialAntirrhinummajusSnapdragonPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialAntirrhinumsp.SnapdragonPHYINJDAMGLOAEL35dA0.73144lb/acre100152808terrestrialArabidopsisthalianaMouse‐EarCressBCMBCMH2O2LOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialArabidopsisthalianaMouse‐EarCressBCMBCMH2O2NOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialArabidopsisthalianaMouse‐EarCressBCMBCMH2O2NOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialArabidopsisthalianaMouse‐EarCressBCMBCMH2O2NOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialArabidopsisthalianaMouse‐EarCressBCMBCMH2O2NOAEL1dF99ppm9959606terrestrialAsclepiassyriacaCommonMilkweedPOPPOPBMASEC5010dA0.32112lb/acre100155813terrestrialAstersp.AsterPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL10dF25ppm100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL42dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL10dF25ppm100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL42dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialAsystasiagangeticaPhilippineVioletREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100155513terrestrialAvenafatuaRedOatsGROGROBMASLOAEL14dA0.356lb/acre100155611terrestrialAvenafatuaRedOatsPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155611terrestrialAvenafatuaRedOatsPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155486terrestrialAvenasativaCommonOatPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1929253lb/acre100155486terrestrialAvenasativaCommonOatPOPPOPBMASIC5059dA0.2231853lb/acre100AII-9Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155486terrestrialAvenasativaCommonOatREPREPSEPDIC5059dA0.1328859lb/acre100155509terrestrialAvenasterilisAnimatedOatsMORMORMORTLD5021dA0.139196lb/acre100155509terrestrialAvenasterilisAnimatedOatsMORMORMORTLD5021dA0.347545lb/acre10097417terrestrialBeauveriabassianaFungusPOPPOPPGRTLOAEL10dF0.268492lb/acre10097417terrestrialBeauveriabassianaFungusPOPPOPPGRTLOAEL14dF0.268492lb/acre10097417terrestrialBeauveriabassianaFungusREPREPSPRDLOAEL14dF0.268492lb/acre100155540terrestrialBetasp.BeetBCMBCMSUGANOAELhvA0.534lb/acre100155540terrestrialBetasp.BeetBCMBCMSUGANOAELhvA0.534lb/acre100155540terrestrialBetasp.BeetBCMBCMSUGANOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155499terrestrialBougainvilleasp.BougainvilleaPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100155499terrestrialBougainvilleasp.BougainvilleaPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100155486terrestrialBoutelouagracilisBlueGramaPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1031955lb/acre100155486terrestrialBoutelouagracilisBlueGramaPOPPOPBMASIC5078dA0.1495556lb/acre100155486terrestrialBoutelouagracilisBlueGramaREPREPVEGRIC5078dA0.0899701lb/acre100155645terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaBCMBCMDRYMLOAEL2dF200ppm100155645terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaBCMBCMDRYMLOAEL2dF200ppm100155645terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaBCMBCMDRYMLOAEL2dF200ppm100155645terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaMORMORMORTNR‐LETH2dF1000ppm100155645terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaMORMORMORTNR‐LETH2dF1000ppm100155893terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.445lb/acre100155893terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.445lb/acre100155934terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.534lb/acre100155934terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.534lb/acre100120677terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.445lb/acre100AII-10Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity120677terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.445lb/acre100155886terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL35dA0.356lb/acre100155886terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL84dA0.356lb/acre100155886terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL84dA0.356lb/acre100155886terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL84dA0.356lb/acre10078497terrestrialBrassicanapusColzaPOPPOPPGRTIC508dF0.0000054M100155486terrestrialBrassicaoleraceassp.italicaBroccoliMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialBrassicaoleraceassp.italicaBroccoliPOPPOPBMASIC50141dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialBrassicaoleraceassp.italicaBroccoliPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0404327lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.0267lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.05162lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.03916lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.05162lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.06408lb/acre100155422terrestrialBrassicarapavar.rapaTurnipGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.06942lb/acre10073745terrestrialBromuscatharticusRescuegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialBromuscatharticusRescuegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dF0.74928lb/acre10073236terrestrialBromustectorumDownyBromePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dF3.1%v/v100152560terrestrialBufocognatusGreatPlainsToadMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA138ppm24.5152560terrestrialBufocognatusGreatPlainsToadMORMORSURVNOAEL2dA138ppm24.5152560terrestrialBufocognatusGreatPlainsToadMORMORSURVNOAEL2dA138ppm24.570759terrestrialCallistephuschinensisChinaAsterPHYINJDAMGLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155486terrestrialCapsellabursa‐pastorisShepherd'S‐PursePOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0296993lb/acre100155486terrestrialCapsellabursa‐pastorisShepherd'S‐PursePOPPOPBMASIC5038dA0.0385904lb/acre100AII-11Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155486terrestrialCapsellabursa‐pastorisShepherd'S‐PurseREPREPNPODIC5038dA0.0369261lb/acre10070759terrestrialCapsicumannuumBellPepperPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialCapsicumsp.PepperPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialCatharanthusroseusBright‐EyesPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialCelosiacristataCrestedCock'sCombPHYINJDAMGLOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialCelosiasp.Cock'sCombPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100112387terrestrialCentaureacyanusBachelor'S‐ButtonPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0061143lb/acre10070295terrestrialCentellaasiaticaAsiaticPennywortPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.5352lb/acre10063873terrestrialChamaesycemaculataSpottedSpurgePHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155907terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersGROGROHGHTLOAEL21dF24floz/acre10059606terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASEC5010dA0.12488lb/acre100112387terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.005162lb/acre100112387terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.06408lb/acre100112387terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.382789lb/acre100112387terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.033909lb/acre100112387terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.045746lb/acre10064483terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASED5014dA0.20915lb/acre100155481terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155935terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10031424terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL44dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL74dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL146dF0.5352lb/acre100AII-12Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155458terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.5352lb/acre100155458terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.5352lb/acre100155458terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.5352lb/acre100155458terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.5352lb/acre100154055terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA400aeg/ha10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155609terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL28dA0.178lb/acre100155523terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10031424terrestrialChenopodiumalbumLamb's‐QuartersPