Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment 

for the Registration Review of Glufosinate 

O

P

O

OH

O

NH2

NH4

+

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. Exposure 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. Screening-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. Application 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 Parameters 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. Screening-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 3.13. 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 its 

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 Glufosinate...............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 Direct 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. Overview 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 Glufosinate 

TGAI...........................................................................................................................................................................63

Table 4.8 RQs for Direct Effects to Aquatic Vascular1 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-based 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 Glufosinate 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 RQs1 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 RQs1 (Mean) for Mammals Based on Mean Kenaga EECs Using Average 

Application Rates (T-REX v. 1.5).............................................................................................................................80

Table 4.23. Chronic Dose-based RQs1 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) to the Non-definitive Endpoint 

for Acute Contact Toxicity to the Honey Bee (Apis mellifera). .............................................................................94

Table 4.26. Possible1 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

Appendix H. Classifications of Environmental Fate Studies Submitted for Glufosinate.................................131

Appendix I. Classifications of Ecological Effects Studies Cited in the Risk Assessment for Glufosinate .......133

Appendix J. Results of Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies for Glufosinate...................................................135

Attachments (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 potential 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 reductions 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 and 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 terrestrial 

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 for 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 aquatic 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 active 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 biochemical oxygen demand from decaying plant 

material, or perhaps 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 of 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 glufosinateammonium, which are summarized in the most recent Label Use Information System (LUIS) 

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

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

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

a detailed Problem Formulation (DP Barcode D345696) 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 that 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 conducted as part of the Agency’s Registration Review process for 

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

Quality Protection Act (FQPA 1995).

2.2. Stressor Source and Distribution

2.2.1. Nature of the Chemical Stressor

Glufosinate-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 acid 

glutamine (MRIDs 40345632 and 40345633). The 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, unlike the organophosphate insecticides, 

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

is not generally associated with detectable AChE inhibition. 

Glufosinate is primarily a foliar-active herbicide with limited systemic activity; plants that have 

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

Glufosinate 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 dissociation of the glufosinate salt enhances the herbicidal action of the application. 

The product labels and most submitted studies refer to the salt racemate as the active ingredient. 

There 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 enantiomers 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 studies, are listed in Appendix A. As described in Section 

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

Previous exposure modeling and recently reviewed ecotoxicity data for glufosinate degradates 

(Section 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 Glufosinate

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 C5H15N2O4P

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, grapes, grass grown for seed, olives, 

pome fruit, potatoes, rice, soybeans, stone fruit, sugar beets, and tree nuts. Registrations for noncrop areas include golf course turf, residential lawns, ornamentals, 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

OH

O

NH2

NH4

+
-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 1998). Consistent 

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

a surrogate species approach in its evaluation of glufosinate. Toxicity 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.

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies 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 surrogate species tested to evaluate

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

provides a summary of the acute toxicity classifications of glufosinate, any tested end-use 

products (EPs), and any tested degradates for each described taxon; 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 that 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 habitats, and other uncultivated areas. 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to or downstream from the 

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

reservoirs, and lotic (flowing) waterways, 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 

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

and marine ecosystems. Within water bodies, 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

Birds1 Mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos)

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

Mammals Laboratory rat (Rattus norvegicus) Practically nontoxic Moderately toxic Practically nontoxic2

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

Freshwater fish3 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 plants4 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 of 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 values that are to be protected, defined 

by ecological entitities (species, community, etc.) and their attributes 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. (See Table 2.3 in Section 2.6.2, the Analysis Plan, for further 

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 assessment, 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 exposure 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 endpoints. 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 risks 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, potential risk to nontarget terrestrial and aquatic plants is expected. 

Effects on plants, which are the primary producers in most ecosystems, may result in potential 

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

terrestrial vertebrates and aquatic vertebrates and invertebrates, provided that environmental 

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

Previous risk assessments (DP Barcodes: 280453, 318746, 318747, 368799, 372624, 382673) 

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

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 and 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, when used in accordance with the label, 

glufosinate exposure may result 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 exposure that are not considered likely for glufosinate. The application 

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 amphibians, and plants) may be exposed as a result of 

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

application to rice paddies that may intermittently serve as aquatic habitat. The conceptual 

framework for assessment 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 routes of exposure considered for 

terrestrial and wetland (riparian) plants.

Based on glufosinate’s vapor pressure (< 7.5x10-9 torr), the chemical is not expected to readily 

volatilize. The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR) (see Section 2.6.2), which compares 

inhalation exposure estimates to available avian and mammalian toxicity data, confirms this 

assumption, so this assessment does not evaluate potential atmospheric transport in estimating 

environmental concentrations. While the Screening Imbibition Program (SIP) conservatively 

indicates that drinking 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 through drinking water exposure. Similarly, this 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 

through dermal absorption.

For aquatic assessments, the 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 levels 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 ingestion of residues in sediment and forage. However, glufosinate is 

hydrophilic, with an octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) of <0.1 (Accession Number 

00263025), and does not bioconcentrate in fish (MRID 41323130); therefore, although 

glufosinate residues may be present in prey and forage, bioaccumulation potential is low. 

Aquatic 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 

Measures of exposure 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 concentrations (EECs) of glufosinate that 

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

acute risk are 1-in-10 year return frequency 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 runoff 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, 

2012) 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 an 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 evaluation, 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 (Terrestrial Residue 

EXposure 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 Uses of Glufosinate. Solid arrows depict the routes of 

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

considered likely.

Stressor

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

Route

Ingestion Direct Contact

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 Population:

Reduced population 

growth

Aquatic Plants

Uptake/ 

Adsorption

Spray Drift Volatilization

Atmospheric Transport

Glufosinate

Direct Contact

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates
-Page 14 of 135-

used for terrestrial exposure modeling in this assessment. Foliar dissipation data specific to 

glufosinate (e.g., Willis 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 terrestrial 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 plant exposure from spray drift alone, Tier 1 modules in 

AgDRIFT (v. 2.1.1, December 2011) were used to estimate how far off-site spray drift exposure 

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

for glufosinate 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 Biological Engineers 

(ASABE, 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 nonburndown 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 Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (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 (LD50 = 3,030 mg/kg bw/day, 

MRID 00142430; and inhlation LC50 > 2.12 mg/L, MRID 46279004, respectively) as well as the 

most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (bobwhite quail LD50 > 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 avian 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 potential 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#terrestrial).

The Screening Imbibition Program (SIP v.1.0, released June 15, 2010) was used to calculate an 

upper bound estimate of exposure using glufosinate’s solubility (1 x 106 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 LD50 value for birds is a nondefinitive value (LD50 > 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 to represent all freshwater fish (2000+) and bird (680+) species in the 

U.S. The ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX), was searched in August 2012 to identify 

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

however, no more useful data were identified (USEPA 2012).

The acute measures of effect used in this screening-level assessment are the LD50 (Lethal Dose), 

LC50 (Lethal Concentration), EC50 (Effects Concentration), and IC50 (Inhibition Concentration). 

These are measures 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). 

Toxicity 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 which 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 were 

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) method is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ 

method involves dividing EECs 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 effects to nontarget organisms.

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

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC501 0.5

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification Peak EEC/LC501 0.1

Acute Listed 

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC501 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/LC501 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/LC50 (Dietary) 0.5

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use classification

EEC/LC50 (Dietary) 0.2

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute Listed 

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

EEC/LC50 (Dietary) 0.1

EEC/LD50 (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/ EC25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to nontarget, listed plants from 

exposures

EEC/ NOAEC

1

EEC/ EC05

1 LC50 or EC50. 2 EEC based on upper bound Kenaga 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 species 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 sensitivity to glufosinate 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 measures 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 doseresponse 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 this 

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. The 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 information is presented in Table 3.1. Glufosinate is an active ingredient 

in several formulated products used for preplant and post-emergent control of broadleaf weeds 

which grow within a variety of crops and non-crop areas. Products include Derringer® (Reg. No. 

432-1228), Derringer® F Herbicide (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. No. 

264-652), and Remove

® (Reg. No. 264-663), along with 8 special local needs (Section 24c; 

SLN1

) 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, ornamentals, 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. 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) that are resistant to glufosinate’s herbicidal properties, and for burndown applications. 

In addition to the crop burndown uses described in this assessment, some 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 are 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 maximum rate for 

agricultural 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 was 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, 

burndown, and non-agricultural. Agricultural uses 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-agricultural 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 was 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

Citrus4 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 fruit5 1.50 3 4.50 NS Ground

Potato vine 

dessication 0.38 1 0.38 NA Aerial

Rice2 0.44 2 0.89 10 Aerial

Soybean 0.4 2 0.8 14 Aerial

0.66 2 1.19 10 Aerial

Stone fruit6 1.50 2 3.00 NS Ground

Sugarbeet 0.55 2 1.10 NS Aerial

Tree nuts7 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

Rice2 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-agricultural3

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

holding period.

3. See scenario descriptions 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 Biological 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. Uses which have not been calculated 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 not captured in the above data. These data do not include non-agricultural uses.
-Page 20 of 135-

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

Crop Lbs. ai

Percent Crop Treated Average Single

App. Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Average Number 

Average of Apps.

(%)

Maximum 

(%)

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 herbicidally 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) 1.37x106 Acc No

00263025 Acceptable –

Vapor Pressure (torr, 

25°C) <7.5x10-9 MRID 

44032901 Acceptable –

Henry’s Law Constant 

(atm-m3

/mole) <1.43 x 10-12 –

Estimated using 

vapor pressure, 

molecular weight 

and solubility.

Octanol-water 

partition coefficient 

(KOW)

<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 Halflife (days) 17 MRID 

41920102 Acceptable –

Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism Half-life 

(days)

8.5 (sandy loam)

8.7 (silt loam)

8.8 (loamy sand)

MRID 

41323119 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 Half-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 CarbonNormalized Soil 

Partition Coefficient 

(mL/goc) (KFoc)

16.5 (sand)

268 (silt loam)

605 (silt loam)

MRID 

40345662/

483941011

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 

43766915 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 (Koc) values

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

reported in this table have been corrected.

3.2.1.1. Transport and Mobility

Glufosinate is soluble in water (1.37x106 mg/L at 20o

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 (Kow) of <0.1 (Acc

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

Glufosinate is mobile to highly mobile, with a Freundlich organic carbon partition coefficient 

(KFOC) of 16.5 to 605 mL/goc 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 partition 

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 significantly degrade via the abiotic mechanisms 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 

concentration: at higher application rates (7.23 ppm applied) aerobic soil metabolism half-lives 

for glufosinate ranged 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 quickly in anaerobic soils (t1/2 = 37 days; MRID 

40501014) and in aerobic water (t1/2 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 dissipated 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 particular are 

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

apparently did not leach further than 6 inches into loam or clay soils, or further than 24 inches 

into a sandy soil. Leaching may have been slowed by the 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 August, 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 both 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 neeeded. Paddies 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 water was 96 μg/L (on Day 0 after the second application).

3.2.1.4. Transformation Products

Major aerobic metabolism degradates of glufosinate include MPP (3-methylphosphinicopropionic 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-methylphosphinico-2-oxobutanoic acid]. 

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

(ROCKS) met in January 2012 to re-evaluate the inclusion of MPP, MPA, and NAG into the 

drinking water assessment, as had been done in previous assessments. Per the recommendation 

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 glufosinate, but that its toxicity was not low enough to exclude it from 

consideration in the DWA. However, the ecological exposure in this assessment was limited to

residues of parent glufosinate only because previous exposure modeling of MPP indicated that 

MPP EECs were 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 

concentrations of MPA and MPP (up to 100,000 ug/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 given 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 Transformation Products Formed in Environmental Fate Studies.

Common Name Chemical Name

Study in Which Found

(Maximum % of Parent, or 

equivalent)

Reference 

MRID

MPP

3-methylphosphinicopropionic acid

Soil photolysis (60%)

Aerobic soil (55%)

Anaerobic soil (42%)

Aerobic aquatic (80%)

41920102

40345659A

40501014

45204402/01

MPA

2-methylphosphinicoacetic acid

Aerobic soil (28%)

Aerobic aquatic (20%)

41323119

45204402/01

NAG

2-acetamido-4-

methylphosphinicobutanoic 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 

runoff 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 water 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 compartments: a water column and a sediment zone (benthos). 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 mass-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

HO

O CH3

OH

O

P

HO

O CH3

O

OH

P

HO

O CH3

O

OH

NH

CH3

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 simulation. As PFAM runs for rice applications had been recently completed for the 

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

runs were used in this assessment.

Concentrations in groundwater 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). PRZMGW 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 application

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 scenarios 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 intervals were

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

was 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 2009). Based on EFED guidance, aerial 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 the 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 application 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 Assessment (PRZM/EXAMS)

Use1 PRZM/EXAMS 

Scenario

Single 

Application

Rate

(lbs. ai/A)

No. of 

Application1

Retreatment 

Interval 

(days)

Application 

Start Date

(month/day)

Agricultural

Blueberry OR berries 1.50 2 31 5/31

Canola ND canola 0.4 2 7 5/30

Citrus CA citrus 1.50 3 31 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 31

2/15

CA wine grape 3/16

NY grape 6/16

Olives CA olives 1.50 3 31 2/24

Pome fruit

CA fruit

1.50 3 31

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

Rice2 PFAM 0.44 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 31

2/23

GA peaches 4/7

MI cherries 6/3

Sugarbeet MN sugarbeet 0.55 2 31 5/30

Tree nuts

CA almond

1.50 3 31

4/24

GA pecans 7/4

OR filberts 3/23

Seed Propagation

Corn MS corn 0.52 2 31 6/16

Cotton MS cotton 0.52 2 31 5/15

Rice2 PFAM 0.73 2 10

Soybean MS soybean 0.52 2 31 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-

Use1 PRZM/EXAMS 

Scenario

Single 

Application

Rate

(lbs. ai/A)

No. of 

Application1

Retreatment 

Interval 

(days)

Application 

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 0.794 2 10 4/1

NC cotton 5/2

Cotton (postharvest) MS cotton 0.794 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-agricultural3

Conifer/hardwood trees

- Scenario 1 CA Forestry 1.5 3 31 6/1

- Scenario 2 CA Forestry 0.3 3 31 6/1

Fallow field

- EFED MS Cotton 0.53 26 71 3/21

- Registrant MS Cotton 0.4 5 10 3/21

Lawns/gardens CA residential & 

CA impervious 1.36 26 71 3/21

Farmstead / Noncrop areas

- EFED CA right-of-way & 

CA impervious

1.5 26 71 3/21

- Registrant 1.5 2 10 3/21

1. In some instances, the 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 maximum 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 flooded 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 106 Accsn # 00263025

Hydrolysis half-life (t1⁄2 in days)

pH 5: stable (0)

pH 7: stable (0)

pH 9: stable (0)

MRID 40345656 (no degradation)

Aqueous Photolysis half-life (t1⁄2 in 

days) 0 MRID 41323115 (no degradation)

Aerobic Soil metabolism half-life (t1⁄2

in days) 19

MRIDs 41323119 and 40345659A. Represents the 

90th percentile upper-bound confidence limit on the 

mean (t1⁄2 =15) of 6 aerobic soil metabolism half-life 

values.1

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism halflife (t1⁄2 in days) 1245 MRID 46258601. 3 times the anaerobic aquatic halflife.1

Aerobic Aquatic metabolism half-life 

(t1⁄2 in days) 63

MRIDs 40345660 and 45204402/01. Represents the 

90th percentile upper-bound confidence limt on the 

mean (t1⁄2 =39) of 5 aerobic aquatic metabolism halflife values.1

Organic carbon normalized soil 

partition coefficient Koc (mL/goc) 296.5 MRID 40345662. Average of three Koc values.

Henry’s Law Constant (atm-m3/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 (t1⁄2 in days) 0 MRID 40345656 (no degradation)

Surface Soil Metabolism half-life (t1⁄2

in days) 19

MRIDs 41323119 and 40345659A. Represents the 

90th percentile upper- bound confidence limit on the 

mean (t1⁄2 =15) of 6 aerobic soil metabolism half-life 

values.1

Sorption coefficient Koc (mL/goc) 296.5 MRID 40345662. Average of three Koc values.

Application scenarios

Citrus (1.5 lb ai/A x 3, 

RTI = 3 days)

Fallow fields (0.53 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, 40345659AMedian of 6 values per EFED guidance.

1

Organic Carbon Normalized 

Partition Coefficient KFOC 16.5

MRID 40345662, Three KFOC 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 

Water

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 retreatment 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.

In some cases, formulated glufosinate is more toxic than the technical grade active ingredient. 

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 characterize 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, such 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 90th 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. Surface Water EECs for Labeled Uses of Glufosinate.

Use(s)

App.

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Scenario App. 

