Page | 1

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON D.C., 20460

Office of Chemical Safety

And Pollution Prevention

MEMORANDUM Date: 06.01.11 

Subject: Registration Review – Preliminary Problem Formulation for Ecological Risk and 

Environmental Fate, Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments for 

Flumioxazin (PC Code 129034; D386128)

To: Jack Brennan, RiskManager Reviewer

Robert McNally, Risk Manager

Risk Management and Implementation Branch (RMIB 4)

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD)

Office of Pesticide Programs

From: Joseph DeCant, Ecologist

Larry Liu, Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch 5

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Office of Pesticide Programs

Through: Mah Shamim, PhD, Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 5

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED)

Office of Pesticide Programs

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) has completed the preliminary problem 

formulation (attached) for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and 

drinking water assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of the herbicide, 

flumioxazin. The problem formulation draws on information from both open literature and 

studies submitted by the technical registrants in response to data requirements. This document is 

intended to provide an overview of what is currently known regarding the environmental fate and 

ecological effects associated with flumioxazin and all of its degradates and outlines uncertainties 

regarding attributes of the parent compound and its transformation products. It describes the 

preliminary ecological risk hypothesis and the processes that will be used during the completion 

of drinking water and ecological risk assessments in support of registration review. This 

document also recommends studies that should be included in a data call-in (DCI) to address 

uncertainties surrounding the environmental fate and potential ecological effects of flumioxazin.
Page | 2

Problem Formulation for the 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, Endangered 

Species, and Drinking Water Assessments 

in Support of the Registration Review of Flumioxazin

PC 129034, D386128

Flumioxazin (CAS 103361-09-7)

Date: 06.01.11

Prepared by:

Joseph DeCant, Ecologist

Larry Liu, Chemist

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

Mah Shamim, PhD, Branch Chief
Page | 3

Table of Contents

I. Purpose ....................................................................................................................................... 5

II. Problem Formulation................................................................................................................. 5

A. Nature of Regulatory Action................................................................................................. 5

B. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments...................................................................... 6

1. Flumioxazin Ecological Risk Assessments........................................................................ 6

2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments ............................................................................ 6

III. Stressor Source and Distribution .............................................................................................. 7

A. Mechanism of Action............................................................................................................ 7

B. Overview of Pesticide Usage ................................................................................................ 7

C. Environmental Fate and Transport........................................................................................ 9

1. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 9

2. General Physical-Chemical and Fate Properties.......................................................... 10

3. Abiotic Degradation....................................................................................................... 11

4. Biotic Degradation......................................................................................................... 14

5. Sorption and Soil Column Leaching.............................................................................. 18

6. Terrestrial Field Dissipation ......................................................................................... 20

7. Aquatic Field Dissipation .............................................................................................. 23

8. Bioconcentration (BCF)................................................................................................. 24

9. Method Validation ......................................................................................................... 24

10. Degradate Profile and Metabolism Pathways............................................................... 25

IV. Receptors ............................................................................................................................... 25

A. Effects to Aquatic Animals................................................................................................. 29

1. Freshwater Fish............................................................................................................. 29

2. Freshwater Invertebrates............................................................................................... 29

3. Estuarine/Marine Fish................................................................................................... 29

4. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates..................................................................................... 29

B. Effects to Terrestrial Animals............................................................................................. 30

1. Mammalian Species....................................................................................................... 30

2. Avian Species................................................................................................................. 30

3. Non-target Insects.......................................................................................................... 30

C. Effects to Plants................................................................................................................... 30

D. Degradate toxicity............................................................................................................... 31

E. Ecological Incidents ............................................................................................................ 32

F. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk............................................................................................ 33

V. Assessment Endpoints............................................................................................................. 33

VI. Conceptual Model................................................................................................................... 33

A. Risk Hypothesis .................................................................................................................. 34

B. Conceptual Diagram............................................................................................................ 34

VII. Analysis Plan........................................................................................................................ 37

A. Stressors of Concern ........................................................................................................... 38

B. Measures of Exposure ......................................................................................................... 38

C. Measures of Effect .............................................................................................................. 40

D. Integration of Exposure and Effects.................................................................................... 41

1. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods..................................................... 41

E. Endangered Species Assessments ....................................................................................... 42
Page | 4

F. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program............................................................................. 42

G. Drinking Water Assessment................................................................................................. 43

H. Screening Imbibition Program............................................................................................. 43

I. Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk ...................................................................................... 44

J. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps .............................................................................. 44

1. Fate .................................................................................................................................. 44

2. Effects............................................................................................................................... 47

VIII. References........................................................................................................................... 49

Appendix 1. ECOTOX Accepted and Rejected Papers............................................................... 55

Appendix 2. The Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern ................................................ 65

Appendix 3. Results from the Screening Imbibition Program..................................................... 67

Appendix 4. Results from the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk.............................................. 68

List of Tables

Table 1. Application methods and rates for use of flumioxazin as an aquatic herbicide. ............. 8

Table 2. General physical-chemical and environmental fate properties of flumioxazin. ............ 10

Table 3. Major degradates detected at the end of 30-day hydrolysis study for flumioxazin....... 11

Table 4. Adsorption coefficients for flumioxazin, estimated from column leaching studies. ..... 19

Table 5. Adsorption coefficients for two degradates of flumioxazin. ......................................... 19

Table 6. Most sensitive test species evaluated for assessing potential ecological effects of 

flumioxazin and the associated acute toxicity classification. ....................................................... 27

Table 7. Flumioxazin toxicity reference values for terrestrial organisms. .................................. 28

Table 8. Available environmental fate data for flumioxazin and remaining data gaps. .............. 45

Table 9. Ecological effects data requirements for flumioxazin and remaining data gaps. .......... 48

List of Figures

Figure 1. National flumioxazin use (in pounds per square mile) by major use category as of 

2002................................................................................................................................................. 9

Figure 2. Proposed degradation pathway of flumioxazin in an aquatic anaerobic metabolism 

system ........................................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathways, and potential effects to 

aquatic organisms from the use of flumioxazin............................................................................ 35

Figure 4. Conceptual model depicting stressors, generic exposure pathways, and potential 

effects to terrestrial organisms (terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and dietary routes of 

exposure for terrestrial vertebrates) from the use of flumioxazin................................................. 36

Figure 5. Conceptual model depicting stressors, drinking water and inhalation exposure 

pathways, and potential effects to terrestrial animals from the use of flumioxazin ..................... 37
Page | 5

I. Purpose

The purpose of this problem formulation is to provide an understanding of the environmental fate 

and ecological effects of the registered uses of flumioxazin. Flumioxazin is a light-dependent 

peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) which acts by blocking heme and chlorophyll biosynthesis 

resulting in an endogenous accumulation of photo-toxic porphyrins. This class of herbicides is 

known to have a photo-toxic mode of action in plants and possibly in fish. Standard toxicity 

testing may not include light with the same wavelength or intensity as natural sunlight. LDPHs 

may be more toxic when exposed to natural sunlight, such as exposure conditions in the field. 

Thus, the results of this assessment may actually underestimate risk to an unknown extent. 

Flumioxazin is currently registered for various agricultural commodities and non-agricultural 

uses. It can be applied using a variety of methods including: band treatment, broadcast sprayer, 

burndown treatment, chemigation, impregnated dry bulk fertilizer, soil band, spot sprayer, and a 

water treatment. This document will provide a plan for analyzing data relevant to flumioxazin

and for conducting environmental fate and ecological risk, endangered species and drinking 

water assessments for its registered uses. Additionally, this problem formulation is intended to 

identify data gaps, uncertainties, and potential assumptions used to address those uncertainties, 

relative to characterizing the ecological risk associated with the registered uses of flumioxazin. 

II. Problem Formulation

A. Nature of Regulatory Action

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 mandated EPA to implement a new program for 

assessing the risks of pesticides, i.e., registration review1. All pesticides distributed or sold in the 

United States generally must be registered by EPA. The decision to register a pesticide is based 

on the consideration of scientific data and other factors showing that it will not cause 

unreasonable risks to human health, workers, or the environment when used as directed on 

product labeling. The registration review program is intended to ensure that, as the ability to 

assess risk evolves and as policies and practices change, all registered pesticides continue to 

meet the statutory standard of no unreasonable adverse effects to human health and the 

environment. Changes in science, public policy, and pesticide use practices will occur over time. 

Through the new registration review program, the Agency periodically reevaluates pesticides to 

ensure that as change occurs, products in the marketplace can be used safely. 

As part of the implementation of the new Registration Review program pursuant to Section 3(g) 

of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), the Agency is beginning its 

evaluation to determine whether flumioxazin continues to meet the FIFRA standard for 

registration. This problem formulation for the environmental fate and ecological risk assessment 

chapter in support of the registration review is intended for the initial docket opening the public 

phase of the review process. 

 

1

http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrd1/registration_review/
Page | 6

B. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

Flumioxazin was first registered in 2001. The Agency conducted multiple subsequent 

assessments including section 3 new chemical/new use (S3NU) and section 18 emergency 

exemptions (S18), as well as several drinking water assessments and experimental use permits 

(EUP). These assessments serve as a basis for this problem formulation, and have primarily 

focused on risk concerns to plants, chronic risk to freshwater fish and estuarine/marine 

invertebrates, and chronic concerns for small herbivorous mammals. For aquatic uses, the major 

concerns are freshwater fish, invertebrates, and plants. 

1. Flumioxazin Ecological Risk Assessments

Three experimental use permits were completed before the product was registered. Two EUP

assessments were reviewed in 1993 (D194585, 194592 and D189771, respectively). One EUP 

was undated and unsigned; however, the DP barcode is listed as D222276.

Ecological risk assessments completed for flumioxazin include two emergency exemption 

(FIFRA Section 18) assessments. The first was conducted in 2001 for the use on cotton in 

Mississippi to control pigweed and in Louisiana on sugarcane to control morning glory 

(D274551 – MS; D274686 – LA). The second was conducted in 2005 for use on alfalfa in 

Arizona to control common groundsel (D307331). The first S18 in 2001 identified risk to 

terrestrial and aquatic plants, but not to any wildlife. Similarly, the 2005 S18 assessment for use 

on alfalfa identified risk only to terrestrial and aquatic plants. 

Seven section 3 risk assessments were conducted, 2 new chemical screens, and one aquatic EEC 

modeling exercise. The first S3NU in 2001 (D237259+) found risk for terrestrial and aquatic 

plants alone. The next S3NU in 2003 (D274658+) showed chronic risk to small mammals as 

well as terrestrial and aquatic plants. It also identified chronic concerns for freshwater fish and 

estuarine/marine invertebrates. D274658 was an addendum to a previous risk assessment that 

revised the risk picture and found an exceedance of the LOC for small mammals and terrestrial 

and aquatic plants, as well as some chronic concern for freshwater fish and estuarine/marine 

invertebrates. Similarly, the S3NU in 2005 (D310413+), 2007 (D338590+), and 2008 

(D336090+) showed chronic risk for small herbivorous animals and terrestrial and aquatic plants. 

The aquatic use S3NU showed acute and chronic risk to freshwater fish and invertebrates as well 

as aquatic plants.

2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

Five drinking water exposure assessments were conducted, one in 1998 (D241401), 2003 (no DP 

barcode listed, dated July 7 2003), 2004 (D296445+), 2007 (D336195+), and 2010 (D357184) in 

support of human health risk assessments. In the first assessment for peanuts and soybeans, 

screening parent flumioxazin concentrations (based on the application rate of 0.1 lb ai/A) were 

3.63 ppb and 0.13 ppb for respective acute and chronic exposures in surface water and 0.018 ppb 

for exposure in ground water. The second assessment from 2004 referred to a previous S3NU 

risk assessment from 2003 (D274658+). The 2007 drinking water assessment, which relied on 

the 2003 drinking water assessment (based on the yearly application rate of 0.76 lbs ai/A) shows 
Page | 7

screening concentrations for the parent flumioxazin and each of the three major degradates: 482-

HA, APF, and THPA at pH 7 (see below).

Peak Conc. in Surface Water Conc. in Groundwater

Flumioxazin 1.03 ppb negligible

482-HA 6.87 ppb 45.27 ppb

APF 26.46 ppb 2.66 ppb

THPA 27.67 ppb 182.28 ppb

III. Stressor Source and Distribution

A. Mechanism of Action

Flumioxazin is a low use pre-emergent herbicide proposed for the control of a variety of weed 

species in both agrigultural and non-agricultural settings. It is classified as a light dependent 

peroxidizing herbicide. It belongs to a class of compounds called the protox inhibitors that act 

by inhibiting the enzyme protoporphyrinogen oxidase (protox), which is the last common 

enzyme in the heme and chlorophyll biosynthetic pathways (Matringe, 1989). Protox inhibition 

in plants results in a rapid accumulation of protoporphyrin IX, a phototoxic heme and 

chlorophyll precursor. In the present of ultraviolet light, protoporphyrin IX can become a 

powerful source of singlet oxygen which in plants causes lipid membrane peroxidation leading to 

a rapid loss of turgidity and foliar burns. Protox exists in both plants and animals and the 

enzyme from both sources has been shown to be highly sensitive to many LDPHs (Birchfield

and Casida, 1997).

B. Overview of Pesticide Usage

Current labels allow the use of flumioxazin under the terrestrial, aquatic, forestry, and indoor use 

groups. The labeled single maximum application rate ranges from 0.05 lbs ai/A (such as for 

potato) to 0.38 lbs a.i./A (such as for apple). The maximum application rate per crop cycle or per 

year is 0.76 lbs ai/A (such as for grapefruits). Although the maximum application frequency was 

not reported for every use, it is reasonable to believe that the current labels allow up to two 

applications per crop cycle or per year with the application intervals ranging from 14 days (such 

as for sugarcane) to 60 days (such as for lemon). Current labels include four formulations: 

Water Dispersible Granules (Dry Flowable. DF), Emulsifiable Concentrate (EC), Granules (G),

Soluble Concentrate (SC/S), and Wettable Powder (WP). It can be applied by aircraft, ground 

equipment, or chemigation.

It should be noted that flumioxazin, the active ingredient of the herbicide CLIPPER (Reg. 59639-

161), has been registered for control of aquatic weeds in bayous, canals, drainage ditches, lakes, 

marshes, fresh water ponds, and reservoirs throughout the U.S. Single active ingredient 
Page | 8

formulation is a water dispersible granule containing 51% active ingredient. The pesticide may 

be applied to waters with limited or no outflow by surface or subsurface application methods. 

The product should not be used in or near estuarine/marine areas or to any flowing waters. 

Application information for this aquatic use is listed in Table 1.

Table 1. Application methods and rates for use of flumioxazin as an aquatic herbicide.

Application method Single application 

rate (lb ai/A of 

water surface area)

Application 

interval

(days)

Maximum 

application 

number per 

year 

Maximum application 

rate per year 

(lb ai/A of water 

surface area/year) 

Surface application (aerial, 

ground, watercraft)

0.19-0.38 28 6 2.3

Subsurface application (use 

weighted trailing hoses to 

place chemical under the 

surface)

0.27-7.55 (Footnote 

1)

28 6 45.3

Footnote 1: In order to achieve 100 ppb flumioxazin in an one-foot deep water column, 0.27 lb ai/A of water 

surface area should be used. In order to achieve 400 ppb flumioxazin in a 7-foot deep water column, 7.55 lb ai/A of 

water surface area should be used. It should be noted that the following statement was not in the proposed label that 

was used in the ecological risk assessment and the drinking water assessment completed in 2010. The final label 

(59639-161) states that “when making applications to water bodies greater than 7 feet deep, do not exceed 7.55 lbs

ai per surface acre”.

Figure 1 presents the national usage pattern of flumioxazin in 2002. Usage was concentrated in 

the midwestern U.S., primarily in regions where corn and soybeans are grown (USGS 2011). 

While this map shows the usage pattern, the data may not reflect current usage patterns. 

Therefore this map should be seen as a snap-shot in time for the usage of flumioxazin.

The screening-level use assessment (SLUA) national level estimates of agricultural uses of 

flumioxazin indicate that the major uses are soybeans (40%), corn (4%), peanuts (4%), pistachio 

(9%), grapes (13%), cotton (9%), and almonds (13%) (USEPA 2010). These uses account for 

roughly 92% of the total amount of flumioxazin that is applied. State specific data for California 

show that 68,000 pounds of flumioxazin was applied in 2006, 76,000 pounds in 2007, and 

72,000 pounds in 2008 (CALDPR 2010). Almonds, grape, pistachio, peach, alfalfa, cotton, and 

rights-of-way represented the major uses.
Page | 9

Figure 1. National flumioxazin use (in pounds per square mile) by major use category as of 2002. Due to 

limitations in the data as it is from 2002, the uses have likely changed. This map provides a somewhat dated 

but still useful snapshot in time of flumioxazin use. Source: U.S. Geological Survey 

(http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/pnsp/usage/maps/show_map.php?year=02&map=m9113).

C. Environmental Fate and Transport

1. Summary

The following environmental fate assessment for flumioxazin was based on the data submitted 

by the registrant to support the Environmental Fate data requirements for the Terrestrial 

Food/Non-Food Crop uses. Based on these data, flumioxazin can be characterized as follows:

* Flumioxazin is relatively unstable to hydrolysis, especially in alkaline media (half-lives = 

4.2, 1, and 0.01 days, respectively, at pH 5, 7, and 9). The three major degradates 

detected in the hydrolysis study are APF, THPA, and 482-HA.

* Flumioxazin photodegrades very rapidly in water and on soil (half-lives = 1 and 5.8 days, 

respectively).
Page | 10

* Flumioxazin degrades very rapidly under the soil metabolism and the aquatic metabolism 

conditions.

* Flumioxazin is classified as having medium soil mobility potential.

* Its two major degradates (APF and THPA) are expected to be more mobile than the 

parent compound in the environment (Koc = 410 and 155, respectively).

* Although no mobility information on 482-HA were available, based on its chemical 

structure, this degradate is expected to be very mobile, especially in the alkaline 

environment. 

* According to Henry‟s Law Constant, flumioxazin volatilizes slowly. It is classified 

between “non-volatile“ and “intermediate to high volatility” on dry non-adsorbing 

surfaces under field conditions, based on its vapor pressure.

* Flumioxazin is not expected to bioaccumulate in fish (Kow = 355).

2. General Physical-Chemical and Fate Properties

Physico-chemical properties of flumioxazin are listed in Table 2 below. Based on the 

environmental fate properties for flumioxazin, with consideration of the product formulation and 

application rates, EFED believes that the parent compound does not have the physical/chemical 

characteristics in common with pesticides that are known to leach to ground water or to move 

offsite to surface water. It should be noted that the Kd and Koc used in the water assessment for 

the parent compound were generated from the column leaching study (instead of the batch 

equilibrium study) due to the unstable nature of the parent compound in water. 

Physical and chemical properties for flumioxazin are listed below:

Common Name: Flumioxazin

Chemical Name (IUPAC):

N-(7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl)cyclohex-1-ene1,2-dicarboxamide

CAS No.: 103361-09-7

PC Code: 129034

Table 2. General physical-chemical and environmental fate properties of flumioxazin. 

Parameter Value Source

Molecular Weight 354 g/mole Product Chemistry

Melting Point 203C Product Chemistry

Solubility (25C) 1.8 mg/L Product Chemistry

Vapor Pressure (22C) 2.4x10-6 mmHg Product Chemistry

Henry‟s Law Constant (atm-m

3

/mol) 6.2x10-7 Estimated from Water Solubility 

and Vapor Pressure (also reported 

in MRID 45375512) 

Octanol-Water Partition Coefficient 

(Kow) (20C)

355 Product Chemistry

Hydrolysis (pH 5) (t1/2)

 (pH 7) (t1/2)

 (pH 9) (t1/2)

4.2 days

1 day

0.01 days

42697501

42684905

Aqueous photolysis (pH 5) (t1/2) 1 day 44295036

44295037
Page | 11

45914601

Soil photolysis (t1/2) 3.2 and 8.4 days 44295038

44295039

Aerobic soil metabolism (t1/2) 11.9 and 17.5 days 

42684906

42884009

44295040

Anaerobic soil metabolism (t1/2) 0.2 and 0.2 days 44295041

Aerobic aquatic metabolism (t1/2) 3-5 days 47761801

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism (t1/2) 40.1 and 45.9 days 45914602

Adsorption-Flumioxazin (based on 

column leaching studies) 112, 271, 656, 1190

42684907

42684908

42684909

42884010

Adsorption-APF (based on 

adsorption study)

201, 336, 391, 502, 620 45309202

Adsorption-THPA (based on 

adsorption study) 13, 66, 75, 191, 248, 339 45309201

3. Abiotic Degradation

Hydrolysis

Flumioxazin hydrolyzes very rapidly. The hydrolysis rate increases as the pH of the solution 

increases. Two hydrolysis studies were submitted (MRID 42697501 and 42684905). The 

average half-lives from the [Ph14C]-S-53482 (uniformly ring labeled), and [THP14C]-S-53482 

(labeled at the 1- and 2- positions of the 3,4,5,6-tetrahydro-phthalimide moiety) hydrolysis 

studies were 4.2 days, 23 hours, and 18.3 minutes for the pH 5, 7, and 9 buffered solutions, 

respectively. Four degradates were observed; 7-Fluoro-6[(2-carboxy-cyclohexenoyl)amino]-4-

(2-propynyl)-1,4-benzoxazin-3(2H)-one (482-HA), 6-Amino-7-fluoro-4-(2-propynyl)-1,4,-

benzoxazin-3(2H)-one (APF), 3,4,5,6-tetrahydrophthalic acid (THPA), and 3,4,5,6-

Tetrahydrophthalic acid anhydride Delta-TPA). Degradate 482-HA was found at high 

concentrations (97.3% of the applied) in the pH 9 solution. APF and THPA were not detected in 

the pH 9 solutions, but were important components in the pH 5 and 7 solutions. Δ-TPA was a 

minor component (8.8% of the applied) in the pH 5 and 7 solutions. Table 3 lists the major 

degradates detected in the hydrolysis study at pH 5, 7, and 9.

