1

OFFICE OF 

CHEMICAL SAFETY AND 

POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

Chemical: Bifenazate

  PC Code: 000586

DP Barcode: 423164

Date: December 7, 2015

MEMORANDUM       

SUBJECT: Registration Review Ecological Risk Assessment for Bifenazate (PC Code

000586; DP Barcode 423164)

TO:  Garland Waleko, Chemical Review Manager

 Cathryn Britton, Team Leader

 Kevin Costello, Chief

 Risk Management and Implementation Branch 4

 Pesticide Reevaluation Division (7508P)

THROUGH:  Dana Spatz, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 3

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

FROM:  James Hetrick, Ph. D., Senior Advisor

 Rosanna LouieͲJuzwiak, Risk Assessment Process Leader

 Environmental Risk Branch 3

 Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the ecological risk

assessment as part of the Registration Review of the insecticide bifenazate (PC Code 000586).

This risk assessment incorporates data that became available since the Problem Formulation

(U.S. EPA, 2012a). This preliminary risk assessment (PRA) examines the potential ecological risks

associated with labeled uses of bifenazate based on the best available scientific and commercial

information on the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects on nonͲtarget organisms.

JAMES 

HETRICK

Digitally signed by JAMES HETRICK 

DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government, 

ou=USEPA, ou=Staff, cn=JAMES 

HETRICK, dnQualifier=0000005599 

Date: 2015.12.07 16:29:10 -05'00'
2

Bifenazate is registered for use on several agricultural food crops and nonͲagricultural use sites.

Based laboratory and field dissipation studies, it is immobile in the environment, but is not

persistent and is expected to rapidly dissipate in aquatic environments as the result of both

hydrolysis and direct aqueous photolysis. Because bifenazate degrades rapidly in soil in the

absence of light, photodegradation on soil is not expected to be important dissipation pathway.

Major and minor degradation products of bifenazate in soil and water are diazenecarboxylic

acid, 2Ͳ[4Ͳmethoxy(1,1’Ͳbiphenyl)Ͳ3Ͳyl], 1Ͳmethylethyl ester (D3598), [1,1’ͲBiphenyl]Ͳ3,4Ͳdiol

(D9472), and 4Ͳmethoxybiphenyl (D1989), 4ͲmethoxyͲ[1,1’Ͳbiphenyl]Ͳ3Ͳol (D9963), ’ͲBiphenyl)Ͳ

4Ͳol (A1530) and desmethyl D3598.

In this assessment, acute and chronic risks to birds are predicted. For all uses, including at the

lowest single application rate of 0.35 lb a.i./A, chronic risk to mammals is predicted for both

doseͲand dietaryͲbased EECs (at both the NOAEL and LOAEL, based on body weight changes in

parental male and female rats). If using 200 mg/kgͲdiet as the endpoint (frank reproductive

effects) and the highest application rate for crops (i.e., 1.5 lb a.i./A/year), the doseͲbased RQs

exceed levels of concern for all sized mammals for the majority of dietary items (chronic RQsч

6.62), but do not exceed dietaryͲbased EECs (chronic RQsч0.76). At the lowest single

application rate, the chronic LOC is exceeded for smallͲand mediumͲsized mammals at dose

basedͲEECs (chronic RQsч2).

Available toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates suggest that one of the degradates, DͲ

3598, is approximately 10x more toxic than the parent. When comparing the most sensitive

degradate endpoint against the EECs (using a total toxic residue approach, or TTR), the highest

acute RQ is just below the nonlisted LOC for fish (RQ is 0.48, LOC is 0.5), and is exceeded for

both nonͲlisted fish and aquatic invertebrates. An analysis only considering exposure to the DͲ

3598 degradate was conducted, which showed that only the listed LOC for fish is exceeded, but

continued to exceed the nonlisted and listed LOCs for aquatic invertebrates. Chronic data are

unavailable to assess exposure to fish. Based on available acute toxicity data, given that the

degradate DͲ3598 appears to be more toxic than the parent to freshwater fish and aquatic

invertebrates, potential chronic risk to aquatic animals cannot be ruled out.

As expected with an insecticide, bifenazate is toxic to honey bees from both acute and chronic

exposures. Based on available toxicity data and current application rates, risk to plants are not

expected.

Since the completion of the Problem Formulation (U.S. EPA, 2012), EPA issued guidance (U.S.

EPA, et. al., 2014) on the framework to conduct risk assessments for pollinators (e.g., honey

bees). EPA is unable at this time to conduct a full risk assessment for pollinators (e.g., honey

bees) exposed to bifenazate because EPA does not have a full suite of toxicity data to assess

potential risk to honey bees. Additional data needed in order to conduct a full risk assessment

for pollinators include the following studies:

1. Acute oral toxicity to adult honey bees (OECD 237)

2. Chronic oral toxicity to larval honey bees (NonͲguideline)
3

3. Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar (contingent on Tier 1 results) (NonͲguideline)

4. SemiͲfield testing for pollinator (contingent on Tier 1 results) (NonͲguideline, OECD

Guidance 75)

5. Field testing for pollinators (contingent on Tier 2 results) (Guideline 850.3040)

An acute oral toxicity study using honey bee larvae and a chronic oral toxicity study (10Ͳday)

using adult honey bees were recently submitted and the results of these studies were cursorily

considered in this assessment. A full evaluation to ascertain the validity of these studies is still

needed. If determined that these studies are unusable for a quantitative assessment, then new

studies would be needed in order to conduct a full risk assessment for pollinators.

II. INTRODUCTION

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

labeled uses of bifenazate based on the best available scientific and commercial information on

the use, environmental fate and transport, and effects on nonͲtarget organisms. This

assessment is focused on species that are not federally listed as threatened or endangered

(referred to as “listed”); however, some general discussion of taxa for which “no effect”

determinations are expected is included. For taxa to which potential risk is identified, specific

determinations for listed species are considered uncertain at this time.

Use Summary

Bifenazate is a selective miticide/insecticide in the carbazate class, which controls the motile

stage of mites either by direct contact or through contact with foliar residues. The mode of

action of bifenazate is to block or close the GABA (gamma aminobutyric acid)Ͳactivated chloride

channels of susceptible pests, resulting in overͲexcitation of the peripheral nervous system.

Bifenazate is currently registered for use on a variety of agricultural and nonͲagricultural use

sites. The chemical structure of bifenazate and some of its chemical identifiers are provided in

Table 1.
4

Table 1. Bifenazate Chemical Structure and Identifiers.

Chemical Name Hydrazinecarboxylic acid, 2Ͳ(4Ͳmethoxy[1,1'Ͳbiphenyl]Ͳ3Ͳyl)Ͳ, 1Ͳ

methylethyl ester

Chemical Structure

Chemical Abstracts Service

(CAS) Registry Number 149877Ͳ41Ͳ8

Smiles Code C2=C(C1=CC=CC=C1)C=CC(=C2NNC(OC(C)C)=O)OC

Bifenazate is formulated as a wettable powder, soluble concentrate, flowable concentrate, and

water dispersible granules. Applications may be made via aerial, ground (compressed air,

hydraulic ground boom, air blast sprayers, and handͲheld/hoseͲend sprayers), and chemigation

equipment. It is currently registered for a number of agricultural use sites: avocados,

caneberries, cotton, cucurbits, dry beans (except soybean) subgroup, fruiting vegetables, small

vine climbing subgroup (except kiwi), hops, legume vegetables (succulent peas and beans

including shelled soybean), mint, okra, pome fruits, tuberous and corm vegetables, low growing

berries, stone fruit, tree nuts, and tropical fruit.Additionally, bifenazate may be applied to the

following nonͲbearing crops (not to bear fruit within 1 year of application): berries (blueberry,

highbush, elderberry, and huckleberry), citrus, currants, dates, figs, and persimmons. NonͲ

agricultural uses include ornamentals (including bedding plants, flowering plants, foliage plants,

bulb crops, perennials, trees and shrubs) in greenhouses/shadehouses, nurseries, Christmas

tree/conifer plantations, residential areas, as well as commercial/industrial/institutional areas

including golf courses, parks, athletic fields, rightsͲofͲway and other easements.

A Screening Level Usage Analysis (SLUA) was prepared by Biological and Economical Analysis

Division (U.S. EPA, 2015) for bifenazate that provides an estimate of pesticide agricultural usage

data (Table 2). The use on grapes, almonds, potatoes, and strawberries accounted for the

largest agricultural use during the timeframe (2004Ͳ2013) considered by the SLUA report.

Additional annual average pounds of bifenazate usage (<500 pounds) were reported for apricot,

green beans, lima beans, cantaloupes, figs, pluots, squash, sugar beets, sweet corn, tangerines,
5

and watermelon. Noteworthy higher reported percent crop treated include pluot (25) and

apricot (10).

Table 2. Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Bifenazate.

Crop Avg. Lbs. A.I. Applied

Per Year

Percent Crop Treated

Average Maximum

1 grapes 50000 10 20

2 strawberries 20000 50 75

3 almonds 20000 5 15

4 potatoes 20000 5 5

5 tomatoes 7000 5 10

6 peaches 6000 10 20

7 pears 5000 15 30

8 apples 5000 5 10

9 walnuts 4000 5 15

10 caneberries 3000 20 30

11 plum/prune 3000 5 20

12 peppers 3000 5 15

13 cucumbers 3000 <2.5 5

14 dry beans/peas 2000 <1 <2.5

15 oranges 2000 <2.5 <2.5

16 pecans 2000 <2.5 <2.5

17 pistachios 2000 <2.5 <2.5

18 cherries 2000 5 10

19 grapefruit 2000 5 5

20 nectarines 1000 5 10

21 pumpkins 1000 <2.5 5

22 apricots <500 5 10

23 beans, green <500 <1 <2.5

24 beans, lima <500 <2.5 <2.5

25 cantaloupes <500 <1 <2.5

26 figs <500 <1 <2.5

27 pluot <500 15 25

28 squash <500 <1 <2.5

29 sugar beet <500 <1 <2.5

30 sweet corn <500 <1 <2.5

31 tangerines <500 <2.5 5

32 watermelon <500 <1 <2.5 a

SLUA data reporting timeframe: 2004Ͳ2013a,b; sources include:

USDAͲNASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National Agricultural Statistics Service)

Private Pesticide Market Research
6

California DPR (Department of Pesticide Regulation) b

All numbers rounded.

<2.5 Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated

Table 3 is a summary of the registered uses for bifenazate, informed by the Use Summary Table

provided by the registrant and verified by the Biological Economics Analysis Division (U.S. EPA,

2015). For agricultural crops, the maximum single application rates range from 0.38Ͳ0.75 pound

of active ingredient per acre (lb a.i./A), with 1Ͳ2 applications allowed, depending on the crop.

This assessment assumes only one crop cycle per year; however, there is the potential for

multiple crop cycles and/or crop rotation that would lead to extended exposures to applied

bifenazate residues in a given year. The use rates for nonͲagricultural applications to

ornamentals range from one application at 0.38 applied twice per year to one application of 0.5

lb a.i./A per year. One label for home and garden uses (EPA Reg. No. 400Ͳ517), lists only the

concentration of the spray (1⁄2 tsp of product per gallon) with directions to apply as a full

coverage spray to the foliage and as often as every 30 days. Assuming a finishing spray volume

of 400 gallons/A (which is what is recommended for use on ornamentals on the Floramite labels

400Ͳ508 and 400Ͳ509), the rate for the uses on EPA Reg. No. 400Ͳ517 is anticipated to be

equivalent to 0.5 lb a.i./A to be applied every 30 days (6 lb a.i./A per year); however, this use is

expected to be limited to smaller areas (i.e., homeowner gardens) rather than several acres.

Table 3. Registered Bifenazate Uses and Application Rates.

Use Site Reg

Numbers

Max

#Apps/

Year

Max App

rate/Year

(lb/ A/Yr)

Application

Type

Max Single

App Rate

(lb a.i./A)

Max No.