Method

1-in10 

year 

Peak 

EECs 

(μg/L)

Peak EECs 

Spray Drift 

Only1

(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 14.0

Grape 

vineyard 1.50 NY grape Ground 20.2 NA 18.0 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 15.0

Potato vine 

dessication 0.38 ME potato Aerial 3.69 NA 3.38 3.09

Rice2 0.44 PFAM Aerial 375 NA 335 274

Soybean 0.66 MS soybean Aerial 16.3 NA 13.0 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

Rice3 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 

(postharvest)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

1.50

CA Forestry Aerial

15.4 NA 14.2 12.6

0.305 4.36 NA 4.02 3.61

Fallow 

field

0.53 MS Cotton Aerial 69.8 14.74 57.5 51.7

0.405 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-in10 

year 

Peak 

EECs 

(μg/L)

Peak EECs 

Spray Drift 

Only1

(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 

areas4

1.50 CA right-of-way

CA impervious Ground

10.6 NA 9.78 9.18

1.505 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 exposure 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. The 

use of these values is discussed further in the Risk Description (Section 4.2). 2 For modeling applications to rice, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.44 lbs ai/A were

applied to a flooded 8-inch paddy, with a RTI of 10 days and a 7-day holding period. 3 For modeling applications for rice seed propagation, the following conditions were used: two applications of 0.73 

lbs ai/A were 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 

concentration 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 

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

(CDPR) indicate that 14 surface 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 not collected. It should be noted that there is uncertainty in the 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 potential glufosinate 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 concentration estimates for vulnerable areas were greater 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 

applications to citrus is 21.4 μg/L, and the estimated concentration for fallow field applications is 

26.4 μg/L. Estimated concentrations for application to citrus and fallow fields using SCI-GROW 

are 1.04 μg/L and 1.35 μg/L, respectively. All these estimates 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 

emphasizing 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 exposures 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 pesticide 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 glufosinate 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 glufosinate exposures to terrestrial mammals and birds (Table 

3.11), based on a 1-year time period. Consideration is given to different types of feeding 

strategies for mammals, including herbivores, insectivores and granivores. Dose-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 Terrestrial 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 32 2

353

Canola 0.44 7 2

Citrus 1.50 32 3

Corn 0.44 14 2

Cotton 0.53 10 3

Grape vineyard 1.50 32 3

Olives 1.50 32 3

Pome fruit 1.50 32 3

Potato vine 

dessication 0.38 NA 1

Rice2 0.44 10 2

Soybean 0.66 10 2

Stone fruit 1.50 32 2

Sugarbeet 0.55 32 2

Tree nuts 1.50 32 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 32 2

35 Cotton 0.52 3 3 2 2

Rice3 0.73 10 2

Soybean 0.52 32 2

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 NA 1

353

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 Uses4

Conifer/

hardwood trees 1.50 32 3

353

Fallow field 0.53 32 265

Lawns/

gardens 1.36 32 265

Farmstead/noncrop 

areas

1.50 32 265

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 higher 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 amount 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

 Typical 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 the 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 uncertainties 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 applications is not specified on the label, the screening-level 

assessment assumes a default maximum value of 26 applications per year (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 minimum 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, and determine if subsequent applications are required. As shown in Tables 

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 four 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 (postharvest) 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  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

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

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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  Herbivores and Omnivores Insectivores Granivores

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

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 (postharvest) 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 Labeled Uses of Glufosinate (T-REX v. 1.5).

Primary Feeding Strategy  Herbivores, Omnivores, and Granivores Insectivores

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 labeled rates for representative uses are presented in Table 3.11 (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 (postharvest) 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 upon 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 ecological 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 plants, birds, 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 glufosinate degradates indicate that these 

degradates are generally equally or less toxic than parent glufosinate.

The results of a 2012 review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) are described 

in Section 3.3.3 (USEPA 2012). A search of the ECOTOXicology database on April 12, 2012,

yielded no new data from suitable studies with more sensitive toxicity endpoints than the 

registrant-submitted guideline 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 3.15 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 invertebrates, including molluscs, 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 TGAI or for MPP (see 

Table 3.16). Parental 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 2008 (MRID 48301102). 

3.3.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

In two 96-hour acute static toxicity studies, rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss; MRID 

00142454) and pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus; MRID 00142455) were exposed to 

glufosinate TGAI (97.4% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 97,400, 175,000, and 

312,000 ug ai/L. No mortality or other adverse effects were observed in either test. The 96-hour

LC50 value for glufosinate, adjusted for purity, was > 312,000 ug ai/L. Based on these results, 
-Page 43 of 135-

glufosinate technical is classified as practically nontoxic to freshwater fish on an acute exposure 

basis.

In a 96-hour static toxicity test, bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus; MRID 00144338) were 

exposed to formulated glufosinate (19% ai, HOE 39866) at 14 nominal concentrations ranging 

from 340 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 of sublethal effects were not reported. The LC50 value for this study, based 

on mortality and adjusted for purity, was 12,000 (95% CL 10,000 – 14,000) ug 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), 1,600, 2,200, 2,900, 

3,900, 5,200, 6,800, 9,100, 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 LC50 value for formulated glufosinate, adjusted for purity, was 11,000 (95% CL: 9,100 –

12,000) ug 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), 910, 1,600, 2,900, 5,200, 9,100, and 16,000 ug ai/L. There was 100% mortality in 

the two highest concentrations after 48 hrs. There was 10% mortality at the 5,200 ug ai/L 

concentration after 48 hrs, and by 72 hrs, there was 80% mortality. Signs of toxicity at the 5,200

ug ai/L concentration included surface and head-down swimming, darting movements, and slow 

reaction to stimuli. The calculated LC50 value for formulated glufosinate, adjusted for purity,

was 4,300 (95% CL 2,900 – 9,100) ug ai/L. Based on this study, 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)

LC50

(ug/L)1,2

(95% CL)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

Rainbow trout 

(Oncoryhncus 

mykiss)

96-hour, static TGAI (97.4%) > 312,000

(NA)

Practically 

nontoxic

(00142454)

72-hour, static EP (16.22%)

4,300

(2,900 –

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 

nontoxic5

(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)

LC50

(ug/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

(9,100 –

12,000)

Slightly toxic 

(00159914)

Pumpkinseed 

sunfish 

(Lepomis gibbosus)

96-hour, static TGAI (97.4%) > 312,000

(NA)

Practically 

nontoxic

(00142455)

Abbreviations: ai: Active ingredient. CL: Confidence limits. EP: End-use product. LC50: 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, adjusted 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 98,900 ug MPA/L (adjusted for purity). 5 Classified as practically nontoxic based on LC50 value. However, two 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 

submitted. 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 stages (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

(ug/L) 1

Endpoints

(MRID)

Rainbow trout 

(Oncoryhncus 

mykiss)

Nonguideline 

21-day, flowthrough

TGAI (98.9%)

50,000 & 

110,000 

(meanmeasured)

Survival

(48301105)

Nonguideline 

28-day, flowthrough

EP (13.1%)

830 & 1,480 

(calculatedmeasured)

Reduction of 

growth2

(48301106)

Nonguideline 

28-day, flowthrough

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, adjusted 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=1,480 ug ai/L, LOAEC= 2,580 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 00142456). The nominal 

test concentrations, adjusted for purity, were 0 (control), 97.4, 131, 175, 234, 312, 409, 545, 731, 

and 974 mg ai/L. At 48 hours, there was 100% mortality at the highest concentration, 80% at 

731 mg ai/L, and 10% at 545 mg ai/L. No effects were observed at test concentrations of 409

mg ai/L and lower. Based on nominal concentrations, the 48-hour EC50 value was 651 (95% CL 

580 – 728) mg ai/L. Based on the results of this study, glufosinate is classified as practically 

nontoxic to freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

Three studies evaluating 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 EC50 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, formulated glufosinate is classified as slightly to moderately toxic to 

freshwater invertebrates on an acute exposure basis.

A 21-day (life-cycle) static renewal toxicity test (MRID 40501010) 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, 17, 31, 54, 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 31

mg ai/L, based on reduced reproduction (calculated as number of young per adult per 

reproduction day). Based on an acute EC50 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 21 (651 ÷ 31 = 21). 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 Glufosinate and its 

Degradates.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity)

EC50

(ug/L)1,2,3

(95% CL)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

48-hr, static TGAI (97.4%)

651,000

(580,000 –

728,000)

Practically 

nontoxic 

(00142456)

48-hr, static EP (16.22%) 2,400

(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)

EC50

(ug/L)1,2,3

(95% CL)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

(12,000 – 19,000) (00145067)

48-hr, static MPP (99.6%) 42,0004

(32,000 – 56,000)

Slightly toxic 

(48444801)

48-hr, static MPA (98.1%) 37,0005

(32,000 – 56,000)

Slightly toxic

(48444802)

48-hr, static dinatrium salt of MPF (97.5%)

> 98,200

(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 concentrations, adjusted 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

 Endpoints are reported for unbuffered test systems and are attributable to acidification. The EC50 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 EC50 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 to Glufosinate and its 

Degradates.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity)

NOAEC &

LOAEC

(ug/L) 1

Endpoints

(MRID)

Water flea

(Daphnia magna)

21-day, static 

renewal TGAI (96.3%) 31,000 & 

54,000

Reduced number 

of offspring per 

female 

(40501010)

21-day, static 

renewal EP (18.5% ai) 2,900 & 

5,600

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

(48301102)

21-day, static 

renewal disodium salt of MPP (50.9%)

< 6,430 & 

6,430

(initial 

measured)

Reduced number 

of offspring per 

female2

(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. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish

In a 96-hour acute static toxicity test, sheepshead minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus; MRID 

41396104) were exposed to glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0 

(control), 96.3, 173, 308, 539, and 963 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. No mortality or other 

adverse effects were reported. The 96-hour LC50 value was > 963 mg ai/L, based on nominal 

concentrations adjusted for purity. Therefore, glufosinate technical is classified as practically 

nontoxic to estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis.

In another 96-hour static toxicity test, sheepshead minnow (MRID 41396108) 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 “abnormalities,” but these observations were not 

presented in the report. Based on nominal concentrations adjusted for purity, the 96-hour LC50

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.

Species Study Type Test Substance (Purity)

EC50

(ug/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, adjusted 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).

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 41396107). Shrimp were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 1, 1.8, 

3.2, 5.6, 10, 18, and 32 mg ai/L. Mortality ranged from 0 at the 1 mg ai/L to 100% at the 32 mg

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 EC50 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). Glufosinate 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 mg/L (total formulation). 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 but the lowest test concentration. The 96-hour LC50 value was 8.0 (95% CL 6.4 –

14) mg ai/L, based on nominal test concentrations. Therefore, formulated glufosinate is 

classified as moderately toxic to mysid shrimp on an acute exposure basis; 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 

glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) on larval development in the Eastern oyster (Crassostrea 

virginica; MRID 41396105). Larvae were exposed to nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 4.7, 

7.8, 13, 22, 36, 60, and 100 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. Percent reductions in normal larvae, 

when compared to the control, ranged from 66% at the 7.8 mg ai/L concentration to 100% at the 

100 mg ai/L concentration. The 48-hour calculated EC50 value was 7.7 mg ai/L, based on 

nominal concentrations adjusted for purity. The 95% confidence limits for the EC50 value were 

not reported. Glufosinate TGAI is classified as moderately toxic to Eastern oyster larvae on an

acute exposure basis.

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 normally developing larvae at the highest 

concentration (0.50 mg ai/L), when compared to the control; therefore, the 48-hour EC50 value is 

estimated to be 0.50 mg ai/L These results indicate that formulated glufosinate is highly toxic to 

Eastern oyster on an acute exposure basis.

The second study evaluated the effect of formulated glufosinate (18.3% ai, Ignite) on shell 

deposition in molluscs (MRID 42262403). Eastern oysters were exposed to mean-measured 

concentrations of 0 (control), 0.29, 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 EC50 value was 2.9 mg ai/L. The slope value and associated 95% 

confidence 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 deposition.
-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 41396106). The larvae were exposed to nominal 

concentrations of 0 (control), 15, 26, 43, 72, and 120 mg ai/L, adjusted for purity. Reductions in 

the number of normal larvae, as compared to the control, ranged from 0% at the 15 mg ai/L

concentration to 31% at the 120 mg ai/L concentration. The 48-hour EC50 value was >120 mg

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), Mean-measured concentrations were < 0.018 

(< LOQ, control), 0.52, 0.90, 1.54, 2.62, 4.22, and 7.12 mg ai/L, and ranged from 88 – 93% of 

nominal. Statistically significant reductions 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 lowest concentration. The 

48-hour EC50 was 0.69 (95% CL 0.64 – 0.75) mg 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 derived 

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

EC50

(ug ai/L)1,2

(95% CL)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

Study 

Type

NOAEC & 

LOAEC

(mg ai/L)1,2

Endpoints

(MRID)

Mysid shrimp

(Americamysis bahia 

formerly Mysidopsis 

bahia)

96-hr, 

static, 

TGAI

(96.3%)

7,5003

(5,400 –

11,000)

Moderately 

toxic 

(41396107) NA 3604 & NA

(ACR) Reproduction

96-hr, 

static, EP

(18.5%)

8,000

(6,400 –

14,000)

Moderately 

toxic 

(41396110)

Eastern oyster 

(Crassotrea 

virginica)

48-hr 

(larvae), 

static, 

TGAI

(96.3%)

7,700

(NR)

Moderately 

toxic 

(41396105)

NA NA NA

48-hr 

(larvae), 

static, EP

(18.5%)

500

3

(NR)

Highly toxic 

(41396109)

48-hr (shell 

deposition),

flowthrough, 

2,9005

(2,200 – 6,900)

Moderately 

toxic 

(42262403)
-Page 50 of 135-

EP (18.3%)

Quahog clam 

(Mercenaria 

mercenaria)

48-hr 

(larvae), 

static, 

TGAI

(96.3%)

> 120,000

(NA)

Practically 

nontoxic 

(41396106)

48-hr 

(larvae), 

static, EP

(18.3%)

690

(640 – 750)

Highly toxic 

(42262402)

CL Confidence limits, NANot available, NR Not reported. 1 Bolded values represent the most sensitive toxicity endpoints for estuarine/marine invertebrates. 2 Unless noted otherwise, toxicity endpoints are based on nominal concentrations, adjusted for purity (% ai). 3 Where probit 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 (EC50 7,500 ÷ ACR 21 = 360). 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 exposed to glufosinate technical (96.3% ai). Mean-measured concentrations 

were < 40 (< LOQ, control), 800, 1,350, 2,120, 3,640, 6,570, and 10,300 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 (800 ug ai/L) to 

100% inhibition at the two highest test concentrations. The NOAEC and IC50 values, based on 

frond number and mean-measured concentrations, were 800 and 1,470 (95% CL: 1,360 – 1,580) 

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, and doubling time (MRID 47542605). The most sensitive endpoints were 

frond number and biomass growth rate, with NOAEC and IC50 values of 3,100 and 9,100 (95% 

CL 7,900 – 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 

glufosinate technical (96.3% ai) at nominal concentrations of 0 (control), 2,400, 4,800, 9,600, 

19,000, 39,000, and 77,000 ug ai/L, adjusted for purity. Observations were reported for days 3, 

4, 5, and 7. In accordance with OCSPP guideline 850.54002, toxicity endpoints for risk 

estimation are based upon Day 4 reductions in cell counts, compared to the control, which 

ranged from 15% at 2,400 ug ai/L to 96% at 77,000 ug ai/L. The Day 4 NOAEC and IC50

values, based on cell count and nominal concentrations, were < 2,400 and 4,600 (95% CL: 4,100

– 5,200) ug ai/L. At test termination, the 7-day NOAEC and IC50 values were 2,400 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 17,000 ug ai/L (mean-measured); however, some uncertainty 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 (31,400 ug ai/L). The IC50 values for cell 

density and cell growth rate are assumed to be greater than the highest concentration tested (IC50

> 98,500 ug ai/L).

Green alga (Desmodesmus subspicatus, formerly Scenedesmus subspicatus Chodat) were 

exposed to glufosinate technical (96.0% ai) for 72 hours under static conditions, at 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 IC50 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 & IC501

(ug ai/L)

(95% CL)

Effect (MRID)

Duckweed

(Lemna gibba)

14-d, static TGAI (96.3%) 800 & 1,4703

(1,360 – 1,580)

Frond number 

(42262404)

7-day, static 

renewal EP (17.7%) 3,100 & 9,1003

(7,900 – 11,000)

Frond number and 

biomass growth rate 

(47542605)

7-day, static 

renewal

disodium salt of 

MPP (50.9%)

103,000 & 

> 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%) < 2,400 & 4,600

(4,100 – 5,200) Cell count (40345653)

96-hr, static dinatrium salt of 

MPF (97.5%)

94,800 & >94,800

(NA) No effects (48444812)

Blue-green alga

(Anabaena flosaquae)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%)

17,000 &

> 98,5003

(NA)

Cell density and cell 

growth rate (47542603)

Estuarine/marine 

diatom (Skeletonema 

costatum)

96-hr, static TGAI (99.2%) 12,000 & 22,000

(18,000 – 28,000) 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 & IC501

(ug 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)

NANot 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 based on nominal concentrations, adjusted 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 glufosinate, based on a 

current Agency review of all submitted data, is provided in Table 3.22 through Table 3.24 and is 

discussed further in Sections 3.3.2.1 through 3.3.2.3. The available data indicate that glufosinate

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 is 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 glufosinate 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 3.25).
-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, glufosinate TGAI is categorized as practically nontoxic to 

birds on an acute oral (MRIDs 00142451, 00142450) and subacute dietary (MRIDs 00150988, 

00150989) exposure bases. 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 the 

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 quail in the acute oral toxicity 

study. Chronic exposure to glufosinate 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 

956 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 Type

Acute Toxicity Chronic Toxicity

LD50

(mg/kg bw) or 

LC50

(mg/kg diet)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

NOAEC

(mg/kg diet)

Endpoints

(MRID)

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus)

Acute oral 

toxicity LD50 > 2,000

Practically 

nontoxic

(00142451)

N/A N/A

Mallard duck 

(Anas 

platyrhynchos)

Acute oral 

toxicity LD50 > 2,000

Practically 

nontoxic

(00142450)

N/A N/A

Bobwhite quail 

(Colinus 

virginianus)

Subacute 

dietary toxicity LC50 > 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 LC50 > 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

Acute oral (MRID 00142430) and chronic 2-generation reproductive toxicity (MRID 40345612) 

studies with the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus) exposed to glufosinate TGAI were submitted. 