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL158dF0.9812lb/acre100155610terrestrialChromolaenaodorataJackInTheBushPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.446lb/acre100155610terrestrialChromolaenaodorataJackInTheBushPOPPOPABNDLOAEL84dA0.446lb/acre10077601terrestrialCichoriumintybusChicoryPHYINJGINJLOAEL30.44dA1.0704lb/acre100AII-13Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity77601terrestrialCichoriumintybusChicoryPOPPOPBMASNOAEL273.96dA1.0704lb/acre100155499terrestrialClerodendrumsplendensFlamingGlorybowerPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100155499terrestrialClerodendrumsplendensFlamingGlorybowerPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100152808terrestrialCochliobolusmiyabeanusBrownSpotPOPPOPABNDLOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialCochliobolusmiyabeanusBrownSpotPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF99ppm99152808terrestrialCochliobolusmiyabeanusBrownSpotPOPPOPABNDLOAEL8dF99ppm99152808terrestrialCochliobolusmiyabeanusBrownSpotPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF99ppm99152808terrestrialCochliobolusmiyabeanusBrownSpotPOPPOPABNDNOAEL8dF99ppm9973745terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dF0.74928lb/acre100155518terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.41924lb/acre100155518terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.41924lb/acre100155813terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10070759terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10031424terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL74dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL44dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL9dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL8dF0.5352lb/acre100155515terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.41924lb/acre100155515terrestrialConyzacanadensisButterweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.41924lb/acre10070759terrestrialCoreopsislanceolataLanceleafTickseedPHYINJDAMGLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155682terrestrialCucumissativusCucumberGROGROBMASNOAEL9dF0.05mM100155486terrestrialCucumissativusCucumberPOPPOPBMASIC5076dA0.0259613lb/acre100155486terrestrialCucumissativusCucumberPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0209951lb/acre100155447terrestrialCucurbitapepoVegetableMarrowMORMORMORTNR‐3dF0.125%100AII-14Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%PurityLETH155499terrestrialCuscutareflexaGiantDodderPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100155499terrestrialCuscutareflexaGiantDodderPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL90dF0.5%v/v100155802terrestrialCynodondactylonBermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.81172lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodondactylonBermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.42816lb/acre100155813terrestrialCynodondactylonBermudagrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.90984lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.77604lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.65116lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.33896lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.74928lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.78496lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.39248lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.51736lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.446lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA1.18636lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassGROGROVGORIC5031dA0.7136lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.32112lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.39248lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.39248lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.16948lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.33896lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.2676lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.29436lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.223lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.24976lb/acre100AII-15Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.446lb/acre100155802terrestrialCynodonsp.BermudagrassPHYINJDAMGIC5017dA0.446lb/acre100120063terrestrialCyperusesculentusYellowNutsedgeGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dA0.4aekg/ha100155461terrestrialCyperusesculentusYellowNutsedgePOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialCyperusesculentusYellowNutsedgePOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155523terrestrialCyperusrotundusPurpleNutsedgePOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialCyperusrotundusPurpleNutsedgePOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10070759terrestrialDahliasp.DahliaPHYINJDAMGLOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialDahliasp.DahliaPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100155523terrestrialDaturastramoniumJimsonweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialDaturastramoniumJimsonweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10070759terrestrialDianthusbarbatusSweet‐WilliamPHYINJDAMGLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialDianthussp.PinkPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070295terrestrialDichondramicranthaDichondraPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.5352lb/acre100120479terrestrialDichondramicranthaDichondraPOPPOPABNDLOAEL4.9dA0.5352lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre10070759terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155935terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100AII-16Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity31424terrestrialDigitariasanguinalisPurpleCrabgrassPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL146dF0.5352lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.299752lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.220987lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0519404lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.050552lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.61321lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.525723lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.025009lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.055269lb/acre100112387terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0408866lb/acre10064483terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPBMASED5014dA0.16554lb/acre100155461terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155470terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre10069001terrestrialEchinochloacrus‐galliBarnyardGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL25dF0.267lb/acre10059421terrestrialEchinochloaphyllopogonRiceBarnyardgrassPOPPOPBMASEC50dA0.16948lb/acre10059421terrestrialEchinochloaphyllopogonRiceBarnyardgrassPOPPOPBMASEC50dA0.12488lb/acre100155423terrestrialElaeissp.OilPalmGROGRONLEFNOAEL112dF0.712lb/acre100155423terrestrialElaeissp.OilPalmREPREPFRUTNOAEL224dF0.712lb/acre100155461terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155935terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100AII-17Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155523terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialEleusineindicaGoosegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155486terrestrialElymuscanadensisCanadaWildRyeMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialElymuscanadensisCanadaWildRyePOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1468856lb/acre100155486terrestrialElymuscanadensisCanadaWildRyePOPPOPBMASIC50100dA0.565862lb/acre100155486terrestrialElymuscanadensisCanadaWildRyeREPREPSEPDIC50100dA0.0383412lb/acre100112387terrestrialElymusrepensQuackgrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.1812574lb/acre100120532terrestrialEpilobiumnummulariifoliumCreepingWillowHerbPOPPOPINDXLOAEL49dA0.5352lb/acre100155486terrestrialFagopyrumesculentumBuckwheatPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0498578lb/acre100155486terrestrialFagopyrumesculentumBuckwheatPOPPOPBMASIC50106dA0.1259884lb/acre100155486terrestrialFagopyrumesculentumBuckwheatREPREPSEPDIC50106dA0.101104lb/acre100111710terrestrialFraxinusexcelsiorEuropeanAshGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialFraxinusexcelsiorEuropeanAshPHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.12638lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.1869lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.2581lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.33286lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.35422lb/acre100155422terrestrialGaliumaparineCatchweedBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5010dA0.17978lb/acre100154924terrestrialGaliumspuriumMarinCountyBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5014dA0.1215918lb/acre100154924terrestrialGaliumspuriumMarinCountyBedstrawGROGROWGHTED5014dA0.1080816lb/acre100154924terrestrialGaliumspuriumMarinCountyBedstrawMORMORMORTLD5014dA0.2341768lb/acre100154924terrestrialGaliumspuriumMarinCountyMORMORMORTLD5014dA0.2161632lb/acre100AII-18Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%PurityBedstraw155813terrestrialGeraniumsp.GeraniumPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10096386terrestrialGlyceriadeclinataWaxyMannagrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.5352lb/acre10096386terrestrialGlyceriadeclinataWaxyMannagrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.5352lb/acre10063873terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanBCMBCMWTCONOAEL1gsA1.2488lb/acre10063873terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanBCMBCMWTCONOAEL1gsA1.2488lb/acre10063873terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanBCMBCMWTCONOAEL1gsA1.2488lb/acre100155495terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPHYINJGINJNOAEL30dA0.4ppm15155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPABNDLOAEL14dpeA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPABNDLOAEL14dpeA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155518terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.52628lb/acre100155518terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.52628lb/acre10073993terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.49952lb/acre10073993terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.49952lb/acre10073993terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.49952lb/acre100155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155679terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155495terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL40dA0.4ppm1566932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL132dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL145dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL116dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL103dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL103dF0.3568lb/acre100AII-19Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155529terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialGlycinemaxSoybeanPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.7476lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGRODVPMATRNOAELgsF0.09345lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dF0.04183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dF0.04183lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100AII-20Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity66801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvA2.91684lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAEL54dF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROHGHTNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROLINTNOAELhvF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROLINTNOAELhvF0.004183lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROWGHTLOAEL30dF0.09345lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonGROGROWGHTNOAEL30dF0.046725lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.004183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.004183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.004183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAEL21dF0.004183lb/acre100155523terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAELdA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAELdA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPHYINJGINJNOAELdA0.4183lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155935terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100AII-21Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155935terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155935terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.04183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.004183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.004183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.04183lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.02047lb/acre100155451terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.02047lb/acre100155523terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155515terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.41924lb/acre100155515terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.41924lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100AII-22Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity66801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA2.91684lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre10066801terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.09345lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.09345lb/acre100155511terrestrialGossypiumhirsutumCottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.09345lb/acre10069001terrestrialGossypiumsp.CottonPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.89lb/acre10069001terrestrialGossypiumsp.CottonREPREPINFLNOAELhvF0.89lb/acre100155486terrestrialHelianthusannuusCommonAnnualSunflowerPOPPOPBMASIC50101dA0.1331351lb/acre100155486terrestrialHelianthusannuusCommonAnnualSunflowerPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.104397lb/acre100155486terrestrialHelianthusannuusCommonAnnualSunflowerREPREPSEPDIC50101dA0.1292725lb/acre100155488terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailGROGROWGHTNOAEL11dA588.1g/ha100155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHEC1020dA3.6ppm100155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHEC1020dA3.31ppm100155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHEC5020dA4.43ppm100155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHEC5020dA4.53ppm100155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHNOEC20dA4.7ppm100AII-23Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155483terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORHTCHNOEC20dA2.96ppm100155488terrestrialHelixaspersaBrownGardensnailMORMORMORTNOAEL11dA588.1g/ha10070759terrestrialHibiscusmoscheutosCrimsoneyedRosemallowPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialHibiscussp.HibiscusPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100155611terrestrialHordeumvulgareBarleyPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155611terrestrialHordeumvulgareBarleyPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre10070295terrestrialHydrocotyleheteromeriaWaxweedPHYINJDAMGLOAEL42dA0.892lb/acre10070295terrestrialHydrocotyleheteromeriaWaxweedPHYINJDAMGLOAEL70dA0.892lb/acre10070295terrestrialHydrocotyleheteromeriaWaxweedPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.5352lb/acre100155486terrestrialHypericumperforatumSt.JohnswortGROMPHHGHTIC50139dA0.0364811lb/acre100155486terrestrialHypericumperforatumSt.JohnswortMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialHypericumperforatumSt.JohnswortPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0726952lb/acre100155486terrestrialHypericumperforatumSt.JohnswortPOPPOPBMASIC50139dA1.6149228lb/acre100155813terrestrialImpatienssp.TouchmenotPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialImpatienswallerianaBusyLizzyPHYINJDAMGLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre100155527terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryGROMPHWGHTLOAEL21dA0.1869lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100AII-24Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155523terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialIpomoeahederaceaIvyleafMorning‐GloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre10059336terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryGROMPHWGHTNOAEL14dA1.2488lb/acre100155512terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre10063873terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10063873terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10063873terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155461terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELgsA0.41924lb/acre100155935terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155529terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL63dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL63dA0.3738lb/acre10059336terrestrialIpomoealacunosaWhiteMorningloryREPREPSEPDLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155523terrestrialIpomoeanilWhiteedgeMorninggloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialIpomoeanilWhiteedgeMorninggloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155470terrestrialIpomoeasp.MorninggloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialIpomoeasp.MorninggloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialIpomoeasp.MorninggloryPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100AII-25Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155608terrestrialIschaemummagnumGrassPOPPOPBMASNOAEL84dA0.892lb/acre100155486terrestrialJuncusdudleyiDudley'sRushMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialJuncusdudleyiDudley'sRushPOPPOPBMASIC5072dA0.1280532lb/acre100155486terrestrialJuncusdudleyiDudley'sRushPOPPOPBMASIC5072dA0.0437079lb/acre100155486terrestrialJuncusdudleyiDudley'sRushPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1373359lb/acre100155611terrestrialKochiascopariaKochiaPOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155486terrestrialLactucasativaLettucePOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1034358lb/acre100155486terrestrialLactucasativaLettucePOPPOPBMASIC5061dA0.1497336lb/acre10070759terrestrialLactucaserriolaPricklyLettucePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100111710terrestrialLarixkaempferiJapaneseLarchGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialLarixkaempferiJapaneseLarchPHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100155682terrestrialLepidiumsativumGardenCressGROGROLGTHNOAEL7dF0.15mM100100967terrestrialLeptosphaeriamaculansBlacklegPOPPOPABNDLOAEL56dA3300ppm100155934terrestrialLinumusitatissimumFlaxPOPPOPABNDNOAELdA0.1335lb/acre100155934terrestrialLinumusitatissimumFlaxPOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.1335lb/acre100155934terrestrialLinumusitatissimumFlaxREPREPVIABLOAELdA0.1335lb/acre10070759terrestrialLobulariamaritimaSweetAlyssumPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155486terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA1.20506lb/acre100155486terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPBMASIC5076dA0.594075lb/acre10062987terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPBMASNOAEL135dA1.99808lb/acre10062987terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPBMASNOAEL156dA2.99712lb/acre10073745terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialLoliumperennePerennialRyegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dF0.74928lb/acre100AII-26Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155509terrestrialLoliumrigidumWimmeraRyegrassMORMORMORTLD5021dA0.366324lb/acre100155509terrestrialLoliumrigidumWimmeraRyegrassMORMORMORTLD5021dA0.57583lb/acre10070295terrestrialLotuspedunculatusBigTrefoilPHYINJDAMGLOAEL49dA0.7136lb/acre10096386terrestrialLuziolafluitansSouthernWatergrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.5352lb/acre100152808terrestrialMagnaporthegriseaRiceBlastFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL1dF99ppm99152808terrestrialMagnaporthegriseaRiceBlastFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF99ppm99152808terrestrialMagnaporthegriseaRiceBlastFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL8dF99ppm99152808terrestrialMagnaporthegriseaRiceBlastFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF99ppm99152808terrestrialMagnaporthegriseaRiceBlastFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL8dF99ppm99155456terrestrialMedicagosativaAlfalfaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL131dF1.9624lb/acre100155456terrestrialMedicagosativaAlfalfaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL140dF1.9624lb/acre100155456terrestrialMedicagosativaAlfalfaPOPPOPBMASNOAEL299dF1.9624lb/acre100155456terrestrialMedicagosativaAlfalfaPOPPOPCOVRNOAEL253dF1.9624lb/acre100155486terrestrialMelilotusofficinalisYellowSweetcloverPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0321112lb/acre100155486terrestrialMelilotusofficinalisYellowSweetcloverPOPPOPBMASIC5066dA0.0433074lb/acre100155486terrestrialMelilotusofficinalisYellowSweetcloverREPREPSEPDIC5066dA0.0280261lb/acre100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELCELNCELLOAEL7dF29ul/kgbdwt100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELCELNCELLOAEL2.8333333dF0.00001%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELCELNCELNOAEL2.8333333dF0.15ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELCELNCELNOAEL1dF1.5ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELCELNCELNOAEL1dF0.00001%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELGENAPOPNOAEL2.8333333dF150ppm100AII-27Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELGENAPOPNOAEL1dF1500ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELGENAPOPNOAEL7dF575ul/kgbdwt100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELGENAPOPNOAEL2.8333333dF0.01%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELGENAPOPNOAEL1dF0.01%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELHISNCRONOAEL2.8333333dF150ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELHISNCRONOAEL1dF1500ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELHISNCRONOAEL7dF575ul/kgbdwt100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELHISNCRONOAEL2.8333333dF0.01%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseCELHISNCRONOAEL1dF0.01%100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseGRODVPDVLPNOAEL2.8333333dF15ppm100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseGRODVPDVLPNOAEL7dF29ul/kgbdwt100155484terrestrialMusmusculusHouseMouseGRODVPDVLPNOAEL2.8333333dF0.00001%10073149terrestrialNeoseiulusfallacisPredatoryMiteMORMORMORTLOAEL2dA113.3AIml/100L100100973terrestrialNeotyphodiumcoenophialumFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL33dA0.99904lb/acre100100973terrestrialNeotyphodiumcoenophialumFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL547.92dA0.99904lb/acre10070759terrestrialNicotianaalataJasmineTobaccoPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialNicotianasp.TobaccoPHYINJDAMGLOAEL35dA0.73144lb/acre100AII-28Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoBCMBCMG5DPLOAEL2dA0.3115lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoBCMBCMG5DPLOAEL2dA0.3115lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoBCMBCMG5DPLOAEL2dA0.3115lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROGROBMASED507dA0.01691lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROGROBMASED507dA0.02225lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROGROBMASED507dA0.0534lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROGROBMASED507dA0.10324lb/acre100155899terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROGROBMASED507dA11.63052lb/acre100155790terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROMPHLGTHNOAEL10dA3.56lb/acre100155790terrestrialNicotianatabacumTobaccoGROMPHLGTHNOAEL10dA3.56lb/acre100112387terrestrialNRLiliopsidaMonocotClassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0813905lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRLiliopsidaMonocotClassPOPPOPCOVRNOAELdA0.45568lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRLiliopsidaMonocotClassPOPPOPDVRSNOAELdA0.45568lb/acre10069001terrestrialNRMagnoliophytaAngiospermDivisionPOPPOPABNDLOAEL25dF0.267lb/acre100111591terrestrialNRMagnoliopsidaDicotClassPHYINJDAMGNOAEL35dF0.29%100112387terrestrialNRMagnoliopsidaDicotClassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0230688lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRMagnoliopsidaDicotClassPOPPOPCOVRNOAELdA0.45568lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRMagnoliopsidaDicotClassPOPPOPDVRSNOAELdA0.45568lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPHYINJGINJLOAELdA0.01424lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPHYINJGINJLOAELdA0.02848lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPHYINJGINJNOAELdA0.01424lb/acre100155473terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPABNDLOAEL882.76dA0.2225lb/acre100155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPABNDLOAEL45dA0.8028lb/acre100155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPABNDLOAEL90dA0.8028lb/acre100112387terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0369261lb/acre100AII-29Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASLOAEL45dA0.8028lb/acre100155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASLOAEL90dA0.8028lb/acre100155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASLOAEL165dA0.8028lb/acre100155644terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASLOAEL210dA0.8028lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASNOAEL91dA0.45568lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASNOAEL71dA0.11392lb/acre100112387terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPBMASNOEC28dA0.06052lb/acre100155423terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.178lb/acre100155423terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.178lb/acre100155423terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.178lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRLOAELdA0.45568lb/acre10073993terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRLOAEL56dF0.49952lb/acre10073993terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRLOAEL84dF0.49952lb/acre10073993terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRLOAEL84dF0.49952lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRNOAELdA0.22784lb/acre10073993terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPCOVRNOAEL56dF0.49952lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPDVRSLOAELdA0.45568lb/acre100155654terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPDVRSNOAELdA0.22784lb/acre10067103terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPPBMSLOAEL40dA0.3568lb/acre10067103terrestrialNRPlantaePlantKingdomPOPPOPPBMSLOAEL40dA0.3568lb/acre10070759terrestrialOenotheralaciniataCutleafEveningPrimrosePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRiceGRODVPMATRLOAEL91.32dA0.5352lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL21dA0.5352lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL21dA1.9624lb/acre100100946terrestrialOryzasativaRiceMORMORMORTNR‐35dF0.5ppm100AII-30Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%PurityLETH100966terrestrialOryzasativaRicePHYINJDAMGNOAEL21dA1.9624lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPBMASLOAELhvA1.9624lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.9624lb/acre100100966terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL21dA0.5352lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100100970terrestrialOryzasativaRicePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.2676lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDLOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDLOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDLOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDLOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100AII-31Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGRODVPTHEDNOAELgsF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTLOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RiceGROGROHGHTNOAEL14dF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASLOAELhvF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASLOAELhvF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASLOAELhvF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100AII-32Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.99904lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre100101235terrestrialOryzasp.RicePOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF1.99808lb/acre10031424terrestrialPanicumdichotomiflorumFallPanicgrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL146dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialPanicumdichotomiflorumFallPanicgrassPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL44dF0.9812lb/acre10031424terrestrialPanicumdichotomiflorumFallPanicgrassPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL74dF0.9812lb/acre10031424terrestrialPanicumdichotomiflorumFallPanicgrassPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL71dF0.9812lb/acre100112387terrestrialPanicummiliaceumProsoMilletPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0517624lb/acre100155481terrestrialPanicummiliaceumProsoMilletPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.178lb/acre100155481terrestrialPanicummiliaceumProsoMilletPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.178lb/acre100155481terrestrialPanicummiliaceumProsoMilletPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialPanicummiliaceumProsoMilletPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.178lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTLOAEL10dF25ppm100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTLOAEL42dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTNOAEL28dF0.892lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassGROGROWGHTNOAEL28dF0.892lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL10dF25ppm100AII-33Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL42dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre100120312terrestrialPaspalumconjugatumSourGrassREPREPGERMLOAEL28dF0.446lb/acre10062987terrestrialPaspalumdilatatumDallisgrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL21dA2.99712lb/acre10062987terrestrialPaspalumdilatatumDallisgrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dA0.49952lb/acre10070759terrestrialPelargoniumxhortorumZonalGeraniumPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155607terrestrialPennisetumclandestinumKikuyuGrassPHYINJDAMGLOAEL7dF2L/ha100155607terrestrialPennisetumclandestinumKikuyuGrassPHYINJDAMGLOAEL7dF6L/ha100155607terrestrialPennisetumclandestinumKikuyuGrassPOPPOPBMASLOAEL49dF2L/ha100155607terrestrialPennisetumclandestinumKikuyuGrassPOPPOPBMASLOAEL49dF6L/ha100155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletMORMORMORTLD1007dF100ppm100155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletMORMORMORTLD1007dF20000ppm100155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletMORMORMORTLD507dF75ppm100155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletMORMORMORTLD507dF2500ppm100155495terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletPHYINJGINJLOAEL30dA0.4ppm15155495terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletPOPPOPBMASLOAEL40dA0.4ppm15155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletREPREPGERMED1007dF2000ppm100155759terrestrialPennisetumglaucumPearlMilletREPREPGERMED507dF500ppm100155813terrestrialPetuniasp.PetuniaPHYINJDAMGLOAEL21dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialPetuniasp.PetuniaPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialPetuniaxhybridaPetuniaPHYINJDAMGLOAEL14dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialPetuniaxhybridaPetuniaPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155486terrestrialPhalarisarundinaceaReedCanarygrassPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0706215lb/acre100155486terrestrialPhalarisarundinaceaReedCanarygrassPOPPOPBMASIC5077dA0.12282lb/acre100AII-34Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity62977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCOLOAEL10dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCOLOAEL5dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCOLOAEL10dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCOLOAEL5dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCONOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanBCMBCMWTCONOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASLOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASLOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASLOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASLOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanPOPPOPBMASNOAEL15dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMLOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMNOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMNOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMNOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMNOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre10062977terrestrialPhaseolusvulgarisBeanREPREPGERMNOAEL19dA0.3916lb/acre100103875terrestrialPhragmitesaustralisGrassGROMPHWGHTLOAEL42dA0.99904lb/acre100103875terrestrialPhragmitesaustralisGrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.99904lb/acre100154909terrestrialPhyllostachysaureaGoldenBambooGROGROWGHTLOAEL42dA0.99904lb/acre100154909terrestrialPhyllostachysaureaGoldenBambooPHYINJDAMGLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre100155486terrestrialPhytolaccaamericanaCommonPokeweedPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0864813lb/acre100155486terrestrialPhytolaccaamericanaCommonPokeweedPOPPOPBMASIC50101dA0.0690106lb/acre100155486terrestrialPhytolaccaamericanaCommonPokeweedREPREPSEPDIC50101dA0.0558386lb/acre100111710terrestrialPiceaabiesNorwaySpruceGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100AII-35Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity111710terrestrialPiceaabiesNorwaySprucePHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPiceasitchensisYellowSpruceGROGRODMTRLOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPiceasitchensisYellowSprucePHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPinusnigrassp.laricioCorsicanPineGROGRODMTRLOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPinusnigrassp.laricioCorsicanPinePHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre10064628terrestrialPinuspineaItalianStonePineGRODVPFORMLOAEL30dF0.25ppm100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.058651lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.096832lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.261749lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.2457379lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.619529lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.361251lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.188502lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED50fsA0.245996lb/acre100112387terrestrialPoaannuaAnnualBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0466716lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre10087931terrestrialPoapratensisKentuckyBluegrassPOPPOPABNDLOAEL28dA0.99904lb/acre100111710terrestrialPopulussp.Aspen,Cottonwood,PoplarGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPopulussp.Aspen,Cottonwood,PHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100AII-36Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%PurityPoplar155486terrestrialPotentillarectaErectCinquefoilMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO21dA0.594075lb/acre100155486terrestrialPotentillarectaErectCinquefoilPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0973749lb/acre100155486terrestrialPotentillarectaErectCinquefoilPOPPOPBMASIC50147dA1.0256805lb/acre100111710terrestrialPrunusaviumMazzardCherryPHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPseudotsugamenziesiiDouglasFirGROGRODMTRLOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialPseudotsugamenziesiiDouglasFirPHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialQuercusroburEnglishOakGROGRODMTRNOAEL242dA0.669lb/acre100111710terrestrialQuercusroburEnglishOakPHYINJDAMGLOAEL12dA0.669lb/acre100120532terrestrialRanunculusrepensCreepingButtercupPOPPOPINDXLOAEL49dA0.5352lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockGROGROWGHTEC5030dA0.18601lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockGROGROWGHTEC5030dA0.39249lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.95319lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA2.01585lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.13439lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.27412lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA1.09737lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.5874lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.60698lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.38448lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA1.17213lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA1.06266lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.14507lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.09167lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTLD5030dA0.99057lb/acre100AII-37Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTNR‐LETH30dA0.534lb/acre100155510terrestrialRaphanusraphanistrumJointedCharlockMORMORMORTNR‐LETH30dA1.068lb/acre100155952terrestrialRubussp.BramblesGROGROLGTHNOAEL190dF0.99904lb/acre100155952terrestrialRubussp.BramblesREPREPFRUTNOAEL98dF0.99904lb/acre100155611terrestrialSalsolatragusPricklyRussianThistlePOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155611terrestrialSalsolatragusPricklyRussianThistlePOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre10070759terrestrialSalviafarinaceaMealycupSagePHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialSalviasp.SalviaPHYINJDAMGLOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialSalviasp.SalviaPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialSalviasplendensScarletSagePHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100100973terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL49dA0.99904lb/acre100100973terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL191dA0.99904lb/acre100100973terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL33dA0.99904lb/acre100155456terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL38dF0.9812lb/acre100155456terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL40dF0.9812lb/acre10070588terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL60.88dF0.49952lb/acre10070588terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL60.88dF0.49952lb/acre10070588terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL91.32dF0.9812lb/acre100155456terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLNOAEL49dF1.9624lb/acre100155456terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLNOAEL48dF1.9624lb/acre10070588terrestrialSchedonorusarundinaceusTallFescuePOPPOPCNTLNOAEL91.32dF0.9812lb/acre100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100AII-38Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialSclerotiniahomoeocarpaFungusPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%10031424terrestrialSecalecerealeCommonRyePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL9dF0.5352lb/acre10031424terrestrialSecalecerealeCommonRyePOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100155527terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodGROMPHWGHTLOAEL21dA0.1869lb/acre10059336terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodGROMPHWGHTNOAEL14dA1.2488lb/acre10059336terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodGROMPHWGHTNOAEL14dA1.2488lb/acre100155512terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre10063873terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10059606terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPBMASEC5010dA0.12488lb/acre100155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPBMASLOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPBMASLOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100AII-39Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPBMASNOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100155523terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155523terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLLOAELhvA0.4183lb/acre100155529terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.3738lb/acre100155529terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL63dA0.3738lb/acre100155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPGERMLOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPGERMLOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100155438terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPGERMNOAELmaF0.7476lb/acre100155452terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPSEPDLOAELhvA0.09366lb/acre100155452terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPSEPDNOAELhvA0.09366lb/acre100155452terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPSEPDNOAELhvA0.09366lb/acre10059336terrestrialSennaobtusifoliaSicklepodREPREPSEPDNOAEL14dA1.2488lb/acre10059336terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempGROMPHWGHTLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155512terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre10063873terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155470terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre10059336terrestrialSesbaniaherbaceaColorado‐River‐HempREPREPSEPDNOAEL14dA1.2488lb/acre10059606terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPBMASEC5010dA0.10704lb/acre100AII-40Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity64483terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPBMASED5014dA0.06141lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL98dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialSetariafaberiMuttonBluegrassPOPPOPCNTLNOAEL84dF0.3568lb/acre100155611terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155611terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155481terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASLOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155678terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASNOAEL7dA0.02676lb/acre100155481terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155481terrestrialSetariaviridisGreenFoxtailPOPPOPBMASNOAELdF0.0445lb/acre100155512terrestrialSidaspinosaPricklyMallowMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155512terrestrialSidaspinosaPricklyMallowMORMORMORTNR‐LETH14dA0.4183lb/acre100155470terrestrialSidaspinosaPricklyMallowPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialSidaspinosaPricklyMallowPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155470terrestrialSidaspinosaPricklyMallowPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dF0.3738lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.1157lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASLOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100AII-41Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASLOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASLOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASLOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASLOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASNOAEL28dA0.4005lb/acre100155542terrestrialSisymbriumloeseliiFalseLondonRocketPOPPOPBMASNOAEL28dA0.801lb/acre10059606terrestrialSolanumcarolinenseCarolinaNettlePOPPOPBMASEC5010dA0.19624lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumdulcamaraClimbingNightshadeGROMPHHGHTIC50125dA0.0839092lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumdulcamaraClimbingNightshadePOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0362052lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumdulcamaraClimbingNightshadePOPPOPBMASIC50125dA0.1013176lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumlycopersicumGardenTomatoPOPPOPBMASIC50127dA0.1604314lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumlycopersicumGardenTomatoPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.0581793lb/acre100155486terrestrialSolanumlycopersicumGardenTomatoREPREPSEPDIC50127dA0.1298421lb/acre100112387terrestrialSolanumnigrumBlackNightshadePOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0474904lb/acre100155624terrestrialSolanumphysalifoliumGround‐CherryNightshadeREPREPGERMNOAEL154dA0.3738lb/acre100155790terrestrialSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAEL77dA3.56lb/acre100155790terrestrialSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAEL77dA3.56lb/acre100155790terrestrialSolanumtuberosumPotatoPOPPOPBMASNOAEL77dA3.56lb/acre100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornMORMORMORTLD1007dF100ppm100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornMORMORMORTLD1007dF5000ppm100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornMORMORMORTLD507dF50ppm100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornMORMORMORTLD507dF1000ppm10081633terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPHYINJDESILOAEL7dF0.49952lb/acre10081633terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPHYINJDESILOAEL7dF0.49952lb/acre10081633terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPHYINJDESILOAEL7dF0.49952lb/acre100AII-42Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity81633terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPHYINJDESILOAEL7dF0.49952lb/acre100155679terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155679terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155679terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA1.5164lb/acre100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornREPREPGERMED1007dF1000ppm100155759terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornREPREPGERMED507dF300ppm10081633terrestrialSorghumbicolorBroomcornREPREPGERMNOAEL27dF1.9624lb/acre100155527terrestrialSorghumhalepenseJohnsonGrassGROMPHWGHTLOAEL21dA0.1869lb/acre100155808terrestrialSorghumhalepenseJohnsonGrassPHYINJDAMGLOAEL21dA0.74928lb/acre100155495terrestrialSorghumsp.SorghumPHYINJGINJLOAEL30dA0.4ppm15155495terrestrialSorghumsp.SorghumPOPPOPBMASLOAEL40dA0.4ppm15152560terrestrialSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORMORTNR‐ZERO2dA138ppm24.5152560terrestrialSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORSURVNOAEL2dA138ppm24.5152560terrestrialSpeamultiplicataMexicanSpadefootMORMORSURVNOAEL2dA138ppm24.5112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedGRODVPEMRGNOAELemA0.00534lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedGRODVPEMRGNOELemA0.534lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.0127715lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.161001lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.316929lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.020915lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.017622lb/acre100112387terrestrialStellariamediaChickweedREPREPSEPDLOAEL28dA0.00534lb/acre100155813terrestrialSymphyotrichumpilosumvar.pilosumHairyWhiteOldfieldAsterPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10070759terrestrialTagetespatulaFrenchMarigoldPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100AII-43Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity70759terrestrialTagetespatulaFrenchMarigoldPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialTagetessp.MarigoldPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100155813terrestrialTagetessp.MarigoldPHYINJDAMGNOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10073745terrestrialTaraxacumofficinaleCommonDandelionPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialTaraxacumofficinaleCommonDandelionPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dF0.74928lb/acre100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAEL2dA0.593AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dA0.45AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAEL3dA0.593AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAELgsA0.595AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAELgsA0.595AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDLOAEL24dA0.595AIkg/ha100155894terrestrialTetranychusurticaeTwo‐SpottedSpiderMitePOPPOPABNDNOAEL2dA0.45AIkg/ha100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100AII-44Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDLOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%100155697terrestrialThanatephoruscucumerisFungiPOPPOPABNDNOAEL7dF0.5%10073745terrestrialToxicodendronradicansPoison‐IvyPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialToxicodendronradicansPoison‐IvyPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL35dF0.74928lb/acre10069001terrestrialTrianthemaportulacastrumPigweedPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL25dF0.267lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumincarnatumCrimsonCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumincarnatumCrimsonCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumsubterraneumSubterraneanCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumsubterraneumSubterraneanCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumsubterraneumSubterraneanCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialTrifoliumsubterraneumSubterraneanCloverPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.107245lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.063457lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED8528dA0.289428lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED8528dA0.173639lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED9028dA0.350838lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASED9028dA0.210752lb/acre100155611terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASLOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASLOAELhvA0.089lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASLOAELhvA0.089lb/acre100AII-45Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASLOAELhvA0.089lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASLOAELhvA0.089lb/acre100155611terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatPOPPOPBMASNOAELdA0.223lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED50hvA0.139908lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED50hvA0.063457lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED85hvA0.381543lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED85hvA0.178623lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED90hvA0.462889lb/acre100155893terrestrialTriticumaestivumBreadWheatREPREPFCNDED90hvA0.217338lb/acre10073916terrestrialTriticumsp.WheatPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.5352lb/acre100120532terrestrialVeronicafiliformisWhetzelWeedPOPPOPINDXLOAEL49dA0.9812lb/acre10070759terrestrialViciasativaGardenVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10073916terrestrialViciavillosaHairyVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.5352lb/acre100155679terrestrialViciavillosaHairyVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialViciavillosaHairyVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialViciavillosaHairyVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155679terrestrialViciavillosaHairyVetchPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL14dA0.7136lb/acre100155495terrestrialVignaradiataMungbeanPHYINJGINJNOAEL30dA0.4ppm15155495terrestrialVignaradiataMungbeanPOPPOPBMASLOAEL40dA0.4ppm15155813terrestrialVincasp.PeriwinklePHYINJDAMGLOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre100120677terrestrialViolaarvensisEuropeanFieldPansyPOPPOPABNDLOAEL35dA0.445lb/acre100120677terrestrialViolaarvensisEuropeanFieldPansyPOPPOPABNDNOAEL35dA0.445lb/acre100120677terrestrialViolaarvensisEuropeanFieldPansyPOPPOPBMASED5028dA0.32396lb/acre100120677terrestrialViolaarvensisEuropeanFieldPansyPOPPOPBMASED8528dA0.55091lb/acre100155813terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePHYINJDAMGNOAEL14dA0.99904lb/acre10070759terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePHYINJDAMGNOAEL28dA0.74928lb/acre100AII-46Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity73745terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dA0.74928lb/acre100155618terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPBMASNOAEL127dF0.74928lb/acre10070759terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPBMASNOAEL57dA0.74928lb/acre10070759terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPBMASNOAEL57dA0.74928lb/acre100155813terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPCNTLLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre10070759terrestrialVitislabruscaAmericanGrapePOPPOPCOVRLOAEL14dA0.74928lb/acre10063873terrestrialXanthiumstrumariumCommonCockleburPHYPHYWLSSLOAEL7dA0.74928lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAELdF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL126dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL93dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL80dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornGROGROHGHTNOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAEL28dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGLOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAELdF0.712lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100AII-47Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL28dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL28dF0.178lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAELdF0.712lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAELdF0.712lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAELdF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF0.356lb/acre100AII-48Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL1gsF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJDAMGNOAEL28dF0.356lb/acre100155495terrestrialZeamaysCornPHYINJGINJLOAEL30dA0.4ppm15155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL132dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL117dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL147dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL142dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL108dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL147dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL147dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL121dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL142dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL142dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDLOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.178lb/acre100AII-49Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPABNDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155486terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASIC5021dA0.1485232lb/acre100155486terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASIC5069dA0.3134402lb/acre100155495terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASLOAEL40dA0.4ppm15155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASLOAEL93dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASLOAEL113dF0.356lb/acre10031424terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.5352lb/acre100154055terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA400aeg/ha10066932terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL119dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL116dF0.3568lb/acre10066932terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL108dF0.3568lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155609terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvA0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL113dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL113dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL80dF1.424lb/acre100AII-50Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL93dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL80dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL112dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL126dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL112dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL113dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155490terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvAlb/acre100155490terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAELhvAlb/acre10067103terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL109dA0.3568lb/acre10067103terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPBMASNOAEL109dA0.3568lb/acre10031424terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPCNTLLOAEL8dF0.5352lb/acre10078497terrestrialZeamaysCornPOPPOPPGRTIC508dF0.000013M100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL132dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL117dF0.712lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL147dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL153dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL142dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL108dF1.424lb/acre100AII-51Ref#HabitatGenusSpeciesCommonNameEffectGroupEffectMeasEndpt1DurPrefMeanDurUnitPrefConcTypeConc#1PurityAdjinPrefUnitMeanConcUnitsPref%Purity155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL158dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL147dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL147dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL153dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL121dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL142dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL142dF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAEL158dF1.424lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155481terrestrialZeamaysCornREPREPSEEDNOAELhvF0.356lb/acre100155813terrestrialZinniasp.ZinniaPHYINJDAMGLOAEL49dA0.73144lb/acre10070759terrestrialZinniaviolaceaZinniaPHYINJDAMGNOAEL56dA0.73144lb/acre100