Apps

/Year

Max App

rate/ Year

(lb a.i./A)

MRI

(days)

ALMOND/Tree Nuts 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503,

400Ͳ519

1 0.75 ground

broadcast 0.75 1 0.75 NA

ALMOND 400Ͳ519 1 0.5 groundͲ

broadcast 0.502 1 0.502 NA

AVOCADO 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503 2 1 groundͲbroadcast 0.5 2 1 21

BEANS, DRIEDͲTYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514

2 1.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.75 2 1.5 14

CANEBERRY SUBGROUP 13Ͳ

07A

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503 2 1 groundͲbroadcast 0.5 2 1 30

COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) 400Ͳ514

1 0.75

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.75 1 0.75 NA

COTTON (UNSPECIFIED) 400Ͳ519

1 0.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.502 1 0.502 NA

CRANBERRY (part of LOW

GROWING BERRY SUBGROUP

13Ͳ07G)

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503 2 1 chemigation 0.5 2 1 21
7

CUCURBIT VEGETABLES 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.51 0.5 NA

FRUITING VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.51 0.5 NA

GRAPES 400Ͳ572

1 0.375 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

1 0.375 NA

GRAPES 400Ͳ519

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA

SMALL FRUIT VINE CLIMBING

SUBGROUP 13Ͳ07G

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

HERBS SUBGROUP 19A

(except chives and chervil)

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

HOPS 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.75

1 0.75 NA

LEGUME VEGETABLES6A

(succulent); SUCCULENT PEAS

and BEANS SUBGROUP6B;

SUCCULENT SHELLED

SOYBEAN

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503

2 1.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.752 1.5 14

MINT 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.75

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast,

chemigation

0.751 0.75 NA

OKRA 400Ͳ519

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA

POME FRUIT GROUP 11Ͳ10 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

POTATOES (TUBEROUS AND

CORM VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514

2 1.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast,

chemigation

0.752 1.5 14

STONE FRUITS 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

LOW GROWING BERRY

SUBGROUP 13Ͳ07G (also see

CRANBERRY)/Strawberry

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

21 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

21 21

SUBTROPICAL/TROPICAL

FRUIT

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503

21 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

21 21

TOMATO 400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

ALFALFA (grown for seed) 400Ͳ514

1 0.75

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast,

chemigation

0.751 0.75 NA

BEET& SPINACH (grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514

2 1.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.752 1.5 14

CLOVER (grown for seed) 400Ͳ514

1 0.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast,

chemigation

0.51 0.5 NA
8

TIMOTHY (forage and hay to

be fed only to horses)

400Ͳ514

1 0.75

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast,

chemigation

0.751 0.75 NA

BERRIES (blueberry, highbush;

elderberry; huckleberry)

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES

400Ͳ572,

400Ͳ582

2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

CHRISTMAS TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS and NURSERIES

400Ͳ514

1 0.5

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.51 0.5 NS

CITRUS 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

COMMERCIAL/INSTITUTIONA

L/INDUSTRIAL PREMISES

(OUTDOOR)

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

CURRANT 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

FIG 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

1 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400Ͳ517 12

6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30

FRUITS (UNSPECIFIED) 400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

GOLF COURSE TURF 400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

HOUSEHOLD/DOMESTIC

DWELLINGS OUTDOOR

PREMISES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

NONAGRICULTURAL RIGHTSͲ

OFͲWAY /FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES

400Ͳ517 12

6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30

ORNAMENTAL AND/OR

SHADE TREES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

2 0.75 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER

400Ͳ517 12

6 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30

ORNAMENTAL GROUND

COVER

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS
9

ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582 2 0.75 groundͲbroadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS

400Ͳ517 12 6 groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL HERBACEOUS

PLANTS

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582 2 0.75 groundͲbroadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS

400Ͳ517 12 6 groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL

NONFLOWERING PLANTS

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582 2 0.75 groundͲbroadcast 0.375 2 0.75 7

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES

400Ͳ517 12 6 groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 12 6 30

ORNAMENTAL WOODY

SHRUBS AND VINES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

PERSIMMON 400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503,

400Ͳ519

1 0.5

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 1 0.5 NA

RECREATIONAL AREAS 400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

2 0.5

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5 2 0.5 NS

Environmental Fate and Transport

 

The environmental fate assessment considers the environmental fate of (2Ͳ(4ͲmethoxyͲ[1,1’Ͳ

biphenyl]Ͳ3Ͳyl)Ͳmethylethyl ester (bifenazate) and its degradation products D3598,D9472,

and D1989. These degradation products are considered in this assessment because their

aquatic toxicity are equal to or greater than bifenazate.

Physicochemical properties of (2Ͳ(4ͲmethoxyͲ[1,1’Ͳbiphenyl]Ͳ3Ͳyl)Ͳmethylethyl ester

(bifenazate) and its degradation products are shown in Table 4.

Table 4. Chemical Identification Information for Bifenazate Its Degradation Products D1989, D9472,

and D3598.

Property Bifenazate D35981 D19891 D94721

Molecular Weight(g/mol) 300.36 298.34 184.24 186.21

Vapor Pressure (mm Hg) <1EͲ7 6.08EͲ7 3.76EͲ4 7.89EͲ7

Henry’s Constant (atmͲm3/mol)1 1.05EͲ6 6.001EͲ8 3.29EͲ6 2.422EͲ10

Solubility (mg/L) 3.76 3.977 27.7 798.2

Log Kow 3.4 4.10 3.84 2.80

Koc (L/kg) Immobile2 7485 41583 642

1Ͳ Properties estimated using EPIsuite.

2Ͳ Immobile mobility classification based on soil column leaching study (MRID 44464955).

3Ͳ Mobility based batch equilibrium data (MRID 44464956).
10

Based on available environmental fate data for parent, bifenazate is expected to be immobile,

but not persistent in the environment.It is expected to rapidly dissipate in aquatic

environments as the result of both hydrolysis (t1/2 = 7.7 hours at pH 7) and direct aqueous

photolysis (t1/2 = 16 hours). Because bifenazate degrades rapidly in soil (t1/2=7.2 hours) in the

absence of light, photodegradation of bifenazate on soil is not expected to be important

dissipation pathway. Major hydrolysis degradation products (>10% of applied radioactivity) of

bifenazate include D3598, D9472, and D1989.A major photodegradation product in water is 4Ͳ

methoxyͲ[1,1’Ͳbiphenyl]Ͳ3Ͳol (D9963).

Bifenazate degrades in aerobic soil (t1/2 = 7.2 hours) to form D3598 (92% of applied @ 0.48

hours), which subsequently degrades to form D1989. In anaerobic environments, bifenazate is

degraded with a halfͲlife of 77.9 days.The major degradation products in anaerobic

environments are ’ͲBiphenyl)Ͳ4Ͳol (A1530) and desmethyl D3598. Structures of degradation

products are shown in Appendix E.

Based on soil column leaching data and HPLC soil column Koc estimation, bifenazate is

immobile in most soils).The low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law constant limits the potential

of bifenazate to volatilize from soil and water. Given that bifenazate is rapidly hydrolyzed,

photodegraded, and microbiallyͲdegraded, it has low potential for bioaccumulation.

Terrestrial field dissipation studies in Washington and North Carolina confirm laboratory study

results that bifenazate degrades rapidly (t1/2=5 days) and is immobile in bareͲground soil. Major

degradation products, D1989 or D3598, were detected at a maximum concentration of 0.03

mg/kg. No bifenazate residue detections were found in soil depths > 6 inches.

An analysis of the degradation product profiles among laboratory studies indicates a common

degradation profile for bifenazate; it degrades to form D3598, which is a precursor to D1989,

D9472, D9963, and A1530 (Table 5). Additionally, a large fraction of 14C residue was detected

(51.5Ͳ73.8%) in bound soil/sediment fractions. Data indicate that the biphenyl moiety of

bifenazate is prone to incorporation into soil/sediment organic matter.

Table 5. Maximum Concentration of Bifenazate Degradation Products in Environmental Fate Studies.

Environmental Fate

Study MRID Study Conditions DegradationProduct

Maximum

Percentage

Formed (%)

Hydrolysis 44464952 pH=4 D3598 22@14 days

D1989 9.7@14 days

D9472 83.6@ 30 days

pH=7 D3598 63@ 1 day

D1989 7.2@339 hours

D9472 43.4@2 days

D9963 5.2@768 hours

pH=9 D3598 23.5@1.8 hour

D1989 9.9@20.6 hours

D9472 64.1@2.8 hours
11

D9963 6.6@18.6 hours

Photolysis in Water 44464953 Dark Control; pH=5 D3598 55.9@78 hours

D9472 45.5@150 hours

D1989 11.6@150 hours

Irradiated; pH=5 D3598 74.4@27.9 hours

D9472 15.9@149.8 hours

D1989 13.8@53.8 hours

D9963 31.7@150.5 hours

Photolysis on Soil 44522601 Dark Control;SL;pHͲ6.7 D3598 77.5@2 hours

D1989 22.1@3 days

Irradiated; SL;pHͲ6.7 D3598 84.3@2 hours

D1989 11.2@3 days

Aerobic Soil

Metabolism

44464954 SL; pH=6.9;1.9%OM D3598 92@0.5 hours

D1989 26.8@3days

Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism

44522602 Loam sediment

(pH=6.6;

6.9% OM) with natural

water (pH=7)

A1530 24.@294 days

Desmethyl 3598 14.7@231 days

D3598 3.7@ 0 days

Terrestrial Field

Dissipation

44464958 Washington State;

Sand soil; bareground;

application rate (0.6 lb

a.i./A)

D1989 or D35981 0.02 mg/kg @ 4

days

posttreatment in

0Ͳ6 inch soil

44464957 North Dakota; SL soil;

bareground;

application rate (0.61

lb a.i./A)

D1989 or D35981 0.03 mg/kg (10%

of applied) @ 7

days postͲ

treatment in 0Ͳ6

inch soil 1 Common moiety extraction for D3598 and D1989.

Experimental environmental fate data showed that D1989 degraded in loamy sandy soil with a

halfͲlife of 24.4 days (MRID 45144002). It is slightly mobile (Koc=3011Ͳ6189) in mineral soils

(MRID 44464956). However, D1989 may exhibit sufficient persistence and hydrophobicity (log

Kow=3.8) to allow bioaccumulation. This is further evidenced based on the steadyͲstate and

kineticͲderived BCF for D1989 in fish tissue (1127Ͳ1393X) (MRID 49544202). D1989 depurated

rapidly from all fish tissues; tissue concentrations of D1989 were 2% or less by Day 10 of the

depuration period.No major degradates were found in fish tissue. Based on the steadyͲstate

and kinetic derived BCF for D3598, D3598 has a low accumulation potential in fish tissue (17Ͳ

28X). D3598 depurated or degraded rapidly from whole fish tissues; tissue concentrations of

D3598 were less than LOQ by Day 7 of the depuration period. The major degradate of D3598 in

fish tissue was D1989; D1989 was found in edible and nonͲedible tissue. Although the vapor

pressure and Henry’s Constant of D1989 indicate volatilization as a potential route of

dissipation, volatilization of D1989 was not observed in laboratory studies.
12

Aquatic Exposure Modeling

Table 6 summarizes the input parameters used in estimating concentrations of bifenazate and

its degradates in surface water using the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC,

version 1.106). The aquatic exposure assessment was conducted for total toxic residues1

including bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472. HalfͲlives for summed total toxic residues were

calculated from laboratory degradation studies. The Koc used in the modeling represents the

lowest Koc among the total toxic residues. The estimated EPISuite Koc for D9472 is 642.

Selection of input parameters was conducted according to standard input parameter guidance

(Brady, 2009).

Table 6. Input Parameters Used in SWCC Modeling to Estimate Estimated Environmental

Concentrations of Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472.

Parameter Value Comment Source

Molecular Weight 300.36 g/mol ͲͲ ͲͲ

Vapor Pressure 1EͲ7 torr ͲͲ ͲͲ

Koc 642 Koc prediction for

D9472 EPISuite

Hydrolysis HalfͲlife(pH=7) (days) 4.92 TTR @pH 7 MRID 44464952

Photodegradation in Water HalfͲlife (days) 5.68 TTR MRID 44464953

Aerobic Soil Metabolism HalfͲlife 22.37 days 90th % confidence

bound of the mean

TTR halfͲlife

MeanͲ10.16 days

SDͲ17.81 days

T90,nͲ1Ͳ1.533

N=5

MRID 45144002

MRID 47607902

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism HalfͲlife 14.49 days 90th % confidence

bound of the mean

TTR halfͲlife

MeanͲ5.04 days

SDͲ6.81 days

T90,nͲ1Ͳ3.078

N=2

MRID 49570301

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism HalfͲlife 351 3*117 MRID 44522602

A subset of the use sites with the highest surface water exposure estimates for bifenazate and

its degradates of concern are listed in Table 7. The full output of EECs can be found in Appendix

A. The highest environmental exposure concentrations (EEC) are associated with two aerial

applications of bifenazate at an application rate of 0.75 lb a.i./A on dried beans in Illinois. The

EECs for total toxic residue are not expected to exceed 21.9 μg/L for 1 in 10 year daily peak

concentration, 6.27 μg/L for 1 in 10 year 21Ͳday average concentration, and 3 μg/L for 1 in 10

1 Total toxic residues estimation method is consistent with input received by the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel

(FIFRA SAP, 2008).
13

year 60Ͳday average concentration.For the same application conditions, the EECs for D3598

are not expected to exceed 5.69 μg/L for 1 in 10 year daily peak concentration, 0.72 μg/L for 1

in 10 year 21Ͳday average concentration, and 0.29 μg/L for 1 in 10 year 60Ͳday average

concentration.