Results of the tests, reviewed by the Health Effects Division (HED), are presented in Table 3.23. 
-Page 54 of 135-

Based on these results, glufosinate is classified as practically nontoxic to mammalian species on 

an acute oral exposure basis. In the chronic study, statistically significant (p<0.05) reductions in 

the number of viable pups per litter in both generations (F1 and F2) of offspring occurred at 

dietary concentrations 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 adverse 

(>5% difference from controls) by the Health Effects Division at the lowest parental treatment 

level, 200 mg/kg diet (daily dose equivalent: 14 mg/kg bw/day), and above. Statistically 

significant decreases in body weight and in body weight gain (8-36% compared 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 was 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, 72.9 and 486 mg ai/kg bw, 

resulted in a calculated LD50 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.

Species Study Type

Acute Chronic

LD50

(mg/kg bw)

Toxicity 

Classification 

(MRID)

NOAEC

(mg/kg diet)

NOAEL

(mg/kg bw/day)

Endpoints 

(MRID)

Norway rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

Acute oral 

toxicity LD50 = 3,030

Practically 

nontoxic

(00142430)1

NOAEC = 120

NOAEL = 6.0

Decreased number 

of viable pups

(40345612)

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 329.3 μg ai/bee, adjusted for purity

(MRID 41364002). No mortalities or sublethal effects were observed in either study. The LD50

was >100 μg ai/bee; therefore, glufosinate technical is classified as practically non-toxic to

young adult honey bees on an acute oral and contact exposure basis.
-Page 55 of 135-

Honey bees were exposed in both oral and contact studies to formulated glufosinate (20.4% ai, 

Basta) at a rate of 100 μg ai/bee (MRID 40345654). No mortalities or sublethal symptoms were 

observed in either study. In both studies, the LD50 was >100 μg ai/bee; therefore, the 20.4%

glufosinate formulation is classified as practically non-toxic to young adult honey bees on an 

acute oral and on an acute contact exposure basis.

Table 3.24. Summary of Acute Toxicity Data for Terrestrial Invertebrates Exposed to Glufosinate.

Species

Study Type 

(TGAI or EP) LD50 (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 IC25 (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 been submitted. In the seedling emergence test, 

glufosinate technical reduced percent emergence in the monocotyledonous (monocot) onion 

(Allium cepa; NOAEL = 0.38 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 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 IC25 values of 0.15 lbs ai/A (NOAEL < 0.15 lbs ai/A) and 0.16 lbs ai/A 

(NOAEL < 0.16 lbs ai/A), respectively. Onion plant height was the most sensitive endpoint for 

monocots (NOAEL < 0.23 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.23 lbs ai/A). The data reported in the study are not 

sufficient to calculate reliable IC05 values for the seedling emergence endpoints.

The two vegetative vigor tests with glufosinate TGAI indicated that dicot carrot (Daucus carota) 

dry weight (NOAEL = 0.05 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.063 lbs) and monocot onion dry weight (NOAEL

= 0.10 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 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, 

curling, and twisting; leaf darkening; height inhibition; necrosis; chlorosis; apical damage; and

side branching. The study failed to establish reliable NOAEL/IC05 and/or IC25 values for two 

monocot species and three dicot species within the range of concentrations tested (i.e., monocot 
-Page 56 of 135-

NOAEL, IC25 < 0.062 lbs ai/A; dicot NOAEL, IC25 < 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 weight 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, IC25 = 0.61 lbs ai/A). Lettuce was the most sensitive dicot species 

tested (NOAEL = 0.21 lbs ai/A, IC25 = 0.40 lbs ai/A). Visual observations of phytotoxic 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 

(IC25 and NOAEL/IC05 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

IC25*

(lbs ai/A)

NOAEL

or IC05*

(lbs 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 < 0.231 Height

Ryegrass 0.38 0.19 Height

Dicots

Cabbage 0.16 < 0.161 Dry weight

Lettuce 0.15 < 0.151 Dry weight

Carrot 0.33 < 0.331 Height

Tomato 0.25 0.19 Dry weight

Cucumber 0.35 < 0.351 Dry weight

Soybean 1.2 0.75 Dry weight

Vegetative Vigor (TGAI)

Monocots

Corn 0.31 0.20 Plant height

41396112

413961132

Oat 0.99 0.80 Dry weight

Onion 0.11 0.10 Plant height

Ryegrass 0.142 0.102 Dry weight

Dicots

Cabbage 0.17 0.10 Dry weight

Lettuce 0.612 0.042 Dry weight

Carrot 0.063 0.05 Dry weight

Tomato 0.086 0.05 Dry weight

Cucumber 0.16 < 0.161 Dry weight

Soybean 0.21 0.10 Dry weight

Vegetative Vigor (EP, 13.9% ai)

Monocots

Corn 0.072 <0.0161 Dry weight

47542602 Onion <0.0621 <0.0621 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 <0.0181 <0.0181 Dry weight

Lettuce 0.020 <0.0161 Dry weight

Radish 0.030 <0.0161 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

487185013

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 glufosinate tested. 2

Ryegrass and lettuce were tested in MRID 41396113 but not in MRID 41396112. 

3 Lettuce 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

glufosinate. Based on a search of EIIS conducted in November 2012, 51 incidents associated 

with glufosinate were reported between 1999 and 2011. Of these incidents, 48 were associated 

with phytotoxic effects to corn or canola (USEPA 2012). One new incident has been reported, in 

which 160 acres of pistachio (Pistacia vera) in Merced County, California, were damaged 

following direct treatment with glufosinate (Rely 280) and flumioxazin (Chateau Herbicide)

(Incident number I023302-028; 2011). The majority (45 of the 49 plant-related incidents), 

including the pistachio incident, were associated with the registered 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 intentional) of glufosinate. 

Two aquatic incidents occurred in 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 with 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 glufosinate. At the 

time of the search, EIIS contained information on incidents 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

2012. No records of incidents were reported to be associated with glufosinate (ABC 2010).

4. Risk Characterization

4.1. Screening-Level Risk Quotient (RQ) Values

This screening-level assessment of the labeled uses of glufosinate 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, respectively). The resulting unitless RQ values are compared to the 

Agency’s LOCs, as shown in Tables 4.1 through Table 4.16. 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. For endangered species, LOC exceedances require an additional 

in-depth listed species evaluation of the potential co-occurrence of listed species and areas in 

which new use crops are grown to characterize risks. In this assessment, RQs that exceed the

non-listed species LOC also exceed the listed species LOC.

Tables 4.1, 4.6, 4.9, and 4.14 indicate 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 IC25 values, 

respectively. A discussion of the RQ values for glufosinate and of other information 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 

(LC50 > 312,000 μg ai/L)

N Toxicity data gap

Freshwater invertebrates Y NA Y NA

Estuarine/marine fish N Nondefinitive toxicity endpoint 

(LC50 > 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

EC50 = 651,000 μg ai/L 21-day 

EECs 

(μg ai/L)

Freshwater 

Invertebrates

NOAEC =

31,000 μg ai/L

RQs

Probability of 

Acute Effect1

(1 in ...)

RQs

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 2.97 <0.01

Canola 0.44 6.97 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 5.90 <0.01

Citrus 1.50 60.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 45.3 <0.01

Corn 0.44 17.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 13.6 <0.01

Cotton 0.53 21.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 18.2 <0.01

Grape vineyard 1.50 20.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 18.0 <0.01

Olives 1.50 2.80 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 2.48 <0.01

Pome fruit 1.50 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 18.4 <0.01

Potato vine 

dessication 0.38 3.69 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 3.38 <0.01

Rice 0.44 375 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 335 0.01

Soybean 0.66 16.3 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 13.0 <0.01

Stone fruit 1.50 11.5 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 10.1 <0.01

Sugarbeet 0.55 7.30 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 6.17 <0.01

Tree nuts 1.50 74.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 54.6 <0.01

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 16.0 <0.01

Cotton 0.52 23.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 19.9 <0.01

Rice 0.73 390 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 348 0.01

Soybean 0.52 16.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 14.4 <0.01

Burndown Uses
-Page 60 of 135-

Canola 0.66 6.73 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 6.16 <0.01

Corn 0.66 15.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 12.7 <0.01

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 48.5 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 32.5 <0.01

Cotton 

(postharvest) 0.79 29.9 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 25.3 <0.01

Rice 0.66 74.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 66.0 <0.01

Soybean 0.66 11.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 10.2 <0.01

Sugar beet 0.66 5.37 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 4.90 <0.01

Non-agricultural Uses

Conifer/hardwood 

trees

1.50 15.4 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 14.2 <0.01

0.302 4.36 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 4.02 <0.01

Fallow field

0.53 69.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 57.5 <0.01

0.402 11.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 9.64 <0.01

Lawns/gardens 1.36 7.26 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 57.5 <0.01

Farmstead/

noncrop areas

1.50 10.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 9.78 <0.01

0.502 9.08 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 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 data (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

LC50 = 4,300 μg ai/L

Freshwater Invertebrates

EC50 = 2,400 μg ai/L

RQs

Probability of 

Acute Effect1

(1 in ...)

RQs

Probability of 

Acute Effect1

(1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Citrus 1.50 2.42 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Tree nuts 1.50 2.47 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Burndown Uses

Cotton 0.79 3.55 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Non-agricultural Uses

Fallow field 0.53 14.74 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 0.01

1 in 9x1018

(1 in 31,600 to 

1 in 1 x 1072) 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

EC50 = 7,500 μg ai/L

RQs

Probability of Acute 

Effect1

(1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Canola 0.44 6.97 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Citrus 1.50 60.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Corn 0.44 17.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Cotton 0.53 21.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Grape vineyard 1.50 20.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Olives 1.50 2.80 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Pome fruit 1.50 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Potato vine dessication 0.38 3.69 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Rice 0.44 375 0.05

1 in 4x108

(1 in 216 to

1 in 2 x1031)

Soybean 0.66 16.3 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Stone fruit 1.50 11.5 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Sugarbeet 0.55 7.30 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Tree nuts 1.50 74.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

GMO Seed Propagation Uses

Corn 0.52 20.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Cotton 0.52 23.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Rice

0.73 390 0.05

1 in 4x108

(1 in 216 to

1 in 2 x1031)

Soybean 0.52 16.2 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Burndown Uses

Canola 0.66 6.73 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Corn 0.66 15.7 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Cotton (preplant) 0.79 48.5 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Cotton (postharvest) 0.79 29.9 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Rice 0.66 74.0 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Soybean 0.66 11.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Sugar beet 0.66 5.37 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Non-agricultural Uses

Conifer/hardwood trees

1.50 15.4 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

0.302 4.36 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Fallow field

0.53 69.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

0.402 11.8 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018
-Page 62 of 135-

Lawns/gardens 1.36 7.26 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Farmstead/noncrop areas

1.50 10.6 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

0.502 9.08 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

A shaded cell indicates 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

LC50 = 2,420 μg ai/L

Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

EC50 = 500 μg ai/L2

RQs

Probability of 

Acute Effect1

(1 in ...)

RQs

Probability of 

Acute Effect1

(1 in ...)

Agricultural Uses

Citrus 1.50 2.42 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Tree nuts 1.50 2.47 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018

Burndown Uses

Cotton 0.79 3.55 <0.01 <1 in 9x1018 0.01

1 in 9x1018

(1 in 31,600 to 

1 in 1 x 1072)

Non-agricultural Uses

Fallow field 0.53 14.7 0.01

1 in 9x1018

(1 in 31,600 to 

1 in 1 x 1072)

0.03

1 in 3 x 1011

(1 in 862 to 

1 in 2 x 1042) 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

 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 Glufosinate

TGAI.

Use(s)

Application 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

Peak 

EECs 

(μg ai/L)

Aquatic Vascular Plants

IC50 = 1,470 μg ai/L

NOAEL = 800 μg ai/L

Aquatic Nonvascular Plants

IC50 = 72 μg ai/L

NOAEL = 41 μg ai/L

Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs Listed RQs Nonlisted RQs

Agricultural Uses

Blueberry 1.50 3.29 <0.01 <0.01 0.08 0.05

Canola 0.44 6.97 0.01 <0.01 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 <0.01 <0.01 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 <0.01 <0.01 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 <0.01 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

1.50 15.4 0.02 0.01 0.38 0.21

0.301 4.36 0.01 <0.01 0.06 0.10

Fallow field

0.53 69.8 0.09 0.05 1.70 0.97

0.401 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

1.50 10.6 0.01 0.01 0.26 0.15

1.501 9.08 0.01 0.01

A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).

A lighter shaded cell 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 Vascular1 Plants 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)

Aquatic Vascular Plants

IC50 = 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 Glufosinate 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 (LC50 > 5,000 

mg/kg diet)

Y NA

DoseadjustedN Nondefinitive toxicity 

endpoint (LD50 > 2,000 

mg/kg bw)

N No toxicity data 

requirement

Mammals Dietary N No toxicity data 

requirement

Y NA

Doseadjusted

Y NA Y NA

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

Contact N Nondefinitive toxicity 

endpoint (LD50 > 100 μg

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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 indicates 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 Glufosinate (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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 (postharvest) 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 LD50 value of 3,030 mg/kg bw.

A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for acute risk to nonlisted mammals (LOC = 0.5).

A lighter shaded cell 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 Glufosinate (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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Lg Sm Med Lg Sm Med Lg

Dietary Items 

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 (postharvest) 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

355.0 162.7 199.7 22.18 303.2 139.0 170.6 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 indicates 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 indicates that the dietary-based RQ exceeds the LOC for chronic risk to listed and nonlisted 

mammals (LOC = 0.5).

Table 4.14. Overview of Glufosinate 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

Monocot plants Spray drift 

only

N Nondefinitive toxicity 

endpoint 

(NOAEL<0.062 lbs 

ai/A)

N Nondefinitive toxicity 

endpoint (IC25<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 (IC25<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 (preplant) 0.79 <0.10 0.68 0.66 5.76 0.12 0.23 1.01 1.92

Cotton (postharvest) 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 IC25 = 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 IC25 = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 
-Page 75 of 135-

0.21 lbs ai/A.

A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).

A lighter shaded cell 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 (preplant) 0.79 0.13 1.13 0.71 6.21 0.20 0.38 1.09 2.07

Cotton (postharvest) 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 IC25 = 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 IC25 = 0.40 lbs ai/A and NOAEL = 

0.21 lbs ai/A.

A dark shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to nonlisted plants (LOC = 1).

A lighter shaded cell indicates that the RQ exceeds the LOC for risk to listed plants only (LOC = 1).
-Page 76 of 135-

4.2. Refinements 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, 

average application rates (when available from BEAD, Table 3.2) were used to develop refined 

exposure estimates. The only two scenarios that failed the screening assessment and had data on 

average application rates were for tree nuts and cotton (preplant burndown). 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, hazelnuts, 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 based on one application and three applications at the 

average single application rate of 0.95 lbs ai/A; these EECs were 10.7 μg/L and 47 μg/L,

respectively. 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 average rate 

was 30.4 μg/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 4.20 through 4.22). For 

characterization purposes in this assessment, the RQ values using average application rates are 

based on the mean Kenaga nomogram EECs (Table 4.17 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 nondefinitive (LD50 >2,000 mg/kg bw, LC50 > 5,000 mg/kg diet). Therefore, and because chronic 

avian toxicity data 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 IC50=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 IC50=0.65.
-Page 77 of 135-

available for all uses where screening-level RQ values exceeded the LOC. Although these data 

on average application 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 available 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 4.17. 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 RQs1 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Arthropods

Use(s) 

Grape vineyard (raisin grapes only) 0.19 0.08 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 (hazelnuts 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 shaded cell indicates 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 4.20. Acute Dose-based RQs

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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 LD50 = 3,030 mg/kg bw.

A shaded cell indicates 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 4.21. Chronic Dose-based RQs1 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, pods, 

seeds, etc.

Short Grass

Tall Grass

Broadleaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 (hazelnuts 

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 NOAEL 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 shaded cell indicates 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 4.22. 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 Grass

Tall Grass

Broad-leaf 

Plants

Fruits, 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 shaded cell indicates that the screening level RQ (previous section) exceeded the LOC.
-Page 83 of 135-

4.2.3. Refinements for Terrestrial 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. Additionally, 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 could be to look at the concentrations of the pesticide in 

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 degradation) 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 approach, 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 for some uses. There is uncertainty regarding 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 LC50 > 312,000 μg 

ai/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 glufosinate, the highest peak 

surface water 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 LC50. 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. Therefore, the potential for acute risk to freshwater fish 

(and aquatic-phase amphibians for which freshwater fish serve as surrogates) from exposure to 

technical grade glufosinate in surface water is low. However, at least one incident involving 

freshwater fish mortality has been documented as having a “probable” 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 studies with freshwater fish are compared to surface water EECs to evaluate 

the potential for chronic risk. The 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 ug/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 from exposure to glufosinate

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. Therefore, risks to freshwater invertebrates from the registered uses of 

glufosinate (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 glufosinate is consistently more toxic 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 (LC50 = 4,300 μg 

ai/L) and water flea (EC50 = 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

(respectively), 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 glufosinate 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 release 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. Potential risks 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, the physicochemical properties of glufosinate suggest that it is 

unlikely to partition to sediment in most soils (i.e., Koc < 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 LC50 > 963,000 

μg ai/L) and no chronic toxicity data were submitted. To characterize the potential for acute risk 

to estuarine/marine fish associated with the registered uses of glufosinate, 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. EECs for all

proposed uses are less than 0.01% of the LC50. Therefore, the likelihood of acute mortality in

estuarine/marine fish from exposure to technical grade glufosinate is low.

