UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

MAY 1 4 2015 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

TO: 

BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Ipconazole ( 125618) 

Tara Chandgoyal, Ph.D., Plant Pathologist ~ {4 Jd • .1 A ,, • /J 

Biological Analysis Branch ~ 

Jihad 

Science 

Alsadek

Information 

, Ph.D., 

and 

Economist 

Analysis Branch 

~ tf .... ~ 

Stephen Smearman, Economist A~- ~ 1 _ ·- I .... ~­

Economic 

Biological 

Analysis 

and Economic 

Branch 

Analysis 

~~' 

Division (7503P) 

AmetJones

Biological Analysis 

, Chief 

Branc~ 

/) 

'1;, ~ 

Diann 

Science 

Sims

Information 

, Chief ~~ and Analysis Branch 

Timothy 

Economic 

Kiely

Analysis , Chief 

Branch 

a: VJ..... ~ 

Biological and Economic Analys1 ivision (7503 

Brittany Pruitt, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 3 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P) 

Peer Review Panel Date: March 18, 2015 

SUMMARY 

Ipconazole fungicide was first registered in the U.S. in 2004 (USEPA, 2004). This fungicide is a 

seed treatment that belongs to the triazole chemical group of De-Methylation Inhibitors (DMI) 

fungicides. It belongs to Group 3 ofthe Fungicide Resistance Action Committee which is based 

on the mode of action of fungicides. Based on private market usage data from 2010-2013, usage 

averaged approximately 600 pounds active ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on approximately 

1 
450,000 acres treated. The average a.i. rate over this time period was 0.001 pounds a.i. /acre on 

wheat, soybean and cotton seeds. Ipconazole is labeled for the control of many seed and soilborne fungal pests (such as Aspergillus spp., Penicillium Spp., Fusarium spp., Ustilago spp., 

Diaporthe spp., Sclerotinia spp.). There are no reported usage data for non-agricultural use sites 

from proprietary data and from USDAINASS. 

INTRODUCTION 

The Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) Chemical Profile (BCP) provides an 

overview of the pest management roles and quantitative usage information for this fungicide. 

The BCP includes summaries of previous BEAD products and available public and/or private 

use and usage data for ipconazole to describe its role in pest management. Additional 

information on use is available in the ipconazole LUIS Label Data Report. Information provided 

in this BCP may be used by stakeholders (e.g., users and registrants), OPP risk assessors, OPP 

risk managers, and the general public during the Registration Review process of this fungicide. 

USE SITES 

Agricultural Use Sites 

Ipconazole is registered for seed treatment of barley, beans, buckwheat, wheat, canola, cole 

crops, conifers, com, cotton, cucurbits, leafy vegetables, legume vegetables, millet, mustard, 

oats, peanuts, peas, root and tuber vegetables, rye, sorghum, sunflower and triticale. 

Non-Agricultural Use Sites 

Ipconazole is registered for seed treatment of ornamental plants and turf. 

FORMULATIONS AND APPLICATION METHODS 

Ipconazole is formulated as emulsifiable concentrate, flowable concentrate, liquid-ready to use 

and soluble concentrate. Ipconazole is applied as a seed treatment. 

HISTORY OF IPCONAZOLE and BEAD PRODUCTS 

Ipconazole is a fungicide that was registered for use as a seed treatment in the U.S. in 2004. 

Survey data indicate that growers started using Ipconazole on soybean and wheat seed in 2010. 

There was no reported usage data on cotton seed in 2010. A Screening Level Usage Analysis 

(SLUA) was prepared by BEAD for ipconazole in 2014 that provides national level poundage 

applied by active ingredient (a.i.) and percent crop treated (PCT) data for crops for which usage 

data are available. In terms of average annual pounds applied, the top agricultural use sites that 

were treated with ipconazole as a seed treatment were soybeans wheat and cotton. Each of these 

sites had less than 500 lbs. a.i. treated on average for each crop. Based on the data over the 2010 

to 201 3 time period, in terms of the percent crop treated, all crops had less than one percent of 

the crop acreage treated. 

Only one record of a prior BEAD assessment specifically for this chemical was done in the last 

10 years. It was a request by Chemtura for an extension of the 10 year exclusive use period for 

an additional three years. There were several crops included in the request including carrot, 

2 
not registered for use on a particular crop/site. An emergency exemption request may yield 

information about a particular chemical's importance or value that is not found in other EPA 

records. However, a lack of Section 18 assessments by BEAD does not specifically indicate the 

relative importance of the chemical. 

USAGE 

Agricultural Usage 

Even though ipconazole was first registered in 2004, there was no reported use until 2010. 