Table 7. SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Total Toxic Bifenazate Residues

(Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472) in Surface Water.

Use Site

Scenario

Reg.

Number

Max

#Apps/

Year

Max Single

App Rate

(lb a.i. /A)

Max App

rate/Year

(lb a.i./A)

MRI

(days) Peak 21Ͳday

60Ͳ

day

Beans, driedͲtype

(except soybean)

Aerial

ILbeansNMC

400Ͳ514 2 0.75 1.5 14 21.9 6.27 3

Potato

Aerial

FLpotato NMC

400Ͳ514 2 0.75 1.5 14 13.8 4.15 2.01

Grapes

Ground

NYgrapes

400Ͳ519 1 0.5 0.5 NA 3.45 1.31 0.562

Fig

Ground

CAfruit

400Ͳ514

400Ͳ519

400Ͳ503

1 0.25 0.25 NA 2.27 0.715 0.276

Because the degradation product D3598 is an order of magnitude more toxic to aquatic

organisms than parent, D1989, and D9472, additional modeling was conducted for D3598.

Because aerobic soil metabolism data (MRID 47607902) showed a maximum of 92% conversion

from bifenazate to D3598, the modeling assumed 100% conversion of bifenazate to D3598. This

assumption is not very conservative given that laboratory studies show up to 92% conversion to

D3598. Table 8 summarizes the input parameters used in estimating concentrations of D3598

in surface water using the Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, version 1.106).

Table 9 is a summary of the EECs for DͲ3598 only, based on the dried beans scenario

(ILbeansNMC SWCC scenario).

Table 8. Input Parameters Used in SWCC Modeling to Estimate Estimated Environmental

Concentrations of D3598.

Parameter Value Comment Source

Molecular Weight 298.34 g/mol ͲͲ ͲͲ

Vapor Pressure 6.08EͲ7 torr ͲͲ ͲͲ

Koc 7485  EPISuite

Hydrolysis HalfͲlife(pH=7) (days) 1.13  MRID 44464952

Photodegradation in Water HalfͲlife (days) 7.61  MRID 44464953

Aerobic Soil Metabolism HalfͲlife 0.93 days 90th % confidence

bound of the mean

D3598 halfͲlife

MRID 45144002

MRID 47607902
14

MeanͲ0.71 days

SDͲ.32 days

T90,nͲ1Ͳ1.533

N=5

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism HalfͲlife Stable D3598 was stable in

a waterͲsystem

MRID 49570301

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism HalfͲlife Stable MRID 44522602

Table 9. SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of DͲ3598 Residues in Surface Water.

Use Site

Scenario

Reg.

Number

Max

#Apps/

Year

Max Single

App Rate

(lb a.i. /A)

Max App

rate/Year

(lb a.i./A)

MRI

(days) Peak 21Ͳday

60Ͳ

day

Beans, driedͲtype

(except soybean)

Aerial

ILbeansNMC

400Ͳ514 2 0.75 1.5 14 5.96 0.721 0.285

Clean Water Act Programs

Bifenazate is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired

under section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, based on information provided at

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id

=885. In addition, no Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) have been developed for bifenazate

based on information provided at

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group

_id=885&p_pollutant_group_name=PESTICIDES. More information on impaired water bodies

and TMDLs can be found at http://www.epa.gov/owow/tmdl/.

Monitoring Data

There are no water monitoring data for bifenazate or D1989 in the USGS National WaterͲ

Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA), USEPA/USGS Pilot Reservoir Monitoring Program,

USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP), and California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR).

III. EFFECTS ANALYSIS

Summaries of the most sensitive aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data being evaluated in this

assessment for bifenazate and its degradates are provided in Table 10 and Table 11,

respectively. A full list of toxicity studies for bifenazate and its degradates considered can be

found in Appendix B. Below is a discussion on additional data that are newly considered in this

assessment. This includes an update to the chronic mammalian risk assessment with existing

data.
15

Effects to Aquatic Organisms

The registrant submitted additional degradate aquatic toxicity data (refer to Appendix B for the

list of studies) for aquatic organisms tested with DͲ3598 (Rainbow trout, MRID 48929504;

Daphnia magna, MRID 48929503; green algae, MRID 48929502), which showed comparable

toxicity for aquatic plants, and greater toxicity (~10x) than that of the parent for fish and

aquatic invertebrates. Additional toxicity tests conducted using DͲ1989 (freshwater

invertebrate, MRID 45141801) or DͲ9472 (acute freshwater fish, MRID 4892906; acute aquatic

invertebrate, MRID 48929508; aquatic plant, MRID 48929509) did not show greater toxicity.

Table 10. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Submitted Aquatic Toxicity Studies for

Bifenazate and DͲ3598.

Taxonomic

Group Study Type SurrogateSpecies

Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.)

MRID and

Classification

Acute Toxicity

Classification

Freshwater

fish

Acute,

bifenazate

Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 580 μg/L

44464931

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

(Lepomis

macrochirus)

NOAEC = 300 μg/L

Endpoint: survival

and sublethal effects

Acute, DͲ3598

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss)

96 hr LC50: 45.6 μg/L

48929504

(Acceptable)

Very highly

toxic

Chronic No Data

Freshwater

Invertebrate

Acute,

bifenazate

Water flea

(Daphnia

magna)

EC50 = 500 μg/L

NOAEC = ND

Endpoint:

Immobilization

44464933

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

Acute, DͲ3598

Freshwater

invertebrate

acute



(Daphnia

magna)

48 hr EC50: 55.5 μg/L

48929503

(Acceptable)

Very highly

toxic

Chronic,

bifenazate

Water flea

(Daphnia

magna)

NOAEC = 150 μg/L

LOAEC = 270 μg/L

Endpoint:

reproductive and

growth effects

45052216

(Supplemental1)

ͲͲ

Estuarine/

Marine Fish

Acute,

bifenazate

Sheepshead

minnow LC50 = 416 μg/L 45052214

Highly toxic (Cyprinodon

variegatus)

NOAEC = 136 μg/L

Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic No data
16

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate

Acute,

bifenazate

Saltwater mysid LC50 = 50 μg/L 45052213 Very highly

(Americamysis toxic

bahia)

NOAEC = 40 μg/L

Endpoint: Survival

(Supplemental2)

Chronic No data

Aquatic

nonvascular

plant

Acute, DͲ3598

Green algae

(Selenastrum

capricornutum)

YieldͲIC50: 0.7453

IC05: 0.2099 mg a.i./L

NOAEC: 0.38 mg/L

48929502 ͲͲ

Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

This assessment considers a recentlyͲsubmitted avian acute oral toxicity study using the canary

(MRID 49565905). The reported LD50 isш2,000 mg a.i./kg; therefore, passerines do not appear

to be more sensitive than the most sensitive tested species (i.e., bobwhite quail).

For chronic exposure to mammals, there was a reduction in body weight and cumulative weight

gain for both males and females (slightly more in females) in the F1 generation compared to the

controls in a twoͲgeneration reproductive study with the laboratory rat (NOAEL = 20 mg/kgͲ

diet; LOAEL = 80 mg/kgͲdiet). These weight changes were not attributed to food aversion (i.e.,

bifenazate did not appear to affect food efficiency). No other effects were observed in the adult

rats. Additionally, no effects (including body weight change) were observed in the F2

generation, up to the highest tested concentration of 200 mg/kgͲdiet (16.4/18.3 mg/kgͲbw). In

other chronic mammalian toxicity studies, there were noted hematologic and hepatoxic effects,

and the associated decrease in body weight and body weight gain across several studies

(870.3800, reproduction and fertility effects, rat, MRID 45076503; 870.4100b, chronic toxicity,

dog, MRID 45052221; 870.4300 carcinogenicity, mouse, MRID 45052222). TreatmentͲrelated

increase in early resorptions in the rat developmental occurred at the same doses where

maternal toxicity (including weight changes) were observed. No maternal or developmental

effects were observed in the rabbit developmental study (MRIDs 44464943, 44464944).

The registrant recently submitted three new honey bee toxicity studies conducted with

bifenazate.These studies have not yet been fully evaluated by EPA, but our preliminary

findings are discussed here.

The acute contact with adult honey bee study (MRID 49713501) reported an LD50 >99.7 μg

a.i./bee.

The chronic oral (10Ͳday) with adult honey bee (MRID 49713502) study tested a range of

concentrations from 0.03 to 2.3 μg a.i./bee, and reported a NOED of 0.092 μg a.i./bee and LOED

of 0.25 μg a.i./bee. There is uncertainty with the reported magnitude of effects observed in the

bifenazate treatment groups due to high mortalities observed in the solvent (acetone) control
17

(relative to the negative control). Mortality was observed in all test concentrations, with a

notable trend of increasing mortality with increasing doses. Some bees were moribund in

various replicates, times, and doses.

The acute oral with larvae study (MRID 49713503) evaluated a range of doses from 0.125 g to

2.0 μg a.i./larvae, with a reported 72Ͳhour LD50 of 1.246 μg a.i./larvae. Significant decrease in

food consumption was observed in the two highest test concentrations by test termination

(>94.2% food uneaten). Mortality observations began on day 5; there were notable increases in

mortality by day 6 in the three highest test concentrations.

The Pesticide Properties Database2 includes an oral acute (48Ͳhour) LD50 value of >98.0 μg

product per bee; however, there are no additional details about the product or the study.

A study was found in the open literature using adult bumblebees (Bombus terrestris), which

assessed acute oral and contact exposure to various pesticide product formulations

(individually), including bifenazate (Besard, et. al., 20103). The hives were exposed for 11 weeks

ad libitum either to spiked sucrose solution or ‘saturated’ pollen, based on the study author’s

defined ‘maximum field recommended concentration (MFRC4),’ which is equal to approximately

0.8 lb a.i./A. In the negative control, workers were exposed to either water alone, untreated

sucrose solution, or pollen with water; and, either dimethoate or imidacloprid was used in the

positive control. For each treatment, four replicates were conducted, and each nest consisted

of five workers each. Observations were made daily for the first 3 days postͲtreatment, then on

a weekly basis. Impacts on mortality, any sublethal effects, and reproduction (number of

drones produced) were assessed over the 11Ͳweek observation period. No acute toxicity

(mortality) or reproductive effects (e.g., number of drones produced) via contact route of

exposure was observed (i.e., <25%; reported figure shows no mortality when dosed at 50 μL, or

4.8 μg a.i.); the acute contact LD50 was estimated to be 8.5 μg/bee at 48Ͳhour postͲcontact

exposure. However, high worker bee toxicity was observed via oral exposure to bifenazateͲ

containing sugar water at the MFRC. Observed mortalities occurred within the first week of

exposure. Additional doseͲresponse tests were evaluated (at 10x intervals ranging from 1/1 to

1/10,000 of the MFRC), which resulted in an LC50 value 1/10th of the MFRC, or 0.48 μg a.i./bee

(NOEC at 1/1000th of the MFRC), or 0.0048 μg a.i./L product. Worker mortality was observed

within the first week of exposure, with the highest mortality (relative to the negative control)

attributed to exposure to spiked sucrose solution at approximately 95%; exposure to treated

pollen led to approximately 45% mortality. This study also notes that no drones were produced

in the hive exposed to the spiked sucrose solution during the 11Ͳweek period.