Table 3. Major degradates detected at the end of 30-day hydrolysis study for flumioxazin.

% of Applied Radioactivity

Chemical pH 5 pH 7 pH 9

Flumioxazin Negligible 4.7 negligible

482-HA Negligible 9.3 97.3

APF 41.8 40.0 negligible

THPA 47.7 41.8 negligible

Aqueous Photolysis

Flumioxazin photodegrades very rapidly in water. In the first study (MRID 44295036), 

uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin, at 0.1 ppm, degraded with a half-life of 20.9 

hours (r2= 0.99; 0-48 hour data) in sterilized pH 5 aqueous buffer solution which was irradiated 

with a xenon lamp (12 hour light/dark cycle) and maintained at 25 oC for up to 720 hours. An 
Page | 12

unidentified major degradate (designated as Unknown 1), was initially 8.9% of the applied 

radioactivity at 2 hours post-treatment, was a maximum of 74.6% at 96 hours, and was 23.7% at 

720 hours. Another unidentified major degradate (designated as Unknown 3) reached a 

maximum of 16.8% at 720 hours post-treatment. The minor degradate APF was detected twice, 

at 0.6% of the applied radioactivity at 8 hours post-treatment and at 3.1% at 24 hours. 

Uncharacterized origin material initially (48 hours) accounted for 10.4% of the applied and was a 

maximum of 41.3% at 720 hours post-treatment. 

In the second study (MRID 44295037), tetrahydrophthalimido ring-labeled [1,2-

14C]Flumioxazin, at 0.1 ppm, degraded with a half-life of 26.3 hours (r2

= 0.94; 0-48 hour data) 

in sterilized pH 5 aqueous buffer solution which was irradiated with a xenon lamp (12 hour 

light/dark cycle) and maintained at 25 oC for up to 720 hours. The major degradate THPA was 

initially (5 hours) 3.7% of the applied radioactivity, was a maximum of 23.0% at 264 hours, and 

was 13.4% at 720 hours post-treatment. An unidentified major degradate (designated as Area 1) 

was initially (2 hours) 25.2% of the applied radioactivity, was a maximum of 54.1% at 48 hours, 

and was 6.8% at 720 hours post-treatment. Another unidentified major degradate (designated as 

Area 3) was initially (408 hours) 19.4% of the applied radioactivity, and was a maximum of 

35.1% at 720 hours post-treatment. Uncharacterized origin material initially accounted for 13.7% 

of the applied radioactivity at 48 hours post-treatment, increased to a maximum of 40.4% by 504 

hours, and was 35.2% at 720 hours.

In the third study (MRID 45914601), the aqueous phototransformation of [phenyl14C]- and 

[tetrahydrophthaloyl14C]-labeled flumioxazin was studied at 25 ± 1 C in sterile aqueous acetate 

buffer at pH 5 (0.01M acetate) at a nominal concentration of 1.0 μg a.i./mL under a 12-hour 

light/12-hour dark cycle using a UV-filtered xenon lamp (290-800 nm) for 72 and 168 hours, 

respectively. 

For both labels, [14C]flumioxazin degraded in a similar manner in the dark controls and irradiated 

solutions. In the irradiated buffer solution, [phenyl14C]- and [THP14C]-labeled flumioxazin 

decreased from averages of 96.30% and 96.14% of the applied at 0 hours, to 50.64% and 47.57% 

at 1 hour, and 2.23% and 2.42% at 6 hours, respectively; and was last detected in the [phenyl14C]-label at 0.54% at 48 hours and in the [THP14C]-label at 0.32% at 72 hours.

Three major transformation products were identified associated with irradiated [phenyl14C]-

labeled flumioxazin: 482-PHO averaged a maximum of 69.49% of the applied at 4 hours, 

decreasing to 0.30% at 72 hours (study termination); 482-PHO-ISO averaged a maximum of 

14.98% at 24 hour, decreasing to 0.53% at 72 hours; 482-PHO-DC averaged a maximum of 

9.98% at 48 hours (one sample 10.53%), decreasing to 4.78% at 72 hours. No minor 

transformation products were identified. The multiple peaks reported together and labeled as 

“others” were a maximum average of 69.71% of the applied with an average of 34 total peaks, 

and no one peak containing >6.4% of the applied at any sampling interval. At 72 hours, CO2 was 

a maximum of 14.70% and volatile organics were 0.4% of the applied.

Five major transformation products were identified and one unknown isolated that were

associated with irradiated [THP14C]-labeled flumioxazin: 482-PHO averaged a maximum of 

65.71% of the applied at 4 hours, and was not detected at 168 hours; 482-PHO-ISO averaged a 
Page | 13

maximum of 11.35% at 24 hours, and was not detected at 168 hours; 482-PHO-DC averaged a 

maximum of 10.43% at 48 hours, decreasing to 1.12% at 168 hours; THPA and adipic acid 

averaged maximums of 17.92% and 10.48%, respectively at 168 hours (study termination). The 

unidentified major transformation product (Unknown 1) was an average maximum of 10.66% of 

the applied at 72 hours. No minor transformations products were identified. The multiple 

unidentified peaks reported together and labeled as “others” were a maximum average of 66.32% 

of the applied, with an average of 38 total peaks, and no one peak containing >8.9% of the 

applied at any sampling interval. At 72 and 168 hours, CO2 was a maximum of 0.6% and volatile 

organics were 0.4% of the applied.

[Phenyl14C]- and [THP14C]-labeled flumioxazin were 12.7 and 10.1 hours (0-72 hour data), 

respectively. The observed half-life in the irradiated buffer solution for the combined labels was 

between 0 and 1 hour. In the dark controls, the half-life of the combined labels was 72.96 hours 

(0-72 hour data). [Phenyl14C]- and [THP14C]-labeled flumioxazin were 71.46 and 74.53 hours 

(0-72 hour data), respectively. 

Flumioxazin, degrades slowly via hydrolysis to 482-HA which degrades to APF, or to THPA 

which degrades to adipic acid and on to minor polar compounds. Flumioxazin can also degrade 

quickly via photolysis to 482-PHO which degrades to either 482-PHO-HA or 482-PHO-DC; 

482-PHO can also degrade to 482-PHO-ISO which becomes 482-PHO-APF, or 482-PHO can 

degrade directly to 482-PHO-APF as can 482-PHO-HA; 482-PHO-ISO can degrade to both 482-

PHO-HA and 482-PHO-DC which can further degrade to THPA. Further degradation occurs 

forming CO2 and minor polar degradates. 

Soil Photolysis

In contrast to aqueous photolysis, Flumioxazin photodegrades relatively slowly on the soil 

surface. Two soil photolysis studies were submitted. In the first study (MRID 44295038), 

uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin, at a nominal application rate of 2.5 ug/g (dry 

soil), degraded with a half-life of 3.2 days (r2= 0.96) in sandy loam soil maintained at 25 oC and 

irradiated with a xenon arc lamp on a 12-hour light/dark cycle for up to 6 days. In the irradiated 

soil samples, the parent compound was initially 96.9% of the applied, decreased to 55.3% by 2 

days and 34.5% by 4 days post-treatment, and was 29.1-29.8% at 5-6 days. The minor degradate 

IMOXA was initially (time 0) 0.8% of the applied radioactivity, and increased to 3.1% by 6 days 

post-treatment (the last sampling interval). The combined minor degradates APF and 482-HA 

were initially (time 0) 1.4% of the applied radioactivity the irradiated samples, and were 0.6% at 

6 days post-treatment. Nonextractable [14C] residues were initially (time 0) 3.0% of the applied 

radioactivity, increased to 16.4% by 1 day post-treatment, and were 43.3% at 6 days. Evolved 

14CO2 and [14C] organic volatiles were negligible for the irradiated samples.

In the second study (MRID 44295039), tetrahydrophthalimido ring-labeled [1,2-

14C]Flumioxazin, at 2.5 ug/g (dry soil), degraded with a half-life of 8.4 days (r2

= 0.95) in sandy 

loam soil maintained at 25 oC and irradiated with a xenon arc lamp on a 12-hour light/dark cycle 

for up to 14 days. In the irradiated soil samples, the parent compound was initially 99.2% of the 

applied radioactivity, decreased to 82.2% by 7 days post-treatment, and was 36.9-37.0% at 9-14 

days. In the irradiated soil, the major degradate Delta-TPA was initially (day 1) 0.3% of the 

applied radioactivity, was a maximum of 21.6% at 9 days post-treatment, and was 8.6% at 14 
Page | 14

days. The major degradate THPA was initially (day 2) 2.7% of the applied radioactivity, 

increased to 7.4% by 9 days post-treatment, and was a maximum of 12.9% at 14 days. The 

minor degradate 1-OH-HPA was detected twice, at 3.0% of the applied radioactivity at 9 days 

post-treatment and 4.4% at 14 days. Uncharacterized residual radioactivity in the irradiated 

samples was initially (day 4) detected at 1.2% of the applied radioactivity, was a maximum of 

17.3% at 9 days, and was 15.1% at 14 days. Evolved 14CO2 and [14C] organic volatiles were not 

detected during the incubation period. 

4. Biotic Degradation

Parent Flumioxazin degraded relatively rapidly in soil under aerobic conditions and very rapidly 

in sediment/natural water systems under anaerobic conditions (half-lives varied from 4.2 hours in 

the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study to 14.7 days in the aerobic soil metabolism study). 

Three radioactive studies were submitted. 

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Three aerobic soil metabolism studies were reviewed (MRID 42684906, 42884009 and 

44295040). [14C]-Flumioxazin (uniformly phenyl ring labeled), at 0.26 ug/g, degraded with a 

half-life of 11.9 days in a California sandy loam soil incubated in the dark at 22-26C. 

Flumioxazin was 92.9% of the applied at day 0 and decreased to 18.0% by day 28 and was 3.7% 

of the applied from day 89 post-treatment. Four minor degradates were detected (482-CA, 482-

HA, APF, and IMOXA). 14CO2 comprised 2.3% of the applied at day 0 and 11.5% of the applied 

at day 181 post-treatment. Soil-bound residues increased from 0.7% of the applied at day 0 to 

52.7% by day 28 and 73.6% of the applied by day 181. The humic acid, fulvic acid, and humin 

fractions in the soil-bound residues ranged from 3.1-12.9%, 2.3-7.6%, and 7.4-24.9% of the 

applied, respectively. Material balances ranged from 88.9% to 104.5% of the applied throughout 

the study. 

[

14C]-Flumioxazin (THP-ring labeled), at 0.245 ug/g, degraded with a half-life of 17.5 days in a 

California sandy loam soil incubated in the dark at 24-26C. Flumioxazin was 97.3% of the 

applied at day 0 and decreased to 28.9% by day 30 and was 11.8% of the applied at day 91 posttreatment. 14CO2 comprised 0.2% of the applied at day 1 and 55.1% of the applied at day 91 

post-treatment. Four minor degradates were isolated and identified: THPA, Delta-TPA, 

IMOXA, and 482-CA. These compounds were present at concentrations of 6.6% of the applied. 

Soil-bound residues increased from 2.7% of the applied at day 0 to 20.0% by day 30 and 29.0% 

of the applied by day 91. The humic acid, fulvic acid, and humin fractions in the soil-bound 

residues ranged from 0.9-7.0%, 3.5-8.0%, and 2.5-13.1% of the applied, respectively. Material 

balances ranged from 96.4% to 101.3% of the applied throughout the study.

Nonradiolabeled Flumioxazin, at a nominal application rate of 0.1 ppm, degraded with half-lives 

of 5.0 days (r2= 0.96) in Wheeling sandy loam, 18.6 days (r2= 0.98) in Drummer clay loam, 

18.9 days (r2= 0.88) in Dothan sand, and 15.6 days (r2= 0.96) in Webster loam soils incubated 

in darkness at 25.1 oC for up to 44 days. Soil samples were adjusted to 79-84% of 0.33 bar 

moisture content and homogenized by stirring, and the test vessels were capped. In the sandy 

loam soil, the parent was initially 0.1 ppm, decreased to 0.054 ppm by 6 days and 0.023 ppm by 

13 days post-treatment, and was below the LOQ by 16 days. In the clay loam soil, the parent 
Page | 15

was initially 0.098 ppm, decreased to 0.051 ppm by 16 days post-treatment, was 0.046 ppm at 21 

days, and was 0.017 ppm at 44 days. In the sand soil, the parent was initially 0.097 ppm, 

decreased to 0.053 ppm by 9 days and 0.043 ppm by 13 days post-treatment, and was last 

detected at 0.034 ppm at 28 days. In the loam soil, the parent was initially 0.097 ppm, was 0.054 

ppm at 9 days post-treatment, and was last detected at 0.026 ppm at 28 days. Degradate 

compounds were not monitored.

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism

Uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin and tetrahydrophthaloyl ring-labeled [1,2-

14C]Flumioxazin, at a nominal concentration of 50 ng/g, degraded with half-lives of 4.2 hours (r2

= 0.88; 0-6 hour data) and 4.3 hours (r2= 0.77; 0-6 hour data) in flooded sandy loam soil 

incubated anaerobically in darkness at 25 oC for up to 182 days, respectively(MRID 44295041). 

Uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin, in the total system, was initially 90.2% of the 

applied, decreased to 48.1% by 2 hours and 32.9% by 6 hours post-treatment, was 2.8-11.1% 

from 24 hours to 120 days, and was not detected following 120 days. In the water phase, the 

parent was initially 82.4% of the applied, decreased to 43.2% by 2 hours post-treatment, was 

4.8% at 24 hours, and was last detected at 1.2% at 7 days. In the water phase, the major 

degradate 482-HA was initially 6.8% (time 0) of the applied, increased to 26.8% by 2 hours posttreatment, was a maximum of 45.4% at 24 hours, was 14.4% at 42 days, and generally decreased 

to 0.8% by 182 days. The major degradate SAT-482-HA-2 was initially (hour 48) 0.6% of the 

applied, increased to 8.3% by 56 days post-treatment, and was a maximum of 16.2% at 182 days. 

Uncharacterized radioactivity (designated as the PH-polar fraction) was initially (hour 2) 21.6% 

of the applied radioactivity, was a maximum of 46.6% at 48 hours post-treatment, and generally 

decreased to 11.6% (5.6 ppb) by 182 days. Non-extractable [14C] residues in the soil were 10.6% 

of the applied at 7 days post-treatment, were 26.5% of the applied at 28 days, and increased to 

60.4% by 182 days. Same degradates were detected in the second study in which 

tetrahydrophthaloyl ring-labeled [1,2-

14C]Flumioxazin was used.

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

The biotransformation of [phenyl14C]- and [tetrahydrophthaloyl14C]-labeled flumioxazin was 

studied in a pond water-clay sediment (water pH 8.4, organic carbon not reported; sediment pH 

6.4, organic matter 5.0%) from Mississippi for 360 days under anaerobic conditions in darkness 

at 25 ± 1 C. [14C]Residues appeared to rapidly partition into the sediment, in both labels. 

However, over the course of the study, the partitioning was variable in the [phenyl14C]-label, 

with the majority of the radioactivity in the sediment at 360 days, while radioactivity in the 

sediment of the [THP14C]-labeled flumioxazin steadily declined, with the majority of the 

radioactivity in the water at 360 days. In the [phenyl14C]-flumioxazin, the water:sediment ratio 

was approximately 1:3 from 0 to 7 hours, 1:1 at 1 to 3 days, 1:3 at 21 days, and finally 1:5 at 360 

days (study termination). In [THP14C]-flumioxazin, the water:sediment ratio was approximately 

1:3 at 0 to 7 hours, 1:1 at 1 to 21days, 1:0.5 at 42 days, and finally 1:0.3 at 360 days (MRID 

45914602). 

In the [phenyl14C]flumioxazin solutions, flumioxazin in the total system decreased from 98.7% 

of the applied at time 0, to 89.0% at 7 hours, 41.9% at 1 day, 24.1% at 10 days, 2.6% at 59 days, 

and was 0.48% at 360 days (study termination). In the water layer, [14C]flumioxazin was 20.7-
Page | 16

26.2% at 0-7 hours, 9.5% at 1 day, 5.3% at 7 days, 1.0% at 21 days, and not detected thereafter. 

In sediment extracts, [14C]flumioxazin decreased from 74.1% at time 0, 68.3% at 7 hours, 32.4% 

at 1 day, 20.2% at 10 days, 8.6% at 42 days, 0.48% at 360 days. Three major transformation 

products were identified, 6-amino-7-fluoro-4-(2-propenyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin (APF), dihydroAPF (DAPF) and SAT-482-HA. APF was detected in the water layer, sediment and total system 

at maximums of 49.1% of the applied (2 days), 19.3% (21 days) and 59.2% (2 days), 

respectively, and was not detected at 360 days. DAPF was detected in the water, sediment and 

total system at maximums of 8.88% of the applied (268 days), 13.5% (360 days) and 20.7-20.9% 

(268-360 days). SAT-482-HA was detected in the water, sediment and total system at 

maximums of 8.60% (59 days), 8.97% (182 days) and 16.9% (182 days), respectively, and was 

6.62%, 4.04% and 10.7%, respectively, at study termination (360 days). One minor unknown 

polar transformation product, UP-3, was reportedly detected only in the sediment at a maximum 

at 5.5% of the applied at 42 days. The peak, UP-1, was detected only in the sediment, and was 

not a single compound and contained at least 14 compounds 4.2%; at days 59 and 120 the 

largest peaks were Peak 4 (retention time 30.3 minutes) at a maximum of 4.2% of the applied 

and Peak 3 (retention time 19.4 minutes) at a maximum 1.7% of the applied, respectively. 

“Others” was detected in the water, sediment and total system at maximums of 4.64% of the 

applied (3 days), 5.48% (360 days) and 8.34% (3 days). Extractable sediment [14C]residues 

decreased from 76.3% of the applied at time 0 to 45.4% at 1 day, and 32.9% at 360 days, while 

nonextractable residues increased from 1.37% at time 0 to 2.08 at 1 day, and 48.3% at 360 days. 

Organic matter fractionation of 7-360 day extracted sediment found 8.01-43.1% and 2.80-8.29% 

of the applied associated with the humin and fulvic acids, respectively. Formation of volatilized 

14CO2 was not significant totaling 0.25% of the applied at study termination; CH4 was 0.25% of 

the applied at study termination. 

In the [THP14C]flumioxazin, flumioxazin in the total system decreased from 90.4% of the 

applied at time 0, to 85.7% at 7 hours, 38.5% at 1 day, 12.1% at 21 days, 0.4% at 268-360 days. 

In the water layer, [14C]flumioxazin was 18.4% at time 0, 16.8% at 7 hours, 9.1% at 1 day, 3.7% 

at 7 days, 0.7% at 21 days and not detected thereafter. In sediment extracts, [14C]flumioxazin 

decreased from 72.0% at time 0 to 68.9% at 7 hours, 29.4% at 1 day, 11.4% at 21 days, 4.6% at 

42 days, 0.4% at 268-360 days. Two major transformation products were identified THPA and 

HPA. THPA was detected in the water layer, sediment and total system at maximums of 41.9% 

of the applied, 7.6% and 49.5% on day 1, respectively, and was not detected after 59 days. HPA 

was detected in the water, sediment and total system at maximums of 72.8% of the applied (360 

days), 17.0% (42 days) and 78.4-85.9% (182-360 days). Two minor transformation products 

were identified, 1-OH-HPA and SAT-482-HA. 1-OH-HPA was detected in only in the water at 

a maximum of 4.71-4.76% (7-21 days). SAT-482-HA was detected in the water, sediment and 

total system at maximums of 5.57% of the applied (268 days), 3.80% (42 to 59 days) and 8.65% 

(268 days). A polar unknown, TU-1, was detected only in the sediment at a maximum of 5.5% 

(10 days) of the applied. “Others” was detected in the water, sediment and total system at 

maximums of 3.95% of the applied (7 days), 4.23% (10 days) and 8.06% (10 days). Extractable 

sediment [14C]residues decreased from 80.4% of the applied at time 0 to 19.4-19.6% at 268-360 

days, while nonextractable residues were 1.67-7.19% during the 360 study period. No data was 

provided for organic matter fractionation. Formation of volatilized 14CO2 was not significant at 

2.61% of the applied at 268 days; CH4 was 1.38% of the applied at study termination.
Page | 17

Based on first-order linear regression analysis, flumioxazin in the total system (combined labels) 

dissipated with a calculated half-life of 42.8 days; the individual half-lives were 45.9 and 40.1 

days for the phenyl and THP labels (0-360 days), respectively. 

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism

The biotransformation of [phenyl-U14C]- and [tetrahydrophthaloyl (THP)-1,2-

14C]-labeled 

flumioxazin was studied in stream water-clay loam sediment (water pH 7.80, dissolved organic 

carbon 16.8 mg/L; sediment pH 7.28-7.7, organic carbon 8.0%) and lake water-sandy clay loam 

sediment (water pH 6.32, dissolved organic carbon 16.9 mg/L; sediment pH 5.3-6.4, organic 

carbon 3.6%) systems from the United Kingdom for 98 days under aerobic conditions in 

darkness at 20 2 C. Flumioxazin dissipated at similar rates in the two sediment systems. 

Calculated nonlinear half-lives were 2 hours, 42-53 days and 3-5 days in the water layers, 

sediments and total systems, respectively. In general, the chromatographic profiles for each label 

were qualitatively and quantitatively similar for the two systems (MRID 47761801). 

Clay loam sediment systems (labels combined). Following application of [14C]flumioxazin to 

the water layer, mean (n = 2) distribution ratios (water:sediment) were 8:1 at day 0, 2:1 at 7 days, 

1:1 at 14 days, 1:2 at 29 days, 1:3 at 60 days and 1:4 at study termination. Flumioxazin in the 

total system decreased from a mean 80.81% of the applied at day 0 to 21.17% at 7 days, 9.72% 

at 60 days and was 5.23% at study termination. In the water layer, flumioxazin decreased from 

70.32% at day 0 to 2.10-3.31% at 7-14 days, 1.20% at 29 days and was 0.34-0.49% at 60-98 

days. In the sediment, flumioxazin increased from 10.50% at day 0 to 19.07% at 7 days, and 

then was 9.38% at 60 days and 4.75% at study termination. In the system treated with the phenyl 

label, APF was detected at maximums (n = 1) of 42.02%, 4.99% and 47.01% of the applied in 

the water layer, sediment and total system, respectively, at 7 days, decreasing to 4.08%, 2.40% 

and 6.48%, respectively, at study termination. In the system treated with the THP label, THPA + 

Δ

1

TPA were detected at combined maximums of 49.16%, 18.60% and 65.81% in the water layer, 

sediment and total system, respectively, at 7-14 days, decreasing to 5.71%, 1.26% and 6.97%, 

respectively, at study termination. SAT-482-HA-2 was detected at maximums of 5.55% (98 

days), 7.01% (60 days) and 12.13% (98 days) in the water layer, sediment and total system, 

respectively. IMOXA was detected at maximums of 2.72%, 4.06% and 5.65% in the water 

layer, sediment and total system, respectively. 482-HA was detected only in the water layer at a 

maximum 0.56%. SAT-482 was detected (TLC) at maximums of 0.79%, 0.46% and 1.25% in 

the water layer, sediment and total system, respectively. Unk@23.8 was detected at maximums 

of 21.82% in the water layer and total system, but only 1.67% in the sediment. Unk@5.5 was 

detected at maximums of 5.59%, 3.17% and 8.76% in the water layer, sediment and total system, 

respectively. Extractable sediment [14C]residues were similar for both labels and increased from 

a mean 11.35% of the applied at day 0 to a maximum 33.75% at 14 days and were 17.45% at 

study termination. Nonextractable sediment [14C]residues increased from ≤0.10% at day 0 (both 

labels) to maximums of 61.30% and 28.90% for the phenyl- and THP-label treated systems, 

respectively, at study termination. Organic matter fractionation of 60-day extracted sediment 

found 22.90%, 8.40% and 14.10% of the applied associated with the humin, fulvic acids and 

humic acids, respectively, for phenyl-label treated systems, and 6.20%, 13.70% and 7.30%, 

respectively, for THP-label systems. Partition of the 60-day fulvic acids found 77.38-93.43% 

and 6.57-22.62% of the sample radioactivity associated with the aqueous and organic phases, 

respectively.
Page | 18

Sandy clay loam sediment systems (labels combined). Following application of 

[

14C]flumioxazin to the water layer, mean (n = 2) distribution ratios (water:sediment) were 9:1 at 

day 0, 3:1 at 7 days, 2:1 at 14 days, 1:1 at 29 days, 1:6 at 60 days and 1:15 at study termination. 

Flumioxazin in the total system decreased from a mean 84.26% of the applied at day 0 to 12.04% 

at 7 days, 10.88% at 60 days and was 4.68% at study termination. In the water layer, 

flumioxazin decreased from 74.49% at day 0 to 2.22-2.84% at 7-14 days, 1.13% at 60 days and 

was not detected at study termination. In the sediment, flumioxazin increased from 9.77% at day 

0 to 15.57% at 29 days, then was 9.75% at 60 days and 4.68% at study termination. In the 

system treated with the phenyl label, APF was detected at maximums (n = 1) of 57.68% of the 

applied in the water layer and total system at 7 days, decreasing to 2.95%, 4.90% and 7.85% in

the water layer, sediment and total system, respectively, at 14 days, and was in the water layer 

only at 0.50-1.19% at 60-98 days. In the system treated with the THP label, THPA + Δ1TPA 

were detected at combined maximums of 62.82%, 13.49% and 73.91% in the water layer, 

sediment and total system, respectively, at 7-14 days, decreasing to 2.40%, 0.26% and 2.66%, 

respectively, at 60 days, and was in the water layer only at 0.68% at study termination. SAT482-HA-2 was detected at maximums of 4.34%, 5.23% and 9.57% in the water layer, sediment 

and total system, respectively. IMOXA was detected at maximums of 1.62%, 1.72% and 3.34% 

in the water layer, sediment and total system, respectively. 482-CA was detected only in the 

water layer at a maximum 1.88%. SAT-482 was detected (TLC) at maximums of 0.14%, 0.24% 

and 0.29% in the water layer, sediment and total system, respectively. Unk@23.8 was detected 

at maximums of 6.76%, 3.41% and 8.92% in the water layer, sediment and total system, 

respectively. Unk@5.5 was detected at maximums of 17.25%, 2.74% and 18.30% in the water 

layer, sediment and total system, respectively. Extractable sediment [14C]residues were similar 

for both labels and increased from a mean 10.25% of applied at day 0 to a maximum 25.95% at 

29 days and were 12.75% at study termination. Nonextractable sediment [14C]residues increased 

from 0.10% at day 0 (both labels) to a maximum 60.00% at study termination for the phenyllabel treated systems, but were a maximum 58.00% at 60 days for the THP-label treated systems, 

decreasing to 47.00% at 98 days. Organic matter fractionation of 60-day extracted sediment 

found 18.40%, 14.20% and 19.10% of the applied associated with the humin, fulvic acids and 

humic acids, respectively, for phenyl-label treated systems, and 4.90%, 46.70% and 5.70%, 

respectively, for THP-label systems. Partition of the 60-day fulvic acids found 83.80-95.50% 

and 4.50-16.20% of the sample radioactivity associated with the aqueous and organic phases, 

respectively.

5. Sorption and Soil Column Leaching

Mobility of Flumioxazin 

The potential for the parent compound to migrate into ground water and to move with surface 

runoff water is very low. Based on the organic carbon adsorption coefficients (Koc) obtained 

from the column leaching study, flumioxazin is classified as a chemical with “moderately 

mobile” soil mobility potential (mean Koc = 557) (MRID 42684907, 42684908, 42684909 and 

42884010) (Table 4). 
Page | 19

Table 4. Adsorption coefficients for flumioxazin, estimated from column leaching studies.

Soil Kd Koc

Plainfield sand 0.5 271

California College sandy loam 0.8 112

Mississippi silt loam 7.7 1,190

Kewaunee clay loam 19.3 656

Flumioxazin is classified between “non-volatile“ and “intermediate to high volatility” on dry and 

non-adsorbing surfaces under field conditions, based on its vapor pressure (2.4x10-6 mmHg at 

22C). Since this chemical is applied to the soil surface by the band or broadcast method without 

subsequent incorporation, volatilization could play a role in the dissipation of the chemical in the 

environment.

Mobility of 482-HA, APF and THPA 

No mobility information of 482-HA were available, based on its chemical structure, this 

degradate is expected to be more mobile in the alkaline environment than in the acidic 

environment. Since 482-HA was found in the pH 7 hydrolysis study at a level much lower than 

the other two degradates (APF and THPA), additional adsorption study for 482-HA is not 

needed. 

According to the adsorption studies (MRID 45303201 and 453032202), degradates APF and 

THPA are classified “moderately mobile” (Table 5).

 

Table 5. Adsorption coefficients for two degradates of flumioxazin.

Soil Type (Soil number)

APF THPA

Kd Koc Kd Koc

Sandy loam 2.8 336 0.1 13

Loam 4.2 391 2.7 248

Sandy loam 6.0 502 0.8 66

Sandy loam 1.6 620 0.9 339

Loam (sediment) 4.9 201 1.8 75

Clay n/a n/a 5.3 191

The mobility of phenyl ring-labeled [U14C]6-amino-7-fluoro-4-(2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-

benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (APF), a degradate of Flumioxazin, at nominal concentrations of 0.047-

0.048, 0.13, 0.24-0.25, and 0.48-0.51 μg/mL, was investigated in four soils (three sandy loam 

and one loam) and one sediment that were equilibrated for 4, 16 or 17 hours (soils) or 24 hours 

(sediment) at 25 oC. Freundlich Kads values were 1.611-5.970 for the sandy loam soils, 4.218 for 

the loam soil, and 4.907 for the sediment; corresponding 1/n values ranged from 0.780 to 0.988. 

Koc values were 336-620 for the sandy loam soils, 391 for the loam soil, and 201 for the 

sediment. Freundlich Kdes values were 5.315-18.672 for the sandy loam soils, 6.334-7.608 for 

the loam soil, and 10.214 for the sediment; corresponding l/n values ranged from 0.609 to 0.933. 

Reviewer-calculated coefficients of determinations (r2) values for Kads vs. percent organic matter, 

Kads vs. pH, and Kads vs. percent clay content were 0.221, 0.408, and 0.028, respectively. 

Freundlich Kdes values were 5.315-18.672 for the sandy loam soils, 6.334-7.608 for the loam soil, 

and 10.214 for the sediment; corresponding 1/n values ranged from 0.609 to 0.966. Reviewercalculated coefficients of determination (r2

) values for Kads vs. percent organic matter, Kads vs. 
Page | 20

pH, and Kads vs. percent clay content were 0.221, 0.408, and 0.028, respectively. [14C]APF was 

stable in the soil/sediment slurries during the adsorption equilibration phase, but degraded in two 

sandy loam soils and the loam soil during the desorption equilibration phase, comprising 54.5-

89.2% of the radioactivity recovered. 

The mobility of [1,2-

14C]THPA, at nominal concentrations of 0.026-0.027, 0.06-0.07, 0.13, and 

0.26-0.27 ug/mL, was investigated in five soils (three sandy loam, one loam, and one clay) and 

one sediment that were equilibrated for 4-8 or 48 hours at 25 oC. The soil:solution ratios were 

2:7 for the sandy loam soils, 1:8 for the loam and clay soils, and 1:7.9 for the sediment. 

Freundlich Kads values were 0.108-0.866 for the sandy loam soils, 2.688 for the loam soil, 5.261 

for the clay soil, and 1.836 for the sediment; corresponding 1/n values ranged from 0.895 to 

1.015. Koc values were 13-339 for the sandy loam soils, 248 for the loam soil, 191 for the clay 

soi;l, and 75 for the sediment, ranging from 13 to 339 for all soil/sediment types and 1/n values 

ranged from 0.895 to 1.015. Freundlich Kdes values were 0.179-1.135 for the sandy loam soils, 

4.186 for the loam soil, 6.971 for the clay soil, and 2.870 for the sediment; corresponding l/n 

values ranged from 0.641 to 0.949. Reviewer-calculated coefficients of determinations (r2) 

values for Kads vs. percent organic matter, Kads vs. pH, and Kads vs. percent clay content were 

0.446, 0.36, and 0.205, respectively.

6. Terrestrial Field Dissipation

Based on the findings in the environmental fate laboratory studies, the major routes of 

dissipation of flumioxazin in the environment appear to be rapid hydrolysis, photolysis, and 

metabolism of the parent compound.

Six field dissipation studies were included in the evaluation of the fate of flumioxazin in the 

environment.

Mississippi Field Dissipation Study in 1996 (MRID 44295045)

Flumioxazin (Sumisoya®; V-53482 WDG, 50.9% a.i.), broadcast applied once as a spray at a 

nominal application rate of 42.5 g a.i./A, dissipated with a half-life of 10.3 days (r2= 0.97) on a 

plot of silt loam soil planted with soybeans (the day after application) in Mississippi. In the 0- to 

7.5-cm depth, the parent was 0.070-0.071 ppm at 0-1 day post-treatment, decreased to 0.051 ppm 

by 5 days, was 0.031-0.032 ppm from 8 to 14 days, and was last detected at 0.011 ppm at 28 

days. The parent compound was not detected below the 0- to 7.5-cm depth. Samples were not 

analyzed for degradates of flumioxazin.

Illinois Field Dissipation Study in 1996 (MRID 44295044)

Flumioxazin (VP-53482 WP, 51.4% a.i.), broadcast applied once as a spray at a nominal 

application rate of 43.2 g a.i./A, dissipated with a half-life of 12.5 days (0-28 day data; r2= 0.85) 

on a no-till bare ground plot (containing crop residues) of silt loam soil in Illinois. The observed 

first half-life occurred between 3 and 7 or 14 days post-treatment. The parent compound was 

initially present in the 0- to 7.5-cm depth at 0.069 ppm, decreased to 0.064 ppm by 3 days and 

0.025 ppm by 7 days (the next sampling interval), was 0.029 ppm at 14 days, was 0.014-0.021 

ppm from 21 to 59 days, and was not detected above the limit of quantitation following 59 days 

with the exception of 0.011 ppm (one of three replicates) at 122 and 241 days. The parent 
Page | 21

compound was not detected above the limit of quantitation below the 0- to 7.5-cm depth. 

Samples were not analyzed for degradates of Flumioxazin.

Iowa Field Dissipation Study in 1996 (MRID 44295046)

Flumioxazin (VP-53482 WDG, 50.9% a.i.), broadcast applied once as a spray at a nominal 

application rate of 42.5 g a.i./A, dissipated with a half-life of 42.0 days (0-112 day data; r2= 

0.94) on a plot of silt loam soil planted with soybeans in Iowa. However, dissipation was 

observed to be biphasic and the apparent first half-life of the parent occurred between 21 and 28 

days post-treatment; data were variable over time. In the 0- to 7.5-cm depth, the parent 

compound was initially 0.062-0.066 ppm at 0-1 day post-treatment, was 0.054-0.057 ppm from 3 

to 7 days, decreased to 0.044 ppm by 14 days, then was 0.060 ppm at 21 days, was 0.029-0.020 

ppm from 28 to 56 days, was 0.013 ppm (two of three replicates) at 112 days, and was not 

detected following 112 days with the exception of 0.014 ppm (one of three replicates) at 336 

days. The parent compound was only detected once (day 14) in the 7.5- to 15-cm depth, at 0.012 

ppm (one of three replicates), and was not detected above the LOQ at any other sampling 

interval or depth. Samples were not analyzed for degradates of Flumioxazin.

North Carolina Field Lysimeter/Dissipation Study in 1996 (MRID 44295043)

Uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin, applied at a nominal application rate of 43.4 g 

a.i./A (0.348 mg/lysimeter) to lysimeter-enclosed bareground plots of Dothan loamy sand soil in 

Clayton, NC, dissipated with a half-life of 27 days (0-111 day data; r2= 0.97); the half-life was 

determined from the parent compound detected in the 0- to 3-inch depth only. However, the 

observed first half-life occurred between 17 and 27 days; only 32.4% of the applied remained as 

parent at 27 days. Dissipation was observed to be biphasic with the more rapid phase occurring 

through 111 days. Residue data were reported as parent equivalents. The parent compound was 

initially present in the 0- to 3-inch depth at 95.1% (0.102 ppm) of the applied radioactivity, was 

59.5% (0.064 ppm) at 17 days and 32.4% (0.035 ppm) at 27 days, decreased to 13.2% (0.014 

ppm) by 69 days, and was 5.1-5.5% (0.005-0.006 ppm) at 111-177 days. Unidentified 

radioactivity (designated as “Region 2"; fractions 15-22) was detected in the 0- to 3-inch depth at 

a maximum of 11.0-11.2% (0.012 ppm) from 17 to 43 days post-treatment, and was 6.0-6.4% 

(0.006 ppm) from 111 to 177 days; unidentified radioactivity consisted of multiple components, 

each of which was <0.01 ppm. Non-extractable [14C] residues were 6.5% (0.007 ppm) of the 

applied radioactivity at 6 days post-treatment, were 17.8% (0.019 ppm) at 17 days, and increased 

to 25.2-29.0% (0.027-0.031 ppm) by 43-177 days. Total [14C] residues were not detected above 

0.01 μg/g (designated the limit of analysis) below the 3-inch depth. [14C]Residues were not 

detected in the leachate samples and were only detected once in the run-off samples, at 0.02% 

(day 111) of the applied radioactivity. 

Indiana Field Lysimeter/Dissipation Study in 1996 (MRID 44295047) 

Uniformly phenyl ring-labeled [14C]Flumioxazin, applied as a pre-emergent at a nominal 

application rate of 45 g a.i./A (0.361 mg/lysimeter) to lysimeter-enclosed soybean plots of loam 

soil in Charlestown, IN, dissipated with a half-life of 4.8 days (0-16 day data; r2= 0.86); the halflife was determined only from the parent compound detected in the 0- to 3-inch depth. 

Dissipation was observed to be biphasic with the more rapid phase occurring through 16 days. 

The observed first half-life occurred between 0 and 2 days post-treatment. Concentration data 

were reported as parent equivalents. The parent compound was initially present in the 0- to 3-
Page | 22

inch depth at 88.5% (0.13 ppm) of the applied radioactivity, was 50.2% (0.060 ppm) at 2 days 

and 28.0-33.5% (0.032-0.045 ppm) from 5 to 9 days post-treatment, and was 0.9% (0.001 ppm) 

at 106 days. The minor degradates APF and 482-HA were detected at maximums of 8.2% 

(0.010 ppm, day 2) and 2.6% (0.004 ppm, day 0) of the applied radioactivity, respectively. The 

minor degradates 482-CA and IMOXA were present at 1.9% (0.002 ppm, days 2 to72) and 1.3% 

(0.001 ppm, days 2 to 106) of the applied radioactivity, respectively. Total [14C]residues were 

not detected above 0.01 ug/g (designated as the level of analysis) below the 3-inch depth. 

Nonextractable [14C]residues were initially 7.5% of the applied radioactivity, were 28.6% at 2 

days post-treatment, increased to 51.7% by 5 days, and were a maximum of 93.1% at 316 days.

California Field Lysimeter/Dissipation Study in 1999 (MRID 45375502) 

Soil dissipation/accumulation of N-(7-fluoro-3,4-dihydro-3-oxo-4-prop-2-ynyl-2H-1,4-

benzoxazin-6-yl)cyclohex-1-ene-1,2-dicarboxamide (Flumioxazin) under U.S. field conditions 

was conducted in a bare plot located within a mature walnut orchard at one site in Fresno, CA 

(ecoregion not reported). Flumioxazin was broadcast twice (30-day interval) onto bare soil at a 

target application of 0.420 kg a.i./ha/application (total application rate of 0.84 kg a.i./ha) in a 7.6 

x 97.5 m plot. Rainfall was supplemented with irrigation to reach 554% of the 30-year average 

rainfall. The control plot was located approximately 15.2 m away from the treated plot.

Soil samples were taken at 0 and 29 days following the first application and at 0, 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 

28, 42, 60, 90, 120, 181, 239, and 365 days following the second application to a depth of 0-90 

cm. Soil samples were extracted with acetone: 0.1N hydrochloric acid (5:1, v:v), partitioned into 

dichloromethane, cleaned up using florisil column chromatography, and analyzed for 

Flumioxazin by gas chromatography using a nitrogen-phosphorus detector. Soil samples were 

not analyzed for any degradates of Flumioxazin. The LOQ was 0.01 ppm and the LOD was 

0.005 ppm. Samples were stored frozen for up to 375 days prior to analysis.

The measured zero-time concentration of Flumioxazin in the 0-7.5 cm soil depth following the 

first application was 0.426 mg a.i./kg, which is 95.7% of the applied rate (reviewer-calculated 

based on a theoretical concentration of 0.445 mg/kg in the 7.5-cm soil depth). Flumioxazin 

dissipated to 0.053 mg a.i./kg (0-7.5 cm soil depth) by 29 days after the first application (one day 

prior to the second application). Following the second application, Flumioxazin dissipated from 

a mean maximum concentration of 0.484 mg a.i./kg at 1 day after the second application to 0.298 

mg a.i./kg by 10 days and 0.083 mg a.i./kg by 14 days, and was last detected at 0.015 mg a.i./kg 

at 239 days after the second application in the 0-7.5 cm soil depth. Flumioxazin was detected in 

the 7.5-15 cm soil layer at a mean maximum concentration of 0.049 mg a.i./kg immediately 

following the first application and was last detected above the LOQ at 0.037 mg/kg at 10 days 

after the second application. Flumioxazin was only detected above the LOQ once in the 15-30 

cm soil layer, and was not detected above the LOD below that depth. 

Under field conditions at the test site, flumioxazin had a half-life value of 12.5 days. 