In the absence of chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish, the best 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, estuarine/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 the likelihood of chronic exposure of estuarine/marine 

fish to undiluted or minimally diluted paddy water is uncertain, it is considered low. It 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 the acreage of rice grown in proximity to 

estuarine/marine environments. Overall, chronic risk to estuarine/marine fish from exposure to 

technical grade glufosinate is expected to be low.

Most of the assessed uses of glufosinate TGAI result in RQ values for estuarine/marine

invertebrates, including molluscs, that are below the acute risk to listed species 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 4x108

, with confidence intervals 

of 1 in 216 to 1 in 2x1031. 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 dilution 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 = 21, water flea) and the acute toxicity endpoint for 

mysid shrimp (EC50 = 7,500 μg ai/L) are used to estimate a chronic toxicity endpoint (NOAEC = 

360 ug ai/L). The highest 21-day EECs for rice (348 ug/L, GMO seed propagation, and 335 ug 

ai/L, in-field application to GMO rice) exceed the estimated NOAEC. Therefore, chronic risk to 

estuarine/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 intermittent, 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-andgarden) and are less than 15% of the estimated NOAEC. Accordingly, 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 associated 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 glufosinate is more toxic to 

estuarine/marine fish and molluscs than the TGAI. Peak surface water EECs from spray drift 

alone (up to 14.74 μg/L, fallow field) are equal to or less than 0.7% and 3% of the formulated 

product acute toxicity endpoints for sheepshead minnow (LC50 = 2,420 μg ai/L) and Eastern 

oyster (EC50 = 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 application to GMO rice) are 

approximately 16% and 78% of the acute toxicity endpoints for sheepshead minnow and Eastern 

oyster, respectively. Based on these calculations, the direct application of formulated glufosinate 

to flooded rice paddies in coastal areas 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. The likelihood 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 invetebrates have not been submitted. However, the 

physicochemical properties of glufosinate suggest that it is unlikely to partition to sediment in 

most soils (i.e., Koc < 1,000 in all soils tested except volcanic ash). Therefore, the potential for 

benthic estuarine/marine invertebrates to be exposed to glufosinate in sediment is expected to be 

low. Estuarine/marine invertebrates 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 exposure 

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 on 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 glufosinate 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 GMO rice, and burndown) and tree nuts exceed the 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, screening-level RQ values for the uses on citrus, preplant 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, the 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 which 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 exposures were not calculated in the Risk 

Estimation section of this assessment because no mortality was observed at the highest treatment 

levels tested in the avian acute oral and sub-acute dietary studies. To gain a better understanding 

of how the EECs for the maximum glufosinate application rates for the assessed uses relate to the 

toxicity data currently 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 glufosinate, the maximum avian dose-based EEC 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-agricultural 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%, respectively, 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 (LD50 > 2,000 mg 

/kg bw), sublethal effects, including lethargy and 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 doseadjusted) for agricultural and non-agricultural uses of glufosinate 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 

intervals. 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 (LC50 > 5,000 mg/kg diet) 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.

No mortality was observed in any of the four acute and aub-acute toxicity tests, each 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 nondefinitive 

toxicity endpoints 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 to 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 risk 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 blueberry 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 trigger 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; therefore, potential chronic risk to strict granivores and frugivores (fruiteaters) 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 application scenario for these uses were 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 retreatment 

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-week 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 singleday 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 

predictions 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. Residues on multiple food items exceed the 

NOAEC for effects on avian reproduction (400 mg/kg diet), based on the highest concentration 

tested with mallard duck. 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 days (citrus, grape vineyard, olives, pome fruit, tree nuts, conifer and hardwoods). Day 0 = 

date of first application. (T-REX v. 1.5)

Day

EEC

(mg/kg diet)

Avian NOAEC

(Level of Concern for chronic risk)

Avian LOAEC (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 for 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 1013, to account for potential variation 

in the slope of the dose-response relationship (USEPA 2004).

Non-agricultural uses of glufosinate 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 for 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 107

). 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 the 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 (LD50 = 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 acute risk to 

nonlisted mammals is exceeded when EECs exceed 50% of the effects threshold for the active 

ingredient (i.e., LD50 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 LD50 value for formulated glufosinate and 8 times the 

concentration (i.e., 1⁄2 LD50) 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 LD50 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 the 

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 agricultural 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 for 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 assumptions 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 this 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 adverse 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 doselevels 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 to 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 glufosinate.

To further characterize 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 for 

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 mammals, as indicated by screeninglevel 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 these 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 basis. The results of the acute studies show no significant 

mortality to young adult (foraging) bees at any treatment level, with corresponding LD50 values 

of >100 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 glufosinate 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 acute contact LD50 (>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 value for terrestrial invertebrates (>781 μg ai/g). The resulting 

Day

EEC

(mg/kg diet)

Mammalian NOAEC (120 mg/kg diet)

(Level of Concern for chronic risk)

Mammalian LOAEC (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 all uses. 

Although these values meet or exceed the LOC in all 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 4.23. 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

LC50 > 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 indicates 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 for 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 indicates 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 rates tested were less than the maximum 

single application rate for orchard use (1.5 kg ai/ha). As described in the EFSA (2005) report, 

the 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 all 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 glufosinate 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 4.16). All ground spray uses of glufosinate result in RQ values that exceed 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-andgarden, and farmstead/noncrop 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. However, 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 dicot 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 calculated 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 emergence 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 IC25 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-

AgDRIFT was used to estimate how far from the treatment site spray drift exposure might occur 

at levels known to inhibit plant growth (Table 4.24). 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 areas) 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 actual 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 0.016 lbs ai/A 0.018 lbs ai/A 0.062 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 4.24. Possible1 Effects Distance for Nontarget Terrestrial Plants Exposed to Glufosinate through Spray 

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

Crop

Single 

Max. App. 

Rate

(lbs ai/A)

AgDRIFT 

Scenario

Distance from Treatment Site (feet)

Monocots

Onion

IC05 < 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 than 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, 44 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, reproductive, 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, pregnancy 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 

Preliminary 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), glufosinate 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 or 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 

interact 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 effects 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. Glufosinate is 

not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be screened under the 

EDSP. Accordingly, as part of registration review, EPA will issue future EDSP orders/data callins, requiring the submission of EDSP screening assays for glufosinate. 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 (USFWS) 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 likely 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 would 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 compliance 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 both 

the survival and recovery of a listed species in the wild by reducing the reproduction, numbers, 

or distribution 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 or runoff/erosion. Given the existing national registrations and 

broad range of registered uses for glufosinate, 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 area, 

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 glufosinate.

6.1. Action Area

For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area affected 

directly or indirectly by glufosinate use and not merely the immediate area where glufosinate 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 direct 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 area 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 screening 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 include areas of exposure that are downwind and 

downstream of the pesticide use site.

Assessment endpoints, exposure pathways, the conceptual models addressing proposed new 

glufosinate uses, and the associated exposure and effects analyses conducted for the glufosinate

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 agencies 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, integrating 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 concerns, by taxa, that are 

triggered by exceeding listed species LOCs in the screening-level risk assessment (Table 6.1). 

Where applicable, an 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 

uncertainties 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 Glufosinate, Based on 

Best Available Data.

Listed Plant Taxon Potential Direct Effects

Terrestrial and semiaquatic plants –

monocots and dicots

Yes

Aquatic vascular plants No effect

Listed Animal Taxon

Potential Direct Effects

Acute Notes Chronic Notes

Terrestrial invertebrates Uncertain1 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 

registered 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). Sublethal 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 ecologically 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 

for sustained exposure to glufosinate and its 

Mammals Yes Yes

Birds Uncertain2 Yes4

Reptiles Uncertain2 Yes4

Amphibians Uncertain2,3 Yes4,5, 6

Freshwater fish No effect3 No effect5, 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 

guideline 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 toxicity 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 the 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 

of 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 listed species of concern. 

7. Conclusions

The risk hypothesis identified in the problem formulation stated, “Given the uses of glufosinate

and its environmental fate properties, there is a likelihood of acute and chronic exposure to 

nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Therefore, when used in accordance with the label, 

glufosinate may result in adverse effects upon the survival, growth, and reproduction of 

nontarget aquatic and terrestrial plants and animals.” After reviewing the most recent 

environmental fate and effects data for glufosinate, the screening-level assessment concludes that 

registered uses of the herbicide glufosinate may result in risk to both listed and non-listed species 

of plants and wildlife. 

Glufosinate is expected 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 leaching. 

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 chronic 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 primarily 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 exposure 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 uses 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 semiaquatic 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. 

The 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 taxa. 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 glufosinate 

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, aquaticphase 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 incidents of freshwater fish mortality have been reported as having a potential association 

with the registered use of glufosinate in agricultural areas. It 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 relative 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 reflective 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). 2010. Avian Incident Monitoring System. Available online at 

http://www.abcbirds.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 the 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. Pfleeger. 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 Thieme 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). 2012. Ecological Incident Information System, v. 2.1 . 

Accessed on 7 November 2012. Description online at 

http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm.

-- 2009a. Pesticides; Data Requirements for Conventional Chemicals, Technical Amendments, and Data 

Requirements for Biochemical and Microbial Pesticides; Final Rule. FR 72(207):60933-60988.

-- 2009b. Water models. Available online at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/.

-- 2009c. 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.

-- 2006a. 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 at 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. Office 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/pdffiles/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 Manderscheid, 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 Gildemeister, 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) Adsorption/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: Degradation 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 (Glufosinate) on Soil: Lab Project Number: 

CB90/097: A44730. Unpublished study prepared by Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft. 76 p.

MRID: 44032901 Miklautz, H. (1995) The Vapor Pressure of Glufosinate (Hoe 039866) at 25 (degrees) C: Lab 

Project Number: 0910: A55227: APC 126/95. Unpublished 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 Glufosinate in Two 

Water Sediment Systems at Different Application Rates: 1st Amendment to Report 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 Glufosinate in Two 

Water Sediment Systems 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 Conditions. 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 prepared 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 Mallard 

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 the 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 gairdneri 

(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. Unpublished 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 Static 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): ABC 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 (Crassostrea virgin- ica): ?Final Report|: Lab Project Number: 87341-0200-2130. Unpublished 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 (Mercenaria 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 

(Mysidopsis 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 

Shrimp (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 Effect 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 Laboratories, 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 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 42262404 Lintott, D.; Ward, G. (1991) Ignite Herbicide Technical Glufosinate (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 039866 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 Nontarget 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 Vegetative 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 study 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). Unpublished 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 inhibition – 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. (2011) 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 Glufosinate 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

NH2

O

OH

O

CH3 -O

NH4+

HOE 061517

IUPAC name - 3-methylphosphinico-propionic acid

CAS name - 3- (hydroxymethylphosphinyl)-propionic 

acid

P

HO

O CH3

OH

O

HOE 099730

IUPAC name - L-2-acetamido-4-methylphosphinicobutanoic acid

CAS name - L-2-(acetylamino)-4-(hydroxymethylphosphinyl)butanoic acid

common name: L-N-acetyl glufosinate ammonium

the tolerance expression will include both the D and L 

isomers 

P

HO

O CH3

O

OH

NH

CH3

O

HOE 064619 

2-methylphosphinico-acetic acid

P

HO

O CH3

O

OH
-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 can 

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 products 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 selected.

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 through 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 assumed 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 application 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 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 (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 17, 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 harvest (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 first 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 period.

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 assumed to occur 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 control 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 products 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 emergence) (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 be 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-

Cotton – 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, 1999), 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 to 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 optimum 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 maximum 

seasonal rate of 4.5 lbs ai/A.

1. Run PRZM in 10 year cycles of three sets of applications, 1st year site preparation, 2nd

and 3rd 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 1st year occurs on 6/1. 

First application for 2nd and 3rd 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 treated 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 1st set of applications occurs 

on 6/1. First application for 2nd set of 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. 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 

intercepted 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 application 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 at 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, around 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 residential 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 applied 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 retreatment 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 percentages 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 application 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 harvesting dates*

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 modeling (Crop tab)

State Planting1 Emergence Date2 Release Date3 Harvesting1

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

TX April 9 April 19 July 31 August 21

MS May 2 May 12 August 30 September 20 1 Midpoint 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 profiles

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 27-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, 1st

app dry and 2nd app flooded1

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, 1st

app dry and 2nd app flooded2

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, 

flooded3

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 29-May 28

1. Applicable for a 4-inch paddy depth. # days reflects 55-day holding period after 2nd application.

2. Applicable for an 8-inch paddy depth. # days reflects 30-day holding period after 2nd application

3. Release modeled 7 days after 2nd application. 

Table B-4. PFAM inputs specific to glufosinate/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 90th percentile upper confidence 

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 90th percentile upper confidence 

bound on the mean (15) of 6 aerobic soil halflife values.

1

Aqueous Near Surface

Half-life (days) at 40° 

Latitude

1x108 MRID 41323115 No evidence of aqueous photolysis.

Hydrolysis Half-life

(days) 1x108 MRID 40345656 No evidence of degradation.

Organic Carbon Partition

Coefficient (mL/goc) (Koc) 297 MRID 40345662 Average of three KOC values.

Molecular Weight (g/mol) 198 --- ---

Vapor Pressure (torr) 7.5x10-9 MRID 44032901 ---

Solubility (mg/L) 1.37x106 MRID 00263025

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 49884 --- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in 

EPISuite (see Appendix B).

Henry Reference 

Temperature (oC) 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 0.10162

0.20323 --- Crop profiles

Weir Level (m), Event 1 0.12702

0.22863 --- Assumed 1 inch clearance between top of weir and water.

Min. Level (m), Event 1 0.10162

0.20323 --- 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) 0.12702

0.22863

Set to same depth as weir height, per PFAM 

guidance.

Output Tab

Area of Application (m2)

4 345,600 ---

20% of the watershed drainage acreage 

(1,728,000 m2), based on draft HUC-8 PCA for 

rice

Area of Surrounding 

Watershed (m2) 4 1,382,400 --- Difference in watershed drainage acreage (1,728,000 m2) and area of application

Curve Number of 

Surrounding Watershed4 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 glufosinate (DP 397388, 1/4/2012).

Water Column Half-life

(days) at 20°C 3730 MRIDs 40345660, 

45204402/01

Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence 

bound on the mean (1247) of 2 aerobic aquatic 

half-life values.1

Benthic Compartment 

Half-Life (days) at 20°C 1x108 --- Assumed stable.

Unflooded Soil Half-life

(days) at 20°C 22 MRIDs 41323118, 

40345659A

Represents the 90th percentile upper confidence 

bound on the mean (18) of 5 aerobic soil halflife values.1

Aqueous Near Surface

Half-life (days) at 40° 

Latitude

1x108 --- Assumed stable.

Hydrolysis Half-life

(days) 1x108 --- Assumed stable.

Organic Carbon Partition

Coefficient (mL/goc) (Koc) 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) 1x106 --- EPISuite

Heat of Henry (J/mol) 49884 --- Estimated using HENRYWIN program in 

EPISuite (see Appendix B).

Henry Reference 

Temperature (oC) 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 Harvesting 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 Environmental 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 Preparation 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 1.504 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 1.421

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

0.387096774193548 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 Index 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 Glufosinate

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 Glufosinate 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 Glufosinate on Citrus.
-Page 128 of 135-

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

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 

Glufosinate

Guideline

Subdivision J

(OCSPP)

Data Requirement MRID Classification Classification Justification

(for Supplemental or 

Unacceptable Studies)

71-1

(850.2100)

Avian Oral 00142450

00142451

Acceptable

Acceptable

NA

71-2

(850.2200)

Avian Dietary 00150988

00150989

Acceptable

Acceptable

NA

71-4

(850.2300)

Avian Reproduction 40345650

40345650

48444809

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

NA

72-1

(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).

72-2

(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 doseresponse; 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: Water quality 

information was not provided. Two 

fish (7%) died at the limit 

concentration, and sublethal effects 

were observed in eight or nine fish 

(>25%).

72-3

(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 EC50

value.

72-4

(850.1300)

Freshwater Invertebrate 

– Life Cycle Test

40501010

48301101

48301102

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

123-1a

(850.4225)

Terrestrial Plant 

Toxicity – Seedling 

Emergence, Tier II

41396111

48531301

48718501

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

MRID 41396111: Did 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

40345653

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 EC50 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.