2 Lewis, K.A., Green, A., Tzilivakis, J. and Warner, D. (2015). The Pesticide Properties DataBase (PPDB) developed by

the Agriculture & Environment Research Unit (AERU), University of Hertfordshire, 2006Ͳ2015. Record last updated

June 22, 2015. Last accessed November 4, 2015. 3 Besard, L., et. al. (2010). Compatibility of Traditional and Novel Acaricides with Bumblebees (Bombus terrestris): A

First Laboratory Assessment of Toxicity and Sublethal Effects. Pest Manag. Sci 2010; 66: 786Ͳ793. 4 MFRC of 96 mg a.i./L x 3.7854 L/gallon x 1 lb/453.59 gramу0.8 lb a.i./A, the highest single application rate.
18

Table 11. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Submitted Terrestrial Toxicity Studies.

Taxonomic

Group

Study

Type

Surrogate

Species

Toxicity Values (all units

in terms of measured

a.i.)

MRID and

Classification

Acute Toxicity

Classification

Mammals

Acute Oral Laboratory rat LD50>5000 mg/kgͲbw 44464934

(Acceptable)

Practically nonͲ

toxic

Chronic Laboratory rat

NOAEL = 20 mg/kgͲdiet

LOAEL= 80 mg/kgͲdiet

Endpoint: Decreased

body weight and

cumulative body weight

gains in males and

females

NOAELш200 mg/kgͲdiet

in offspring

45076503

(Acceptable) ͲͲ

Birds

Acute Oral

Canary

(Serinus canaria)

LD50 = >2,000 mg a.i./kg

49465905

(Acceptable)

Practically nonͲ

toxic

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus

virginianus)

LD50 = 1032 mg/kg bw

NOAEL= Not determined

Endpoint: Mortality and

sublethal effects

44464928

(Acceptable) Slightly toxic

Subacute

Dietary

Mallard

(Anas

platyrhynchos)

LC50 = 656 mg/kgͲdiet 44464929 

Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable) Moderately

toxic

Chronic

Mallard

(Anas

platyrhynchos)

NOAEC = 20 mg/kgͲdiet

LOAEC = 65 mg/kgͲdiet

Endpoint: Reduction in #

eggs laid and set per

female

44872901

(Acceptable) ͲͲ

Terrestrial

Insects

Acute

Contact

Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera)

LD50 = 7.8 μg/bee

NOAEC = 2.7 μg/bee

Endpoint: Survival

44462315

(Acceptable)

Moderately

toxic

Acute

Contact

Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera) LD50 ш99.7 μg/bee

49713501

In review

Practically

nontoxic

Acute Oral Honey Bee, larvae

(Apis mellifera) LD50 = 1.246 μg/bee

49713503

In review

ͲͲͲ
19

Chronic

Oral

Honey Bee, adult

(Apis mellifera)

NOED = 0.092 μg/bee

LOED = 0.25 μg/bee

49713502

In review

Residues

on Foliage

Honey bee

adult

(Apis mellifera)

RT25 < 3 hours

13.33% mortality @ 3 hrs

5.33% mortality @t 8 hrs

4% mortality @ 24 hours

49052305 ͲͲ

IV. RISK ESTIMATION AND CHARACTERIZATION

The deterministic RQ method, which compares exposure estimates to toxicity endpoints (i.e.,

RQ = EEC/toxicity endpoint), was used to provide a metric of potential risks. The resulting RQs

are compared to the EPA’s levels of concern (LOC) to identify the potential for acute or chronic

risk. These criteria are used to indicate when the use of a pesticide, as directed on the label, has

the potential to cause adverse effects to nonͲtarget organisms. For acute and chronic risks to

animals, the LOCs are 0.5 and 1.0, respectively, and for plants, the LOC is 1.0. The acute LOC for

terrestrial invertebrates (bees) is 0.4. For listed aquatic animals, the acute LOC is 0.05 and for

listed terrestrial animals the acute LOC is 0.1. For each taxa, RQs are generated and risks are

discussed.

Freshwater Fish and Invertebrates

Acute

New degradate acute toxicity data for fish and aquatic invertebrates were submitted at the

time of the Problem Formulation, which are approximately an order of magnitude more

sensitive than the available toxicity data on the parent. Previously, LOC exceedances were only

identified for listed estuarineͲmarine invertebrates. Based on these new data, there is a

potential for acute risk to listed freshwater fish and both invertebrates for the majority of uses.

The highest acute RQ is just below the nonlisted LOC for freshwater fish. When considering

exposure to the DͲ3598 degradate alone, the listed LOC is exceeded for freshwater fish and

both freshwater and estuarineͲmarine invertebrates. Table 12 is a subset of the modeled uses

compared against the DͲ3598 degradate acute toxicity data for freshwater fish and aquatic

invertebrates.

Table 12. Acute Fish and Aquatic Invertebrate Risk Quotients.
20

Crop

SWCC Model Scenario

Peak

μg/L

Acute RQ

Freshwater Fish

MRID 48929504

FW Invertebrate

MRID 48929503

EM Invertebrate

MRID 45052213

LC50

= 45.6 μg a.i./L

NOAEC

= 55.5 μg a.i./L LC50 = 50 μg a.i./L

Bifenazate TTR EECs

Beans, dried (except soybean)

ILbeansNMC, aerial 21.9 0.48 0.39 0.44

Potato

FLpotato NMC 13.8 0.30 0.25 0.28

Grapes

NYgrapes, ground 3.46 0.076 0.06 0.07

Fig

Cafruit, ground 2.15 0.047 0.039 0.043

DͲ3598 EECs

Beans, dried (except soybean)

ILbeansNMC, aerial 5.96 0.13 0.11 0.12

Italicized values exceed the LOC for listed species of 0.05 for acute risk.

Chronic

There are limited data on chronic toxicity for aquatic invertebrates and no chronic toxicity data

for fish. As such, an acuteͲtoͲchronic ratio cannot be used with the present data. Considering

the available NOECs from acute studies and the chronic data for the Daphnia magna (150 μg/L

[MRID 45052216]), the LOC would not be exceeded based on the highest predicted EECs

(ILbeansNMC, 21Ͳdayч6.27 μg/L; 60Ͳdayч3 μg/L). Based on the available data for bifenazate

parent, risk would be expected to be low. However, given that the available acute toxicity data

for DͲ3598 is approximately an order of magnitude more toxic than the parent, there is

uncertainty with the potential chronic risk to fish and aquatic invertebrates.

Terrestrial Animals

For exposure to residues of bifenazate on food items for birds and mammals, exposure

estimates were modeled using TͲREX (version 1.5). These exposures are based on a default

foliar halfͲlife of 35 days, and consider upperͲbound Kenaga values. Additional exposure and

effects analyses were considered investigating lower application rates (e.g., down to a single

application at 0.35 lb a.i/A),

Birds (Surrogate for TerrestrialͲphase Amphibians and Reptiles)

In recent ecological risk assessments, EFED identified risk concerns for birds (and as surrogate,

terrestrialͲphase amphibians and reptiles) on an acute and chronic exposure basis. Based on
21

recently submitted avian acute oral toxicity study using the canary (MRID 49565905),

passerines do not appear to be more sensitive than the most sensitive tested species (i.e.,

bobwhite quail). Therefore, risk conclusions are the same as previously predicted (i.e., acute

and chronic LOC exceedances for nonlisted and listed birds) – refer to Table 13 for a summary

of the results.

Table 13. Summary of RQs for Birds at Various Bifenazate Application Rates

Application Rate EECs RQs Comment

Dry beans (except soybean); Legume Vegetables (succulent); Potatoes; Beet and Spinach (for seed)

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14Ͳday interval

Acute: 0.01 – 0.48

Chronic: 6.20 – 15.82 ͲͲ

Ornamentals (homeowner use only)

0.5 lb a.i./A

12 applications

30Ͳday interval

Acute: 0.01 – 0.41

Chronic: 5.24 – 13.38 ͲͲ

Cucurbit; fruiting vegetable; small fruit (vine climbing); herb; pome fruit; stone fruit; clover; berries;

Christmas Tree, conifer, nursery; currant; persimmon; almond; cotton; grape; okra

0.5 lb a.i./A

1 application

Acute: <0.01 – 0.18

Chronic: 2.35 – 6.00 ͲͲ

Grape

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application

Acute: <0.01 – 0.13

Chronic: 1.65 – 4.20

Lowest labeled application

rate

Mammals

As discussed in the Problem Formulation, prior risk assessments have not identified risk

concerns for mammals; however, with the update to the chronic endpoint, it was anticipated

that there would be chronic LOC exceedances. The updated chronic mammalian endpoint is

based on a reduction in body weight and cumulative weight gain for the males and females in

the F1 generation in a twoͲgeneration reproductive study with the laboratory rat (NOAEC = 20

mg/kgͲdiet; LOAEC = 80 mg/kgͲdiet) (MRID 45076503). There were noted hematologic and

hepatoxic effects, and the associated decrease in body weight and body weight gain across

several chronic mammalian studies (870.3800, reproduction and fertility effects, rat, MRID

45076503; 870.4100b, chronic toxicity, dog, MRID 45052221; 870.4300 carcinogenicity, mouse,

MRID 45052222). Using the 2Ͳgeneration rat NOAEC, the chronic LOC is exceeded for all uses,

including at the lowest application rate of 0.35 lb a.i./A. This is the case when considering both

upper or mean Kenaga values, and doseͲbased or dietaryͲbased EECs.

As discussed earlier in the effects characterization, the chronic LOAEL for mammals is based on

reduced body weight gains in both F1 males and females; however, there were no other effects

observed and no effects (including body weight) observed in the F2 generation, up to the
22

highest concentration tested (i.e., at 200 mg/kgͲdiet). If using the 200 mg/kgͲdiet as the NOEC,

the highest application rate for crops (i.e., 1.5 lb a.i./A/year), the doseͲbased RQs exceed for all

mammals sizes for the majority of dietary itemsat both upperͲbound (chronic RQsч7.5) and

mean Kenaga values, but do not exceed dietaryͲbased EECs (upperͲbound Kenaga chronic RQsч

0.86). At the lowest single application rate, the chronic LOC is exceeded for smallͲand mediumͲ

sized mammals at dose basedͲEECs (chronic RQsч2) for upperͲbound Kenaga values, only.

Table 14 is a summary of the RQs for mammals.

Table 14. Summary of RQs for Mammals at Various Bifenazate Uses

Application Rate Crop/Use Represented RQs Comment

NOAEC = 20 mg/kgͲdiet, concentration at which no effects were observed

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14Ͳday interval

Dry beans (except soybean)

Legume Vegetables (succulent)

Potatoes

Beet and Spinach (for seed)

Acute: <0.01 – 0.03

Chronic: 0.87 –

137.26

Chronic LOC is exceeded

for all mammal sizes and

the majority of food

0.5 lb a.i./A items.

1 application

Several crops

(Cucurbit; fruiting vegetable;

small fruit (vine climbing);

herb; pome fruit; stone fruit;

clover; berries; Christmas Tree,

conifer, nursery; currant;

persimmon; almond; cotton;

grape; okra)

Acute:ч0.01

Chronic: 0.33 – 52.06

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application Grape

Acute:ч0.01

Chronic: 0.23 – 36.44

Chronic, mean

Kenaga: 0.11 – 12.91

ͲChronic LOC is

exceeded for all

mammal sizes and the

majority of food items.

ͲLowest labeled

application rate

NOAEC = 200 mg/kgͲdiet (16.4 mg/kgͲbw), concentration at which no reproductive effects occurred

0.75 lb a.i./A

2 applications

14Ͳday interval

Dry beans (except soybean)

Legume Vegetables (succulent)

Potatoes

Beet and Spinach (for seed)

Chronic: 0.05 – 7.5

Chronic, mean

Kenaga: 0.02 – 2.66

Ͳ

0.35 lb a.i./A

1 application Grape Chronic: 0.01 – 1.99 Ͳ

Terrestrial Invertebrates

The Tier I exposure method is intended to account for the major routes of pesticide exposure

that are relevant to bees (i.e., through diet and contact). Exposure routes for bees differ based

on application type. Bees foraging in a field treated with a pesticide through foliar spray, such

as bifenazate, could potentially be exposed to the pesticide through direct spray as well

through consuming contaminated food. Foraging honey bees may also be exposed to pesticides
23

via consumption of water from surface water, puddles, dew droplet formation on leaves, and

guttation fluid; however, the Tier I exposure method does not include quantification of

exposures via these routes.

Contact and oral EECs were estimated consistent with the guidance document to assess risk to

bees (USEPA et al., 2014). Below is a summary of the available bee studies conducted with

bifenazate, and an analysis for potential exposure routes of concern based on the available

data. Based on these analyses, the contact exposure route (for both honey bee and bumble

bees) appears to be of low risk. However, the oral toxicity route appears to be the greater

exposure route of concern for adult and larvae honey bee, as well as bumble bee.