Flumioxazin was last detected in the soil above the LOD at the 239-day posttreatment sampling 

interval and does not have the potential to carryover. The major route of dissipation of 

Flumioxazin under terrestrial field conditions could not be determined because no transformation 

products were reported, the parent compound did not leach below 15 cm (with one exception), 

and volatilization and run-off were not studied. 
Page | 23

7. Aquatic Field Dissipation

The aquatic field dissipation of flumioxazin (MRID 47550605) was studied using an unspecified

size pond at one site in Iowa (average depth not specified; volume, 2.54 acre/ft) and a 0.469-acre 

pond at one site in Florida (average depth, 4 ft; volume, 1.88 acre/ft). Water and sediment 

samples were collected from each test site at 0-2 hours, 12-14 hours, and at approximately 1, 3, 

5, 7, 14, 28, 60, and 90 days posttreatment. Pond water samples were collected at three depths: at 

1 foot below the water surface, at mid depth, and at 1 foot above the pond bottom. Sediment 

samples were collected to a depth of 10 cm. Upon collection of pond water samples, two 100-mL 

samples were prepared from each composite sample, with one set of samples mixed with 10 mL 

of 100 mM pH 5 buffer solution. Acidified samples were used for the analysis of flumioxazin, 

and unaltered samples were used for the analysis of the transformation products APF and 482-

HA. However, the major degradate (THPA) detected in the hydrolysis study was not determined 

in this aquatic field dissipation study. Results from the Iowa site are presented below.

Flumioxazin was detected in the pond water at a maximum mean concentration of 233 ppb 

(58.3% of the target rate; reviewer-calculated) at 0-2 hours (top depth), and decreased to 135 ppb 

by 12-14 hours (top depth), 121 ppb by 1 day (top depth), 46.6 ppb by 3 days (mid depth), 24.6 

ppb by 5 days (bottom depth), 15.6 ppb by 7 days (bottom depth), and was last detected above 

the LOQ at 2.21 ppb (mean of two replicate detections) at 28 days posttreatment (bottom depth). 

The transformation product 482-HA was detected in the pond water at a maximum mean 

concentration of 320 ppb at 0-2 hours (top depth), and decreased to 277 ppb by 12-14 hours (top 

depth), 239 ppb by 1 day (top depth), 96.2 ppb by 3 days (mid depth), 46.9 ppb by 5 days 

(bottom depth), 32.9 ppb by 7 days (mid depth), 12.4 ppb at 14 days (bottom depth), and was last 

detected above the LOQ at 3.31 ppb at 28 days posttreatment (bottom depth). 482-HA had a 

reviewer-calculated linear, first-order half-life value of 4.9 days (r2= 0.9358), and a nonlinear 

(one-compartment/two-parameter) half-live value of 2.6 days (r2= 0.9835) in pond water, 

calculated based on the reviewer-calculated means across all sampling depths (0-28 day data). 

The transformation product APF was detected in the pond water at a maximum mean 

concentration of 15.8 ppb at 0-2 hours (top depth), and decreased to 11.4 ppb by 12-14 hours 

(top depth), 10.8 ppb by 1 day (top depth), 4.18 ppb (mean of two replicate detections) by 3 days 

(bottom depth), 3.44 ppb by 5 days (bottom depth), 1.99 ppb by 7 days (bottom depth), and was 

last detected above the LOQ at 1.21 ppb (mean of two replicate detections) at 28 days 

posttreatment (bottom depth). APF had a reviewer-calculated linear, first-order half-life value of 

10.5 days (r2= 0.6330), and a nonlinear (one-compartment/two-parameter) half-live value of 2.7 

days (r2= 0.9738) in pond water, calculated based on the reviewer-calculated means across all 

sampling depths (0-28 day data).

Flumioxazin was detected in the pond sediment (0-10 cm depth) at concentrations above the 

LOQ at two sampling intervals only, at a mean concentration of 25.4 ppb (mean of two replicate 

detections) at 12-14 hours and 17.7 ppb at 1 day posttreatment. The transformation product 482-

HA was detected in the pond sediment at a maximum mean concentration of 29.4 ppb (mean of 

two replicate detections) at 12-14 hours, and decreased to 23.5 ppb by 1 day, 12.0-13.9 ppb 

(single replicate detections) by 3-5 days, and was last detected above the LOQ at 16.2 ppb (mean 

of two replicate detections) at 7 days posttreatment. 482-HA had a reviewer-calculated linear, 
Page | 24

first-order half-life value of 3.3 days (r2= 0.0798), and a nonlinear (one-compartment/twoparameter) half-live value of 2.5 days (r2

= 0.6342) in pond sediment, based on all replicate 

concentration data which occur on intervals with replicate values above the LOQ (0.5-7 days; 

replicate values below the LOQ were assumed at 1⁄2 LOQ). The transformation product APF was 

not detected in the pond sediment above the LOQ at any sampling intervals. 

8. Bioconcentration (BCF)

The Agency granted the registrant‟s waiver request because: 1) the observed octanol/water 

partition coefficient is smaller than 1,000 (log Kow = 2.55); and 2) degradation is quick in water 

with a half-life of about one day at pH 7 and about 20 minutes at pH of 9. Based on the low 

octanol water partition coefficient (Kow =355), Flumioxazin is not expected to accumulate in 

fish. 

According to a fish residue study (MRID 47550604) reviewed by RD, BCFs between the edible 

tissue in Bluegill and Catfish and the static water treated with 800 ppb flumioxazin during the 

seven samplings in the exposure period of 28 days ranged from 0.09-4.1 for flumioxazin, 0.2-1.3 

for APF, and 0.04-2.6 for 482-HA.

9. Method Validation

The method validation for the determination of flumioxazin and its transformation products APF

and 482-HA in pond water and pond sediment was performed by EPL Bio-Analytical Services 

(MRID 47550603). Flumioxazin and its transformation products were applied separately to 

pond water (10 mL) at 1 and 10 ppb, and to sediment (20 g) at 10 ppb (LOQ level) and 100 ppb 

(10x the LOQ level). Residues of flumioxazin in water were determined with the addition of pH 

5 buffer. 

In pond water, average method recoveries (n = 5) at the LOQ level of 1 ppb for flumioxazin, 

APF, and 482-HA were 89.6 ± 4.7%, 106 ± 11.5%, and 103 ± 3.86%, respectively; at the 10x 

LOQ level of 10 ppb, average method recoveries (n = 5) were 77.7 ± 5.22%, 98.5 ± 10.1%, and 

100 ± 2.98%, respectively. Overall average method recoveries (n = 10) for flumioxazin, APF, 

and 482-HA were 83.7 ± 7.82% (range 69.5-91.7%), 102 ± 11.0% (range 86.5-118%), and 102 ± 

3.60% (range 95.9-107%), respectively. All relative standard deviations were <20% (range 2.97-

10.8%).

In pond sediment, average method recoveries (n = 5) at the LOQ level of 10 ppb for flumioxazin, 

APF, and 482-HA were 84.1 ± 8.38%, 93.9 ± 9.10%, and 89.3 ± 10.0%, respectively; at the 10x 

LOQ level of 100 ppb, average method recoveries (n = 5) were 109 ± 7.33%, 106 ± 5.41%, and 

120 ± 3.79%, respectively. Overall average method recoveries (n = 10) for flumioxazin, APF, 

and 482-HA were 96.7 ± 15.1% (range 72.1-117%), 100 ± 9.52% (range 81.4-113%), and 105 ± 

17.8% (range 81.2-126%), respectively. All relative standard deviations were <20% (range 3.16-

17.0%).
Page | 25

10. Degradate Profile and Metabolism Pathways

Twelve major degradates were detected in various laboratory abiotic and biotic fate studies. 

These major degradates are 482-A, APF, THPA, Δ-TPA, adipic acid, 482-PHO, 482-PHO-ISO, 

482-PHO-DC, SAT-482-HA-2, DAPF, SAT-482-HA, HPA, and combined residues of THPA+ 

Δ-TPA. Some of these major degradates decreased to relatively low levels at the end of the 

studies. Since flumioxazin is relatively unstable to hydrolysis, especially in alkaline media (halflives = 4.2, 1, and 0.01 days, respectively, at pH 5, 7, and 9), it is considered as the major route 

of dissipation in the environment. As a result, its three major degradates (APF, THPA, and 482-

HA) and the subsequent degradates detected in other fate studies will be assessed in Registration 

Review. 

Two metabolism pathways in the aquatic environment were proposed. Under the anaerobic 

aquatic metabolism environment, Flumioxazin degraded rapidly via hydrolysis of the 

phthalimide group to form 482-HA which further degraded to THPA and APF. A second 

degradation pathway proceeded via reduction of the cyclohexene double bond in 482-HA to 

form SAT-482-HA. The author also stated that it was possible, but unlikely that reduction 

preceded hydrolysis. THPA degraded to HPA by reduction of the double bond in THPA or 

hydrolyzed (Michael type reaction) to 1-OH-HPA. The side chain alkyne in APF was reduced to

DAPF. Degradation continued to form multiple polar fragments, sediment-bound residues, 

methane and CO2 (Figure 2).

Under the aerobic aquatic metabolism environment, the primary pathway involved hydrolytic 

cleavage and separation of the phthalimido and benzoxazin moieties at the amine bridge to yield 

APF and THPA. Other products identified included Δ-TPA, SAT-482-HA-2, IMOXA, 482-HA, 

482-CA, and SAT-482. Mineralization to CO2 occurred with both moieties, but was most 

significant with the phthalimido moiety. Formation of bound sediment residues was significant 

for both moieties. 

IV. Receptors

Acute and chronic toxicity data from studies submitted by pesticide registrants along with the 

available open literature are used to evaluate the potential direct and indirect effects of 

flumioxazin on aquatic and terrestrial receptors. This includes toxicity data on the technical 

grade active ingredient, degradates, and when available, formulated products (e.g. “Six-Pack” 

studies). The open literature studies are identified using EPA‟s ECOTOX database (USEPA 

2007a), which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic 

life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity 

data and potential chemical mixture toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife.

ECOTOX was created and is maintained by the USEPA, Office of Research and Development, 

and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Mid-Continent 

Ecology Division. The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct 

and indirect effects of flumioxazin on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive 

to the chemical and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected 

communities. 
Page | 26

Figure 2. Proposed degradation pathway of flumioxazin in an aquatic anaerobic metabolism system (MRID 

45914602).

Consistent with the process described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), the Agency 

has routinely relied on a surrogate species approach. Toxicological data generated from 

surrogate test species, which are intended to be representative of broad taxonomic groups, have 
Page | 27

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

these taxonomic groups. For example, guideline data for freshwater fish have typically served as 

surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians and submitted studies for birds have served as 

surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. For the purposes of Registration 

Review, the Agency will consider the best available data in an effort to provide additional 

refined endpoints for specified taxonomic groups for which guideline data on surrogate species 

are typically not available and large numbers of listed species occur. These taxa include aquaticphase and terrestrial-phase amphibians, freshwater mollusks, and reptiles. Based on an updated 

ECOTOX search, which will be conducted as part of the Registration Review preliminary risk 

assessment, EPA will consider both more and less sensitive endpoints for amphibians, freshwater 

mollusks, and reptiles, as compared to the registrant-submitted data for surrogate species (i.e., 

freshwater fish are surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians, freshwater invertebrates are 

surrogates for freshwater mollusks, and birds are surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and 

reptiles) In situations where no additional open literature data are available to refine endpoints 

for amphibians, freshwater mollusks, and reptiles, the Agency will rely on registrant-submitted 

data and open literature for surrogate test species, as specified above.

The ECOTOX database was searched and a preliminary report prepared in March 2010. A 

number of studies were identified related to both wildlife and plants. A bibliography of the 

accepted and rejected papers can be found in Appendix 1. 

Table 6 provides a summary of the aquatic taxonomic groups and the surrogate species tested to 

characterize the potential acute and chronic ecological effects of flumioxazin. Table 7 provides 

a summary of the terrestrial groups and surrogate species. In addition, the tables provide a 

preliminary overview of the potential toxicity of flumioxazin as well as the study classifications.

Table 6. Most sensitive test species evaluated for assessing potential ecological effects of flumioxazin and the 

associated acute toxicity classification.

Exposure 

Scenario

Species Scientific Name Exposure 

Duration

Toxicity 

Reference 

Value (ppm)

Endpoints 

Affected

Reference

(Classification)

Freshwater Fish

Acute Rainbow 

Trout

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss 96 hours LC50: 2.3 Mortality 426849-48(Acceptable)

Chronic

Rainbow 

Trout

Oncorhynchus 

mykiss

NOAEC: 

0.0077, 

LOAEC: 

0.016

Growth (length 

and wt.)

442950-12

(Acceptable)

Freshwater Invertebrate

Acute Waterflea Daphnia pulex 96 hours LC50: 5.5 Mortality 426849-50

(Supplemental)

Chronic Waterflea Daphnia 

magna

21 days NOAEC: 

0.028, 

LOAEC: 

0.057

Reproduction, 

survival, growth

442950-11

(Acceptable)

Estuarine Fish

Acute Sheepshead 

Minnow

Cyprinodon 

variegatus

96 hours LC50: >4.7 Mortality 442950-10

(Acceptable)

Chronic Data Gap

Estuarine Invertebrates

Acute Mysid 

Shrimp

Mysidopsis 

bahia

96 hours LC50: 0.23 Mortality 442950-09

(Acceptable)

Chronic Mysid Mysidopsis 21 days NOAEC: Reproduction, 442950-13
Page | 28

Shrimp bahia 0.015, 

LOAEC: 

0.027

survival, growth (Acceptable)

Aquatic Plants

NonVascular

Freshwater

Green 

Algae

Pseudokirchneriell

a subcapitata

EC50: 

0.00102, 

NOAEC: 

0.00079

442950-31

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

Diatom

Navicula 

pelliculosa

EC 50: 

0.0014, 

NOAEC: 

0.000041

442950-32

(Acceptable)

Marine 

Diatom

Skeletonema 

costatum

EC50: 

0.0192, 

NOAEC: 

0.0019

442950-33

(Acceptable)

Freshwater 

Blue-green 

Algae

Anabaena 

flosaquae

EC50: 

0.00083, 

NOAEC: 

0.000022

442950-34

(Acceptable)

Vascular Duckweed Lemna gibba 14 days EC50: 

0.00049, 

NOAEC: 

0.00022

442950-35

(Acceptable)

Table 7. Flumioxazin toxicity reference values for terrestrial organisms.

Exposure 

Scenario

Species Scientific 

Name

Exposure 

Duration

Toxicity 

Reference 

Value

Effects Reference

(Classification)

Mammals

Acute Laboratory 

Rat

Rattus 

norvegicus Acute Oral >5000 Mortality

426849-11

426849-12

Chronic

Laboratory 

Rat

Rattus 

norvegicus

2-generation 

reproduction

NOAEL: 100

LOAEL: 200

Number of 

liveborn pups, 

decreased pup 

weights, 

reproductive 

organ 

abnormalities

426849-34

426849-35

426849-36

Birds

Acute 

(Dosebased)

Bobwhite 

Quail

Colinus 

virginianus

>2250 Mortality 426849-45

(Acceptable)

Acute 

(Dietarybased)

Bobwhite 

Quail

Colinus 

virginianus >5620 Mortality 426849-47(Acceptable)

Chronic

Mallard 

Duck

Anas 

platyrhynchos

21 weeks

Reproduction

NOAEC: 250, 

LOAEC: 500

Reductions in 

viable 

embryos and 

live 3wk 

embryos

442950-05

(Acceptable)

Nontarget Insect 

Acute 

Contact 

Toxicity

Honey Bee Apis mellifera 48 hours >105 μg/bee Mortality 426849-51

(Acceptable)

Plants

Seedling 

Emergence

Ryegrass

(Monocot)

Lolium 

perenne

21 days EC25: 0.0037 

lb ai/A, 

NOAEL: 0.003 

lb ai/A

Dry weight 442950-29

(Acceptable)
Page | 29

Lettuce

(Dicot)

Lactuca 

sativa

21 days EC25: 0.0008 

lb ai/A, 

NOAEL: 

0.0004 lb ai/A

Dry weight 442950-29

(Acceptable)

Vegetative 

Vigor

Oat

(Monocot)

Avena sativa 21 days EC25: 0.0071 

lb ai/A, 

NOAEL: 0.006 

lb ai/A

Dry weight 442950-30

(Acceptable)

Cucumber

(Dicot)

Cucumis 

sativus

21 days EC25: 0.00008 

lb ai/A, 

NOAEL: 

0.00005 lb ai/A

Phytotoxicity 442950-30

(Acceptable)

A. Effects to Aquatic Animals

1. Freshwater Fish

In acute toxicity studies conducted on coldwater and warmwater species, the 96-hour LC50

values for the technical grade material ranged from 2.3 to > 21 ppm, suggesting that Flumioxazin 

will be moderately to slightly toxic to freshwater fish on an acute basis. An early life-stage 

toxicity test conducted on rainbow trout shows that flumioxazin significantly affected larval 

growth (length and weight) at concentrations with a LOAEC of 16.0 ppb and a no-effect level of 

7.7 ppb. 

2. Freshwater Invertebrates

Acute toxicity studies conducted on freshwater aquatic invertebrates suggest that the active 

ingredient of flumioxazin is moderately toxic on an acute basis. The 48-hour LC50 or EC50 value

was 5.5 mg/L. The chronic data indicate that flumioxazin significantly reduced reproduction at 

concentrations equal to a LOAEC of 57 ppb and a NOAEC of 28 ppb and survival and growth 

(length and weight) at concentrations equal to 107 ppb (LOAEC) and 57 ppb (NOAEC).

3. Estuarine/Marine Fish

Testing on sheepshead minnow resulted in an 96-hour LC50 of >4.7 mg/L, which is considered to 

be moderately toxic on an acute basis. No data were submitted to assess chronic risk to 

estuarine/marine fish.

4. Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Acute toxicity testing on estuarine/marine invertebrate species with the technical product 

resulted in a 96-hour LC50/EC50 values ranging from 2.4 to 0.23 ppm which fall into the

moderate to highly toxic acute classes for estuarine/marine invertebrates. The chronic data 

indicate that flumioxazin significantly reduced reproduction and growth (length and weight) at 

concentrations equal to 27 ppb (LOAEC) and 15 ppb (NOAEC) and survival at concentrations 

equal to 55 ppb (LOAEC) and 27 ppb (NOAEC).
Page | 30

B. Effects to Terrestrial Animals

1. Mammalian Species

In toxicity studies conducted on laboratory rats for the Agency's Health Effects Division (HED), 

flumioxazin was practically non-toxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis (LD50 of 5000 

mg/kg). Results from a chronic reproduction study indicate reproductive toxicity at a LOAEL of 

200 ppm (NOAEL of 100 ppm) with decreased number of live-born pups and decreased pup 

weights being the endpoints affected. Increases in the incidence of reproductive organ 

abnormalities (predominately atrophied or hypoplastic testes and/or epididymides) were also 

noted that may imply an endocrine modulated pathway. Absolute organ weight for the testes, 

epididymides and prostate were significantly reduced at 300 ppm for F1 males.

2. Avian Species

In an acute oral toxicity study conducted on bobwhite quail, the LD50 for the technical product is 

> 2250 mg/kg. The results suggest that Flumioxazin is practically non-toxic to birds on an acute 

oral basis. Subacute dietary toxicity studies conducted on mallard duck and bobwhite quail 

suggest that Flumioxazin is also practically non-toxic, with LC50s of > 5620 ppm for the 

technical grade active ingredient. An avian reproduction study on bobwhite quail indicated that 

there were no significant treatment related effects. The No Observable Adverse Effect 

Concentration (NOAEC) and the Lowest Observable Adverse Effect Concentration (LOAEC) 

was determined to be 500 and >500 ppm, respectively. Also, an avian reproduction study using 

mallard ducks indicated that significant reductions in the number of viable embryos and live 3-

week embryos were evident at the highest concentration (500 ppm). The No Observable 

Adverse Effect Concentration (NOAEC) and the Low Observable Adverse Effect Concentration 

(LOAEC) was determined to be 250 and 500 ppm, respectively. 

3. Non-target Insects

Flumioxazin is practically non-toxic to bees on an acute contact basis (LD50 > 105 μg/bee).

C. Effects to Plants

Flumioxazin is a light-dependent peroxidizing herbicide (LDPH) which acts by blocking heme 

and chlorophyll biosynthesis resulting in an endogenous accumulation of photo-toxic porphyrins. 

This class of herbicides are known to have a photo-toxic mode of action in plants. Standard 

toxicity testing may not include light with the same wavelength or intensity as natural sunlight. 

LDPHs may be more toxic when exposed to natural sunlight, such as exposure conditions in the 

field. The following is a summary of the submitted plant toxicity data currently available:

MRID 44295029. Tier II seedling emergence non-target phyto-toxicity study using flumioxazin. 

This study was scientifically sound and satisfies the guidelines for a seedling emergence study 

with terrestrial plants. The most sensitive monocot and most sensitive parameter was ryegrass 

and dry weight, respectively. The EC50 and NOAEL for the study was 0.0037 lb ai/A and 0.003 
Page | 31

lb ai/A, respectively. The most sensitive dicot and most sensitive parameter was lettuce and also 

dry weight, respectively. The EC25 and NOAEL for the study was 0.0008 lb ai/A and 0.0004 lb 

ai/A, respectively.

MRID 44295030. Tier II vegetative vigor non-target phyto-toxicity study using flumioxazin. 