Usage was reported for the years 2010-2013 and averaged approximately 600 pounds active 

ingredient (a.i.) applied annually on approximately 450,000 acres treated. The average a.i. rate 

over this time period was 0.001 pounds a.i. /acre. Figure 1 presents ipconazole usage in pounds 

a.i. over the 2010-2013 timeframe. Figure 2 presents total area treated in acres over the same 

time period. The data show that the use of ipconazole is increased between 2010 and 2012 and 

decreased from 2012 to 2013. (Proprietary Data, 2010-2013). 

Note that BEAD usage data does not cover seed treatments for every crop. Usage is likely to be 

underestimated in amount and extent of use. Seed treatment usage for com and cotton was first 

reported in 2004, soybeans was first reported in 2006 and peanuts, potatoes, sorghum, sugar 

beets and wheat were first reported in 2009. 

Figure 1. Ipconazole Usage in Pounds Active Ingredient (2010-2013) 

1200 

-c 

(].) 

c.. 

c.. 

<( 

<( 

Vl 

-c 

c 

:::::> 

0 

a.. 

0 0 

...... 

0 

N 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2010-2013 

...... 

...... 

0 

N 

Years 

N 

.... 

0 

N 

('() 

...... 

0 

N 

3 
Figure 2. lpconazole Total Area Treated in Acres (2010-2013) 

900,000 

"0 

ClJ 

....., 

ro 

ClJ 

'-Iro 

ClJ 

~ 

ro 

....., 

0 

I0 

...... 

0 

N 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2010-2013 

...... 

..... 

0 

N 

Yea rs 

N 

..... 

0 

N 

('(") 

...... 

0 

N 

The major agricultural uses ofipconazole are on cotton, soybeans and wheat (Table 1). Use data 

in terms of pounds applied and acres treated started in 201 0 increased over the period from 20 1 0 

to 2012 and then declined in 2013 (Figures 1 & 2). Currently, BEAD does not have any 

information available to explain the drop in usage over the period from 2012 to 2013 . It may be 

due to many factors such as lower disease pressure, grower preferences for other pesticides, 

pesticide pricing and/or pesticide availability to the growers. 

Table 1. Crops (Seeds) with Highest Use of Ipconazole in Terms of Pounds Applied (2010-

2013) 

Crop %Lbs 

Soybeans 68 

Winter Wheat 16 

Spring Wheat 13 

Cotton 3 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2010-2012 

Table 2. States with Highest Use of lpconazole in Terms of Pounds AI (2010-2013) 

State %Lbs 

South Dakota 26 

Ohio 19 

Montana 10 

Other* 45 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2010-2013 * Other includes North Dakota, Minnesota, Kansas, Idaho, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, New York, Arkansas, Nebraska and Oregon. 

4 
Application Rates 

The average a.i. rate for the top crops in terms of pounds a.i. applied was highest for spring 

wheat at 0.0020 lbs. a.i. per acre and lowest for cotton at 0.0004 lbs. a.i. per acre, as shown in 

Table 3. 

T bl e 3 . I a lpconazo IU e se on T C op rops an dA verage A I R .. a t e, 2010 -2013 

Average Annual Average Annual Total Crop Pounds A.I. Area Treated* Applied 

Cotton 20 49,000 

Soybeans 400 270,000 

Spring Wheat 100 58,000 

Winter Wheat 100 74,000 

*Total Acres Treated sums all acres treated for a crop. 

Source: Proprietary Data, 2010-2013 

Geographic Distribution oflpconazole Use 

A.I. Rate (lbs. 

A. I./ Acres) 

0.0004 

0.0015 

0.0020 

0.0014 

Figure 3 provides a very broad geographical view of the average annual amount (in pounds) of 

Ipconazole applied per 1,000 acres of crop acres grown. The calculated values presented in the 

map are not equivalent to an application rate (lbs. a.i./a), therefore, the map may show areas of 

high use intensity that do not necessarily correspond to the states listed in Table 2 since those are 

the states with the highest use of ipconazole based on pounds active ingredient applied. 

As shown in the map, South Dakota and Ohio are the states depicting the highest use intensity of 

acres treated with ipconazole. Please see Appendix A for a more detailed explanation of the 

information presented on the map. 

5 
Pounds Active Ingredient 

per 1,000 Crop Acres Grown 

D No Data 

- < 0.0001 

- 0.0001 -0.0009 

- 0.00 1 - 0 005 

- > 0.005 

Figure 3. Annual average agricultural use intensity of Ipconazole (2009-2013). 