Acute Contact Exposure to Adult Bees

This acute contact adult honey bee study (MRID 44462315) showed an LD50 of 7.8 μg a.i./bee

(NOAEC of 2.7 μg a.i./bee). The contact EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the

maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below.

0.75 lb a.i./A * 2.7 μg a.i./bee = 2.025 μg a.i./bee

0.375 lb a.i./A * 2.7 μg a.i./bee = 1.013 μg a.i./bee

When comparing the highest contact EEC of 2.025 μg a.i./bee with the LD50 of 7.8 μg a.i./bee,

the resulting RQ is 0.26, below the LOC of 0.4. Similar results were found in Besard et. al. (2010)

in that no acute toxicity via contact route of exposure (exposed to 50 μL, or 4.8 μg a.i.) was

observed (i.e., <25%; reported figure shows no mortality), as well as in the more recentlyͲ

submitted acute adult contact honey bee study, indicating that the LD50 isш99.7 μg a.i./bee

(MRID 49713501). Thus, acute toxicity to adult bees by contact is not expected to be an

exposure route of concern at the current labeled rates.

Acute Oral Exposure to Honey Bee Larvae, MRID 49713503

In the acute toxicity study tested using honey bee larvae, the study authorͲreported an LD50 of

1.246 μg a.i./larvae. The oral EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the maximum

and lowest application rates are calculated below.5

0.75 lb a.i./A * 110ʅg a.i /g * 0.124 g/day = 10.23 μg a.i./bee

0.35 lb a.i./A * 110ʅg a.i /g * 0.124 g/day = 4.77 μg a.i./bee

When comparing both EECs to the reported acute LD50, the RQs well exceed the LOC of 0.4 for

acute oral exposure to honey bee larvae at both application rates.

5 Based on food consumption rates for larvae (0.124 g/day) and adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration

in pollen and nectar.
24

Chronic Oral Exposure to Adult Honey Bee, MRID 49713502

In the chronic oral study tested using adult honey bees, the study author reported NOED was

0.092 μg a.i./bee and an LOED of 0.25 μg a.i./bee. The oral EECs for a single foliar application of

bifenazate at the maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below.5

0.75 lb a.i./A * 110ʅg a.i /g * 0.292 g/day = 24.09 μg a.i./bee

0.35 lb a.i./A * 110ʅg a.i /g * 0.292 g/day = 11.24 μg a.i./bee

When comparing both EECs to the reported acute LD50, the RQs well exceed the chronic LOC of

1 for oral exposure to adult honey bee at both application rates.

Acute Oral Exposure to Adult Bumblebees

Dietary exposure to spiked sucrose solution or saturated pollen were evaluated separately in

Besard et. al., resulting in a reported LC50 of 0.48 μg a.i./bee. In this RQ analysis, Tier 1 EECs6

were estimated individually for dietary exposure to nectar and pollen), adjusted for adult

bumblebee consumption rates. The EECs for a single foliar application of bifenazate at the

maximum and lowest application rates are calculated below.7

0.75 lb a.i./A * 110 μg a.i./g * 0.372 g/day = 30.69 μg a.i./bee/day

0.375 a.i./A * 110 μg a.i./g * 0.372 g/day = 15.35 μg a.i./bee/day

The Tier 1 EECs are well above the reported LC50 of 0.48 μg a.i./bee. While there are

uncertainties with using the reported LC50 (e.g., bifenazate versus product formulation; dose

spacing; continuous exposure to the spiked sucrose solution or pollen versus exposure to

limited periods of time each day; amount of diet consumed per group), this study suggests that

oral exposure to bifenazate may be more toxic than contact exposure to bumble bees.

Terrestrial Plants

As noted in previous assessments, risk from exposure to bifenazate is not expected for

terrestrial plants.

Review of Ecological Incident Data

6 Tier 1 EEC Equation from Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees (USPEA, 2014), and bumble bee

consumption rate from White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for Bees (USEPA, 2012a). 7 Based on food consumption rate for adult (0.292 g/day) worker bees and concentration in pollen and nectar.
25

As of December 7, 2015, the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1), which is

maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, returned one terrestrial plant incident

in California attributed to bifenazate use with “possible” certainty (Table 15). Incident #

I016036Ͳ006 occurred in 2004 when a registered agricultural use product containing bifenazate

was applied to almonds. FiftyͲfour acres of basil were reported to be damaged from possible

spray drift from the airblast treatment to almonds.

Table 15. Ecological Incidents Associated with Bifenazate.

Incident

Number

Taxa

Involved Magnitude Year Location Use Legality ofUse

Certainty

Category Residues

Other

Chemicals

Involved

I016036Ͳ

006

Terrestrial

Plant

54 Acres

(Basil) 2004 CA Almonds RegisteredUse Possible Nonereported

None

reported

The Avian Incident Monitoring System (AIMS), a database administered by the American Bird

Conservancy, was not working properly and was not queried; however, the AIMS database has

not been updated since the last bifenazate assessment was conducted and no incidents to birds

were reported at that time. No wildlife ecological incidents were reported in the IDS Aggregate

Incident Reports’ database maintained by EPA.

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 (U.S. EPA, 2012b), 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), bifenazate 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 twoͲtiered 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
26

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 endocrineͲrelated

effects caused by the substance, and establish a doseͲresponse 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 callͲins for the first group of 67 chemicals,

which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. A second list of chemicals

identified for EDSP screening was published on June 14, 2013[1] and includes some pesticides

scheduled for registration review and chemicals found in water. Neither of these lists should be

construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors.Bifenazate is not on List 1. For

further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and procedures, the lists of

chemicals, future lists, the test guidelines and Tier 1 screening battery, please visit our

website[2].

Endangered Species Assessments

In November 2013, the EPA, along with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National

Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (collectively, the Services), and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture (USDA) released a summary of their joint Interim Approaches for assessing risks to

listed species from pesticides. The Interim Approaches were developed jointly by the agencies

in response to the National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) recommendations and reflect a

common approach to risk assessment shared by the agencies as a way of addressing scientific

differences between the EPA and the Services. The NAS report8 outlines recommendations on

specific scientific and technical issues related to the development of pesticide risk assessments

that EPA and the Services must conduct in connection with their obligations under the

Endangered Species Act (ESA) and FIFRA.

The joint Interim Approaches were released prior to a stakeholder workshop held on November

15, 2013. In addition, the EPA presented the joint Interim Approaches at the December 2013

Pesticide Program Dialogue Committee (PPDC) and StateͲFIFRA Issues Research and Evaluation

Group (SFIREG) meetings, and held a stakeholder workshop in April 2014, allowing additional

opportunities for stakeholders to comment on the Interim Approaches. As part of a phased,

iterative process for developing the Interim Approaches, the agencies will also consider public

comments on the Interim Approaches in connection with the development of upcoming

[1] See http://www2.epa.gov/endocrineͲdisruption/finalͲsecondͲlistͲchemicalsͲtierͲ1ͲunderͲendocrineͲdisruptorͲ

screeningͲprogram for the final second list of chemicals.

[2] See http://www2.epa.gov/endocrineͲdisruption

8

 http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=18344 
27

Registration Review decisions. The details of the joint Interim Approachesare contained in the

white paper “Interim Approaches for NationalͲLevel Pesticide Endangered Species Act

Assessments Based on the Recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences April 2013

Report,”9 dated November 1, 2013.

Given that the agencies are continuing to develop and work toward implementation of the

Interim Approaches to assess the potential risks of pesticides to listed species and their

designated critical habitat, this ecological risk assessment for bifenazate does not contain a

complete ESA analysis that includes effects determinations for specific listed species or

designated critical habitat. Although EPA has not yet completed effects determinations for

specific species or habitats, for this preliminary assessment EPA conducted a screeningͲlevel

assessment for all taxa of nonͲtarget wildlife and plants that assumes for the sake of the

assessment that listed species and designated critical habitats may be present in the vicinity of

the application of bifenazate. This screening level assessment will allow EPA to focus its future

evaluations on the types of species where the potential for effects exists once the scientific

methods being developed by the agencies have been fully vetted. This screeningͲlevel risk

assessment for bifenazate indicates potential risks of direct effects to listed fish, aquatic and

terrestrial invertebrates, birds, and mammals on some of its registered use sites. Listed species

of other taxa may also be affected through indirect effects because of the potential for direct

effects on listed and nonͲlisted species upon which such species may rely.Potential direct

effects on listed plants from the use of bifenazate may be associated with modification of

Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) of designated critical habitats, where such designations

have been made. Once the agencies have fully vetted the scientific methods necessary to

complete risk assessments for endangered and threatened (listed) species and their designated

critical habitats, these methods will be applied to subsequent analyses for bifenazate as part of

completing this registration review.

V. REFERENCES

Besard, L., et. al. (2010). Compatibility of Traditional and Novel Acaricides with Bumblebees

(Bombus terrestris): A First Laboratory Assessment of Toxicity and Sublethal Effects. Pest

Manag. Sci 2010; 66: 786Ͳ793.

FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel. October 28, 2008. Selected Issues Associated with the Risk

Assessment Process for Pesticides with Persistent, Bioaccumulative, and Toxic Characteristics.

http://www2.epa.gov/sap.

Brady, D., 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate

and Transport of Pesticides. Donald Brady, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency.

9

 http://www.epa.gov/espp/2013/nas.html 
28

U.S. EPA, et. al., 2012a. White Paper in Support of the Proposed Risk Assessment Process for

Bees. Submitted to the FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panel for Review and Comment. September 11

– 14, 2012. Office of Pesticide Programs. Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Washington,

D.C.

U.S. EPA, 2012b. Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation for Bifenazate. Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency. November 12, 2012.

U.S. EPA, et. al. 2014. Guidance to Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Health Canada Pesticide Management Regulatory Agency, and California

Department of Pesticide Regulation. June 23, 2014.

U.S. EPA, 2015. Usage Report in Support of Registration Review Draft Risk Assessment Purposes

for Bifenazate. Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economical Analysis Division. U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency. May 7, 2015.
29

APPENDIX A.

SWCC Estimated Environmental Concentrations of Total Toxic Bifenazate Residues

(Bifenazate, D1989, D3598, and D9472) in Surface Water

Use Site Reg Nos. App.

Method

Max

Single

App. Rate

(lb a.i. /A)

Max

No.

Apps

/Year

Max

Annual

App. Rate

(lb a.i./A)

MRI

(days)

SWCC

Batch

Run ID

Peak 21Ͳ

day

60Ͳ

day

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA TXalfalfa

OP

13.4 4.64 1.81

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA



TXalfalfa

OP

10.9 3.66 1.39

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCalfalfa

OP 9.93 3.17 1.33

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed) 400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA NCalfalfaOP 7.42 2.31 0.932

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA PAalfalfa

OP 6.84 1.8 0.776

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA ILalfalfa

NMC 5.48 1.98 1.02

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 1 0.75 NA

CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P

5.28 1.38 0.522

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA ILalfalfa

NMC 4.67 1.49 0.791

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA PAalfalfa

OP 4.26 1.14 0.545

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA

CAalfalfa

_WirrigO

P

2.67 0.766 0.309

ALFALFA

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 1 0.75 NA MNalfalf

aOP 2.6 0.88 0.389

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 ILbeansN

MC 21.9 6.27 3

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.75 2 1.5 14 ILbeansN

MC 21.2 5.81 2.6

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 10 3.06 1.87

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.75 2 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 10 3.06 1.87
30

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 9.85 2.65 1.47

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 MSsoybe

anSTD 9.85 2.65 1.47

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 MIbeans

STD 7.52 2.49 1.66

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 ORsnbea

nsSTD 5.93 2.1 1.27

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 MIbeans

STD 5.43 1.86 1.18

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 WAbean

sNMC 5.39 1.42

1

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 ORsnbea

nsSTD 3.66 1.42 0.776

BEANS, DRIEDͲ

TYPE (except

soybean)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 WAbean

sNMC 2.68 0.708 0.501

BEET&

SPINACH

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 Mnsugar

beets 7.45 3.15 1.43

BEET&

SPINACH

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 Mnsugar

beets 6.18 2.01 0.949

BEET&

SPINACH

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 CAsugar

OP 6.18 2.66 1.2

BEET&

SPINACH

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.752 1.5 14 CAsugar

OP 3.56 1.47 0.684

BERRIES

(blueberry,

highbush;

elderberry;

huckleberry)