This study was scientifically sound and satisfies the guidelines for a vegetative vigor study with 

terrestrial plants. The most sensitive monocot and most sensitive parameter was oat and dry 

weight, respectively. The EC50 and NOAEL for the study was 0.0071 lb ai/A and 0.006 lb ai/A, 

respectively. The most sensitive dicot and most sensitive parameter was cucumber and phytotoxicity, respectively. The EC25 and NOAEL for the study was 0.00008 lb ai/A and 0.00005 lb 

ai/A, respectively.

MRID 44295031. Toxicity to the freshwater green alga (Selenastrum capricornutum). This 

study was scientifically sound and satisfies the guidelines for an algal aquatic plant toxicity 

study. (EC50= 1.02 ppb ai; NOAEC= 0.79 ppb ai; 95% CI of 0.82-1.26 ppb ai).

MRID 44295032. Toxicity to the freshwater diatom (Navicula pelliculosa). This study was 

scientifically sound and satisfies the guidelines for a freshwater diatom toxicity study. (EC50= 1.4 

ppb ai; NOAEC= 0.041 ppb ai; 95% CI of 1.3-1.6 ppb ai).

MRID 44295033. Toxicity to the marine diatom (Skeletonema costatum). This study was 

scientifically sound and satisfies guideline requirements for a marine diatom toxicity study. 

(EC50= 19.2 ppb ai; NOAEC= 1.9 ppb ai; 95% CI of 13.3-27.8 ppb ai).

MRID 44295034. 5-day toxicity to the freshwater blue-green alga (Anabaena flosaquae). This 

study was scientifically sound and satisfies the guideline requirements for an algal aquatic plant 

toxicity study. (EC50= 0.83 ppb ai; NOAEC= 0.022 ppb ai; 95% CI of 0.47-1.46 ppb ai).

MRID 44295035. Toxicity to the Duckweed (Lemna gibba). This study was scientifically sound 

and satisfies the guideline requirements for a tier II aquatic plant toxicity study. (EC50= 0.49 ppb 

ai; NOAEC= 0.22 ppb ai; 95% CI of 0.40-0.60 ppb ai).

D. Degradate toxicity

Few data are available to assess the potential toxicity of flumioxazin degradates. In the absence 

of data, the degradates are presumed to be as toxic as the parent compound. The previous risk 

assessment for flumioxazin (D357187+) identified the major degradates of concern to be 482-

HA, APF and THPA. However, there are no data on these degradates related to their toxicity. 

Therefore EFED will conservatively assume that they are equally as toxic as the parent 

compound. EFED will address the aquatic exposure to flumioxazin through a total residues 

approach that includes concentrations of the parent, 482-HA, APF, and THPA. However, due to 

limitations in current terrestrial models in addition to the mobility and relative lack of persistence 

of the degradates, parent flumioxazin will be assessed in the terrestrial risk assessment.
Page | 32

E. Ecological Incidents 

Incident reports submitted to EPA since approximately 1994 have been tracked by assignment of 

“incident numbers” in an Incident Data System (IDS), microfiched, and then entered into a 

second database, the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS; USEPA 2007b). An effort 

has also been made to enter information to EIIS on incident reports received prior to 

establishment of current databases. Incident reports are not received in a consistent format (e.g., 

states and various labs usually have their own formats), may involve multiple incidents involving 

multiple chemicals in one report, and may report only part of a given incident investigation (e.g., 

residues). While some progress has been made in recent years in getting incident reports 

submitted and entered, there has never been the level of resources assigned to incidents that there 

has been assigned to the tracking and review of laboratory toxicity studies, for example.

A preliminary review of the EIIS and the Avian Monitoring Information System (AIMS), which 

is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, indicates there are no incidents for wildlife. 

There are 151 incident reports involving terrestrial exposure to flumioxazin that have been 

reported and none that involve animals. All incidents involve plant damage. Flumioxazin was 

applied to agricultural crops (peanut, soybeans, cotton, and an unspecified crop) and nonagricultural crops (railroad right-of-way). In most cases the treated crop itself was affected. 

Only four incidents showed that flumioxazin may have damaged crops via drift to another crop, 

though each of these incidents involved a mixture of herbicides. It is therefore difficult to 

attribute these drift events conclusively to the action of flumioxazin. The magnitude of damages 

ranged from a small area (5 acres) to the entire treated crop of 380 acres. 

In addition to the incidents recorded in EIIS, additional incidents have been reported to the 

Agency in aggregated incident reports. Pesticide registrants report certain types of incidents to 

the Agency as aggregate counts of incidents occurring per product per quarter. Ecological 

incidents reported in aggregate reports include those categorized as “minor fish and wildlife” 

(W-B), “minor plant” (P-B), and “other nontarget” (ONT) incidents. “Other nontarget” incidents 

include reports of adverse effects to insects and other terrestrial invertebrates. For flumioxazin, 

registrants have reported a total of 37 minor incidents, which includes 29 plant related incidents 

and 8 wildlife incidents.

In the risk assessment, the incidents will be further evaluated to determine if the reported 

incidents represent current patterns of use for flumioxazin. Examples of additional 

considerations are mitigation (e.g., reduced application rates), product cancellations, and changes

in use patterns that have occurred since the date of the reported incidents.

An absence of reported incidents should not be construed as the absence of incidents. Incident 

reports for non-target organisms typically provide information only on mortality events and plant 

damage incidents. Except for phytotoxic effects in terrestrial plants, sublethal effects, such as 

reduced growth or impaired reproduction, are rarely reported. EPA‟s changes in the registrant 

reporting requirements for incidents in 1998 may account for a reduced number of reported 

incidents. Registrants are now only required to submit detailed information on „major‟ fish, 

wildlife, and plant incidents. Minor fish, wildlife, and plant incidents, as well as all other 

nontarget incidents, are generally reported aggregately and are not included in the EIIS. In 
Page | 33

addition, there have been changes in state monitoring efforts due to a lack of resources. 

However, the incident data that are available suggest that exposure pathways for flumioxazin are 

complete and that exposure levels are sufficient to result in field-observable effects.

F. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

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

to identify specific ecosystems during the development of a nation-wide ecological risk 

assessment. However, in general terms, terrestrial ecosystems potentially at risk could include 

the treated field and immediately adjacent areas that may receive drift or runoff. Areas adjacent 

to the treated field could include cultivated fields, fencerows and hedgerows, meadows, fallow 

fields or grasslands, woodlands, riparian habitats, and other uncultivated areas. 

Aquatic ecosystems potentially at risk include water bodies adjacent to, or down stream from, the 

treated site and might include impounded bodies such as ponds, lakes and reservoirs, or flowing 

waterways such as streams or rivers including all adjacent off-channel habitats that are 

permanently or intermittently connected to flowing waters. For uses in coastal areas, aquatic 

habitat also includes marine ecosystems, including estuaries, embayment‟s, and near shore 

environments.

V. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints represent the actual environmental value that is to be protected, as defined 

by an ecological entity (species, community, or other entity) and its attribute or characteristics 

(EPA 1998). For flumioxazin, the ecological entities include the following: birds, reptiles, 

terrestrial-phase amphibians, mammals, freshwater fish, freshwater aquatic-phase amphibians 

and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, terrestrial plants, insects, aquatic 

plants, and algae. The attributes for each of these entities include growth, reproduction, and 

survival. 

VI. Conceptual Model

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

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

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

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

exposure for ecological receptors, and a feasible route of exposure.

The conceptual model for flumioxazin provides a written description and visual representation of 

the predicted relationships between flumioxazin, potential routes of exposure, and the predicted 

effects for the assessment endpoint. A conceptual model consists of two major components: risk 

hypothesis and a conceptual diagram (USEPA 1998).
Page | 34

As discussed previously, numerous ecological risk assessments have been conducted by EFED 

for flumioxazin, including new use national level risk assessments, EUPs, and S18 assessments. 

Each of these assessments will be used to inform the risk hypothesis for this problem formulation 

for flumioxazin.

A. Risk Hypothesis

A risk hypothesis describes the predicted relationship among the stressor, exposure, and 

assessment endpoint response along with the rationale for their selection. For flumioxazin, the 

following ecological risk hypothesis is being employed for this national-level ecological risk 

assessment:

Given the uses of flumioxazin and its environmental fate 

properties, there is a likelihood of exposure to non-target 

terrestrial and aquatic organisms. When used in accordance with 

the label, flumioxazin results in potential adverse effects upon the 

survival, growth, and reproduction of non-target terrestrial and 

aquatic organisms. 

B. Conceptual Diagram

The environmental fate properties of flumioxazin indicate that runoff, erosion of sediment-bound 

residues, and spray drift represent potential transport mechanisms of flumioxazin to aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms. These transport mechanisms (e.g. sources) are depicted in the conceptual 

models below (Figures 3, 4, and 5) and result in the movement of flumioxazin into aquatic 

(water and sediment) and terrestrial (soil and foliage) habitats. The movement away from the 

site of application in turn represents exposure pathways for a broad range of biological receptors 

of concern (nontarget animals) and the potential attribute changes, i.e., effects such as reduced 

survival, growth and reproduction, in the receptors due to flumioxazin exposure. 
Page | 35

Figure 3. Conceptual model depicting stressors, exposure pathways, and potential effects to aquatic 

organisms from the use of flumioxazin. Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways that have a low likelihood of 

contributing to ecological risk. 
Page | 36

Figure 4. Conceptual model depicting stressors, generic exposure pathways, and potential effects to 

terrestrial organisms (terrestrial plants, terrestrial invertebrates, and dietary routes of exposure for 

terrestrial vertebrates) from the use of flumioxazin. 
Page | 37

Figure 5. Conceptual model depicting stressors, drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways, and 

potential effects to terrestrial animals from the use of flumioxazin. Dotted lines indicate exposure pathways 

that have a low likelihood of contributing to ecological risk.

VII. Analysis Plan 

In order to address the risk hypothesis, the potential for adverse effects on the environment is 

estimated. The use, environmental fate, and ecological effects of flumioxazin are characterized 

and integrated to assess the risks. This is accomplished using a risk quotient (ratio of exposure 

concentration to effects concentration) approach. Although risk is often defined as the likelihood 

and magnitude of adverse ecological effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a 

quantitative estimate of likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect. However, as outlined 

in the Overview Document (USEPA 2004), the likelihood of effects to individual organisms 

from particular uses of flumioxazin is estimated using the probit dose-response slope and either 

the level of concern (discussed below) or actual calculated risk quotient values.

This analysis plan will be revisited and may be revised depending upon the information 

submitted by the public in response to the opening of the Registration Review docket for 

flumioxazin.
Page | 38

A. Stressors of Concern

The stressors of concern are as follows:

Terrestrial Environment: parent flumioxazin

Aquatic Environment: parent flumioxazin and major degradates (482-HA, APF, and 

THPA)

Exposures in terrestrial habitats will consider flumioxazin alone. However, because the major 

degradates of concern are found in the aquatic environment and the parent flumioxazin and 

major degradates are relatively mobile, they will be assessed in conjunction with parent 

flumioxazin for aquatic habitats.

Evaluation of environmental pesticide mixtures is beyond the scope of this assessment because 

of the myriad factors that cannot be quantified based on the available data. Those factors include 

identification of other possible co-contaminants and their concentrations, differences in the 

pattern and duration of exposure among contaminants, and the differential effects of other 

physical/chemical characteristics of the receiving waters (e.g. organic matter present in sediment 

and suspended water). Evaluation of factors that could influence additivity/synergism is beyond 

the scope of this assessment and the capabilities of the available data to allow for an evaluation. 

However, it is acknowledged that not considering mixtures could over- or under-estimate risks 

depending on the type of interaction and factors discussed above. The assessment will, however, 

analyze the toxicity of formulated products (including formulations involving more than one 

active ingredient) and will determine whether formulated products are more toxic than the 

technical grade active ingredient.

B. Measures of Exposure 

In order to estimate risks of flumioxazin exposures in aquatic and terrestrial environments, all 

exposure modeling and resulting risk conclusions will be based on maximum application rates 

and will be estimated for each use of flumioxazin. Measures of exposure are based on aquatic 

and terrestrial models that predict estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) of 

flumioxazin. The models used to predict aquatic EECs are the Pesticide Root Zone Model 

coupled with the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (PRZM/EXAMS). The model used to 

predict terrestrial EECs on food items is T-REX. The model used to derive EECs relevant to 

terrestrial and wetland plants is TerrPlant. These models are parameterized using relevant 

reviewed environmental fate data from registrant submissions and the literature; model input 

values will be consistent with the most recent version of the input parameter guidance (Version 

2; EFED 2002).

PRZM and EXAMS are simulation models coupled with the linkage program shell, PE5, which 

incorporates the standard scenarios developed by EFED. The models generate daily exposures 

and calculated 1-in-10 year EECs of flumioxazin that may occur in surface water bodies adjacent 

to application sites. PRZM simulates pesticide fate and transport as a result of leaching, direct 

spray drift, runoff and erosion from an agricultural field, and EXAMS estimates environmental 

fate and transport of pesticides in a surface water body for a 30-year period. The standard 
Page | 39

scenarios used for ecological pesticide assessments assume application to a 10-hectare 

agricultural field that drains into an adjacent 1-hectare water body that is 2 meters deep (20,000 

m

3

volume) with no outlet. The combined models (i.e., PRZM/EXAMS) are designed to 

estimate pesticide concentrations found in the water body (standard pond) at the edge of the 

treated field. As such, they provide high-end values of the pesticide concentrations that might be 

found in ecologically sensitive environments following pesticide application. The location of the

field is specific to the crop being simulated using site-specific information on the soils, weather, 

cropping, and management factors associated with the scenario. The crop/location scenario is 

intended to represent a high-end exposure site on which the crop is normally grown. Based on 

historical rainfall patterns, the receiving water body receives multiple runoff events during the 

years simulated. Weather and agricultural practices are simulated for 30 years so that the 10-

year exceedance probability at the site can be estimated. The simulation is generated using 30 

years of meteorological data, encompassing the years from 1961 to 1990. Additional 

information on these models can be found at:

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

The measure of exposure for aquatic species is the 1-in-10 year return peak or rolling mean 

concentration. The 1-in-10 year peak is used for estimating acute exposures of direct effects to 

aquatic organisms. The 1-in-10-year 60-day mean is used for assessing chronic exposure to fish 

and aquatic-phase amphibians. The 1-in-10-year 21-day mean is used for assessing chronic 

exposure to aquatic invertebrates. A total residues approach will be used to estimate EEC‟s of 

parent flumioxazin and the major degradates (482-HA, APF, and THPA) to be found in the 

aquatic environment.

For all terrestrial exposure, parent flumioxazin alone will be assessed due to limitations in 

current modeling approaches. Exposure estimates for terrestrial animals assumed to be in the 

target area or in an area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T-REX model. This model 

incorporates the Kenega nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et al. (1994), which is based on a 

large set of field residue data. The upper limit values from the nomograph represent the 95th

percentile of residue values from actual field measurements (Hoerger and Kenega 1972). The 

Fletcher et al. (1994) modifications to the Kenega nomograph are based on measured field 

residues from 249 published research papers, including information on 118 species of plants, 121 

pesticides, and 17 chemical classes. EECs for terrestrial plants inhabiting dry and wetland areas 

are derived using TerrPlant. This model uses estimates of pesticides in runoff and in spray drift 

to calculate EECs. EECs are based upon solubility, application rate and minimum incorporation 

depth. 

Available monitoring data will be used to qualitatively characterize exposure and compare with 

modeling results. The Agency is aware of monitoring conducted by storm water management 

agencies and this route of exposure will be considered in the assessment to the extent that data on 

flumioxazin are available.

Two spray drift models, AGDisp and AgDRIFT are used to assess exposures of terrestrial plants 

to flumioxazin deposited in terrestrial habitats by spray drift. AGDisp (Teske and Curbishley 

2003) is used to simulate aerial and ground applications using the Gaussian far-field extension. 

AgDrift is used to simulate spray blast applications to orchard crops.
Page | 40

C. Measures of Effect

Ecological effects data are used as measures of direct and indirect effects to biological receptors. 

Data were obtained from registrant-submitted studies or from literature studies identified by 

ECOTOX. The ECOTOX was searched in order to provide more ecological effects data to 

bridge existing data gaps. An initial search revealed a number of open literature articles related 

to the toxicity of flumioxazin on plants as well as wildlife. These articles will be reviewed, in 

addition to any new information from the open literature based on an updated „refresh‟ of the 

ECOTOX search to be completed prior to the preliminary risk assessment, in order to address 

any remaining uncertainties for the taxonomic groups. The data from accepted papers and those 

rejected papers containing mixtures data will also be considered as part of the risk assessment. 

In addition, registrants are encouraged to formally submit any other relevant open literature to 

the Agency that could potentially be used to satisfy data requirements where data gaps exist 

and/or inform our understanding of the ecological effects toxicity profile of the active ingredient, 

degradates, or formulations, which are the subject of Registration Review. Registrant 

submissions of open literature will be subject to the same standards as the relevant open 

literature studies obtained from ECOTOX.

Information on the potential effects of flumioxazin on non-target animals is also collected from 

the Ecological Incident Information System (USEPA 2007b), which contains adverse effect 

(typically mortality) reports on non-target organisms where such effects have been associated 

with the use of pesticides. 

Where available, sublethal effects observed in both registrant-submitted and open literature 

studies will be evaluated qualitatively. Such effects have included behavioral changes (e.g., 

lethargy, changes in coloration and effects olfaction). Quantitative assessments of risks, though, 

are limited to those endpoints that can be directly linked to the Agency‟s assessment endpoints of 

impaired survival, growth and reproduction.

The assessment of risk for direct effects to non-target organisms makes the assumption that 

toxicity of flumioxazin to birds is similar to terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. The same 

assumption is made for fish and aquatic-phase amphibians. 

The acute measures of effect used for animals in this screening-level assessment are the LD50, 

LC50 and EC50. LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD50 is the amount of a material, given all at 

once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC stands for “Lethal 

Concentration” and LC50 is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to kill 50% of the 

test organisms. EC stands for “Effective Concentration” and the EC50 is the concentration of a 

chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in 50% of the test organisms. Endpoints 

for chronic measures of exposure for listed and non-listed animals are the NOAEL/NOAEC and 

NOEC. NOAEL stands for “No Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level” and refers to the highest tested 

dose of a substance that has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test 

organisms. The NOAEC (i.e., “No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration”) is the highest test 

concentration at which none of the observed effects were statistically different from the control. 

The NOEC is the No-Observed-Effects-Concentration. For non-listed plants, only acute 
Page | 41

exposures are assessed (i.e., EC25 for terrestrial plants and EC50 for aquatic plants); for listed 

plants, either the NOAEC or EC05 is used. 

In the absence of data for either acute or chronic effects, the conservative assumption will be to 

presume that flumioxazin is toxic.

There are no studies available that assess the chronic toxicity to freshwater invertebrates from 

contaminated sediment. Given the low Koc, Kow, and Kd values as well as the low toxicity of 

flumioxazin to benthic invertebrates, they are not likely to be at risk from flumioxazin.

According to the CFR 40, part 158 guidelines, a chronic sediment toxicity study to aquatic 

invertebrates is required if the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) is > 0.1 of the acute 

LC50 as noted above, AND the half-life of the pesticide in the sediment is > 10 days in either the 

aerobic soil or aquatic metabolism studies and if any of the following conditions exist:

A. The soil partition coefficient (Kd) is ≥ 50

B. The log Kow is ≥ 3

C. The Koc is ≥ 1000

According to these conditions, the maximum peak EEC (0.4 ppm for flumioxazin parent when 

applied directly to the aquatic environment) based on the previous aquatic use risk assessment 

(D357187+) is less than 0.55 ppm (i.e., 0.1 * LC50). Even though flumioxazin has a log Kow of 

2.5, the Koc ranging from 112 to 1,190, and a Kd ranging from 0.5 to 19.3, flumioxazin and its 

three major degradates, given the assumption of equivalent toxicity to the parent compound, do 

not meet the conditions defined above and chronic sediment toxicity will not be assessed.

D. Integration of Exposure and Effects

Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects characterization to 

determine the potential ecological risk from the use of flumioxazin and the likelihood of direct 

and indirect effects to non-target organisms in aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and 

toxicity effects data are integrated in order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on 

non-target species. For the assessment of flumioxazin risks, the risk quotient (RQ) method 

(Appendix 2) is used to compare exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by 

acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency‟s levels 

of concern (LOCs) (USEPA 2004). These criteria are used to indicate when flumioxazin‟s uses, 

as directed on the label, have the potential to cause adverse direct or indirect effects to non-target 

organisms. As noted previously, where data are lacking on the toxicity of flumioxazin, risk will 

be presumed.

 

1. Deterministic and Probabilistic Assessment Methods

The quantitative assessment of risk will primarily depend on the deterministic point-estimate 

based approach described in the risk assessment. An effort will be made to further qualitatively 

describe risk using probabilistic tools that the Agency has developed. These tools have been 
Page | 42

reviewed by FIFRA Scientific Advisory Panels and have been deemed as appropriate means of 

refining assessments where deterministic approaches have identified risks.

E. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with the Agency‟s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the 

Agency will evaluate risks to Federally-listed threatened and/or endangered species from 

registered uses of flumioxazin. This assessment will be conducted in accordance with the 

Overview Document (USEPA 2004), provisions of the ESA, and the Services‟ Endangered 

Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS 1998). 