BIOLOGICAL ASPECTS RELEVANT TO IPCONAZOLE 

Ipconazole fungicide belongs to the triazole chemical group ofDe-Methylation Inhibitor (DMI) 

fungicides. It belongs to group 3 of Fungicide Resistance Action Committee based on mode of 

action of fungicides (FRAC, 2014). There are differences in the activity spectra ofDMI 

fungicides (FRAC 2014). Resistance in many fungi against DMI fungicides is known and it is 

generally accepted that cross resistance is present between DMI fungicides active against the 

same fungus (FRAC, 2014). These fungicides have medium risk of resistance development in 

fungi (FRAC, 2014) and resistance management is recommended (FRAC, 2014). The incidence 

of resistance in fungi against a fungicide in seed treatment can be reduced by premixing it with a 

fungicide having different modes of action or alternating it with a fungicide with different modes 

of action. 

lpconazole is registered as a seed treatment of various crops (such as sorghum, soybeans, spring 

wheat, winter wheat, barley, oats, rye and beans) and ornamentals for the control of seed and 

soil-borne fungal diseases. Ipconazole is labeled for the control of many seed and soil-borne 

fungal pests (such as Aspergillus spp., Penicillium Spp., Fusarium spp., Ustilago spp., Diaporthe 

spp., Sclerotinia spp.). 

6 
ROLE OF IPCONAZOLE IN PEST MANAGEMENT 

Overall, use ofipconazole in the U.S. for the time period since it was registered in 2004 to 2013 

was found to be used only as a seed treatment for the years 2010 to 2013. Usage averaged less 

than 500 lbs pounds per year on soybeans, wheat and cotton as a seed treatment (BEAD, 2014). 

Ipconazole has antifungal activity against many seed and soil-borne fungi. It is applied alone or 

in combination with carboxin, metalaxyl, clothianidin + metalaxyl, carboxin + metalaxyl or 

imidacloprid + metalaxyl to control a wide spectrum of seed and soil borne fungi and insect 

pests. 

DATA NEEDS 

The Agency currently does not have information for the non-agricultural use sites of ipconazole. 

Obtaining information, such as the number of pounds of active ingredient applied annually and 

the typical application rate for seed treatment on ornamentals may improve future assessments 

conducted by the Agency related to the use and importance of this fungicide. 

APPENDIX A 

The map included herein primarily for the use of the risk assessors in the Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division. The map provides a very broad geographical view of the amount (in pounds) 

of the active ingredient applied per 1,000 acres of "land in farms". These data are included in the 

maps because risk assessors are interested in the amount of a pesticide used across farmland. 

Because of the definition of Land in Farms, as discussed below, the calculated values presented 

in the map are not equivalent to an application rate (lbs a.i. /A). 

The data used to make these maps have many limitations. Any interpretation of the maps should 

consider the underlying data and the associated limitations carefully. 

The smallest areas shown on the maps within each state are Crop Reporting Districts (CRD). 

CRDs are defined by USDA and each consists of multiple counties that have similar soils, 

growing conditions, and farming practices. The CRDs within many states have roughly the same 

area. Because it is not feasible to conduct an agricultural survey that samples every county in the 

United States, the use of CRDs allow for a sample to be collected that represent a much larger 

area with relatively homogeneous agricultural characteristics. 

The numerator (annual average pounds applied) is based on private market surveys of pesticide 

use in agriculture averaged over the last five years (Proprietary Data, 2008-2013). These surveys 

cover about 60 crops and are targeted in states that produce the majority ofthe crop. Although 

the surveys capture most of the use of a particular active ingredient in agriculture, there are 

several limitations to these surveys. 

• States with minor production of a surveyed crop are not sampled 

7 
• Not all types of pesticides are surveyed in every crop in every year 

• Many specialty crops with very small acreages are not included in the survey 

The result of these limitations is that CRDs that show no usage may actually have a small 

amount of the active ingredient being used. 

The denominator (1 ,000 Acres of land in farms) was selected from the Census of Agriculture 

(USDA, 2007) to represent agricultural acreage that is actively managed and includes most of the 

areas treated with pesticides. The category "Land in Farms" is defined by the Census of 

Agriculture as being made up of four components: 

• Total cropland 

• Permanent pasture 

• Total woodland 

• Land in farmsteads, buildings, livestock facilities, ponds, roads, wasteland, etc. 

This category includes land in the various USDA conservation programs. It should be noted that 

the Census of Agriculture does not include grazing land rented (on a per-animal basis) from the 

Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service, thus it is an underestimate ofthe land being 

managed for agricultural purposes. 

The reader should pay particular attention to the figure legends and realize that a map prepared 

for a particular ipconazole is not directly comparable to a map prepared for a different 

ipconazole. Scale and units of measurement do matter and may be different between maps. 

REFERENCES 

BEAD, 2014. Ipconazole Screening Level Usage Analysis. Biological and Economic Analysis 

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, US Environmental Protection Agency. November 12, 

2014. 

FRAC. 2014. Accessed on February 11 , 2014. 

http://www.frac.info/publication/anhang/FRAC%20Code%20List%202013-final.pdf 

Proprietary Data, 2010-2013. 

US-EPA. 2004. http://www. epa. gov I oppOOOO 11 chem search/reg acti ons/registration/fs PC125618 01-Sep-04.pdf. Accesses on February 20,2015. 

8