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

CAStraw

berryͲ

noplastic

RLF_V2

6.86 2.33 1.27

BERRIES

(blueberry,

highbush;

elderberry;

huckleberry)

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA ORberrie

sOP 2.52 1.06 0.694

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NS GAPecan

sSTD 11.9 3.01 1.29

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.51 0.5 NS GAPecan

sSTD 6.1 1.83 0.842
31

and

NURSERIES

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ572,

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 GAPecan

sSTD 5.39 1.36 0.599

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.51 0.5 NS ORXmas

TreeSTD 3.49 0.943 0.351

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.51 0.5 NS MICherri

esSTD 3.49 1.16 0.467

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NS MICherri

esSTD 3.34 1.18 0.518

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NS ORXmas

TreeSTD 1.71 0.679 0.285

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ572,

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 ORXmas

TreeSTD 1.3 0.356 0.143

CHRISTMAS

TREE, CONIFER

PLANTATIONS

and

NURSERIES

400Ͳ572,

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 MICherri

esSTD 1.3 0.563 0.248

CITRUS

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA FLcitrusS

TD 5.44 1.94 0.81

CITRUS

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA

CAcitrus

_WirrigS

TD

1.76 0.435 0.159

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NA NCalfalfa

OP 5.5 1.56 0.788

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial, 0.51 0.5 NA NCalfalfa

OP 5.29 1.69 0.92

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial, 0.51 0.5 NA

CAalfalfa

_WirrigO P3.56 0.907 0.342

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 aerial, 0.51 0.5 NA MNalfalf

aOP 3.49 1.03 0.456

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NA

CAalfalfa

_WirrigO P1.81 0.498 0.193
32

CLOVER

(grown for

seed)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.51 0.5 NA MNalfalf

aOP 1.8 0.601 0.205

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA STXcotto

nNMC 12.6 3.48 1.45

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA STXcotto

nNMC 12.3 3.59 1.62

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA TXcotton

OP 11.3 3.74 1.41

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA MScotto

nSTD 10.6 3.04 1.25

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA TXcotton

OP 9.91 3.23 1.22

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA MScotto

nSTD 8.48 2.48 1.05

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA STXcotto

nNMC 8.42 2.32 0.966

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.5021 0.502 NA STXcotto

nNMC 8.22 2.39 1.08

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.5021 0.502 NA TXcotton

OP 7.53 2.5 0.94

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.5021 0.502 NA MScotto

nSTD 7.07 2.02 0.835

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA TXcotton

OP 6.6 2.15 0.816

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA NCcotto

nSTD 6.54 2.48 1.06

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA

CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD

5.94 1.61 0.591

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA MScotto

nSTD 5.65 1.66 0.702

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA NCcotto

nSTD 5.47 1.88 0.839

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.5021 0.502 NA NCcotto

nSTD 4.36 1.66 0.707

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519

aerial,

groundͲ

broadcast

0.5021 0.502 NA

CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD

3.96 1.07 0.394

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA NCcotto

nSTD 3.65 1.26 0.559

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA

CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD

3.33 0.961 0.355

COTTON

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA

CAcotton

_WirrigS

TD

2.22 0.641 0.237

FIG

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA Cafruit 2.27 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

aerial 0.51 0.5 NA FLtomat

oSTD_V2 16 4.95 1.91
33

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

ground 0.51 0.5 NA FLtomat

oSTD_V2 15.8 4.71 1.83

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

aerial 0.51 0.5 NA FLpepper

sSTD 13.8 4.23 1.6

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

ground 0.51 0.5 NA FLpepper

sSTD 13.1 3.97 1.51

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

aerial 0.51 0.5 NA PAtomat o 3.61 0.606 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

aerial 0.51 0.5 NA CAfruit 3.49 0.459 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

ground 0.51 0.5 NA PAtomat o 2.22 0.448 

FRUITING

VEGETABLES

GROUP8Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

ground 0.51 0.5 NA CAfruit 1.76 0.29 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED) 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 Cafruit 7.09 1.12 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED)

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS Cafruit 2.27 0.276 

FRUITS

(UNSPECIFIED)

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 Cafruit 2.15 0.387 

GOLF COURSE

TURF

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS TurfBSS 2.63 0.839 0.343

GOLF COURSE

TURF

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS CATurfRL F 1.73 0.465 0.173

GOLF COURSE

TURF

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS FLturfST D 1.73 0.45 0.22

GOLF COURSE

TURF

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS PAturfST D 1.73 0.523 0.267

GRAPES 400Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA NY

grapes

3.46 0.562 

GRAPES 400Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA

CAgrape

s_Wirrig

STD

1.74 0.44 0.161

GRAPES 400Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA

CAWine

GrapesR

LF_V2

1.74 0.464 0.172

GRAPES 400Ͳ572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

1 0.375 NA

CAgrape

s_Wirrig

STD

1.3 0.33 0.121

GRAPES 400Ͳ572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

1 0.375 NA

CAWine

GrapesR

LF_V2

1.3 0.348 0.129

GRAPES 400Ͳ572 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.375

1 0.375 NA NY

grapes 
34

HERBS

SUBGROUP

19A (except

chives and

chervil)

400Ͳ503 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA Cagarlic 2.09 0.328 

HOPS

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.75

1 0.75 NA Orhops 2.6 0.326 

HOUSEHOLD/D

OMESTIC

DWELLINGS

OUTDOOR

PREMISES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS Careside

ntial 1.73 0.113 

MINT

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

aerial 0.751 0.75 NA ORMint 5.24 0.546 

MINT

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

ground 0.751 0.75 NA ORMint 2.6 0.306 

NONAGRICULT

URAL RIGHTSͲ

OFͲWAY

/FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS RightOf

WayBSS 9.17 2.83 1.22

NONAGRICULT

URAL RIGHTSͲ

OFͲWAY

/FENCEROWS/

HEDGEROWS

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

CArighto

fwayRLF

_V2

1.73 0.466 0.191

OKRA 400Ͳ519 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.502

1 0.502 NA Gaonion 2.82 0.327 

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 CAnurser

ySTD_V2 16 5.59 2.84

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 NJnurser

ySTD_V2 12.4 4.42 2.08

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 FLnurser

ySTD_V2 11 3.2 2.09

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 TNnurser

ySTD_V2 10.2 3.3 1.8

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 NurseryB

SS_V2 9.5 3.63 2.05

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30 MInurser

ySTD_V2 5.27 1.77 1.01

ORNAMENTAL

USES 400

Ͳ517 ground

Ͳ

broadcast 0.5 12

6 30

ORnurse

rySTD_V 24.48 2.02 1.21

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 NurseryB

SS_V2 8.86 2.53 1.14

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 FLnurser

ySTD_V2 7.55 2.55 1.24

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS NurseryB

SS_V2 5.16 1.61 0.744

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS FLnurser

ySTD_V2 4.87 1.68 0.769

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 NJnurser

ySTD_V2 4.81 1.65 0.833
35

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 TNnurser

ySTD_V2 4.79 1.9 0.758

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS NJnurser

ySTD_V2 3.82 1.22 0.508

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS TNnurser

ySTD_V2 3.31 1.31 0.535

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 MInurser

ySTD_V2 2.66 1.08 0.501

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757

ORnurse

rySTD_V 21.91 0.843 0.366

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS

ORnurse

rySTD_V 21.88 0.588 0.24

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS MInurser

ySTD_V2 1.86 0.765 0.353

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ572

400Ͳ582

groundͲ

broadcast 0.375

2 0.757 CAnurser

ySTD_V2 1.84 0.662 0.274

ORNAMENTAL

USES

400Ͳ508,

400Ͳ509,

400Ͳ481

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

2 0.5 NS CAnurser

ySTD_V2 1.73 0.467 0.183

PERSIMMON

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ503,

400Ͳ519

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA Cafruit 3.55 0.446 

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA CappleST D 5.33 1.65 0.672

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA PAapple

STD_V2 2.61 0.759 0.412

POME FRUIT

GROUP 11Ͳ10

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA ORapple

STD 1.73 0.529 0.215

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14

NCSweet

PotatoST D15.1 4.45 2.21

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 FLpotato

NMC 13.8 4.15 2.01

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 FLpotato

NMC 13 4.17 2.36

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 MEpotat

oSTD 11.5 5.01 2.55

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14

NCSweet

PotatoST D8.14 2.89 1.48
36

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14

IDNpotat

o_Wirrig

STD

6.03 2.69 1.33

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 CAPotat

oRLF_V2 5.82 2.56 1.09

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 WApotat

oNMC 5.81 2.57 1.2

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14

IDNpotat

o_Wirrig

STD

5.25 1.77 0.895

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 MEpotat

oSTD 5.22 2.3 1.27

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 CAPotat

oRLF_V2 3.29 1.44 0.629

POTATOES

(TUBEROUS

AND CORM

VEGETABLES)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.752 1.5 14 WApotat

oNMC 2.87 1.27 0.565

STONE FRUITS

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA GAPeach

esSTD 2.71 0.751 0.279

STONE FRUITS

400Ͳ514,

400Ͳ519,

400Ͳ503

groundͲ

broadcast 0.5

1 0.5 NA ICherries

STD 1.73 0.751 0.331

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA RangeBS S 11.1 3.77 1.6

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA RangeBS S 9.67 3.25 1.43

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses)

400Ͳ514 aerial 0.751 0.75 NA

CArangel

andhayR

LF_V2

5.24 1.35 0.497

TIMOTHY

(forage and

hay to be fed

only to horses)

400Ͳ514 ground 0.751 0.75 NA

CArangel

andhayR

LF_V2

2.6 0.669 0.246
37

APPENDIX B

Summary of Ecotoxicity Data

The following tables provide summaries of the aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups and the

most sensitive surrogate species tested to characterize the potential acute and chronic

ecological effects of bifenazate. In addition, the tables provide a preliminary overview of the

potential acute toxicity of bifenazate by providing the acute toxicity classifications.

Table BͲ1. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Bifenazate and

DͲ3598

Taxonomic

Group Study Type SurrogateSpecies

Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.)

MRID and

Classification

Acute Toxicity

Classification

Freshwater

fish

Acute,

bifenazate

Bluegill sunfish LC50 = 580 ug/L

44464931

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

(Lepomis

macrochirus)

NOAEC = 300 ug/L

Endpoint: survival

and sublethal effects

Acute, DͲ3598

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss)

96 hr LC50: 45.6 ug/L

48929504

(Acceptable)

Very highly

toxic

Chronic No Data

Freshwater

Invertebrate

Acute,

bifenazate

Water flea

(Daphnia

magna)

EC50 = 500 ug/L

NOAEC = ND

Endpoint:

Immobilization

44464933

(Acceptable) Highly toxic

Acute, DͲ3598

Freshwater

invertebrate

acute



(Daphnia

magna)

48 hr EC50: 55.5 ug/L

48929503

(Acceptable)

Very highly

toxic

Chronic,

bifenazate

Water flea

(Daphnia

magna)

NOAEC = 150 ug/L

LOAEC = 270 ug/L

Endpoint:

reproductive and

growth effects

45052216

(Supplemental1)

ͲͲ

Estuarine/

Marine Fish

Acute,

bifenazate

Sheepshead

minnow LC50 = 416 ug/L 45052214

Highly toxic (Cyprinodon

variegatus)

NOAEC = 136 ug/L

Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic No data

Acute,

bifenazate Saltwater mysid LC50 = 50 ug/L 45052213

Very highly

toxic
38

Estuarine/

Marine

Invertebrate

(Americamysis

bahia)

NOAEC = 40 ug/L

Endpoint: Survival

(Supplemental2)

Chronic No data

Aquatic

Plants

Acute, DͲ3598

Green algae

(Selenastrum

capricornutum)

YieldͲIC50: 0.7453

IC05: 0.2099 mg a.i./L

NOAEC: 0.38 mg/L

48929502 ͲͲ

NonͲvascular

Green algae EC50 = 0.89 mg/L 45052219

ͲͲ (Selenastrum

capricornutum)

NOAEC = 0.252 mg/L

Endpoint: Reduction

in cell density

(Acceptable)

Vascular Duckweed

EC50 = >3.82 mg/L

NOAEC = 3.82 mg/L

No effect on frond

number

45052218 ͲͲ

B – 2. Submitted Ecological Toxicity Data for Bifenazate Degradates D1989 and DͲ9472

Ecological Toxicity Data for DͲ1989

Guideline # Data

Requirement

Submitted

Studies MRID #

Study

Classification

Toxicity Values (all

units in terms of

measured a.i.)