MRIDs 48444810, -11, -13, and -17: 

Algae 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 Glufosinate

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 and 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 (Unacceptable 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 for 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. Abstracts 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 (Glycine max) Response to Simulated Drift from Selected 

Sulfonylurea Herbicides, Dicamba, 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. Expression of the Bacterial gdhA Gene Encoding a NADPH 

Glutamate Dehydrogenase in Tobacco 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. The Influence of Temperature and Relative 

Humidity on the Efficacy of Glufosinate-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 Transgenic 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 and -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.; Zabkiewicz, R. J.; Grace, L.; Gardner, R. C.; Wagner, A., and Walter, C. Conifer 

Genetic Engineering: Transgenic Pinus radiata (D. Don) and Picea abies (Karst) Plants are Resistant 

to the Herbicide Buster. MOR,PHYSOIL,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,FMX,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,IMQ,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 Herrera-Estrella, L. Herbicide Resistant Transgenic Papaya 

Plants Produced by an Efficient Particle Bombardment Transformation Method. 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 Steele, 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. Characterization 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 Agrobacterium tumefaciens 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,ENV,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 Extension 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,DQTBr,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 Relative 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.; Negri, S.; Facciotto, G.; Schenone, 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 Surfactant are Important in Optimizing 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., and Potrykus, I. Herbicide-Resistant 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,GFS,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 Control 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 Zwerger, P. In-Field Frequencies and Characteristics of Oilseed Rape with Double 

Herbicide Resistance. GRO,PHY,POP. Institute for 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, Germany. antje.dietz@jki.bund.de//: SOIL,ENV; 2009; 

8, (2): 101-111. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155476 

Chemical of Concern: CPR,FXPM,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. Inheritance 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-Resistant 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 (Glycine 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 (Saccharum officinarum L.) Plants 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 Maize 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) Control 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 Physiological Factors on Glufosinate 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 lacunosa). 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 Dessicants on Dalligrass. PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 1987: 60-62. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155647 

Chemical of Concern: FZFB,GFSNH,GYP,PAQT,SXD 

 57. Fernandez-Cerejido, M. C.; Bastida, F., and Menendez, J. The Effect of Several Adjuvants on Glufosinate 

Effectiveness in Conyza Species. GRO. Departamento 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 Using Agrobacterium tumefaciens 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,FMC,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 with Genetically Engineered Herbicide Resistance 

Traits. MOR,PHY,REP. Lyle_Friesen@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.; Zourelidou, M., and Dellaporta, S. L. Large-Scale T-DNA 

Mutagenesis in Arabidopsis for Functional Genomic Analysis. MOR,PHY. Yale University, 

Department of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental 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,MIXTURE; 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 glaucum 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, Bracknell, 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 Snapdragon (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.; Peterson, D. E., and Loughin, T. M. Efficacy of Glyphosate, Glufosinate, and 

Imazethapyr on Selected Weed Species. ACC,GRO,PHYSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE,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. transvaalensis) 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/S0960852411010522//: 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 Expression 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., and Derr, J. F. Preemergence and Postemergence 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,MTL,NPP,ODZ,OYZ,PDM,PRM,QNC,SXD,TFN 

 86. Karunaratne, S.; Sohn, A.; Mouradov, A.; Scott, J.; Steinbiss, H. H., and Scott, K. J. Transformation of Wheat 

with the Gene Encoding the Coat Protein of Barley 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 biennis (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. PHYSOIL,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 Wilcut, 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 Resistant 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 Against 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 Transformation 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.; Niu, X.; Espartero, J.; Zhu, X.; Veronese, 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 Glufosinate 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 Environmental Sciences, University 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. Effect 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 Herbicide 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,MIXTURE; 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.; Montecot, C.; Richard, O.; Gautier, 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 Swanton, 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,University 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 Fitoecol., Inst. Superior de Agronomia, 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. Decreasing 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,ENV,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.; Richards, 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 aestivum 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-Harvest Weed Control and Runner Control with GlufosinateAmmonium in Strawberries. BCM,GRO,POP. Iinternational Conference, Brighton, England, UK, 

November 20-23, 1989. XXII+408P.(VOL. 1); XXI+394P.(VOL. 2); XXII+435P.(VOL. 3) British 

Crop Protection Council: Surrey, England, UK. Illus. 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 canadensis (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,FNP,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.; Srivatanakul, M., and Smith, R. H. Cross-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 angustifolius L.) via Agrobacterium 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. Absorption, 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 Hatzios, 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 Transformation 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 Sciences, 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 Progeny. PHYSOIL,TOP; 

2006; 25, (4): 304-312. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155705 

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH 

 137. Prasad, R. and Dixon-Warren, H. Bioherbicides for 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.; Koger, 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 Bridal Creeper with Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 1991; 6, (3): 126. 
AI-17 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 120946 

Chemical of Concern: BMN,CRME,FZFB,GFS,GYP,IZT,MCPA,MTSM,THF,TNM 

 140. Ramsey, R. J. L.; Stephenson, G. R., and Hall, 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.; Barcelo, 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.; Lazzeri, P., and Barcelo, P. A Facile Method for Screening for Phosphinothricin 

(PPT)-Resistant Transgenic Wheats. PHY. S. Rasco-Gaunt, Biochemistry and Physiol. Department, 

IACR-Rothamsted, Harpenden, Hertfordshire AL5 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 Postemergence 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 Maize (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 Inheritance 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 Unwanted 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-Mediated 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 Traits. 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. Herbicide 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 Foxtail 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.; Burgos, 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 Between Chemical Herbicides and 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 Qiang, 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.; Power, 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,PHYSOIL,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. Glufosinate 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 Impacts 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,PHMD,PYD,RIM,SFZ,SXD,SZ,TFN,TPZ,TSF 

 177. Tharp, B. E. and Kells, J. J. Influence of Herbicide 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,ENV,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.; Collins, 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 McCarty, 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. Physiological 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,MIXTURE; 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 Specific 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. PHYSOIL,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 Spacing 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 Herbicide-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 Transformation of Maize (Zea mays L.) and Wheat (Triticum 

aestivum L.) Using the Phosphomannose Isomerase 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 Herbicide-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 Enhancement 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 Rice 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 considered Acceptable according to ECOTOX screening criteria but were not 

incorporated directly into the current risk assessment because 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 Preharvest 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 Fallow 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, and 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,FNP,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 Series 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 and 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. Natural Products as Herbicides for Tree Establishment. 

GRO,PHY,POPSOIL,ENV; 2005; 78, (1): 1-9. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 111710 

Chemical of Concern: GFSNH,GYPI 

 14. Czarnota, M. A. and Derr, J. Controlling 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 Herbicides. POPSOIL,ENV; 1990; 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.; McGregor, 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.; Anderson, T. A.; Smith, P. N., and Haukos, D. A. Toxicity of 

a Glufosinate- and Several Glyphosate-Based Herbicides 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 Effects 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 Vaufleury, 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. Red Rice (Oryza sativa) Control in Rice (O. sativa) with 

Preemergence and Postemergence 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. Herbicide 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 (Conyza canadensis) Control Using Glyphosate-, Paraquat-, and GlufosinateBased Herbicide Programs. POP. Place of Meeting: Delta Research and Extension 

Center,Mississippi State University,Stoneville,MS////: SOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2008; 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 Dallisgrass (Paspalum dilatatum) - Bermudagrass (Cynodon 

dactylon) Pasture Sod Prior to Overseeding with 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. The 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 Hill, 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 Pollution 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. Heterotrophic Plant Cell Suspension Cultures for Monitoring 

Biological Activity in Agrochemical Research. Comparison 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,CPR,CRM,DMB,DU,EFL,FTS,GFSNH,GYP,MBZ,MCPB,PCL,P

QT,PZM,TFN,TRB 

 39. Harrington, K. C. Herbicide Tolerance of Three Ground Cover Species with Potential 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 Cover 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,DQTBr,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.) Moench., 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 Hancock, 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. and Tawan, C. S. Efficacy of Four 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. Adventitious Presence: Volunteer Flax (Linum 

usitatissimum L.) in Herbicide Resistant Canola (Brassica 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 Preston, C. A Comparative Study 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 Temperature 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. Glufosinate 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. dgpfeiff@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.; Holman, E. M., and Kelly, S. T. Response of Non-GlufosinateResistant Cotton to Reduced Rates of Glufosinate. 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. Reducing 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 Yellow 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 aestivum 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. Evaluation 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 Genomic DNA of Rice Following 

Agrobacterium Inoculation of Isolated 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 Pyricularia 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,MIXTURE; 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 Herbicide-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, Hangzhou 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 Shaw, 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. Predicting 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 Research 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.//Marks,G.//Bergmann,H.//Gotz,R.//Schone,F.////: SOIL,ENV; 2004; 78, (1): 

41-47. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 155645 

Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 83. Sahid, I. and Kalithasan, K. Effects of Glufosinate-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. Glutamine 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 Potyvirus-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.; Chandler, K., and Swanton, C. J. An Integrated 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. Identification of Graminicide-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. Herbicides for Killing Tall Fescue (Festuca arundinacea) 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 Glufosinate. 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 Efficacy? POPSOIL,ENV,MIXTURE; 2009; 28, (12): 1086-1090. 

Notes: EcoReference No.: 154055 

Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,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, Vegetable 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,DCPA,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.; Strebe, 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,PQT,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,CPR,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.; Wichert, 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,PDM,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,MTL,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 Resistance 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 and 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 maculans) 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 Alternative 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 mays). 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 Hedges of Bougainvillea (Bougainvillaea 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-Resistant 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 Environmental 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 INK 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 Department of Energy. EPA Facility ID: OR214159008. 

(GRA&I), Issue 26, 2007. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 14. . Health Consultation: Proposed Shellfish Harvesting 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: HETA No. 2005-0033-2984 and 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.) Using 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: NYD000337295. (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, Claudio; 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 Herbicidas 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, Narayan 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 Advance Plant Protection in the 2000s held at the Annual 

Convention of the Israeli Fund for Advancement of Research on and Development 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 Determination 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-Cyclodextrin 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 Children 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, glufosinate) 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.; Combe, 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. Effects 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. Genetic Transformation of Stella De Oro Daylily by Particle 

Bombardment. 2003. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 58. Aziz, Aris. Response to Bayer CropScience's position 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 Keller, 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 Agricultural 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 cotton 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 Transgene 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 Oilseed 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 Bacteria 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 Enzymes From Barley Leaves. 1994. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 
AI-41 

 74. Barrell, P. J.; Yongjin, S.; Cooper, P. A., and Conner, A. J. Alternative Selectable Markers 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 algae Ostreococcus tauri: Pharmacoproteomics 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., and 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.; Lazzeri, P. A., and Barcelo, P. The Influence 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 Exudation Is Related to Nitrate 

Assimilation Pathway in Detopped Maize Seedlings: 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 Transaminase From Bacillus Stearothermophilus, 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-Swartz, G. Gene Flow in Commercial Fields of HerbicideResistant Canola (Brassica Napus). 2003. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 89. Begg, G. S.; Elliott, M. J.; Cullen, D. W.; Iannetta, 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-release 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 Investigations 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 analysis 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-DAHLEM, 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.; Gannaway, 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. LOWER LEAF TREATMENT IN MAIZE AN INDICATION FOR 

BASTA. 245; (COMMUNICATIONS OF THE FEDERAL BIOLOGICAL INSTITUTE FOR 

AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY BERLIN-DAHLEM, 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 Infection 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.; HERZLINGER, 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 Flachowsky, 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. Characterization 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., and Birch, R. G. High-Efficiency, 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 Utilizing 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., and 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 Oregon 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.; Royer, M.; Bonnot, F.; Cambillau, L., and Guiderdoni, E. A 

novel two T-DNA binary vector allows efficient generation 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 nontransgenic, 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 Analysis 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., and Kovein, R. J. Health Hazard Evaluation Report HETA 92-

044-2265, General Castings Co., Liberty Road Facility, 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 Transgenic 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 After 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. Transgenic 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. Rapid Production of Fertile Transgenic Plants of Rye (Secale 

Cereale L.). 12 (13), 1366-1371. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 147. Castro-Sowinski, S.; Herschkovitz, Y.; Okon, Y., and 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 Affect 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 Associated With a Disease Affecting the Marine 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 (Oryza 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 Herbicides 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 Indirect 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-Mediated 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 Renard, M. Characterization of 

Backcross Generations Obtained Under Field Conditions From Oilseed Rape-Wild Radish F1 

Interspecific Hybrids: an Assessment of Transgene Dispersal. 1998. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 157. Chevre, A. M.; Eber, F.; Darmency, H.; Fleury, A.; Picault, H.; Letanneur, J. C., and Renard, M. Assessment 

of Interspecific Hybridization Between 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 Targeting 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 electrochemiluminescence 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 Transgenic 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 Plants 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 Acetyl 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-Mediated 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 Early-Embryogenesis and Suspensor-Specific Fashion. 

2002. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 172. Cicchillo, R. M.; Zhang, H. J.; Blodgett, 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 persistence 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-Seeded 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., and 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 and 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.; Holman, E. M.; Griffin, J. L.; Vidrine, 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 Factsheet: Glufosinate. 16 (4), 15-19. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 
AI-50 

 186. Creissen, G.; Reynolds, H.; Xue, Y., and Mullineaux, 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. Conventional 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 3-8263-3202-4.; 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.; Cornelissen, 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 Agrobacterium 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.; VANDEWIELE, M.; DOCKX, J.; THOEN, 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 Leemans, 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 Passion 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.; Bornman, C. H., and Berger, D. K. Biolistic Transformation of 

Chincherinchee (Ornithogalum) and Regeneration 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 Pesticides 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 Assessed 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 Transformed 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., and 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 Picard, 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.; Paszkowski, J., and Mittelsten Scheid, O. Cytosine Methylation at 

Cg and Cng Sites Is Not a Prerequisite for the Initiation 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 Alfalfa 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 herbicides. 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 Phosphinothricin-N-Acetyltransferase 

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 Vaufleury, 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 Herbicide-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 Future 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 SOCIETY, 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., and Matallo, M. B. Herbicide Effects 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.; Caldas, 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, Zahid; 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.; Webster, 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.; Vidrine, 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 Concern: 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 POTATO. 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,GYP,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,GYP,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.; Cancado, 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.; Cancado, L. J.; Da Cunha, N. B.; Silva, L. M.; Vianna, G. R., 

and Aragao, F. J. L. Partial Resistance to Bean Golden Mosaic Virus 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 AragĆo, 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 Ndez Da Silva, R. [Establisment of a Genetic 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 Transformation 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.; Stringari, 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.; Bilyeu, 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 Management After Mid-Season Sugarbeet Defoliation. 51, 102. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 270. Franco, A. R.; Diaz, M. E.; Pineda, M., and Cardenas, 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. Competitiveness 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 glyphosate 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 RESPONSE 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.; Namera, 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 Nielsen, 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 Horizontal Gene Transfer. 1999. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 290. Gertz, J. M.; Vencill, W. K., and 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 Stress 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-DAHLEM, 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.; Weller, S. C.; Young, B. G.; Wilson, R. G.; Owen, M. D. K., 

and Jordan, D. A Grower Survey 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. Injections of chemical preparations 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 Ozias-Akins, P. Fertile Transgenic 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. Tifeagle 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.; Loureiro-Beldarrain, I., and 

Gonza(acute)lez-Murua, C. Effect of Phosphinothricin 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 Gonzalez-Murua, C. Comparative 

Effects of Ppt and Aoa on Photosynthesis and Fluorescence Chlorophyll Parameters in Zea Mays. 

1997. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 300. Gonzalez-Martinez, M. A.; Brun, E. M.; Puchades, R.; Maquieira, 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.; BECERRIL-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.; Startin, 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. Tandem 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 Utilising 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], [URL:http://www.wiley.com/]//: 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.; Eber, 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; Zhang, Dabing, and Yang, Litao. A multiplex degenerate PCR 

analytical approach targeting to eight 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; Stierschneider, Michael, and Sessitsch, Angela. Effects of transgenic 

glufosinate-tolerant oilseed rape (Brassica napus) and the associated herbicide application on 

eubacterial and Pseudomonas communities in the rhizosphere. 2002 Sep; 41, ( 3): 181-190. 
AI-61 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 321. HÖ Fte, H., and Chrispeels, M. J. Protein Sorting 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 Seed 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.; Rosquin, 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 Beets 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; Singer, Heinz, and Hollender, Juliane. Ultratrace-Level Determination 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 Rapid and Sensitive Method to Evaluate Genotype Specific 

Tolerance to Phosphinothricin-Based Selective Agents in Cereal Transformation. 