The assessment of effects associated with registrations of flumioxazin is based on an action area. 

The action area is considered to be the area directly or indirectly affected by the federal action, as 

indicated by the exceedance of Agency Levels of Concern (LOCs) used to evaluate direct or 

indirect effects. The Agency‟s approach to defining the action area under the provisions of the 

Overview Document (USEPA 2004) considers the results of the risk assessment process to 

establish boundaries for that action area with the understanding that exposures below the 

Agency‟s defined LOCs constitute a no-effect threshold. For the purposes of this assessment, 

attention will be focused on the footprint of the action (i.e., the area where flumioxazin 

application occurs), plus all areas where offsite transport (i.e., spray drift, runoff, etc.) may result 

in potential exposure that exceeds the Agency‟s LOCs. Specific measures of ecological effect 

that define the action area for listed species include any direct and indirect effects and/or 

potential modification of its critical habitat, including reduction in survival, growth, and 

reproduction as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in the effects literature. 

Therefore, the action area extends to a point where environmental exposures are below any 

measured lethal or sublethal effect threshold for any biological entity at the whole organism, 

organ, tissue, and cellular level of organization. In situations where it is not possible to 

determine the threshold for an observed effect, the action area is not spatially limited and is 

assumed to be the entire United States. 

F. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

As required under FFDCA section 408(p), EPA has developed the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) to determine whether certain substances (including pesticide active 

and other ingredients) may have an effect in humans or wildlife similar to an effect produced by 

a “naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine effects as the Administrator may 

designate.” The EDSP employs a two-tiered approach to making the statutorily required 

determinations. Tier 1 consists of a battery of 11 screening assays to identify the potential of a 

chemical substance to interact with the estrogen, androgen, and or thyroid (E, A, or T) hormonal 

systems. Chemicals that go through Tier 1 screening and are found to have the potential to 

interact with E, A, or T hormonal systems will proceed to the next stage of the EDSP where EPA 

will determine which, if any, of the Tier 2 tests are necessary based on the available data. Tier 2 

testing is designed to identify any adverse endocrine related effects caused by the substance, and 

establish a quantitative relationship between the dose and the E, A, or T effect.
Page | 43

Between October 2009 and February 2010, EPA issued test orders/data call-ins for the first 

group of 67 chemicals, which contains 58 pesticide active ingredients and 9 inert ingredients. 

This list of chemicals was selected based on the potential for human exposure through pathways 

such as food and water, residential activity, and certain post-application agricultural scenarios. 

This list should not be construed as a list of known or likely endocrine disruptors.

Flumioxazin is not among the group of 58 pesticide active ingredients on the initial list to be 

screened under the EDSP. For further information on the status of the EDSP, the policies and 

procedures, the list of 67 chemicals, the test guidelines and the Tier 1 screening battery, please 

visit our website: http://www.epa.gov/endo/.

G. Drinking Water Assessment

A drinking water assessment will be conducted to support future human health dietary risk 

assessments of flumioxazin. The drinking water assessment will incorporate model estimates of 

flumioxazin and its major degradates in surface water and ground water. Concentrations of 

flumioxazin residues in surface waters will be estimated using PRZM/EXAMS (see description 

above).

An Estimated Drinking Water Concentration (EDWC) of flumioxazin residues in ground water 

will be estimated using EFED‟s Tier I aquatic model SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration in 

Ground Water). SCI-GROW is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide 

concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water. The output of SCI-GROW 

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

soils, which is representative of the ground water most vulnerable to pesticide contamination 

likely to serve as a drinking water source.

The drinking water assessment will also include available surface and ground water monitoring 

data with consideration of changes in use patterns that may have occurred. 

H. Screening Imbibition Program

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

upper bound estimate of exposure using flumioxazin‟s solubility (1.8 ppm), the most sensitive 

acute and chronic avian toxicity endpoints (>2250 ppm and 250 ppm, respectively) and the 

most sensitive acute and chronic mammalian toxicity endpoints (5000 ppm and 100 ppm, 

respectively). Drinking water exposure alone was not determined to be a potential pathway of 

concern for avian and mammalian species on an acute or chronic basis. See Appendix 3 for a 

screenshot of the input and output from SIP.

Although drinking water exposure alone does not appear to be of concern, this does not take into 

account that when aggregated with other exposure pathways (dietary food sources, dermal, 

inhalation) drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has a potential for effects on 
Page | 44

non-target animals and should be explored further. Because there is a high degree of 

conservatism in the SIP 1.0 exposure estimate, there is limited expectation that use scenarios not 

triggering a SIP 1.0 concern would contribute significantly to aggregate risks from water plus 

diet when a refined water exposure model is incorporated in the actual quantitative risk 

assessment. Detailed information about SIP v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the EPA‟s 

website at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial.

I. Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

The Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk (STIR v.1.0, November 19, 2010) was used to calculate 

an upper bound estimate of exposure using flumioxazin‟s vapor pressure and molecular weight 

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

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

inhalation rat toxicity endpoints obtained from the “six-pack” of core studies, which are a series 

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

Programs for technical and formulated products of a pesticide (LD50 of 5000 mg/kg and LC50 of 

3.93 mg/L) as well as the most sensitive acute oral avian toxicity endpoint (bobwhite quail with 

LD50 of 2250 mg/kg). Based on the results of the STIR model, inhalation exposure alone was not 

determined to be a potential pathway of concern for either avian or mammalian species on an 

acute basis. 

Inhalation exposure via spray drift and vapor-phase of the pesticide alone does not appear to be 

of concern. The analysis of the inhalation route of in STIR does not consider that aggregation 

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

exposure that has a potential for effects to non-target animals. However, the Agency does 

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

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

risk (USEPA, 2004). The risk characterization section of the risk assessment will discuss the 

impact of consideration of other routes of exposure that have been identified as potentially 

important and the degree of certainty associated with screening-level risk assessment 

conclusions. Detailed information about STIR v.1.0, as well as the tool, can be found on the 

EPA‟s website at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#terrestrial. For a 

sample of the output generated by STIR v.1.0, please see Appendix 4. 

J. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

1. Fate

For fate and transport, Table 8 lists the status of the fate and transport data requirements for 

flumioxazin. The adequacy of the submitted data was evaluated relative to Agency guidelines. 

Registrants are required to submit both ECMs and associated ILVs in soil and water in order to 

support terrestrial field dissipation and ground water monitoring studies according to the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) for a particular use pattern (40 CFR Part 158). 
Page | 45

Table 8. Available environmental fate data for flumioxazin and remaining data gaps.

Guideline 

#

Data 

Requirement

MRID #’s

Study 

Classification

Is Data 

Requirement 

Satisfied?

835.2120 Hydrolysis

42697501

42684905

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Yes

835.2240 Photodegradation in 

Water

44295036

44295037

45914601

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental 

Yes

835.2410 Photodegradation 

on Soil

44295038

44295039

Supplemental

Supplemental

Yes

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

42684906

42884009

44295040

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism

44295041 Supplemental Yes

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

47761801 Supplemental Yes

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism

45914602 Acceptable Yes

835.1240 Leaching

42684907 (parent)

42684908 (parent)

42684909 (parent)

42884010 (parent)

Acceptable 

Acceptable 

Acceptable

Acceptable

Yes

835.1230 Adsorption/

Desorption

45309202 (THPA)

45309201 (APF)

Acceptable

Supplemental

Yes
Page | 46

835.6100 Terrestrial Field 

Dissipation

(ECM/ILV)

44295045 (completed in 

1996)

44295044 (completed in 

1996)

44295047 (completed in 

1997)

44295046 (completed in 

1996)

44295043 (completed in 

1996)

(the above studies included 

soil ECMs RM-30D and 

RM-30D-1)

44295042 (ILV for ECM

RM-30D)

45375502 (completed in 

2001, including soil ECM 

RM-30D-2)

48131402 (Ontario, Canada. 

Completed in 2007, 

including soil ECM RM30S-1-1)

48131403 (Nova Scotia, 

Canada. Completed in 

2007, including soil ECM 

RM-30S-1)

48131404 (WA. Completed 

in 2007, including soil ECM 

RM-30S-1)

(No ILVs for soil ECMs 

RM-30D-2 , RM-30S-1, and 

ECM RM-30S-1-1 were 

submitted)

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

Supplemental

In review

Supplemental

In review

In review

In review

No1

835.6200 Aquatic Field 

Dissipation

(ECM/ILV)

47550605 (conducted in IA 

and FL, included 

water/sediment ECM GPLMTH-064)

47550603 (ILV for water 

and sediment ECM GPLMTH-064)

Supplemental

Supplemental

Yes

850.1730 Accumulation in 

Fish/

Bioconcentration

Waived

475506042

Waived

-

Yes

1The registrant must submit: (1) the ILV for the soil method (RM-30S-1) used in 48131403 and 48131404 for the analysis of 

flumioxazin; (2) the ILV for the modified soil method (RM-30S-1-1) used in MRID 48131402 for the analyses of flumioxazin, 

THPA, and HPA; and (3) two TFD studies conducted in Illinois and California that the Agency identified them as data gaps in 

the 2005 ecological risk assessment (according to Bob Hamilton with Valent on 2/14/11, the registrant does have these two 

studies and they had submitted these two studies to Canada).

2MRID 47550604 (2008) is a study related to the magnitude of residues of flumioxazin in fish. It was reviewed by W. Cutchin 

in ARIA/RD/OPP).
Page | 47

2. Effects

For the ecological assessment, Table 9 lists the status of ecological data requirements for 

flumioxazin. The following is a summary of identified data gaps and associated uncertainties:

850.1010 Freshwater Invertebrate Acute LC50: A study was submitted that examined the 

toxic effects of flumioxazin on freshwater invertebrates. However, the study showed high 

levels of precipitate in the solutions. These precipitates likely confounded the effects of the 

chemical itself. A new study is needed to address the uncertainty related to an accurate 

assessment of the toxicity of flumioxazin to freshwater free-swimming invertebrates.

850.1400 Freshwater Fish Early Life-Stage: An additional study needs to address the 

potential uV light-enhanced toxicity for freshwater fish based on the LDPH nature of 

flumioxazin. A study related to this enhanced toxicity is expected to be submitted by the 

technical registrant by June 30 of 2011.

850.1400 Estuarine/Marine Fish Early Life-Stage: Effects were identified to freshwater 

fish in the early life-stage test, with a LOAEC of 16 ppb. Considering that the previous risk 

assessment (D357187) for aquatic uses identified the 60 day average EEC to be 25 ppb, there 

is uncertainty as to whether estuarine/marine fish would be as sensitive to this concentration 

as freshwater species. In addition, the CFR 40 part 158 guidelines state that this test on 

estuarine/marine fish is conditionally required if “the estimated environmental concentration 

(EEC) in water is ≥ 0.01 of the acute EC50 or LC50 or if any of the following conditions 

exist...”. The 60 day average flumioxazin parent concentration is 25 ppb, which is less than 

0.01 of the acute LC50 of > 4.7 ppm (0.01 * 4.7 ppm = 47ppb). However, the 60 day average

concentration for the degradate APF is 110 ppb as stated in the previous risk assessment. No 

data has been submitted regarding the toxicity of any of the degradates. Without this data, 

the degradates are assumed to be as toxic as the parent compound, and therefore the above 

condition is met. An early life-stage study that addresses the toxicity of flumioxazin to 

estuarine/marine fish is needed for the risk assessment. Considering that flumioxazin is an 

LDPH and may have enhanced toxicity under elevated light conditions, the results of the 

freshwater fish early life-stage test that addresses light-enhanced toxicity may be applied to 

the results of this study as appropriate.

850.1500 Fish Full Life-Cycle: According to the CFR 40 part 158 guidelines, this study is 

conditionally required when “the end-use product is intended to be applied directly to water, 

or is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site, and when any of the 

following conditions apply:

 If the estimated environmental concentration (EEC) is ≥ 0.1 of the noobserved-effect level in the fish early-life stage or invertebrate life cycle test;

 If studies of other organisms indicate that the reproductive physiology of fish 

may be affected.”

Flumioxazin has aquatic uses that indicate the chemical will be applied directly to freshwater 

systems, which meets the first part of the criteria. The peak EEC for parent flumioxazin 

based on the previous aquatic risk assessment (D357187) is 400 ppb. The NOAEC in the 

fish early life-stage is 7.7 ppb and in the invertebrate life-cycle is 28 ppb. Therefore, 0.1 of 

the peak EEC (0.1*400 ppb = 40 ppb) is greater than both of these no effect levels, and 

therefore the second condition is also met. Furthermore, reproductive effects were observed 
Page | 48

in the freshwater invertebrate life-cycle test. A study on the fish full life-cycle is needed to 

address this remaining uncertainty of chronic risk to fish.

850.2100 Avian Oral LD50: CFR 40 part 158 guidelines require data on one passerine 

species and either a waterfowl or upland game bird species. Data has only been submitted 

for the Bobwhite quail. There is uncertainty as to the sensitivity of passerine species 

compared to other bird species. However, no mortality in any treatment group was reported 

in both the acute oral and dietary toxicity studies for avian species. Avian species do not 

appear to be sensitive to flumioxazin on an acute basis. 

Table 9. Ecological effects data requirements for flumioxazin and remaining data gaps.

Guideline # Data Requirement Test Substance MRID # or 

Citation Study 

Classification

Are 

additional 

data needed 

for 

ecological 

risk 

assessment?

850.2100 Avian Oral LD50 TGAI 42684945

(Bobwhite quail) Acceptable No

850.2200 Avian Dietary LC50

TGAI

TGAI

42684946

42684947 Acceptable No

850.2300 Avian Reproduction TGAI

TGAI

44295005

44295006

Acceptable

Supplemental No

850.1075 Freshwater Fish LC50

TGAI

TGAI

42684948

42684949

44295007

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

No

850.1010 Freshwater Invertebrate 

Acute LC50

TGAI 42684950 Supplemental Yes

850.1075 Estuarine/Marine Fish 

LC50

TGAI 44295010 Acceptable No

850.1025 Estuarine/Marine Mollusk 

EC50

TGAI 44295008 Acceptable No

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055

850.1075

Estuarine/Marine Shrimp 

EC50

TGAI 44295009 Acceptable No

850.1400 Freshwater Fish Early 

Life-Stage TGAI 44295012 Acceptable Yes 

850.1400 Estuarine/Marine Fish 

Early Life-Stage No data submitted Yes

850.1300 Aquatic Invertebrate LifeCycle (freshwater) TGAI 44295011 Acceptable No
Page | 49

Guideline # Data Requirement Test Substance MRID # or 

Citation Study 

Classification

Are 

additional 

data needed 

for 

ecological 

risk 

assessment?

850.1350 Aquatic Invertebrate LifeCycle (marine) TGAI 44295013 Acceptable No

850.1500 Fish Full Life-Cycle No data submitted Yes

850.4225 Seedling Emergence (Tier 

II) TEP 44295029 Acceptable No

850.4250

Vegetative Vigor 

(Tier II) TEP 44295030 Acceptable No

850.4400

850.5400

Aquatic Plant Growth

(Tier II) TGAI

44295031

44295032

44295033

44295034

44295035

Acceptable No

850.3020 Honey Bee Acute

Contact LD50

TGAI 42684951 Acceptable No

870.1100 Acute Oral Toxicity to 

Rat TGAI 42684911

42684912 Acceptable No

870.3800 2-Generation Mammalian 

Reproduction TGAI

42684934

42684935

42684936

Acceptable No

Non-guideline Predatory Mite TEP 47889334 In Review N/A

Non-guideline Parasitic Wasp TEP 47889335 In Review N/A

VIII. References 

Birchfield, N.B., and J.E. Casida. 1997. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase of mouse and maize: Target site selectivity 

and thiol effects on peroxidizing herbicide action. Pesticide Biochemistry and Physiology. 57: 36-43.

CALDPR. 2010. California Department of Pesticide Regulation Usage Data. Accessed July 14, 2010.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the EPA food-chain 

(Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants. Environ. Tox. Chem. 

13:1383-1391.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga, 1972. Pesticide Residues on Plants: Correlation of Representative Data as a Basis for 

Estimation of their Magnitude in the Environment. In F. Coulston and F. Korte, eds., Environmental 

Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology, Georg Thieme Publ., Stuttgart, West 
Page | 50

Germany, pp. 9-28.

Matringe, M., J.M. Camadro, P Labbe, and R Scalla. 1989. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase as a molecular target for 

diphenyl ether herbicides. Biochem. J. 260: 231-235.

Teske, M.E., and T.B. Curbishley. 2003. AGDISP Version 8.07 User Manual. Prepared For United States 

Department of Agriculture Forest Service. C.D.I. Technical Note No. 02-06. June 2003.

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk Assessment Forum, Office of Research and 

Development, Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/cfm/recordisplay.cfm?deid=30759

USEPA. 2002. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of 

Pesticides. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, 

Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Feb. 28, 2002. Online at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/input_guidance2_28_02.htm.

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs. U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances, Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Washington DC. January 23, 2004.

USEPA. 2007a. Ecotoxicology (ECOTOX) database. Version 4. Office of Research and Development (ORD) , 

and the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's (NHEERL's) Mid-Continent 

Ecology Division (MED). 

http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/ecotox_home.cfm

USEPA. 2007b. Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS). Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

USEPA. 2010 Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses on Flumioxazin. Biological and Economic 

Assessment Division, Office of Pesticide Programs. Dated July 15, 2010.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1998. Endangered 

Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities Under 

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Final Draft. March 1998.

USGS. 2011. National water quality assessment program. Accessed January 15th, 2011. 

http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/.

SUBMITTED FATE STUDIES:

42684905 Katagi, T.; Takahashi, N.; Nambu, K.; et al. (1990) Hydrolysis of THP-(carbon 14)-S-53482 in Buffered 

Aqueous Solutions: Lab Project Number: HYD89005. Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical 

Co., Ltd. 68 p.

42697501 Katagi, T.; Takahashi, N.; Nambu, K.; et al. (1990) Hydrolysis of Ph-(carbon 14)-S-53482 in Buffered 

Aqueous Solutions: Lab Project Number: HYD89001. Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical 

Co., Ltd. Biochemistry and Toxicology Lab. 71 p.

44295036 Fathulla, R. (1995) Artificial Sunlight Photodegradation of (Phe-(carbon 14)-S-53482 in a Buffered 

Aqueous Solution: Lab Project Number: HLA 6311-112: 9600435. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hazleton Labs America, Inc. 112 p.

44295037 Fathulla, R. (1995) Artificial Sunlight Photodegradation of (THP-(carbon 14))-S-53482 in a Buffered 

Aqueous Solution: Lab Project Number: HLA 6311-110. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Labs 

America, Inc. 90 p.

45914601 Rose, A.; Jalal, M. (2003) Photodegradation of (Carbon 14) Flumioxazin in Buffer: Lab Project Number: 
Page | 51

VP-25443. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Technical Center. 171 p.

44295038 Fathulla, R. (1993) Artificial Sunlight Photodegradation of (Phe-(carbon 14))-S-53482 on Soil: Lab 

Project Number: HWI 6311-106: 9300318. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Wisconsin, Inc. 149 p.

44295039 Fathulla, R. (1993) Artificial Sunlight Photodegradation of (THP-(carbon 14))-S-53482 on Soil: Lab 

Project Number: HWI 6311-158: 9500359: SBM-31-0035. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton 

Wisconsin, Inc. 123 p.

42684906 Fathulla, R. (1991) Aerobic Soil Metabolism of (carbon 14)-S-53482: Lab Project Number: HLA 6311-

104. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 108 p.

42884009 Fathulla, R. (1993) Aerobic Soil metabolism of (THP--(carbon 14))--S-53482: Lab Project Number: 

6311-156. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Wisconsin, Inc. 103 p.

44295040 Pensyl, J. (1996) Half-Life of Flumioxazin in Four Soils Under Laboratory Conditions: Lab Project 

Number: VP-11579: 9600451: V-96-11579. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. 137 p.

44295041 Archer, G.; Korsch, B. (1996) An Anaerobic Aquatic Soil Metabolism Study with (carbon 14)S-53482 

(Flumioxazin): Lab Project Number: 5680-93-0099-EF-001: 9700061: 5680-93-0099-EF-000. Unpublished 

study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 235 p.

45914602 Assaf, N. (2003) Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (PH-(Carbon 14)) Flumioxazin and (THP-(Carbon 

14)) Flumioxazin: Lab Project Number: VP-23940: V-01-23940. Unpublished study prepared by Valent 

Technical Center. 210 p.

47761801 Ridge, M. (1998) (Carbon 14)-Flumioxazin: Degradation and Retention in Water-Sediment Systems. 

Project Number: 1531/9, 200700002. Unpublished study prepared by Covance Laboratories, Ltd. 136 p.

42684907 Fathulla, R. (1992) Column Leaching Characteristics of (Phe- (carbon 14))-V-53482 in Typical 

Agricultural Soils (Unaged Study): Lab Project Number: HLA 6320-102. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 85 p.

42684908 Fathulla, R. (1992) Column Leaching Characteristics of (THP- (carbon 14))-V-53482 in Typical 

Agricultural Soils (Unaged Soils): Lab Project Number: HLA 6320-104. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 90 p.

42684909 Fathulla, R. (1992) Column Leaching Characteristics of ?Phe-(carbon 14)|-V-53482 in Typical 

Agricultural Soils (Aged Soils): Lab Project Number: HWI 6320-108. Unpublished study prepared by 

Hazleton Laboratories America, Inc. 115 p.

42884010 Fathulla, R. (1993) Column Leaching Characteristics of (Phe--(carbon 14))--V-53482 in Soil (Part 2): Lab 

Project Number: 6320-110. Unpublished study prepared by Hazleton Wisconsin, Inc. 113 p.

45309201 Rose, K.; Shah, J.; Korsch, B. (1994) Adsorption and Desorption of (Phenyl-(carbon-14))-APF to Soil: 

Lab Project Number: 5855-93-EF-001: 200000407. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 157 p.

45309202 Shah, J. (1994) Adsorption and Desorption of Tetrahydrophthalic Acid (THPA) to Soil: Lab Project 

Number: 5854-93-0252-EF-001: 200000406. Unpublished study prepared by Ricerca, Inc. 153 p.

44295043 Corbin, B. (1996) Soil Dissipation of Phenyl-(carbon 14)-Flumioxazin Under Field Conditions in North 

Carolina: Lab Project Number: 10728: 767: 5661-93-0136-EF-001. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL 

East, Inc. and Ricerca, Inc. 326 p.

44295044 Pensyl, J. (1996) Terrestrial Field Dissipation Study with V-53482 WP Herbicide on No-Till Ground in 

Illinois: Lab Project Number: VP-11278: 9600489: V-95-11278. Unpublished study prepared by Valent 

USA Corp. 267 p.

44295045 Pensyl, J. (1996) Field Dissipation Study with V-53482 WDG Herbicide in Mississippi: Lab Project 

Number: VP-1013: 9600493: 1641-91-1013. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. 327 p.

44295046 Pensyl, J. (1996) Field Dissipation Study with V-53482 WDG Herbicide in Iowa: Lab Project Number: 

VP-1011: 9600490: 1641-91-1011. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. 464 p.

44295047 Lightle, S.; Coody, P. (1997) Soil Dissipation of (Phenyl-(carbon 14))Flumioxazin Under Actual Field 

Conditions in Soybeans in Indiana: (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 964: 1926: 9700264. Unpublished 

study prepared by PTRL East, Inc.; PTRL West, Inc.; and A&L Great Lakes Labs, Inc. 257 p.

45375502 Schreier, T. (2001) Terrestrial Field Soil Dissipation of Fluminoxazin in Established Walnuts: Lab Project 

Number: 20335: 200100002: V-99-20335. Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 190 

p.

48131402 Green, C. (2007) Terrestrial Field Soil Dissipation of Flumioxazin (Chateau WDG) on Bare Ground in 

Ontario, Canada. Project Number: V/26286. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Dublin Laboratory. 365 

p.
Page | 52

46163701 Pensyl, J. (2003) Rebuttal to the EPA Data Evaluation Report for Soil Dissipation Studies Follow Up 

Report. Project Number: FLUM/DER/01. Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 23 p.

47550605 Flora, E.A., M.T. Boatwright and S. Selim (2008) Aquatic Dissipation of Flumioxazin in Iowa during 

2007, Valent Project Number VP-32001. Unpublished Study Performed by Eurofins-Agrisearch Americas 

Inc., Noblesville, Indiana (test facility), University of Northern Iowa, Cedar Falls, Iowa (field phase), 

Research Options, Inc., Montezuma, Georgia (field phase), Agvise Labs, Inc., Northwood, North Dakota 

(soil characterization) and Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC, Fresno, California (analytical phase) and 

Sponsored and Submitted by Valent U.S.A. Corporation, Walnut Creek, California (pp.1,5, and 6), 

Laboratory Project ID:VP-32001. Experiment initiation August 8,2007 (test application, Site 1, p.13) and 

Completion November 20, 2007 (analytical phase, Appendix 3, p.115). Final Report Issued July 2, 2008.

42684910 Wustner, D. (1993) Bioaccumulation in Fish of V-53482 (Waiver Request 165-4): Lab Project Number: 

W-482-2. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. 9 p.

45375508 Hewitt, A. (2000) Atomization Droplet Size Spectra for Cotton/Soybean Herbicides: Lab Project Number: 

V00-002: 200100035. Unpublished study prepared by Stewart Agricultural Research Services, Inc. 96 p.

42884001 Gustafson, D. (1993) EEC's for Flumioxazin, Predicted in Pond Water Using the PRZM and EXAMS 

Computer Models: Lab Project Number: 93-482-02. Unpublished study prepared by Valent USA Corp. 16 

p.

42985501 Gustafson, D. (1993) EEC's for Flumioxazin in Pond Water Using PRZM and EXAMS Computer 

Models: Amended Report No. 1 (MRID 42884001): Lab Project Number: 93-482-02A. Unpublished study 

prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corp. 16 p.

44295042 Kruplak, J. (1995) Independent Laboratory Validation of the Method for Quantitation of Flumioxazin in 

Soil: Lab Project Number: 1550-1: 9600111: RM-30D. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical 

Development Corp. 67 p.

45375512 Rose, A. (2001) Henry's Law Constant for Flumioxazin: Lab Project Number: VP-23237: 200100079. 

Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corporation. 8 p.

47550601 Habig, C (2008) Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations for the Proposed Aquatic Uses of the 

Herbicide Flumioxazin. Project Number: FLUMIOXAZIN/08/01. Unpublished study prepared by 

Exponent, Inc. 15 p.

48131403 Kowalsky, J. (2007) NAFTA Guidance Document for Conducting Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies 

April 20, 2005. Project Number: V/29153, 200700278. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Dublin 

Laboratory. 324 p.

48131404 Kowalsky, J. (2007) NAFTA Guidance Document for Conducting Terrestrial Field Dissipation Studies 

April 20, 2005. Project Number: 200700277, V/29031. Unpublished study prepared by Valent Dublin 

Laboratory. 290 p.

47550603 Claussen, F. (2008) Independent laboratory validation of method GPL-MTH-064 for the determination of 

flumioxazin and its APF and 482,-HA metabolites in pond water and pond sediment. Unpublished study 

performed by EPL Bio-Analytical Services (EPL-BAS), Niantic, Illinois; sponsored and submitted by 

Valent U.S.A. Corporation, Walnut Creek, California (p. 45). Laboratory Project No.: 1596410. 

Experiment initiated December 11,2007 and completed June 27,2008 (p. 10). Final report issued June 

27,2008.

47550604 Aufderheide, J. (2008) Magnitude of Residue of Flumioxazin in Fish. Project Number: 63381, VP/32363, 

080281. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. and Golden Pacific Laboratories, LLC 

(GPL). 220 p. (This study was reviewed by W. Cutchin in ARIA/RD/OPP)

SUBMITTED EFFECTS STUDIES:

42684945 Lloyd, D.; Jaber, M.; Hoxter, K. (1990) An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Bobwhite: V-53482: Final 

Report: Lab Project Number: 263-111. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 21 p.

42684946 Culotta, J.; Hoxter, K.; Smith, G.; et al. (1991) V-53482: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Lab 

Project Number: 263-110. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 37 p.

42684947 Culotta, J.; Hoxter, K.; Smith, G.; et al. (1991) V-53482: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern 

Bobwhite: Lab Project Number: 263-109. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 37 p.
Page | 53

44295005 Beavers, J.; Simpler, O.; Smith, G.; et al. (1994) V-53482: A One-Generation Reproduction Study with 

the Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 263-122: 9600102: 263-119. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 241 p.

44295006Beavers, J.; Simpler, O.; Smith, G.; et al. (1994) V-53482: A One-generation Reproduction Study with the 

Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 263-121: 9600101: 263-118. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 240 p. 

42684948 Takinoto, Y.; Hagino, S.; Saito, S. (1989) The Acute Toxicity of S-53482 to Rainbow Trout (Salmo 

gairdneri): Lab Project Number: FTX-89003. Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical Co., 

Ltd. 30 p.

42684949 Takimoto, Y.; Hagino, S.; Saito, S. (1989) The Acute Toxicity of S-53482 to Bluegill (Lepomis 

Macrochirus): Lab Project Number: FTX-89006. Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical Co., 

Ltd. 30 p.

44295007 Sword, M.; Thompson, K.; Veltri, J. (1992) Toxicity of S-53482 T.G. to Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) After 21 Days of Exposure Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

40319: 9300510. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs, Inc. 564 p.

42684950 Reed, D.; Swigert, J. (1992) A 48-Hour Flow-Through Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran (Daphnia 

magna): V-53482: Lab Project Number: 263A-104. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International 

Ltd. 48 p.

43066501 Radcliffe, M.; Solomon, B. (1992) A 48-Hour Flow-through Acute Toxicity Test with the Cladoceran 

(Daphnia magna) (of V-53482), Response to EPA Review: Lab Project Number: 93-482-06: 263A-104. 

Unpublished study prepared by Valent U.S.A. Corp. 48 p.

44295008 Dionne, E. (1994) V-53482 Technical--Acute Toxicity to Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica) Under 

Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 12709.0693.6128.504: VP-10712: 9400826. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 81 p. {OPPTS 850.1025}

44295009 Machado, M. (1994) V-53482 Technical--Acute Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp (Mysidopsis bahia) Under 

Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: VP-10710: 12709.0693.6126.515: 9400825. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 77 p. {OPPTS 850.1035}

44295010 Machado, M. (1994) V-53482 Technical--Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead Minnow (Cyprinodon 

variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 12709.0693.6127.505: VP-10713: 

9400827. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 75 p. {OPPTS 850.1075}

44295011 Drottar, K.; Swigert, J. (1994) (Carbon 14)-S-53482: A Flow-Through Life-Cycle Toxicity Test with the 

Cladoceran (Daphnia magna): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 166A-108: 9400163. Unpublished 

study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 57 p. {OPPTS 850.1300}

44295012 Hagino, S.; Miyamoto, M. (1996) Early Life-Stage Toxicity Test of S-53482 with Rainbow Trout

(Oncorhynchus mykiss): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: ELS950001: 9600537: 9600538. 

Unpublished study prepared by Sumitomo Chemical Co., Ltd. 858 p. {OPPTS 850.1400}

44295013 Sousa, J. (1996) V-53482 TGAI (Flumioxazin)--The Chronic Toxicity to Mysids (Mysidopsis bahia) 

Under Flow-Through Conditions: Lab Project Number: 96-9-6686: 9600462. Unpublished study prepared 

by Springborn Labs, Inc. 101 p. {OPPTS 850.1350}

42922901 Radcliffe, M. (1993) Letter Sent to Joanne Miller dated Sep. 3, 1993 providing preliminary information 

from a rainbow trout early life-stage preliminary study being conducted with flumioxazin. Prepared by 

Valent USA Corp. 5 p.

44295031 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin--Toxicity to the Freshwater Green Alga (Selenastrum 

capricornutum): Lab Project Number: 96-9-6690: 9600536: 061196/FIFRA/430/V-53482. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

44295032 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa): Lab 

Project Number: 96-10-6717: 9600525: 061196/FIFRA/440/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Labs, Inc. 83 p. {OPPTS 850.4400)

44295033 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): Lab 

Project Number: 96-10-6703: 9600534: 061196/FIFRA/450/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.440}

44295034 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--5-Day Toxicity to the Freshwater Blue-Green Alga (Anabaena 

flos-aquae): Lab Project Number: 96-10-6704: 9600533: 061196/FIFRA/420/V-53482. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}
Page | 54

44295035 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Duckweed (Lemna gibba): Lab Project 

Number: 96-10-6722: 9600532: 061196/FIFRA/410/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Labs, Inc. 84 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

44295029 Chetram, R. (1997) Tier II Seedling Emergence Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study Using Flumioxazin: (Final 

Report): Lab Project Number: 96569: 9700256: VP-11430. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs 

California. 276 p. {OPPTS 850.4225}

44295030 Chetram, R. (1997) Tier II Vegetative Vigor Nontarget Phytotoxicity Study Using Flumioxazin: Lab 

Project Number: 96570: 94700257: VP-11559. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs California. 395 

p. {OPPTS 850.4250}

44295031 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin--Toxicity to the Freshwater Green Alga (Selenastrum 

capricornutum): Lab Project Number: 96-9-6690: 9600536: 061196/FIFRA/430/V-53482. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

44295032 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa): Lab 

Project Number: 96-10-6717: 9600525: 061196/FIFRA/440/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Labs, Inc. 83 p. {OPPTS 850.4400)

44295033 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): Lab 

Project Number: 96-10-6703: 9600534: 061196/FIFRA/450/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by 

Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.440}

44295034 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--5-Day Toxicity to the Freshwater Blue-Green Alga (Anabaena 

flos-aquae): Lab Project Number: 96-10-6704: 9600533: 061196/FIFRA/420/V-53482. Unpublished study 

prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 79 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

44295035 Hoberg, J. (1996) V-53482 (Flumioxazin)--Toxicity to the Duckweed (Lemna gibba): Lab Project 

Number: 96-10-6722: 9600532: 061196/FIFRA/410/V-53482. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn

Labs, Inc. 84 p. {OPPTS 850.4400}

42684951 Hoxter, K.; Thompson, M.; Jaber, M. (1990) An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: V53482: Lab Project Number: 263-112. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 14 p.

44295014 Williams, W.; Pugsley, R.; Johnson, L. (1996) Probabilistic Modeling of Flumioxazin Exposure to 

Aquatic Nontarget Organisms Associated with Flumioxazin (V-53482) Use on Soybeans and Peanuts: 

(Final Report): Lab Project Number: WEI 825.06: 9700146. Unpublished study prepared by Waterborne 

Environmental Inc. 52 p.

47889334 Taylor, K. (2009) V-10233: Acute Toxicity to Typhlodromus pyri in the Laboratory: Final Report. Project 

Number: MCW0003. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 38 p.

47889335 Taylor, K. (2009) V-10233: Acute Toxicity to Aphidius rhopalosiphi in the Laboratory: Final Report. 

Project Number: MCW0002. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon Life Sciences, Ltd. 39 p.
Page | 55

Appendix 1. ECOTOX Accepted and Rejected Papers

Accepted Papers:

Daugrois, J. H., Hoy, J. W., and Griffin, J. L. (2005). Protoporphyrinogen Oxidase Inhibitor Herbicide Effects on 

Pythium Root Rot of Sugarcane, Pythium Species, and the Soil Microbial Community. Phytopathology 95: 

220-226. EcoReference No.: 107864

Geoffroy, L., Frankart, C., and Eullaffroy, P. (2004). Comparison of Different Physiological Parameter Responses in 

Lemna minor and Scenedesmus obliquus Exposed to Herbicide Flumioxazin. Environ.Pollut. 131: 233-

241. EcoReference No.: 119333

Kawamura, S., Kato, T., Matsuo, M., Sasaki, M., Katsuda, Y., Hoberman, A. M., and Yasuda, M. (1995). Species 

Difference in Developmental Toxicity of an N-Phenylimide Herbicide Between Rats and Rabbits and 

Sensitive Period of the Toxicity to Rat Embryos. Congenital Anom. 35: 123-132. EcoReference No.: 

119367

Kawamura, S., Yoshioka, T., Kato, T., Matsuo, M., and Yasuda, M. (1996). Histological Changes in Rat Embryonic 

Blood Cells as a Possible Mechanism for Ventricular Septal Defects Produced by an N-Phenylimide 

Herbicide. Teratology 54: 237-244. EcoReference No.: 119661

Mudge, C. R. (2007). Characterization of Flumioxazin as an Aquatic Herbicide. M.S.Thesis, Univ.of Florida 121 p. 

(UMI# 3300773). EcoReference No.: 118705

Partridge, D. E., Sutton, T. B., and Jordan, D. L. (2006). Effect of Environmental Factors and Pesticides on 

Mycoparasitism of Sclerotinia minor by Coniothyrium minitans. Plant Dis. 90: 1407-1412. EcoReference 

No.: 119499

Richardson, R. J., Roten, R. L., West, A. M., True, S. L., and Gardner, A. P. (2008). Response of Selected Aquatic 

Invasive Weeds to Flumioxazin and Carfentrazone-Ethyl. J.Aquat.Plant Manag. 46: 154-158.

Rejected Papers:

Acceptable to EcoTox but not to OPP

Johnson III, W. C., Prostko, E. P., and Mullinix, B. G. Jr. (2005). Improving the Management of Dicot Weeds in 

Peanut with Narrow Row Spacings and Residual Herbicides. Agron.J. 97: 85-88. EcoReference No.: 

82184

Niekamp, J. W., Johnson, W. G., and Smeda, R. J. (1999). Broadleaf Weed Control with Sulfentrazone and 

Flumioxazin in No-Tillage Soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol. 13: 233-238. EcoReference No.: 72819

Patzoldt, W. L., Tranel, P. J., and Hager, A. G. (2005). A Waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatus) Biotype with 

Multiple Resistance Across Three Herbicide Sites of Action. Weed Sci. 53: 30-36. EcoReference No.: 

108756

Wilcut, J. W., Askew, S. D., Bailey, W. A., Spears, J. F., and Isleib, T. G. (2001). Virginia Market-Type Peanut 

(Arachis hypogaea) Cultivar Tolerance and Yield Response to Flumioxazin Preemergence. Weed Technol.

15: 137-140. EcoReference No.: 66740

Excluded

2007-). Cervical cancer vaccine pledge for poor nations. The New Scientist 196: 6.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: HUMAN HEALTH.

2009-). Emissions pledges will still bust the 2 ÝC limit. The New Scientist 204: 6.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: FATE.

2004). Flumioxazin; Pesticide Tolerances. Fed. Regist. 69: 52192-52198.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: FOOD.

2006). Flumioxazin; pesticide tolerances for emergency exemptions. Fed. Regist. 71: 61410-61413.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: FOOD.

2008-). Guilty countries pledge to cut emissions to zero. The New Scientist 197: 6.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: FATE.

1964). Modelos simplificados del ambiente marino para el estudio de la sucesión y distribución del fitoplancton y 

del valor indicator de sus pigmentos : Margalef R., 1963. Invest. Persquera, Barcelona, 23: 11-52. Deep Sea 

Research and Oceanographic Abstracts 11: 497.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: NO TOX DATA.

2008-). Tackling tobacco in poorer countries. The New Scientist 199: 6.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: HUMAN HEALTH.

2002-). UK pledge for funding boost. Current Biology 12: R510.

Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: FMX Code: NO TOX DATA.
Page | 56

Acerbi, M., Carenzo, S., Daniele, C., Norbis, W. (ed), and Chomenko, L. (ed) (2000). [Coastal Biosphere Reservois 

in Argentine]. 35-50.

Alarcón, Francisco J., Moyano, Francisco J., and Díaz, Manuel (2007). Effect of inhibitors present in protein sources 

on digestive proteases of juvenile sea bream (Sparus aurata). Aquatic Living Resources 12: 233-238 .

Aldrich, G. A., Tanaka, J. A., Adams, R. M., and Buckhouse, J. C. (2005). Economics of Western Juniper Control in 

Central Oregon. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 542-

552. Sep 2005.

Alikhanidi, Sokratis and Takahashi, Yoshimasa (2004). Pesticide persistence in the environment - collected data and 

structure-based analysis. J. Comput. Chem., Jpn. 3: 59-70.

Amezaga, I., Mendarte, S., Albizu, I., Besga, G., Garbisu, C., and Onaindia, M. (2004). Grazing Intensity, Aspect, 

and Slope Effects on Limestone Grassland Structure. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland 

Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 606-612. Nov 2004.

Arencibia, G., Carredeguas, C., Capetillo, N., Delgado, G., and Isla, M. (2001). Contamination of the Bay of Nipe 

Ecosystem, Holguin, Cuba. Revista cubana de investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. 

Numero Especial, [np]. 2001. [np].

Arponen Anni, Heikkinen Risto K, Thomas Chris D, and Moilanen Atte (2005). The Value of Biodiversity in 

Reserve Selection: Representation, Species Weighting, and Benefit Functions. Conservation Biology 

[Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 2009-2014. Dec 2005.

Arzani, H., Zohdi, M., Fish, E., Zahedi Amiri, G. H., Nikkhah, A., and Wester, D. (2004). Phenological Effects on 

Forage Quality of Five Grass Species. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. 

Vol. 57, no. 6, pp. 624-629. Nov 2004.

Aulesa, Carlos, Cabrera, M., Alonso, R., Benítez, M., and Martínez, M. (2001). Evaluación del sistema 

automatizado Sperm Class Analyzer® (SCA) para análisis del semen. Revista del Laboratorio Clínico 2: 

8-16.

Baeza, Eduardo (1977). Consideraciones generales sobre las experiencias de desalacion en espana. Desalination 20: 

95-104.

Bai, Y., Broersma, K., Thompson, D., and Ross, T. J. (2004). Landscape-Level Dynamics of Grassland-Forest 

Transitions in British Columbia. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 57, 

no. 1, pp. 66-75. Jan 2004.

Baigun, C. R. M. (ed), Carriquiriborde, P. (ed), Colautti, D. C. (ed), Grosman, F. (ed), Marinelarena, A. (ed), 

Maronas, M. E. (ed), and Miranda, L. (ed) (2008). Congress on the Ecology and Management of Pampean 

Aquatic Ecosystems (4th). Complete Works. 24: 172 pp.

Bakir, Farhan, Al-Ani, Fouad, Talib, H., Thwani, J., Al-Shabander, N., Rasheed, R. K., and Al-Nasri, A. (1977). 

Serous lymphocytiic exudates in Iraq: The value of various methods of investigation. Tubercle 58: 101-

107.