Comments

850.1010

Freshwater

invertebrate

acute EC50

(Daphnia

magna)

45141801

(Supplemental)

Highly toxic

EC50 : 242 ug/L

C.I.: 224 – 262 ug /L

80% mortality

observed at 300

ug/L

Ecological Toxicity Data for DͲ9472

850.1010

Freshwater

invertebrate

acute EC50

(Daphnia

magna)

48929508 Highly toxic

48 hr. EC50:

764 ug/L

C.I.: 0.58 – 1.1 mg/L

100% mortality at

1.8 mg/L next dose

up; 520 ug/L with

20% mortality

850Ͳ4400 Aquatic plant

(Scenedesmus

subspicatus)

48929509 ͲͲ

IC05: 58.33 ug/L

IC50: 901.7 ug/L

NOAEC 203 mg/L

Unstable; 72Ͳhour

measured

concentration 1 –

8%
39

850.1075

Freshwater fish

acute LC50

(Oncorhynchus

mykiss)

48929506

(Supplemental)

Highly toxic

96 hr LC50: 201 ug/L

C.I.: 0.142 – 0.283

ug/L

100% mortality in

550 ug/L (highest);

57% at 210 ug/L

Sublethal effects at

210 and 550 mg/L

Table BͲ3. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Bifenazate

Taxonomic

Group Study Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Values (all unitsin terms of measured a.i.)

MRID and

Classification

Acute Toxicity

Classification

Mammals

Acute Oral Laboratory rat LD50>5000 mg/kgͲbw

44464934 

(Acceptable) Practically nonͲ

toxic

Chronic Laboratory rat

NOAEL20 mg/kgͲdiet 45076503

ͲͲ



LOAEL= 80 mg/kgͲdiet

Endpoint: Decreased body

weight and cumulative

body weight gains in

males and females

(Acceptable)

Birds

Acute Oral

Canary

(Serinus canaria)

LD50 = >2,000 mg a.i./kg

49465905

(Acceptable)

Practically nonͲ

toxic

Bobwhite quail LD50 = 1032 mg/kg bw 44464928

Slightly toxic (Colinus

virginianus)

NOAEL= Not determined 

Endpoint: Mortality and

sublethal effects

(Acceptable)

Subacute

Dietary

Mallard LC50 = 656 mg/kgͲdiet 44464929 Moderately

toxic (Anas

platyrhynchos) Endpoint: Survival (Acceptable)

Chronic

Mallard NOAEC = 20 mg/kgͲdiet 44872901



(Anas ͲͲ

platyrhynchos)

LOAEC = 65 mg/kgͲdiet

Endpoint: Reduction in #

eggs laid and set per

female

(Acceptable)

Terrestrial

Insects

Acute

Contact

Honey Bee LD50 = 7.8 μg/bee

NOAEC = 2.7 μg/bee

Endpoint: Survival

44462315

Moderately

(Apis mellifera) (Acceptable) toxic

Terrestrial

Plants

Seedling

Emergence MonocotͲcorn

EC25 =>2.0 lb a.i./A 45052217

ͲͲ NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)
40

DicotͲsoybean

EC25 =>2.0 lb a.i./A

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A

45052217

(Acceptable)

ͲͲ

Vegetative

Vigor MonocotͲwheat

EC25 =>2.0 lb a.i./A 45076502 ͲͲ

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)

Vegetative

Vigor DicotͲcabbage

EC25 =>2.0 lb a.i./A 45076502 ͲͲ

NOAEC = 2.0 lb a.i./A (Acceptable)

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrialͲphase amphibians and reptiles.

 
41

APPENDIX C

Summary of Recent Ecological Risk Assessments

EPA has conducted multiple ecological risk assessments in recent years for bifenazate and the

degradate DͲ1989.

Uses Assessed Date

Grasses, dry beans, field and sweet corn; rate

increase for the edible podded legumes and

succulent soybeans

February 2009

Increases in rate for Tree Nuts and the

number of allowable annual applications for

Caneberries, Tropical Fruit, and Potatoes

October 2009

Avocado, tropical fruit, low growing berries,

and small tree climbing fruit

April 2010

Herb 19A (except chive and chervil), fruiting

vegetables (Group 8Ͳ10), pome fruit (Group

11Ͳ10), and Timothy Grass forage and hay

December 2011

 
42

APPENDIX D.

Bibliography of Submitted Studies

71Ͳ1Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464928 Pedersen, C. (1996) Acute Avian Oral Toxicity (LD50) Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite

Quail: Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ025Ͳ03. Unpublished study prepared by BioͲLife Associates, Ltd.

54 p.

 

71Ͳ2Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464929 Pedersen, C.; Helsten, B. (1997) Acute Avian Dietary Toxicity (LC50) Study with D2341 Technical

in Bobwhite Quail: Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ023Ͳ01: CHV 798Ͳ231: 658. Unpublished study

prepared by BioͲLife Associates, Ltd. 97 p.

44464930 Pedersen, C.; Helsten, B. (1997) Acute Avian Dietary Toxicity (LC50) Study with D2341 Technical

in Mallard Ducklings: Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ024Ͳ02: CHV 798Ͳ231: 798Ͳ231. Unpublished

study prepared by BioͲLife Associates, Ltd. 96 p.

 

71Ͳ4Avian Reproduction

MRID Citation Reference

 

44779601 Lengen, M. (1999) Bifenazate: Preliminary Data from Avian Reproduction Studies: Lab Project

Number: 109Ͳ030Ͳ07: 109Ͳ031Ͳ08. Unpublished study prepared by BioͲLife Associates Ltd. 17 p.

44872901 Pedersen, C. (1999) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study in Mallard Ducks with D2341 Technical:

Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ031Ͳ08. Unpublished study prepared by BioͲLife Associates, Ltd. 496

p.

45052212 Pedersen, C. (1999) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite Quail:

Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ030Ͳ07: D2341 32Ͳ05. Unpublished study prepared by BioͲLife

Associates, Ltd. 493 p.

45144003 Frey, L.; Casey, C.; Martin, K. et al. (2000) D2341 Technical: A Reproduction Study with the

Mallard: Lab Project Number: 117Ͳ174. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International,

Ltd. 137 p.

45144004 Pedersen, C. (2000) Avian Reproductive Toxicity Study with D2341 Technical in Bobwhite Quail:

Lab Project Number: 109Ͳ030Ͳ07. Unpublished study prepared by BioͲLife Associates, Ltd. 495

p.

 

72Ͳ1Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464931 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 96ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute Toxicity Test

with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ101: GRLͲ

11089. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.
43

44464932 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 96ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ102:

GRLͲ11089: GRLͲSOPͲ1079. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.

 

72Ͳ2Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464933 Graves, W.; Swigert, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: A 48ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute Toxicity Test

with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ103A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 63 p.

45141801 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (2000) D1989: A 48ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute Toxicity Test with the

Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ115. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 44 p. {OPPTS 850.1010}

 

72Ͳ3Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

 

45052213 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute

Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid (Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project Number:

117Ͳ105. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 63 p.

45052214 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour FlowͲThrough Acute

Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report: Lab Project

Number: 117AͲ104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 64 p.

45052215 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour Shell Deposition Test

with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ106.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 71 p.

 

72Ͳ4Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID Citation Reference

 

44881301 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): An Early LifeͲStage Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ108.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 107 p.

45052216 Graves, W.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A FlowͲThrough Life Cycle Toxicity

Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ107.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 78 p.

83Ͳ42Ͳgeneration repro.Ͳrat

MRID Citation Reference

 
44

45076503 Schardein, J. (1999) A Two Generation Reproductive Toxicity Study of D2341 in Rats: Final

Report: Lab Project Number: WILͲ155039. Unpublished study prepared by Wil Research Labs.

6615 p. {OPPTS 870.3800}

122Ͳ1Seed Germination/ Seedling Emergence and Vegetable Vigor

MRID Citation Reference

 

45052217 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1999) UCCͲD2341Ͳ50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test in Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117Ͳ172.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 85 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225}

 

122Ͳ2Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference

 

44896001 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater Alga (Navicula pelliculosa): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ110.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

44896002 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour Toxicity Test with the

Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ112A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 59 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

45052218 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 7ͲDay Toxicity Test with

Duckweed (Lemna gibba): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ113. Unpublished study

prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 56 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

45052219 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ111.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 61 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

45052220 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) D2341 Technical (Bifenazate): A 96ͲHour Toxicity Test with the

Freshwater BlueͲGreen Alga (Anabaena flosͲaquae): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117AͲ

109A. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p. {OPPTS 850.5400}

 

123Ͳ1Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

MRID Citation Reference

 

45052217 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1999) UCCͲD2341Ͳ50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test in Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 117Ͳ172.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 85 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225}

45076502 Porch, J.; Krueger, H. (1998) UCCͲD2341Ͳ50W: A Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the

Test Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report: Lab Project Number:

117Ͳ173. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 82 p. {OPPTS 850.4250}

141Ͳ1Honey bee acute contact
45

MRID Citation Reference

 

44462315 Palmer, S.; Beavers, J. (1997) D2341 Technical: An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey

Bee: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 117Ͳ170. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife

International Ltd. 45 p.

 

141Ͳ2Honey bee residue on foliage

MRID Citation Reference

 

45052305 Hummel, R. (1999) Final Report for the Evaluation of Toxicity of Residues of Bifenazate (UCC

D2341 50 WP) on Alfalfa to Honey Bees (Apis mellifera): Lab Project Number: 11521A002:

010851Ͳ1: 1412Ͳ99Ͳ115Ͳ05Ͳ21FͲ02. Unpublished study prepared by Landis International, Inc.

91 p. {OPPTS 850.3030}

 

143Ͳ2Toxicity to Predators and Parasites in Fruit and Nut Crops

MRID Citation Reference

 

48935102 Buttle, V.; Walker, H. (2001) A Tier 1 Laboratory Study to Estimate the LR(50) of a 480 G L(Ͳ1)

SC Formulation of Bifenazate to the Parasitic Wasp Aphidius rhopalosiphi (Hymenoptera:

Braconidae). Project Number: ER/00/HMA372, HMA/372. Unpublished study prepared by

Ecotox Limited. 42p.

 

161Ͳ1Hydrolysis

 

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464952 Shah, J. (1997) A Hydrolysis Study of D2341: Lab Project Number: 6337Ͳ95Ͳ0006ͲEFͲ001: 95Ͳ

0006: 6337Ͳ95Ͳ0006ͲEFͲ000. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 182 p.

44796701 Findak, D.; DiFrancesco, D.; Shah, J. (1999) A Hydrolysis Study of D2341: Lab Project Number:

6337Ͳ95Ͳ0006ͲEFͲ001Ͳ001: 95Ͳ0006. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 45 p.

 

161Ͳ2PhotodegradationͲwater

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464953 Shah, J. (1997) Aqueous Photolysis of (carbon 14)D2341 at pH 5: Lab Project Number: 6394Ͳ

95Ͳ0032ͲEFͲ001: 95Ͳ0032: 6394Ͳ95Ͳ0032ͲEFͲ000. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc.

131 p.

45052308 Shah, J. (1998) Photolysis of (carbonͲ14)D2341 in Natural Water: Lab Project Number: 6394Ͳ

95Ͳ0217ͲEFͲ001: 95Ͳ0217: 96092. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 134 p.
46

161Ͳ3PhotodegradationͲsoil

MRID Citation Reference

 

44522601 Shah, J. (1997) Photolysis of (carbon 14)D2341 on Soil: Lab Project Number: 96022: 96Ͳ0001:

6687Ͳ96Ͳ0001ͲEFͲ001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 118 p.

 

162Ͳ1Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464954 Lee, D.; Lentz, N.; McCall, B. et al. (1996) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab

Project Number: 95233: 95Ͳ0022: 6375Ͳ95Ͳ0022ͲEFͲ001. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 143 p.

45144002 Nag, J.; Regis, J. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbonͲ14)Ͳ4ͲMethoxybiphenyl: Lab

Project Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Company, Inc. and

Agvise Laboratories. 149 p.

49055501 Nag, J.; Regis, R. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)Ͳ4ͲMethoxybiphenyl. Project

Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise, Inc.

149p.

 

162Ͳ3Anaerobic aquatic metab.

MRID Citation Reference

 

44522602 Lentz, N. (1998) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab Project Number:

95235: 95Ͳ0115: 6492Ͳ95Ͳ0115ͲEFͲ001. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 143 p.