R.R.Mendel,Botanical Institute,Technical University of Braunschweig,Humboldtstrasse 1,D-38106 

Braunschweig,Germany////: SOIL; 1998; 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 Concern: 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), Issue 21, 2099. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 334. Haskew, H. M. and Liberty, T. F. Diurnal Emissions 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-Nishimura, 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 maize 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.; Recktenwald, J.; Wohlleben, W., and Schwartz, D. The 

Phosphinomethylmalate Isomerase Gene 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 conditions 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.; Debruyne, 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 Patient 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 allelochemicals and pathogens as bioherbicidal agents. 2001; 15, (4): 835-857. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 350. Hoerlein, G. Glufosinate (Phosphinothricin), a Natural 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 derivatisation 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 Herbicide 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 Hirose, 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 Glyphosate 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. Enantioselective 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. CONTROL 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 Effects 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 Deisenhofer, 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, Wilhelmina 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 Transgenic 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 Dimitrov, 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,Trinidad/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 Agrobacterium 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 Agrobacterium 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 Capillary 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 herbicides 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 herbicide 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 Tiraby, G. Development of a Transformation System for the Thermophilic Fungus 

Talaromyces Sp. Cl240 Based on the Use of Phleomycin 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 Concern: ATZ,GFS,PDM,PSF 

 395. Jones, Curtis A. and Griffin, James L. Red 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. 2006; 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 detection. 726 (1-2). 1996. 253-258.. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 407. Katsura, N. Herbicides: Vegetable 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 spectrometry using a high sensitivity porous sprayer. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 410. Kerlan, M. C.; Chevre, A. M., and Eber, F. Interspecific Hybrids Between a Transgenic Rapeseed (Brassica 

Napus) and Related Species: Cytogenetical Characterization and Detection of the Transgene. 36 (6), 

1099-1106. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 411. Khenifi, Aicha; Derriche, Zoubir; Forano, Claude; 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.; Ryu, 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; Boston, 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 the 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 Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation System. 

2006. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 417. Kinsella, T. E. and Kahley, G. R. Filmless Radiography for Aerospace 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., and Knogge, W. A GFP-based assay to quantify 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 Genetically 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., and 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 Delivery 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.; Carswell, 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.; Matthews, J. L.; Baldwin, J. L., and Maschoff, J. Evaluation of GlufosinateResistant Corn (Zea mays) and Glufosinate: Efficacy on Annual Weeds. 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., and 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 Smalle, 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. Identification 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-photorespiratory 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 Between 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; Jauhiainen, L.; Eronen, L.; Oinonen, S., and Hartikainen, H. 

Effects of Soil Phosphorus Status on Environmental 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-DAHLEM, 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. [Self-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. Transformation and Expression of a Stilbene Synthase Gene of Vitis Vinifera L. 

In Barley and Wheat for Increased 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 Concern: 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; Zhang, 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 Strauss, 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. Establishment 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 Indica 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 and 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. Characteristics 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. The 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 phosphinothricins. (BETHESDA); 95 (4). 1991. 1057-1062.. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 494. Lohar, D. P.; Schuller, K.; Buzas, D. M.; Gresshoff, 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., and Mantovani, A. Cell viability and PSA secretion assays in 

LNCaP cells: A tiered in vitro approach to screen chemicals 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. Molecular 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 GLYPHOSPHATE 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 Transgene 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 CHARACTERIZATION 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.; Simpson, 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. Expression 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, Ian; Schmidt, Jean; Deege, Lora; Morrisey, 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 study 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 Herbicide-Tolerant Oilseed Rape. 

Kathrine.H.Madsen@agsci.kvl.dk//K.H. Madsen, Department of Agricultural Sciences, Royal 

Veterinary /Agricultural Univ., 40 Thorvaldsensvej, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark//: SOIL; 

1999; 39, (2): 95-106. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: 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 FORESTRY 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 Tolerance 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 BRINGMANN, 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 chemical 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 protective 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.; Ahmad, A.; Chai, B.; Wang, W.; Sabzikar, R., and Sticklen, M. 

B. Competence of Oat (Avena Sativa L.) Shoot Apical 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, Stable 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 McFarlane, 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, David; 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 Selecting 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. Volume 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-Rueda, 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 Conventional 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-Specific 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 Approach 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 samples 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. Effects 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 Liberty 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-Resistant Oilseed Rape Pollen to Gut Bacteria 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. Engineering Crop Resistance to the Naturally Occurring Glutamine 

Synthetase Inhibitor Phophinothricin. 38-47. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 572. Murdock, E. C. Tolerance of Roundup Ready Cotton to Multiple Postemergence Applications of Glyphosate. 

52, 5-6. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 573. Murphy, T. R. Selective Control of Winter Annual 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 Resistant 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 Nebenfu(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 Akin, 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.; Lejczak, 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, Johan; 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 Concern: 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-Espinoza, G.; Lobo, J. A., and Espinoza-Esquivel, A. M. Assessment of Gene Flow 

From a Herbicide-Resistant Indica Rice (Oryza Sativa 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 Transgenic Maize. 81, 549-558. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 599. Omura, S.; Hinotozawa, K.; Imamura, N., and Murata, M. The Structure of Phosalacine, 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 Sensitive 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 First 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 risks 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 Dehydrogenase 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 Transformation. 2006. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 617. Peck, S. C. ; Cooke, H. A.; Cicchillo, R. M.; Malova, P.; Hammerschmidt, F.; Nair, 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.; Noguera, L. M.; Pfeiffer, 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 Conicella, C. Screening for 

mutations affecting sexual reproduction 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. Transportation Security: Issues for the 110th Congress. (GRA&I), 

Issue 01, 2008. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 623. Petersen, J. and Hurle, K. Control of Cleavers With Liberty in Glufosinate-Resistant Winter Oilseed Rape. 

2000. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 624. Petersen, W.; Umbeck, P.; Hokanson, K., and Halsey, M. Biosafety Considerations for Selectable and 

Scorable Markers Used in Cassava (Manihot 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.; Crofts, A. J.; Taylor, J. P.; Movafeghi, 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 Production 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 Fertility 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., and 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., and 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 Surface Antigen for Prototype Plant-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 Glufosinate 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 Efficiency of Selection and Transgene Expression in 

Wheat. 2004. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 645. Puchta, H.; Dujon, B., and Hohn, B. Two Different 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 Display 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.; Munyikwa, 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. XXIV+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 Desiccant for Peas, Beans and Linseed . 

379-384. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 660. Reboud, X. Effect of a Gap on Gene Flow Between Otherwise Adjacent 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 effects in transgenic Arabidopsis. 2009 Oct; 36, (10 ): 629-639. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 664. Retzinger, E. J. Jr. and Mallory-Smith, C. Classification 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,ATZ,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,FTCM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I

XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MCPP1,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. Classification 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,ATZ,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,FTCM,FTS,FXP,FZFP,GFS,GYP,HXZ,IMQ,IXB,I

XF,IZP,IZT,LCF,LNR,MBZ,MCPA,MCPB,MCPP1,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-polarity CE with indirect absorptiometric 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) Residues in Water by Gas Chromatography With 

Tandem Mass Spectrometry After Ion Exchange 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 CENTRE FOR AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY, JUNE 11-13, 

1996. 145P. BIOLOGISCHE BUNDESANSTALT 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 Transgenic Glufosinate-Resistant 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 Effect 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. Transient and Stable Electrotransformations of Intact Black Mexican 

Sweet Maize Cells Are Obtained After Preplasmolysis. 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. Monitoring 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. Analisi ambientale di due aziende di produzione di manufatti 

ceramici nel comprensorio di Civita Castellana. (Environmental analysis in two manufacturing firms 

of Civita Castellana disctrict (Italy)). (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 ENVIRONMENTAL 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.; Suenami, K.; Takekoshi, Y., and Kanno, S. Integrated Pulsed 

Amperometric Detection of Glufosinate, Bialaphos 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 Concern: GFS,GYPI,NHSO4 

 700. Schafers, C.; Hommen, U.; Dembinski, M., and Gonzalez-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,Captan,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.; Freyberger, A.; Lazzari, G.; Pellizzer, 

C.; Piersma, A.; Schafer, W. R.; Seiler, A.; Witters, 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, Cristian; Piersma, Aldert; Sch+ńfer, Wolfgang R.; Seiler, Andrea; 

Witters, Hilda, and Schwarz, Michael. The ReProTect 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 Small Subunit Rrna Genes in Ecological Studies. 

12 (1), 251-262. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 706. Schmalenberger, A. and Tebbe, C. C. Genetic profiling of noncultivated bacteria from the rhizospheres of 

sugar beet (Beta vulgaris) reveal field and annual variability 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 microprojectile-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.; Brown, 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.; Heinzelmann, 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.; Kienzlen, 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, Daniel L.; Sangtong, Varaporn, and Smith, LaTrice. A Wheat 

Genomic Dna Fragment Reduces Pollen Transmission 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-Ammonium 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 overdose among injecting drug users 

recently released from prison: Database linkage 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. (ED.). 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 common 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, Bettina, 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 PESTICIDES BY THIN LAYER CHROMATOGRAPHY. 7 (4). 

1994. 265-272.. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 732. Shigaki, T. ; Vyzasatya, R. R.; Sivitz, A. B.; Ward, 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., and 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 Herbicide 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 tumefaciens-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 and 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 and 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 Herbicide Resistance Introgressed 

From Brassica Napus Into Weedy B. Rapa. 1999. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 757. Snow, A. A. ; Jorgensen, R. B., and Bcpc. Fitness costs associated with transgenic glufosinate tolerance 

introgressed from Brassica napus ssp oleifera (oilseed rape) into weedy Brassica 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. Managing 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. Potential 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 Glufosinate-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 horseradish 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 ranking 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, Fomesafen, 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 SURVEILLANCE 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 genetically 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. Stable Transformation of Barley 

Callus Using Biolisticr Particle Bombardment and the Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase (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., and Mitchell, A. Transgenic Herbicide Tolerant Canola - the 

Canadian Experience. 2003. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 785. Strizhov, N.; Keller, M.; Mathur, J.; Koncz-Kalman, Z.; Bosch, D.; Prudovsky, E.; Schell, J.; Sneh, B.; 

Koncz, C., and Zilberstein, A. A Synthetic Cryic 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 Nutritive 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 Naoki, 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 RISK 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 Mitochondria Does Not Require 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 Kreutzweiser, 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.; Dubbels, 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 pesticide 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 acid 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.; Wang, M. B.; Thornton, S., and Brettell, R. Agrobacterium 

Tumefaciens-Mediated Barley Transformation. 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 caesium. 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., and Brown, J. S. ANIMIDA Task 7. Partitioning of Potential 

Anthropogenic Chemicals between Dissolved and Particulate 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 Concern: 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.; FORLANI, G.; LUCCHESE, C., and NIELSEN, E. SELECTION AND PARTIAL 

CHARACTERIZATION OF MAIZE CALLUS LINES 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-Stranded 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 Leeuwen, W.; Nijkamp, H. J., and 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 Phosphinothricin Acetyltransferase From the 

Root Specific Par Promoter in Transgenic 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 Vasil, I. K. Herbicide Resistant 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. Rapid 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.; Prazak-Havey, A. M.; Bormans, C. A.; Sneller, 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 Wilcken, 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 Gruszka; 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 Ganapathi, A. Transgenic Acacia 

Sinuata From Agrobacterium Tumefaciens-Mediated Transformation 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.; Silva, 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, SEPTEMBER 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. Purification 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 PUEHLER, 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 Schreb.) 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 relieves 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 Impact of Transgenic, Herbicidetolerant Corn on Drinking Water Quality 

in Vulnerable Watersheds of the Mid-Western Usa. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 870. Wehrkamp-Richter, Sophie; Degroote, Fabienne; Laffaire, 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 after 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.; Yanofsky, 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, 1989.//: SOIL; 1990; 45, (5): 535-537. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 874. West, &Nbsp and T. Incorporating multiresolution 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 SYSTEMS. 0 (SUPPL.). 1989. 94.. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 876. Wheeler, C. C.; Baldwin, F. L.; Talbert, R. E.; Schmidt, L. A., and Rutledge, J. S. Potential for BroadSpectrum Control of Weeds in Glufosinate-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 HORTICULTURAL 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 Concern: CMZ,FSF,GFS,GYP,IZT,PDM 

 881. Wild, A. and Wendler, C. Effect of Glucosinate (Phosphinothricin) on Amino Acid Content, Photorespiration 

and Photosynthesis. SEVENTH INTERNATIONAL 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. Barnyardgrass (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. FORESTRY COMMISSION FIELD BOOK 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, Melanie; 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.; Hillemann, 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-Mediated 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 capillary electrophoretic analysis of pesticides. 

2005; 26, (7-8): 1598-1605. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 897. YAMANO, T. and MORITA, S. Effects of pesticides 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 Plant, 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 Zhang, D. B. Event-specific qualitative and 

quantitative polymerase chain reaction analysis for genetically modified canola 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 Brassica 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. Transgenic 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 ASYMMETRIC 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-110 

 920. 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-phosphinothricin. 41 (3). 1994. 269-277.. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: GFS 

 922. ZELDIN, E. L.; SERRES, R. A., and MCCOWN, 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.; Tagliani, L.; St Clair, G.; Baszczynski, C. L., and Bowen, B. Targeted 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 PHOTOSYNTHESIS 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 and 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.; Sprague, C. L.; Medlin, C. R., and Loux, M. M. Evaluation of 

Postemergence Weed Control Strategies in Herbicide-Resistant Isolines of Corn (Zea mays). SOIL; 

2006; 20, (1): 172-178. 

Notes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DMB,GFS,GYP,IZP,IZT,MTL,NSF,RIM 
 AII-1 

Attachment II. ECOTOX Data Table (sorted by effect) 

The following table provides a complete list of glufosinate-ammonium studies accepted into the ECOTOX database since 2008, grouped by effect. ECOTOX 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 at http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/blackbox/help/codelist.pdf. 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM BCM FLRS LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM BCM H2O2 LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM BCM MLDH LOAEL 2 d F 114622 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM BCM MLDH LOAEL 1 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM BCM NOCO NOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM ENZ CTLS LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM ENZ PODA LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM ENZ SODA LOAEL 2 d F 114622 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae BCM ENZ SODA LOAEL 0.5 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae CEL GEN CLBM LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae CEL GEN PSBM LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae CEL GEN PSCM LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae CEL GEN RBCM LOAEL 2 d F 114622 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae CEL GEN RBCM LOAEL 0.25 d F 114622 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae POP POP ABND LOAEL 0.5 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae POP POP CHLA LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae POP POP CHLB LOAEL 2 d F 118900 aquatic Chlorella vulgaris Green Algae POP POP CHLO LOAEL 2 d F 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 21 d A 
 AII-2 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 
 AII-3 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 
 AII-4 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 100972 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d A 

95840 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice POP POP ABND LOAEL 1 gs

A 

95840 aquatic Oryza sativa Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL 1 hv

A 

150127 aquatic Scenedesmus opoliensis Green Algae BCM BCM ASBT NOAEL 10 d F 150127 aquatic Scenedesmus opoliensis Green Algae BCM BCM TBAR LOAEL 10 d F 150127 aquatic Scenedesmus opoliensis Green Algae BCM ENZ CTLS LOAEL 10 d F 150127 aquatic Scenedesmus opoliensis Green Algae PHY PHY PSYN LOAEL 10 d F 150127 aquatic Scenedesmus opoliensis Green Algae POP POP DBMS LOAEL 10 d F 155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC01 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC01 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC50 2 d A 
 AII-5 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC50 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

155517 aquatic Spea bombifrons Plains Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC01 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC01 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC50 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT LC50 2 d A 155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

155517 aquatic Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

155445 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 3 d F 155445 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 3 d F 

64483 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP BMAS ED50 14 d A 0

154055 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155883 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d F 155883 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d F 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 0155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 155895 terrestrial Abutilon theophrasti Butter Print POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d A 
 AII-6 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

111710 terrestrial Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Acer pseudoplatanus Sycamore PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 

70759 terrestrial Ageratum houstonianum Ageratum PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Ageratum sp. Whiteweed PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0155486 terrestrial Allium cepa Common Onion MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Allium cepa Common Onion POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.3155486 terrestrial Allium cepa Common Onion POP POP BMAS IC50 91 d A 0.

73236 terrestrial Allium vineale Field Garlic POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d F 

155813 terrestrial Alyssum sp. Alyssum PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 35 d A 0155461 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155935 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Amaranthus palmeri Palmer'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Amaranthus powellii Powell'S Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155512 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 7 d A 

155512 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth MOR MOR MORT NR‐ 14 d A 
 AII-7 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

LETH

155512 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155481 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 154055 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155883 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d F 0.155883 terrestrial Amaranthus retroflexus Green Amaranth POP POP DBMS EC50 14 d F 0.155490 terrestrial Amaranthus rudis Common Waterhemp POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d A 155490 terrestrial Amaranthus rudis Common Waterhemp POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d A 155490 terrestrial Amaranthus rudis Common Waterhemp REP REP SEPD LOAEL hv

A 

70759 terrestrial Amaranthus sp. Amaranth POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0

155631 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed GRO GRO BMAS NOAEL 29 d F 155631 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP BMAS NOAEL 29 d F 155813 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0155935 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

31424 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 74 d F 31424 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 44 d F 

154055 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155523 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155631 terrestrial Ambrosia artemisiifolia Common Ragweed REP REP SEED NOAEL 29 d F 155907 terrestrial Ambrosia trifida Blood Ragweed GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 21 d F 
 AII-8 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

70759 terrestrial Antirrhinum majus Snapdragon PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Antirrhinum sp. Snapdragon PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 35 d A 0152808 terrestrial Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse‐Ear Cress BCM BCM H2O2 LOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse‐Ear Cress BCM BCM H2O2 NOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse‐Ear Cress BCM BCM H2O2 NOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse‐Ear Cress BCM BCM H2O2 NOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Arabidopsis thaliana Mouse‐Ear Cress BCM BCM H2O2 NOAEL 1 d F 

59606 terrestrial Asclepias syriaca Common Milkweed POP POP BMAS EC50 10 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Aster sp. Aster PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 10 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 42 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 10 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 42 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Asystasia gangetica Philippine Violet REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 155513 terrestrial Avena fatua Red Oats GRO GRO BMAS LOAEL 14 d A 155611 terrestrial Avena fatua Red Oats POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 155611 terrestrial Avena fatua Red Oats POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 155486 terrestrial Avena sativa Common Oat POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Avena sativa Common Oat POP POP BMAS IC50 59 d A 0.2
 AII-9 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155486 terrestrial Avena sativa Common Oat REP REP SEPD IC50 59 d A 0.1155509 terrestrial Avena sterilis Animated Oats MOR MOR MORT LD50 21 d A 0.155509 terrestrial Avena sterilis Animated Oats MOR MOR MORT LD50 21 d A 0.