44859702 Lentz, N. (1998) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbonͲ14) D2341: Report Amendment

Number One: Lab Project Number: 95Ͳ0115: 6492950115EFͲ001Ͳ001. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 9 p.

 

163Ͳ1Leach/adsorp/desorption

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464955 Hatzenbeler, C. (1997) Soil Column Leaching Study of (carbon 14)D2341: Lab Project Number:

96Ͳ0024: 6728Ͳ96Ͳ0024ͲEFͲ001: 6728Ͳ96Ͳ0024ͲEFͲ000. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 78 p.

44464956 Huhtanen, C. (1997) Soil Adsorption and Desorption of (carbon 14)D1989: Lab Project

Number: 96Ͳ0056: 6790Ͳ96Ͳ0056ͲEFͲ001: 6790Ͳ96Ͳ0056ͲEFͲ000. Unpublished study prepared

by Ricerca, Inc. 82 p.

 

164Ͳ1Terrestrial field dissipation
47

MRID Citation Reference

 

44464957 Jablonski, J. (1997) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in North

Carolina: Lab Project Number: 6737Ͳ96Ͳ0034ͲCRͲ001: 6737: 6737Ͳ96Ͳ0034ͲCRͲ000.

Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 296 p.

44464958 Jablonski, J.; Kenyon, R. (1997) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in

Washington: Lab Project Number: 6739: 6739Ͳ96Ͳ0035ͲCRͲ001: 6739Ͳ96Ͳ0035ͲCRͲ000.

Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 328 p.

45052306 Jablonski, J. (1998) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of D2341 Applied to Bareground in California:

Lab Project Number: 6738Ͳ96Ͳ0033ͲCRͲ001: 96Ͳ003: 6738. Unpublished study prepared by

Ricerca, Inc. 318 p.

45052307 Jablonski, J. (1999) Stability of D2341 and Metabolites D1989 and D3598 in Soil during Freezer

Storage: Lab Project Number: 96Ͳ0036: 6743Ͳ96Ͳ0036ͲCRͲ001: 6743. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 229 p.

45052309 Jablonski, J. (1998) Analytical Method for the Analysis of D2341, D1989 and D3598 in Soil: Lab

Project Number: 6616Ͳ96Ͳ0269ͲCRͲ001: 6616. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 106

p.

835.1230Sediment and soil absorption/desorption for parent and

degradates

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929514 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of Bifenazate on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795093.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 20p.

48929515 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of D3598 on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795115.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 20p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

835.1240Soil column leaching

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929514 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of Bifenazate on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795093.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 20p.

48929515 Tognucci, A. (2001) Estimation of the Adsorption Coefficient of D3598 on Soil Using High

Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC): Final Report. Project Number: 795115.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 20p.
48

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

835.2120Hydrolysis of parent and degradates as a function of pH at 25 C

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

835.2240Direct photolysis rate of parent and degradates in water

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929512 Lewis, C. (2001) (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate: Photodegradation in Sterile, Aqueous Solution: Final

Report. Project Number: 217/27 217/27/D2142. Unpublished study prepared by Covance

Laboratories, Ltd. 96p.

48929518 Nag, J. (2000) Quantum Yield Calculation for Bifenazate (D2341). Project Number: 2000/205.

Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 24p.

 

835.2370Photodegradation of parent and degradates in air

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929517 Schocken, M. (2001) GasͲphase Oxidation Rate and HalfͲlife of Bifenazate in the Troposphere.

Project Number: 2001/015. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. 11p.

 

835.3110Ready biodegradability

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929511 Armstrong, K. (2000) Technical Bifenazate: Determination of Ready Biodegradability of the

Modified Sturm Test. Project Number: 18944. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk

Research International. 21p.

 

835.3300Soil biodegradation

MRID Citation Reference

 
49

47607902 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate in Four Soil Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by Research &

Consulting Co., Ltd. 105 p.

49055502 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate in Four Soils Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 104p.

 

835.4100Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49055501 Nag, J.; Regis, R. (2000) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)Ͳ4ͲMethoxybiphenyl. Project

Number: 99009. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise, Inc.

149p.

49055502 Volkl, S. (2001) Degradation Rate of (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate in Four Soils Incubated Under

Aerobic Conditions. Project Number: 772740. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 104p.

 

835.4200Anaerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929516 Volkl, S. (2001) (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate: Anaerobic Soil Degradation. Project Number: 778926.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Ltd. 81p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49570302 Miner, P. (2014) Anaerobic Soil Metabolism of (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate in One European Soil.

Project Number: 032163, 032163/0, 2013/176. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca

Biosciences, LLC. 211p.

 

835.4300Aerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929513 Mamouni, A. (2001) (Carbon 14)ͲBifenazate: Route and Rate of Degradation in Aerobic Aquatic

Systems: Final Report. Project Number: 763356. Unpublished study prepared by RCC, Ltd. 97p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,
50

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

49570301 Miner, P. (2015) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of [Carbon 14]Bifenazate. Project Number:

031951, 031951/0, 2013/174. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 565p.

 

835.4400Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

835.6100Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

850.1010Aquatic invertebrate acute toxicity, test, freshwater daphnids

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929503 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2001) D3598: A 48ͲHour FlowͲthrough Acute Toxicity Test

with The Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/12A. Unpublished

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 41p.

48929507 Seyfried, B. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Daphnia magna

in a 48Ͳhour Immobilisation Test: Final Report. Project Number: 968205. Unpublished study

prepared by RCC, Ltd. 38p.

48929508 Seyfried, B. (2001) Acute Toxicity of D9472 to Daphnia magna in a 48Ͳhour Immobilisation

Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802574. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 34p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

850.1075Fish acute toxicity test, freshwater and marine

MRID Citation Reference

 
51

48929504 Kendall, T. ; Krueger, H. ; Palmer, S. (2001) D3598: A 96ͲHour FlowͲthrough Acute Toxicity Test

with the Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/121A.

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 42p.

48929505 Seyfried, B. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Rainbow Trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96ͲHour FlowͲthrough Test: Final Report. Project Number: 768183

768194. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 41p.

48929506 Seyfried, B. (2001) Acute Toxicity of D9472 to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in a 96Ͳ

hour FlowͲthrough Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802552. Unpublished study prepared

by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 42p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

48929523 Unknown (1992) DͲ3598: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Fish, Lepomis macrochirus, Under

Static Conditions (Screening Test). Project Number: J9207008B. Unpublished study prepared

by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 6p.

48929524 Unknown (1992) DͲ3598: Acute Toxicity to the Freshwater Fish, Oncorhynchus mykiss, under

Static Conditions (Screening Test). Project Number: J9207008C. Unpublished study prepared

by Toxikon Environmental Sciences. 6p.

 

850.1300Daphnid chronic toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

48935101 Batscher, R. (2000) Acute Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenzate to the Earthworm

Eisenia foetida in a 14ͲDay Test. Project Number: 786870. Unpublished study prepared by

RCC, Ltd. 24p.

 

850.1400Fish earlyͲlife stage toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

850.1730Fish BCF

 

MRID Citation Reference

 
52

49465906 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate: An Aqueous Exposure

Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project Number:

616A/110, 2013/136. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 328p.

49540501 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate: An Aqueous Exposure

Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project Number:

616A/110, 2013/136. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 329p.

49544201 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Martin, K.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate Metabolite D3598: An Aqueous

Exposure Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project

Number: 616A/111, 2013/137. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

312p.

49544202 Schneider, S.; Bodle, E.; Schutt, W.; et al. (2014) Bifenazate Metabolite D1989: An Aqeuous

Exposure Bioaccumulation Test with the Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Final Report. Project

Number: 616A/112, 2013/138. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.

179p.

 

850.2100Avian acute oral toxicity test

MRID Citation Reference

 

49465905 Hubbard, P.; Beavers, J. (2014) Bifenazate: An Acute Oral Toxicit Study with the Canary. Project

Number: 616/109, 2013/152. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 34p.

 

850.3020Honey bee acute contact toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

 

48935106 Kelly, C.; Allan, J. (2001) A Laboratory Study to Evaluate the Effects of a 480 G L SC Formulation

of Bifenazate to the Honey Bee (Apis melifera): 48ͲHour Contact and Oral LD(50). Project

Number: 19404, 399904. Unpublished study prepared by Inveresk Research International. 30p.

49713501 Vinall, S. (2010) Laboratory Bioassay to Determine the Acute Contact Toxicity of TechnicalͲ

Grade Bifenazate to the Honeybee, Apis mellifera. Project Number: CHEM/10/2. Unpublished

study prepared by MamboͲTox, Ltd. 26p.

 

850.3030Honey bee toxicity of residues on foliage

MRID Citation Reference

 

47737801 Walsh, D. (2009) Pollinator Pesticide Safety Trials 2007: Flonicamid. Project Number:

IB/2009/PH/002/01. Unpublished study prepared by Washington State University. 19 p.

 

850.4400Aquatic plant toxicity test using Lemna spp. Tiers I and II

MRID Citation Reference

 
53

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

850.5400Algal toxicity, Tiers 1 and II

MRID Citation Reference

 

48929502 Palmer, S.; Kendall, T.; Krueger, H. (2011) D3598: A 96ͲHour Toxicity Test with the Freshwater

Alga (Selenastrum capricornutum): Final Report. Project Number: 117A/122. Unpublished

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 50p.

48929509 Seyfried, B. (2001) Toxicity of D9472 to Scenedesmus subspicatus in a 72Ͳhour Algal Growth

Inhibition Test: Final Report. Project Number: 802596. Unpublished study prepared by RCC

Umweltchemie Ag. 39p.

48929510 Seyfried, B. (2000) Toxicity of a 480 G/L SC Formulation of Bifenazate to Scenedesmus

subspicatus in a 72Ͳhour Algal Growth Inhibition Test: Final Report. Project Number: 768227.

Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 44p.

48929519 Gurney, A. (2008) Estimation of the Environmental Concentrations of Bifenazate and its

Degradation Product in Surface Water Following Outdoor Application to Tomatoes,

Strawberries and Ornamentals Focus Surface Water Steps 1Ͳ2 Calculations. Project Number:

859451/A. Unpublished study prepared by RCC Umweltchemie Ag. 65p.

 

850.6100Environmental Chemistry Methods and Associated Independent Laboratory

Validation

MRID Citation Reference

 

49465901 Batorewicz, W.; Blaszczynski, E. (2002) Analytical Method for the Determination of Bifenazate

Metabolite, 4ͲMethoxyͲ1, 1''ͲBiphenyl, in Water: Amended Final Report. Project Number:

01/0190, 2000/184. Unpublished study prepared by Uniroyal Chemical Co., Inc. and Agvise,

Inc. 91p.

49465902 Habeeb, S. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation of 4ͲMethoxyͲ1, 1''ͲBiphenyl (D1989) in

Water: Final Report. Project Number: 032238, 032238/1, 2014/022. Unpublished study

prepared by Ricerca Biosciences, LLC. 86p.

49465903 Stanislowsky, T. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) of an Analytical Method for

the Determination of Bifenazate and Metabolites D3598 and D9472 in Surface and in Drinking

Water. Project Number: P/3176/G, 2014/020. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe

Gmbh. 64p.

49465904 Merdian, H.; Sahvorost, N. (2014) Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) of an Analytical

Method for the Determination of Bifenazate and its Metabolites D3598 and D1989 in Soil.

Project Number: P/3193/G, 2014/021. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL Europe Gmbh.

55p.

Other studies
54

48929501 Eyre, D.; Webster, D. (2003) A Laboratory Study to Determine the Median Lethal

Concentration (LC50) of D3598 to the Earthworm, Eisenia fetida. Project Number:

ER/03/HMA478, HMA/478. Unpublished study prepared by Ecotox Limited. 45p.

49713502 Odemer, R. (2014) Bifenazate: Toxicity Effects to Adult Worker Honeybees (Apis mellifera L.)

After Chronic Oral Exposure under Laboratory Conditions. Project Number: 20130213.

Unpublished study prepared by Innovative Environmental Services, Ltd. 35p.

49713503 Odemer, R. (2014) Bifenazate: Toxicity to Honeybee (Apis mellifera L.) Larvae after Acute

Exposure under in vitro Laboratory Conditions. Project Number: 20130214. Unpublished study

prepared by Innovative Environmental Services, Ltd. 58p.

 
55

APPENDIX E.

CHEMICAL STRUCTURES