97417 terrestrial Beauveria bassiana Fungus POP POP PGRT LOAEL 10 d F 0.97417 terrestrial Beauveria bassiana Fungus POP POP PGRT LOAEL 14 d F 0.97417 terrestrial Beauveria bassiana Fungus REP REP SPRD LOAEL 14 d F 0.

155540 terrestrial Beta sp. Beet BCM BCM SUGA NOAEL hv

A 

155540 terrestrial Beta sp. Beet BCM BCM SUGA NOAEL hv

A 

155540 terrestrial Beta sp. Beet BCM BCM SUGA NOAEL hv

A 

155499 terrestrial Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 155499 terrestrial Bougainvillea sp. Bougainvillea POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 155486 terrestrial Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama POP POP BMAS IC50 78 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Bouteloua gracilis Blue Grama REP REP VEGR IC50 78 d A 0.0155645 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza BCM BCM DRYM LOAEL 2 d F 155645 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza BCM BCM DRYM LOAEL 2 d F 155645 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza BCM BCM DRYM LOAEL 2 d F 155645 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 2 d F 

155645 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 2 d F 

155893 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155893 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155934 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 155934 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 120677 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 
 AII-10 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

120677 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155886 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL 35 d A 155886 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL 84 d A 155886 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL 84 d A 155886 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP BMAS NOAEL 84 d A 

78497 terrestrial Brassica napus Colza POP POP PGRT IC50 8 d F 0.0

155486 terrestrial Brassica oleracea ssp. italica Broccoli MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Brassica oleracea ssp. italica Broccoli POP POP BMAS IC50 141 d A 0.155486 terrestrial Brassica oleracea ssp. italica Broccoli POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Brassica rapa var. rapa Turnip GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0

73745 terrestrial Bromus catharticus Rescuegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Bromus catharticus Rescuegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d F 0

73236 terrestrial Bromus tectorum Downy Brome POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d F 

152560 terrestrial Bufo cognatus Great Plains Toad MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

152560 terrestrial Bufo cognatus Great Plains Toad MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 2 d A 152560 terrestrial Bufo cognatus Great Plains Toad MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 2 d A 

70759 terrestrial Callistephus chinensis China Aster PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 14 d A 0

155486 terrestrial Capsella bursa‐pastoris Shepherd'S‐Purse POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Capsella bursa‐pastoris Shepherd'S‐Purse POP POP BMAS IC50 38 d A 0.0
 AII-11 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155486 terrestrial Capsella bursa‐pastoris Shepherd'S‐Purse REP REP NPOD IC50 38 d A 0.0

70759 terrestrial Capsicum annuum Bell Pepper PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Capsicum sp. Pepper PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Catharanthus roseus Bright‐Eyes PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 070759 terrestrial Celosia cristata Crested Cock's Comb PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Celosia sp. Cock's Comb PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0112387 terrestrial Centaurea cyanus Bachelor'S‐Button POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0

70295 terrestrial Centella asiatica Asiatic Pennywort PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 63873 terrestrial Chamaesyce maculata Spotted Spurge PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 0

155907 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 21 d F 

59606 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS EC50 10 d A 0

112387 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0112387 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.

64483 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS ED50 14 d A 0

155481 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155935 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

31424 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 44 d F 31424 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 74 d F 31424 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 146 d F 
 AII-12 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155458 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155458 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155458 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155458 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 154055 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 

66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 

155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155609 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL 28 d A 155523 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

31424 terrestrial Chenopodium album Lamb's‐Quarters POP POP CNTL NOAEL 158 d F 

155610 terrestrial Chromolaena odorata Jack In The Bush POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 155610 terrestrial Chromolaena odorata Jack In The Bush POP POP ABND LOAEL 84 d A 

77601 terrestrial Cichorium intybus Chicory PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 30.44 d A 
 AII-13 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

77601 terrestrial Cichorium intybus Chicory POP POP BMAS NOAEL

273.9

6 d A 

155499 terrestrial Clerodendrum splendens Flaming Glorybower POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 155499 terrestrial Clerodendrum splendens Flaming Glorybower POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 152808 terrestrial Cochliobolus miyabeanus Brown Spot POP POP ABND LOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Cochliobolus miyabeanus Brown Spot POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 152808 terrestrial Cochliobolus miyabeanus Brown Spot POP POP ABND LOAEL 8 d F 152808 terrestrial Cochliobolus miyabeanus Brown Spot POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 152808 terrestrial Cochliobolus miyabeanus Brown Spot POP POP ABND NOAEL 8 d F 

73745 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d F 0155518 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0155518 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0155813 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 031424 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 74 d F 31424 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 44 d F 31424 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 9 d F 31424 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 8 d F 

155515 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0155515 terrestrial Conyza canadensis Butterweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Coreopsis lanceolata Lanceleaf Tickseed PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 14 d A 0

155682 terrestrial Cucumis sativus Cucumber GRO GRO BMAS NOAEL 9 d F 155486 terrestrial Cucumis sativus Cucumber POP POP BMAS IC50 76 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Cucumis sativus Cucumber POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155447 terrestrial Cucurbita pepo Vegetable Marrow MOR MOR MORT NR‐ 3 d F 
 AII-14 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

LETH

155499 terrestrial Cuscuta reflexa Giant Dodder POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 155499 terrestrial Cuscuta reflexa Giant Dodder POP POP CNTL LOAEL 90 d F 155802 terrestrial Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155813 terrestrial Cynodon dactylon Bermudagrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 1155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass GRO GRO VGOR IC50 31 d A 155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 0
 AII-15 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 155802 terrestrial Cynodon sp. Bermudagrass PHY INJ DAMG IC50 17 d A 120063 terrestrial Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nutsedge GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d A 155461 terrestrial Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nutsedge POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Cyperus esculentus Yellow Nutsedge POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155523 terrestrial Cyperus rotundus Purple Nutsedge POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Cyperus rotundus Purple Nutsedge POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

70759 terrestrial Dahlia sp. Dahlia PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Dahlia sp. Dahlia PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0155523 terrestrial Datura stramonium Jimsonweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Datura stramonium Jimsonweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

70759 terrestrial Dianthus barbatus Sweet‐William PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 14 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Dianthus sp. Pink PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

70295 terrestrial Dichondra micrantha Dichondra PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 

120479 terrestrial Dichondra micrantha Dichondra POP POP ABND LOAEL 4.9 d A 155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

70759 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 0

155935 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 
 AII-16 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

31424 terrestrial Digitaria sanguinalis Purple Crabgrass POP POP CNTL NOAEL 146 d F 

112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0

64483 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP BMAS ED50 14 d A 0

155461 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155470 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 

69001 terrestrial Echinochloa crus‐galli Barnyard Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 25 d F 59421 terrestrial Echinochloa phyllopogon Rice Barnyardgrass POP POP BMAS EC50 d A 059421 terrestrial Echinochloa phyllopogon Rice Barnyardgrass POP POP BMAS EC50 d A 0

155423 terrestrial Elaeis sp. Oil Palm GRO GRO NLEF NOAEL 112 d F 155423 terrestrial Elaeis sp. Oil Palm REP REP FRUT NOAEL 224 d F 155461 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155935 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 
 AII-17 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155523 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Eleusine indica Goosegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155486 terrestrial Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye POP POP BMAS IC50 100 d A 0.155486 terrestrial Elymus canadensis Canada Wild Rye REP REP SEPD IC50 100 d A 0.0112387 terrestrial Elymus repens Quackgrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.1120532 terrestrial Epilobium nummulariifolium Creeping Willow Herb POP POP INDX LOAEL 49 d A 155486 terrestrial Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat POP POP BMAS IC50 106 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Fagopyrum esculentum Buckwheat REP REP SEPD IC50 106 d A 0.111710 terrestrial Fraxinus excelsior European Ash GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Fraxinus excelsior European Ash PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0155422 terrestrial Galium aparine Catchweed Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 10 d A 0154924 terrestrial Galium spurium

Marin County

Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 14 d A 0.1

154924 terrestrial Galium spurium

Marin County

Bedstraw GRO GRO WGHT ED50 14 d A 0.1

154924 terrestrial Galium spurium

Marin County

Bedstraw MOR MOR MORT LD50 14 d A 0.2

154924 terrestrial Galium spurium Marin County MOR MOR MORT LD50 14 d A 0.2
 AII-18 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

Bedstraw

155813 terrestrial Geranium sp. Geranium PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

96386 terrestrial Glyceria declinata Waxy Mannagrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 96386 terrestrial Glyceria declinata Waxy Mannagrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 63873 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean BCM BCM WTCO NOAEL 1 gs

A 

63873 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean BCM BCM WTCO NOAEL 1 gs

A 

63873 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean BCM BCM WTCO NOAEL 1 gs

A 

155495 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 30 d A 155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP ABND LOAEL 14 dpe

A 

155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP ABND LOAEL 14 dpe

A 

155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP ABND NOAEL hv

A 

155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP ABND NOAEL hv

A 

155518 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 0

155518 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 0

73993 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 073993 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 073993 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0

155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155679 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155495 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 40 d A 

66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 132 d F 66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 145 d F 66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 116 d F 66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 103 d F 66932 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 103 d F 
 AII-19 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155529 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155470 terrestrial Glycine max Soybean POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO DVP MATR NOAEL gs F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d F 0

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 
 AII-20 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv

A 2

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 54 d F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL hv F 

155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO LINT NOAEL hv F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO LINT NOAEL hv F 0.155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 30 d F 0155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 30 d F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 21 d F 0.155523 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL d A 155523 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL d A 155523 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL d A 155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL gs

A 0

155935 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 
 AII-21 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155935 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155935 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0.155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155451 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155523 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155515 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 0

155515 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 0

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 
 AII-22 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 2

66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 66801 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 

155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0155511 terrestrial Gossypium hirsutum Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0

69001 terrestrial Gossypium sp. Cotton POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 69001 terrestrial Gossypium sp. Cotton REP REP INFL NOAEL hv F 

155486 terrestrial Helianthus annuus

Common AnnualSunflower POP POP BMAS IC50 101 d A 0.1

155486 terrestrial Helianthus annuus

Common AnnualSunflower POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Helianthus annuus

Common AnnualSunflower REP REP SEPD IC50 101 d A 0.1

155488 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 11 d A 155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH EC10 20 d A 155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH EC10 20 d A 155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH EC50 20 d A 155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH EC50 20 d A 155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH NOEC 20 d A 
 AII-23 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155483 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR HTCH NOEC 20 d A 155488 terrestrial Helix aspersa Brown Gardensnail MOR MOR MORT NOAEL 11 d A 

70759 terrestrial Hibiscus moscheutos

CrimsoneyedRosemallow PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Hibiscus sp. Hibiscus PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0155611 terrestrial Hordeum vulgare Barley POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 155611 terrestrial Hordeum vulgare Barley POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 

70295 terrestrial Hydrocotyle heteromeria Waxweed PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 42 d A 70295 terrestrial Hydrocotyle heteromeria Waxweed PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 70 d A 70295 terrestrial Hydrocotyle heteromeria Waxweed PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 

155486 terrestrial Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort GRO MPH HGHT IC50 139 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Hypericum perforatum St. Johnswort POP POP BMAS IC50 139 d A 1.6155813 terrestrial Impatiens sp. Touchmenot PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Impatiens walleriana Busy Lizzy PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 14 d A 0

155527 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory GRO MPH WGHT LOAEL 21 d A 155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0
 AII-24 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea hederacea Ivyleaf Morning‐Glory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

59336 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory GRO MPH WGHT NOAEL 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

63873 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 063873 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 063873 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155461 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL gs

A 0

155935 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155529 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 155529 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 155529 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 63 d A 155529 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory POP POP CNTL NOAEL 63 d A 

59336 terrestrial Ipomoea lacunosa White Morninglory REP REP SEPD LOAEL 14 d A 

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea nil

WhiteedgeMorningglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Ipomoea nil

WhiteedgeMorningglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155470 terrestrial Ipomoea sp. Morningglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Ipomoea sp. Morningglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Ipomoea sp. Morningglory POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 
 AII-25 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155608 terrestrial Ischaemum magnum Grass POP POP BMAS NOAEL 84 d A 155486 terrestrial Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush POP POP BMAS IC50 72 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush POP POP BMAS IC50 72 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Juncus dudleyi Dudley's Rush POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155611 terrestrial Kochia scoparia Kochia POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155486 terrestrial Lactuca sativa Lettuce POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Lactuca sativa Lettuce POP POP BMAS IC50 61 d A 0.1

70759 terrestrial Lactuca serriola Prickly Lettuce POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0

111710 terrestrial Larix kaempferi Japanese Larch GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Larix kaempferi Japanese Larch PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 155682 terrestrial Lepidium sativum Garden Cress GRO GRO LGTH NOAEL 7 d F 100967 terrestrial Leptosphaeria maculans Blackleg POP POP ABND LOAEL 56 d A 155934 terrestrial Linum usitatissimum Flax POP POP ABND NOAEL d A 155934 terrestrial Linum usitatissimum Flax POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155934 terrestrial Linum usitatissimum Flax REP REP VIAB LOAEL d A 

70759 terrestrial Lobularia maritima Sweet Alyssum PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155486 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 1155486 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP BMAS IC50 76 d A 0.

62987 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP BMAS NOAEL 135 d A 162987 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP BMAS NOAEL 156 d A 273745 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Lolium perenne Perennial Ryegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d F 0
 AII-26 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155509 terrestrial Lolium rigidum Wimmera Ryegrass MOR MOR MORT LD50 21 d A 0.155509 terrestrial Lolium rigidum Wimmera Ryegrass MOR MOR MORT LD50 21 d A 0

70295 terrestrial Lotus pedunculatus Big Trefoil PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 49 d A 96386 terrestrial Luziola fluitans Southern Watergrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 

152808 terrestrial Magnaporthe grisea Rice Blast Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 1 d F 152808 terrestrial Magnaporthe grisea Rice Blast Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 152808 terrestrial Magnaporthe grisea Rice Blast Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 8 d F 152808 terrestrial Magnaporthe grisea Rice Blast Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 152808 terrestrial Magnaporthe grisea Rice Blast Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 8 d F 155456 terrestrial Medicago sativa Alfalfa POP POP BMAS NOAEL 131 d F 155456 terrestrial Medicago sativa Alfalfa POP POP BMAS NOAEL 140 d F 155456 terrestrial Medicago sativa Alfalfa POP POP BMAS NOAEL 299 d F 155456 terrestrial Medicago sativa Alfalfa POP POP COVR NOAEL 253 d F 155486 terrestrial Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweetclover POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweetclover POP POP BMAS IC50 66 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Melilotus officinalis Yellow Sweetclover REP REP SEPD IC50 66 d A 0.0155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL CEL NCEL LOAEL 7 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL CEL NCEL LOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 0

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL CEL NCEL NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL CEL NCEL NOAEL 1 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL CEL NCEL NOAEL 1 d F 0155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL GEN APOP NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 
 AII-27 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL GEN APOP NOAEL 1 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL GEN APOP NOAEL 7 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL GEN APOP NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL GEN APOP NOAEL 1 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL HIS NCRO NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL HIS NCRO NOAEL 1 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL HIS NCRO NOAEL 7 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL HIS NCRO NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse CEL HIS NCRO NOAEL 1 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse GRO DVP DVLP NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 

155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse GRO DVP DVLP NOAEL 7 d F 155484 terrestrial Mus musculus House Mouse GRO DVP DVLP NOAEL

2.833

3333 d F 0

73149 terrestrial Neoseiulus fallacis Predatory Mite MOR MOR MORT LOAEL 2 d A 

100973 terrestrial Neotyphodium coenophialum Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 33 d A 0100973 terrestrial Neotyphodium coenophialum Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL

547.9

2 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Nicotiana alata Jasmine Tobacco PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Nicotiana sp. Tobacco PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 35 d A 0
 AII-28 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco BCM BCM G5DP LOAEL 2 d A 155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco BCM BCM G5DP LOAEL 2 d A 155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco BCM BCM G5DP LOAEL 2 d A 155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO GRO BMAS ED50 7 d A 0155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO GRO BMAS ED50 7 d A 0155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO GRO BMAS ED50 7 d A 155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO GRO BMAS ED50 7 d A 0155899 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO GRO BMAS ED50 7 d A 11155790 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO MPH LGTH NOAEL 10 d A 155790 terrestrial Nicotiana tabacum Tobacco GRO MPH LGTH NOAEL 10 d A 112387 terrestrial NR Liliopsida Monocot Class POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0155654 terrestrial NR Liliopsida Monocot Class POP POP COVR NOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Liliopsida Monocot Class POP POP DVRS NOAEL d A 0

69001 terrestrial NR Magnoliophyta Angiosperm Division POP POP ABND LOAEL 25 d F 

111591 terrestrial NR Magnoliopsida Dicot Class PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 35 d F 112387 terrestrial NR Magnoliopsida Dicot Class POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0155654 terrestrial NR Magnoliopsida Dicot Class POP POP COVR NOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Magnoliopsida Dicot Class POP POP DVRS NOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL d A 0155473 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP ABND LOAEL

882.7

6 d A 

155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP ABND LOAEL 45 d A 155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP ABND LOAEL 90 d A 112387 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0
 AII-29 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS LOAEL 45 d A 155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS LOAEL 90 d A 155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS LOAEL 165 d A 155644 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS LOAEL 210 d A 155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS NOAEL 91 d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS NOAEL 71 d A 0112387 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP BMAS NOEC 28 d A 0155423 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155423 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155423 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR LOAEL d A 0

73993 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR LOAEL 56 d F 073993 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR LOAEL 84 d F 073993 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR LOAEL 84 d F 0

155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR NOAEL d A 0

73993 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP COVR NOAEL 56 d F 0

155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP DVRS LOAEL d A 0155654 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP DVRS NOAEL d A 0

67103 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP PBMS LOAEL 40 d A 67103 terrestrial NR Plantae Plant Kingdom POP POP PBMS LOAEL 40 d A 70759 terrestrial Oenothera laciniata

Cutleaf EveningPrimrose POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0

100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice GRO DVP MATR LOAEL 91.32 d A 100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 21 d A 100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 21 d A 100946 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice MOR MOR MORT NR‐ 35 d F 
 AII-30 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

LETH

100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 21 d A 100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv

A 

100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

100966 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 21 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 100970 terrestrial Oryza sativa Rice POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED LOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED LOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED LOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED LOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1
 AII-31 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO DVP THED NOAEL gs F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT LOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 14 d F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1
 AII-32 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 0101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1101235 terrestrial Oryza sp. Rice POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 1

31424 terrestrial Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall Panicgrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 146 d F 31424 terrestrial Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall Panicgrass POP POP CNTL NOAEL 44 d F 31424 terrestrial Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall Panicgrass POP POP CNTL NOAEL 74 d F 31424 terrestrial Panicum dichotomiflorum Fall Panicgrass POP POP CNTL NOAEL 71 d F 

112387 terrestrial Panicum miliaceum Proso Millet POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0155481 terrestrial Panicum miliaceum Proso Millet POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Panicum miliaceum Proso Millet POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Panicum miliaceum Proso Millet POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Panicum miliaceum Proso Millet POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 10 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 42 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass GRO GRO WGHT NOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 10 d F 
 AII-33 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 42 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 120312 terrestrial Paspalum conjugatum Sour Grass REP REP GERM LOAEL 28 d F 

62987 terrestrial Paspalum dilatatum Dallisgrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 21 d A 262987 terrestrial Paspalum dilatatum Dallisgrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d A 070759 terrestrial Pelargonium x hortorum Zonal Geranium PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155607 terrestrial Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 7 d F 155607 terrestrial Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 7 d F 155607 terrestrial Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass POP POP BMAS LOAEL 49 d F 155607 terrestrial Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu Grass POP POP BMAS LOAEL 49 d F 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet MOR MOR MORT LD100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet MOR MOR MORT LD100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet MOR MOR MORT LD50 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet MOR MOR MORT LD50 7 d F 155495 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 30 d A 155495 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet POP POP BMAS LOAEL 40 d A 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet REP REP GERM ED100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Pennisetum glaucum Pearl Millet REP REP GERM ED50 7 d F 155813 terrestrial Petunia sp. Petunia PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 21 d A 0155813 terrestrial Petunia sp. Petunia PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Petunia x hybrida Petunia PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 14 d A 070759 terrestrial Petunia x hybrida Petunia PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155486 terrestrial Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Phalaris arundinacea Reed Canarygrass POP POP BMAS IC50 77 d A 0
 AII-34 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO LOAEL 10 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO LOAEL 5 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO LOAEL 10 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO LOAEL 5 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO NOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean BCM BCM WTCO NOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS LOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS LOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS LOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS LOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean POP POP BMAS NOAEL 15 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM LOAEL 19 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM NOAEL 19 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM NOAEL 19 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM NOAEL 19 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM NOAEL 19 d A 62977 terrestrial Phaseolus vulgaris Bean REP REP GERM NOAEL 19 d A 

103875 terrestrial Phragmites australis Grass GRO MPH WGHT LOAEL 42 d A 0103875 terrestrial Phragmites australis Grass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0154909 terrestrial Phyllostachys aurea Golden Bamboo GRO GRO WGHT LOAEL 42 d A 0154909 terrestrial Phyllostachys aurea Golden Bamboo PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 28 d A 0155486 terrestrial Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed POP POP BMAS IC50 101 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Phytolacca americana Common Pokeweed REP REP SEPD IC50 101 d A 0.0111710 terrestrial Picea abies Norway Spruce GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 
 AII-35 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

111710 terrestrial Picea abies Norway Spruce PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 111710 terrestrial Picea sitchensis Yellow Spruce GRO GRO DMTR LOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Picea sitchensis Yellow Spruce PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 111710 terrestrial Pinus nigra ssp. laricio Corsican Pine GRO GRO DMTR LOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Pinus nigra ssp. laricio Corsican Pine PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 

64628 terrestrial Pinus pinea Italian Stone Pine GRO DVP FORM LOAEL 30 d F 

112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.2

112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 fs

A 0.

112387 terrestrial Poa annua Annual Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0

87931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 087931 terrestrial Poa pratensis Kentucky Bluegrass POP POP ABND LOAEL 28 d A 0

111710 terrestrial Populus sp.

Aspen, Cottonwood,Poplar GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 

111710 terrestrial Populus sp. Aspen, Cottonwood, PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 
 AII-36 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

Poplar

155486 terrestrial Potentilla recta Erect Cinquefoil MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 21 d A 0.

155486 terrestrial Potentilla recta Erect Cinquefoil POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Potentilla recta Erect Cinquefoil POP POP BMAS IC50 147 d A 1.0111710 terrestrial Prunus avium Mazzard Cherry PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 111710 terrestrial Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir GRO GRO DMTR LOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas Fir PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 111710 terrestrial Quercus robur English Oak GRO GRO DMTR NOAEL 242 d A 111710 terrestrial Quercus robur English Oak PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 12 d A 120532 terrestrial Ranunculus repens Creeping Buttercup POP POP INDX LOAEL 49 d A 155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock GRO GRO WGHT EC50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock GRO GRO WGHT EC50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 2155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 1155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 1155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 1155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT LD50 30 d A 0
 AII-37 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 30 d A 

155510 terrestrial Raphanus raphanistrum Jointed Charlock MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 30 d A 

155952 terrestrial Rubus sp. Brambles GRO GRO LGTH NOAEL 190 d F 0155952 terrestrial Rubus sp. Brambles REP REP FRUT NOAEL 98 d F 0155611 terrestrial Salsola tragus Prickly Russian Thistle POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155611 terrestrial Salsola tragus Prickly Russian Thistle POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 

70759 terrestrial Salvia farinacea Mealycup Sage PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Salvia sp. Salvia PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 49 d A 0155813 terrestrial Salvia sp. Salvia PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Salvia splendens Scarlet Sage PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

100973 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 49 d A 0100973 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 191 d A 0100973 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 33 d A 0155456 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 38 d F 155456 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 40 d F 

70588 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 60.88 d F 070588 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 60.88 d F 070588 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL LOAEL 91.32 d F 

155456 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL NOAEL 49 d F 155456 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL NOAEL 48 d F 

70588 terrestrial Schedonorus arundinaceus Tall Fescue POP POP CNTL NOAEL 91.32 d F 

155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 
 AII-38 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Sclerotinia homoeocarpa Fungus POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 

31424 terrestrial Secale cereale Common Rye POP POP CNTL LOAEL 9 d F 31424 terrestrial Secale cereale Common Rye POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv F 

155527 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod GRO MPH WGHT LOAEL 21 d A 

59336 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod GRO MPH WGHT NOAEL 14 d A 59336 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod GRO MPH WGHT NOAEL 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

63873 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 059606 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP BMAS EC50 10 d A 0

155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP BMAS LOAEL ma F 155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP BMAS LOAEL ma F 
 AII-39 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP BMAS NOAEL ma F 155523 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155523 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL LOAEL hv

A 

155529 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 155529 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 155529 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 155529 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod POP POP CNTL NOAEL 63 d A 155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP GERM LOAEL ma F 155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP GERM LOAEL ma F 155438 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP GERM NOAEL ma F 155452 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP SEPD LOAEL hv

A 0

155452 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP SEPD NOAEL hv

A 0

155452 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP SEPD NOAEL hv

A 0

59336 terrestrial Senna obtusifolia Sicklepod REP REP SEPD NOAEL 14 d A 59336 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp GRO MPH WGHT LOAEL 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

63873 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 0

155470 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 

59336 terrestrial Sesbania herbacea Colorado‐River‐Hemp REP REP SEPD NOAEL 14 d A 59606 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP BMAS EC50 10 d A 0
 AII-40 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

64483 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP BMAS ED50 14 d A 066932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 84 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL LOAEL 98 d F 66932 terrestrial Setaria faberi Mutton Bluegrass POP POP CNTL NOAEL 84 d F 

155611 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155611 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155481 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS LOAEL d F 155678 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS NOAEL 7 d A 0155481 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Setaria viridis Green Foxtail POP POP BMAS NOAEL d F 155512 terrestrial Sida spinosa Prickly Mallow MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155512 terrestrial Sida spinosa Prickly Mallow MOR MOR MORT

NR‐LETH 14 d A 

155470 terrestrial Sida spinosa Prickly Mallow POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Sida spinosa Prickly Mallow POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155470 terrestrial Sida spinosa Prickly Mallow POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d F 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS LOAEL 28 d A 
 AII-41 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS LOAEL 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS LOAEL 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS LOAEL 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS LOAEL 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS NOAEL 28 d A 155542 terrestrial Sisymbrium loeselii False London Rocket POP POP BMAS NOAEL 28 d A 

59606 terrestrial Solanum carolinense Carolina Nettle POP POP BMAS EC50 10 d A 0

155486 terrestrial Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade GRO MPH HGHT IC50 125 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Solanum dulcamara Climbing Nightshade POP POP BMAS IC50 125 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Solanum lycopersicum Garden Tomato POP POP BMAS IC50 127 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Solanum lycopersicum Garden Tomato POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.0155486 terrestrial Solanum lycopersicum Garden Tomato REP REP SEPD IC50 127 d A 0.1112387 terrestrial Solanum nigrum Black Nightshade POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0155624 terrestrial Solanum physalifolium

Ground‐Cherry

Nightshade REP REP GERM NOAEL 154 d A 

155790 terrestrial Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOAEL 77 d A 155790 terrestrial Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOAEL 77 d A 155790 terrestrial Solanum tuberosum Potato POP POP BMAS NOAEL 77 d A 155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn MOR MOR MORT LD100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn MOR MOR MORT LD100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn MOR MOR MORT LD50 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn MOR MOR MORT LD50 7 d F 

81633 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn PHY INJ DESI LOAEL 7 d F 081633 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn PHY INJ DESI LOAEL 7 d F 081633 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn PHY INJ DESI LOAEL 7 d F 0
 AII-42 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

81633 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn PHY INJ DESI LOAEL 7 d F 0

155679 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155679 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155679 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn REP REP GERM ED100 7 d F 155759 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn REP REP GERM ED50 7 d F 

81633 terrestrial Sorghum bicolor Broomcorn REP REP GERM NOAEL 27 d F 

155527 terrestrial Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass GRO MPH WGHT LOAEL 21 d A 155808 terrestrial Sorghum halepense Johnson Grass PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 21 d A 0155495 terrestrial Sorghum sp. Sorghum PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 30 d A 155495 terrestrial Sorghum sp. Sorghum POP POP BMAS LOAEL 40 d A 152560 terrestrial Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR MORT

NR‐ZERO 2 d A 

152560 terrestrial Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 2 d A 152560 terrestrial Spea multiplicata Mexican Spadefoot MOR MOR SURV NOAEL 2 d A 112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed GRO DVP EMRG NOAEL em

A 0

112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed GRO DVP EMRG NOEL em

A 

112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.0112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.112387 terrestrial Stellaria media Chickweed REP REP SEPD LOAEL 28 d A 0155813 terrestrial Symphyotrichum

pilosum var.

pilosum

Hairy White Oldfield

Aster POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Tagetes patula French Marigold PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0
 AII-43 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

70759 terrestrial Tagetes patula French Marigold PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Tagetes sp. Marigold PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0155813 terrestrial Tagetes sp. Marigold PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 49 d A 0

73745 terrestrial Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Taraxacum officinale Common Dandelion POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d F 0155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL 2 d A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL 3 d A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL gs

A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL gs

A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND LOAEL 24 d A 

155894 terrestrial Tetranychus urticae

Two‐Spotted Spider

Mite POP POP ABND NOAEL 2 d A 

155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 
 AII-44 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND LOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 155697 terrestrial Thanatephorus cucumeris Fungi POP POP ABND NOAEL 7 d F 

73745 terrestrial Toxicodendron radicans Poison‐Ivy POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Toxicodendron radicans Poison‐Ivy POP POP CNTL LOAEL 35 d F 0

69001 terrestrial Trianthema portulacastrum Pigweed POP POP CNTL LOAEL 25 d F 

155679 terrestrial Trifolium incarnatum Crimson Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Trifolium incarnatum Crimson Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean Clover POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0.155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED85 28 d A 0.155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED85 28 d A 0.155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED90 28 d A 0.155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS ED90 28 d A 0.155611 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS LOAEL d A 155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv

A 

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv

A 
 AII-45 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv

A 

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS LOAEL hv

A 

155611 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat POP POP BMAS NOAEL d A 155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED50 hv

A 0.

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED50 hv

A 0.

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED85 hv

A 0.

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED85 hv

A 0.

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED90 hv

A 0.

155893 terrestrial Triticum aestivum Bread Wheat REP REP FCND ED90 hv

A 0.

73916 terrestrial Triticum sp. Wheat POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 

120532 terrestrial Veronica filiformis Whetzel Weed POP POP INDX LOAEL 49 d A 

70759 terrestrial Vicia sativa Garden Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 073916 terrestrial Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 

155679 terrestrial Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155679 terrestrial Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch POP POP CNTL LOAEL 14 d A 155495 terrestrial Vigna radiata Mungbean PHY INJ GINJ NOAEL 30 d A 155495 terrestrial Vigna radiata Mungbean POP POP BMAS LOAEL 40 d A 155813 terrestrial Vinca sp. Periwinkle PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 49 d A 0120677 terrestrial Viola arvensis European Field Pansy POP POP ABND LOAEL 35 d A 120677 terrestrial Viola arvensis European Field Pansy POP POP ABND NOAEL 35 d A 120677 terrestrial Viola arvensis European Field Pansy POP POP BMAS ED50 28 d A 0120677 terrestrial Viola arvensis European Field Pansy POP POP BMAS ED85 28 d A 0155813 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 14 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 28 d A 0
 AII-46 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

73745 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d A 0

155618 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP BMAS NOAEL 127 d F 0

70759 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP BMAS NOAEL 57 d A 070759 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP BMAS NOAEL 57 d A 0

155813 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP CNTL LOAEL 7 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Vitis labrusca American Grape POP POP COVR LOAEL 14 d A 063873 terrestrial Xanthium strumarium Common Cocklebur PHY PHY WLSS LOAEL 7 d A 0

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 93 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 80 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn GRO GRO HGHT NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 28 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 
 AII-47 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 28 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 28 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 
 AII-48 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 1 gs F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 28 d F 155495 terrestrial Zea mays Corn PHY INJ GINJ LOAEL 30 d A 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 132 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 117 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 108 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 121 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND LOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 
 AII-49 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP ABND NOAEL hv F 155486 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS IC50 21 d A 0.1155486 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS IC50 69 d A 0.3155495 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS LOAEL 40 d A 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS LOAEL 93 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS LOAEL 113 d F 

31424 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 

154055 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

66932 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 119 d F 66932 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 116 d F 66932 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 108 d F 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155609 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 113 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 113 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 80 d F 
 AII-50 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 93 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 80 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 112 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 126 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 112 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 113 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv F 155490 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

155490 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL hv

A 

67103 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 109 d A 67103 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP BMAS NOAEL 109 d A 31424 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP CNTL LOAEL 8 d F 78497 terrestrial Zea mays Corn POP POP PGRT IC50 8 d F 0.

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 132 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 117 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 108 d F 
 AII-51 

Ref # Habitat Genus Species Common Name

EffectGroup Effect Meas Endpt1

DurPrefMean

DurUnitPref

ConcType

ConPuriin PMea

155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 147 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 153 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 121 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 142 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL 158 d F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155481 terrestrial Zea mays Corn REP REP SEED NOAEL hv F 155813 terrestrial Zinnia sp. Zinnia PHY INJ DAMG LOAEL 49 d A 0

70759 terrestrial Zinnia violacea Zinnia PHY INJ DAMG NOAEL 56 d A 0