Berger, J. (2004). The Last Mile: How to Sustain Long-Distance Migration in Mammals. Conservation Biology 

[Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 320-331. Apr 2004.

Birchfield, Norman B. and Casida, John E (1997). Protoporphyrinogen oxidase of mouse and maize: target site 

selectivity and thiol effects on peroxidizing herbicide action. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 57: 36-43.

Biudes, J. F. V. and Camargo, A. F. M. (2006). Changes in Biomass, Chemical Composition and Nutritive Value of 

Spartina Alterniflora Due to Organic Pollution in the Itanhaem River Basin (Sp, Brazil). Brazilian Journal 

of Biology [Braz. J. Biol.]. Vol. 66, no. 3, pp. 781-789. Aug 2006.

Boeri, R. and Passerini, A. (2009). The megadolichobasilar anomaly. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 1: 475-

484.

Bollini, G. A., Rodríguez-Flórez, C. D., and Colantonio, S. E. (2009). Bilateral asymmetry in permanent dentition of 

13 pre-conquest samples from Argentina (South America). HOMO - Journal of Comparative Human 

Biology 60: 127-137.

Bufon, A. G. M., Tauk-Tornisielo, S. M., and Piao, A. C. S. (2002). Relation of Nitrogen and Phosphorus in 

Microbasin of the Stream of the Barrinha, Pirassununga, Sp. Boletim Tecnico do CEPTA [Bol. Tec. 

CEPTA]. Vol. 15, pp. 39-47. 2002. 15: 39-47.

Caballero, R., Fernandez, E., and Rioperez, J. (1992). Some blood and rumen constituents in Manchega ewes 

grazing cereal stubbles and cultivated pastures. Small Ruminant Research 7: 331-345.

Caldas, F. B., Candeias, C. I., and Do Gago, C. C. (1998). Value of Benthonic Diatoms as Indicators in Evaluating 

Water Quality. Revista de Biologia [Rev. Biol. (Lisboa)]. Vol. 16, no. 1-4, pp. 177-182. 1998.

Carredeguas, C. (2001). General Aspects for the Localization and Installation of Diving Sites for TouristRecreational Purposes. Revista cubana de investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. No. 
Page | 57

Especial I, [np]. 2001. [np].

Carrodeguas Rodriguez, M. C. (2001). Characterization of Ecologically Sensitive Areas in Maguana Beach , a 

Strategy for the Preservation of the Environment. Revista cubana de investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. 

Invest. Pesq.]. no. No. Especial I, [np]. 2001. [np].

Casalegno, Mose', Sello, Guido, and Benfenati, Emilio (2006). Top-Priority Fragment QSAR Approach in 

Predicting Pesticide Aquatic Toxicity. Chem. Res. Toxicol. 19: 1533-1539.

Casas, J. L. O. (2002). The Water Framework Directive (2000/60 Ec): Relevant Aspects of the Guadalmed Project.

Limnetica [Limnetica]. Vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 5-12. 2002.

Cederbaum Sandra B, Carroll John P, and Cooper Robert J (2004). Effects of Alternative Cotton Agriculture on 

Avian and Arthropod Populations. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1272-1282. 

Oct 2004.

Cervantes Cianca , R. C. and Gomez Barron, J. M. (2001). Production of Compost From Organic Waste Generated 

by the Community of the Laguna, Municipio of Medellin De Bravo, Veracruz. Mexico. Revista cubana de 

investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. No. Especial I, [np]. 2001. [np].

Chesshire, John (1992). Why nuclear power failed the market test in the UK. Energy Policy 20: 744-754.

Christy, A. E., Cheney, D. P., Suhrbier, A., and Beltran, H. (2005). Scoopy Doo! A Pet Waste Education Campaign, 

Thurston County, Washington. Journal of Shellfish Research [J. Shellfish Res.]. Vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 318-

319. Jan 2005. 24: 318-319.

Cook Rosamonde R and Auster Peter J (2005). Use of Simulated Annealing for Identifying Essential Fish Habitat in 

a Multispecies Context. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 876-886. Jun 2005.

Cooper, K. G., Hanlon, L. G., Smart, G. M., and Talbot, R. E. (1983). A model for the fouling of M.S.F. plants 

based on data from operating units. Desalination 47: 37-42.

Daily, G. C., Ceballos, G., Pacheco, J., Suzan, G., and Sanchez-Azofeifa, A. (2003). Countryside Biogeography of 

Neotropical Mammals: Conservation Opportunities in Agricultural Landscapes of Costa Rica.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1814-1826. Dec 2003.

de la Cruz, M., Serrano, E., Montoro, V., Marco, J., Romeo, M., Baselga, R., Albizu, I., and Amorena, B. (1994). 

Etiology and prevalence of subclinical mastitis in the Manchega sheep at mid-late lactation. Small 

Ruminant Research 14: 175-180.

de Vicente, I. and Cruz-Pizarro, L. (2003). [Study of the External and Internal Phosphorus Loads and Application to 

Imperical Models of Eutrophication in the Waters of the Albufera De Adra]. Limnetica [Limnetica]. Vol. 

22, no. 1-2, pp. 165-181. 2003. 22: 165-181.

Del Moral Gonzalez, Jose Carlos, Hernández Mira, Gema Maria, and Barros Fontes, Ilse (2007). Pruebas de escaso 

valor clínico: estrategia informativa para su sustitución en un hospital comarcal portugués. Revista del 

Laboratorio Clínico 2: 139-144.

Diaz, D. D. and Carballo, G. A. (1999). Organic Carbon and Pond Soil Management at the Tunas De Zaza Shrimp 

Culture Station, Cuba. Boletin del Centro de Investigaciones Biologicas [Bol. Cent. Invest. Biol. 

(Maracaibo)]. Vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 39-48. 1999.

Dickinson, Jean M. and Mitchison, D. A. (1970). Observations in vitro on the suitability of pyrazinamide for 

intermittent chemotherapy of tuberculosis. Tubercle 51: 389-396.

Dorken, E., Grzybowski, S., and Enarson, D. A. (1984). Ten year evaluation of a trial of cremoprophylaxis against 

tuberculosis in Frobisher Bay, Canada. Tubercle 65: 93-99.

Duchowicz, Pablo R., Talevi, Alan, Bellera, Carolina, Bruno-Blanch, Luis E., and Castro, Eduardo A (2007). 

Application of descriptors based on Lipinski's rules in the QSPR study of aqueous solubilities. Bioorg. 

Med. Chem. 15: 3711-3719.

Duchowicz, Pablo R., Talevi, Alan, Bruno-Blanch, Luis E., and Castro, Eduardo A (2008). New QSPR study for the 

prediction of aqueous solubility of drug-like compounds. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 16: 7944-7955.

Dunseth, David R. and Bayne, David R. (1978). Recruitment control and production of Tilapia aurea (Steindachner) 

with the predator, Cichlasoma managuense (Gnnther). Aquaculture 14: 383-390.

eixandre-Benavent, R., González-Alcaide, G., onso-Arroyo, A., Bolaños-Pizarro, M., Castelló-Cogollos, L., and 

Valderrama-Zurián, J. C. (2008). Redes de coautorías y colaboración institucional en Farmacia 

Hospitalaria. Farmacia Hospitalaria 32: 226-233.

Embree, C. G., Tehrani, G., and McRae, K. B. (1999). Vineland Plum Cultivars Perform Well on Dwarf and 

Vigorous Rootstocks in Early Production. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 79 : 611-615.

Endecott, R. L., Sawyer, J. E., Loeest, C. A., and Petersen, M. K. (2005). Feeding Value of Singed Walkingstick 

Cholla. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 430-433. Jul 

2005.
Page | 58

Esler, D., Iverson, S. A., and Rizzolo, D. J. (2006). Genetic and Demographic Criteria for Defining Population Units

for Conservation: the Value of Clear Messages. Condor [Condor]. Vol. 108, no. 2, pp. 480-483. May 2006.

Fernández Ramos, Ana María, Segovia Cuevas, María Jesús, Cobos Díaz, Andrés, and Enguix Armada, Alfredo 

(2008). Evaluación de un método inmunonefelométrico competitivo para la cuantificación de la 

homocisteína. Revista del Laboratorio Clínico 1: 13-16.

Ferracini, V. L., Pessoa MCYP, Silva, A. S., and Spadotto, C. A. (2001 ). Ground and Surface Water of the Regions 

Petrolina (Pe) and Juazeiro (Ba). Pesticidas [Pesticidas]. Vol. 11, pp. 1-16. Jan-Dec 2001. 11: 1-16.

Ferrell, J. A., Vencill, W. K., and Grey, T. L (2003). Laboratory studies on flumioxazin sorption and persistence in 

soil. 1 : 555-560.

Ferrell, Jason A. and Vencill, William K (2003). Flumioxazin Soil Persistence and Mineralization in Laboratory 

Experiments. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51: 4719-4721.

Ferrell, Jason A. and Vencill, William K (2004). Gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric determination of 

flumioxazin extracted from soil and water. J. AOAC Int. 87 : 56-59.

Ferrell, Jason A., Vencill, William K., Xia, Kang, and Grey, Timothy L (2005). Sorption and desorption of 

flumioxazin to soil, clay minerals and ion-exchange resin. Pest Manage. Sci. 61: 40-46, 1 Plate.

Fierro, L. C. and Bryant, F. C. (1990). Nutrition of herded sheep in the andes of Southern Peru. Small Ruminant 

Research 3: 117-134.

Filipe, A. F., Marques, T. A., Seabra, S., Tiago, P., Ribeiro, F., Da Costa, L. M., Cowx, I. G., and Collares-Pereira, 

M. J. (2004). Selection of Priority Areas for Fish Conservation in Guadiana River Basin, Iberian Peninsula.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 189-200. Feb 2004.

Fratev, F., Lo Piparo, E., Benfenati, E., and Mihaylova, E (2007). Toxicity study of allelochemical-like pesticides by 

a combination of 3D-QSAR, docking, Local Binding Energy (LBE) and GRID approaches. SAR QSAR 

Environ. Res. 18: 675-692.

Gambarotta, J. C., Menafra, R. (ed), Rodriguez-Gallego, L. (ed), Scarabino, F. (ed), and Conde, D. (ed) (2006). 

[Current Situation, Proposals and Perspectives of Management of Protected Coastal Areas]. 371-378.

Garateix Anoland, Salceda Emilio, Aneiros Abel, Beress Laszlo, and Soto Enrique (2003). Characterization of the 

Atxii Toxin From the Sea Anemone Anemonia Sulcata on Sodium Currents in Rat Dorsal Root Ganglion 

Neurons.

Gaveau, David L. A., Wandono, Hagnyo, and Setiabudi, Firm (2007). Three decades of deforestation in southwest 

Sumatra: Have protected areas halted forest loss and logging, and promoted re-growth? Biological 

Conservation 134: 495-504.

Giles, Jim and Brahic, Catherine (2009-). Climate pledges so far nowhere near enough. The New Scientist 204: 14-

15.

Government of Ontario, Toronto, ON [Canada], Minist. Environ. & Energy (1997). Ontario's Progress in Pollution 

Prevention. 49 pp.

Grange, J. M. (1975). The genetics of mycobacteria and mycobacteriophages -- A review. Tubercle 56: 227-238.

Green Rhys E, Balmford Andrew, Crane Peter R, Mace Georgina M, Reynolds John D, and Turner RKerry (2005). 

Essays: a Framework for Improved Monitoring of Biodiversity: Responses to the World Summit on 

Sustainable Development. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 56-65. Feb 2005.

Guerra-Garcia, J. M. and Garcia-Gomez, J. C. (2004). Crustachan Assemblages and Sediment Pollution in an 

Exceptional Case Study: a Harbour With Two Opposing Entrances. Crustaceana [Crustaceana]. Vol. 77, 

no. 3, pp. 353-370. Mar 2004.

Guisan Antoine, Broennimann Olivier, Engler Robin, Vust Mathias, Yoccoz Nigel G, Lehmann Anthony, and 

Zimmermann Niklaus E (2006). Using Niche-Based Models to Improve the Sampling of Rare Species.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 501-511. Apr 2006.

Gómez-Limón, F. Javier and de Lucio, JoséV (1995). Recreational activities and loss of diversity in grasslands in 

Alta Manzanares Natural Park, Spain. Biological Conservation 74: 99-105.

Hahn, F. L. (1954). Verbesserte endpunktsbestimmung in der potentiometrischen analyse. Analytica Chimica Acta

11: 396-399.

Hansen, G. J. A. and Jones, M. L. (2008). The Value of Information in Fishery Management. Fisheries [Fisheries]. 

Vol. 33, no. 7, [np]. Jul 2008. 33: [np].

Hao, Ge-Fei, Zhu, Xiao-Lei, Ji, Feng-Qin, Zhang, Li, Yang, Guang-Fu, and Zhan, Chang-Guo (2009). 

Understanding the Mechanism of Drug Resistance Due to a Codon Deletion in Protoporphyrinogen 

Oxidase through Computational Modeling. J. Phys. Chem. B 113: 4865-4875.

Harris Monica B, Tomas Walfrido, Mourao Guilherme, Da Silva Carolina J, Guimaraes Erika, Sonoda Fatima, and

Fachim Eliani (2005). Safeguarding the Pantanal Wetlands: Threats and Conservation Initiatives.
Page | 59

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 714-720. Jun 2005.

Hejný, J. (1982). A drug sensitivity test strategy for atypical mycobacteria. Tubercle 63: 63-69.

Herzog, C. (1981). Multiple-puncture tuberculin testing: Reason for variable response to tine test. Tubercle 62: 249-

256.

Hirahara, Yoshichika, Kimura, Mika, Inoue, Tomoko, Uchikawa, Seiji, Otani, Shoji, Haganuma, Asami, 

Matsumoto, Nobuyuki, Hirata, Asumi, Maruyama, Shiho, Iizuka, Tomomi, Ukyo, Masaho, Ota, Mitsue, 

Hirose, Hideaki, Suzuki, Sosuke, and Uchida, Yukinori (2005). Validation of multiresidue screening 

methods for the determination of 186 pesticides in 11 agricultural products using gas chromatography 

(GC). J. Health Sci. 51: 617-627.

Hixson, A. (2008). Soil properties affect simazine and saflufenacil fate, behavior, and performance.

Hoeinghaus David J, Agostinho Angelo A, Gomes Luiz C, Pelicice Fernando M, Okada Edson K, Latini Joao D, 

Kashiwaqui Elaine AL, and Winemiller Kirk O (2009). Effects of River Impoundment on Ecosystem 

Services of Large Tropical Rivers: Embodied Energy and Market Value of Artisanal Fisheries.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 1222-1231. Oct 2009. 23: 1222-1231.

Hou, Zhong Ke, Ren, Ye Guo, Huang, Ming Zhi, Song, Jian, and Chen, Li Gong (2004). 2-[7-Fluoro-3,4-dihydro-4-

(3-iodoprop-2-ynyl)-3-oxo-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-6-yl]-4,5,6,7-tetrahydro-2H-isoindole-1,3-dione. Acta 

Crystallogr., Sect. E: Struct. Rep. Online E60: o1336-o1337.

Huertas, M., Gisbert, E., Cardona, L., Rodriguez, A., Castello-Orvay, F., Barber HF-P, and Lopez, M. I. (2001). 

Determination of Lc Sub(50) of Nitrite Toxicity on Juveniles of Siberian Sturgeon (Acipenser Baeri, 

Brandt): Evaluation of Blood Parameters. 

Jacobo, E. J., Rodriguez, A. M., Bartoloni, N., and Deregibus, V. A. (2006). Rotational Grazing Effects on 

Rangeland Vegetation at a Farm Scale. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. 

Vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 249-257. May 2006.

Janer, Gemma, Hakkert, Betty C., Piersma, Aldert H., Vermeire, Theo, and Slob, Wout (2007). A retrospective 

analysis of the added value of the rat two-generation reproductive toxicity study versus the rat subchronic 

toxicity study. Reprod. Toxicol. 24: 103-113.

Janer, Gemma, Hakkert, Betty C., Slob, Wout, Vermeire, Theo, and Piersma, Aldert H (2007). A retrospective 

analysis of the two-generation study: What is the added value of the second generation? Reprod. Toxicol.

24: 97-102.

Janiot, L., Sik, E., Marcucci, O., Gesino, A., Molina, D. A., Martinez, L. L., Marcucci, P., and FREPLATA, 

Montevideo (Uruguay) (2005). [Persistent Organic Pollutants and Heavy Metals in Waters and Sediments 

in the Rio De La Plata and Its Oceanic Front]. 4 pp.

Kaeser, A. J. and Litts, T. L. (2008). An Assessment of Deadhead Logs and Large Woody Debris Using Side Scan 

Sonar and Field Surveys in Streams of Southwest Georgia. Fisheries [Fisheries]. Vol. 33, no. 12, pp. 589-

598. Dec 2008. 33: 589-598.

Katagi, Toshiyuki (2003). Hydrolysis of N-phenylimide herbicide flumioxazin and its anilic acid derivative in 

aqueous solutions. J. Pestic. Sci. (Tokyo, Jpn.) 28: 44-50.

Kati, V., Devillers, P., DufrĂŞne, M., Legakis, A., Vokou, D., and Lebrun, P. (2004). Testing the Value of Six 

Taxonomic Groups as Biodiversity Indicators at a Local Scale. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. 

Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 667-675. Jun 2004.

Kawamura, Satoshi, Kato, Terushige, Matsuo, Masatoshi, Katsuda, Yoko, and Yasuda, Mineo (1996). Species 

difference in protoporphyrin IX accumulation produced by an N-phenylimide herbicide in embryos 

between rats and rabbits. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 141: 520-525.

Knick, S. T., Dobkin, D. S., Rotenberry, J. T., Schroeder, M. A., Vander Haegen, W. M., and van Riper, C. (2003). 

Teetering on the Edge or Too Late? Conservation and Research Issues for Avifauna of Sagebrush Habitats.

Condor [Condor]. Vol. 105, no. 4, pp. 611-634. Nov 2003.

Knudsen, Thomas B., Martin, Matthew T., Kavlock, Robert J., Judson, Richard S., Dix, David J., and Singh, Amar 

V (2009). Profiling the activity of environmental chemicals in prenatal developmental toxicity studies using 

the U.S. EPA's ToxRefDB. Reprod. Toxicol. 28: 209-219.

Kogan, M., Rojas, S., Gomez, P., Suarez, F., Munoz, J. F., and Alister, C (2007). Evaluation of six pesticides 

leaching indexes using field data of herbicide application in Casablanca Valley, Chile. Water Sci. Technol.

56: 169-178.

Kommineni, K. V., Gillett, J. M., and Ramsdell, D. C. (1998). A Study of Tomato Ringspot Virus and Prune Brown 

Line Resistance in Twenty-Five Rootstock-Scion Combinations. HortTechnology 8 : 349-353.

Kotta, J., Orav-Kotta, H., Herkuel, K., Acosta Alejandro, and Creswell RLeroy (2008). Determining the Value of 

Important Fish Habitats Within Marine Protected Areas: Experience From the Baltic Sea. Proceedings of 
Page | 60

the Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute. no. 60, p. 657. 2008. p. 657.

Kwon, Jeong-Wook, Armbrust, Kevin L., and Grey, Timothy L (2004). Hydrolysis and photolysis of flumioxazin in 

aqueous buffer solutions. Pest Manage. Sci. 60: 939-943.

LeBlanc, Alice (1999). Issues related to including forestry-based offsets in a GHG emissions trading system.

Environmental Science & Policy 2: 199-206.

Lees Alexander C and Peres Carlos A (2008). Conservation Value of Remnant Riparian Forest Corridors of Varying 

Quality for Amazonian Birds and Mammals. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 

439-449. Apr 2008.

Lindbeck, R. and Freund, Harry (1966). The controlled potential coulometric and controlled potential polarographic 

determinations of substituted nitrobenzene compounds in dimethylsulfoxide. Analytica Chimica Acta 35: 

74-84.

Liu, Bin, Zhu, Fucheng, Huang, Ying, Wang, Yuhui, Yu, Fei, Fan, Botao, and Yao, Jianhua ( Screening Rules for 

Leads of Fungicides, Herbicides, and Insecticides. J. Agric. Food Chem. ACS ASAP.

Loiselle, B. A., Howell, C. A., Graham, C. H., Goerck, J. M., Brooks, T., Smith, K. G., and Williams, P. H. (2003). 

Avoiding Pitfalls of Using Species Distribution Models in Conservation Planning. Conservation Biology 

[Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 1591-1600. Dec 2003.

Lopez, H. L. (2001). Study and Wise Use of Austral Biota: Freshwater Fishes From Argentina. Revista cubana de 

investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. No. Especial I, [np]. 2001.

Lyga, John W., Chang, Jun H., Theodoridis, George, and Baum, Jonathan S (1999). Structural replacements for the 

benzoxazinone protox inhibitors. Pestic. Sci. 55: 281-287.

MacKenzie, Debora (2009- ). Feeding the 9 billion. The New Scientist 204: 8-9.

Mancini, L., Formichetti, P., Morgana, J. G., Tancioni, L., D'Angelo, A. M., Danieli, P. P., Pierdominici, E., 

Iaconelli, M., and Andreani, P. (2004). Analysis of Macrobenthic Communities in the River Basins of 

Central Italy. Limnetica [Limnetica]. Vol. 23, no. 3-4, pp. 199-208. 2004.

Martin, T. John (2006). David Valor Cohn (1926-2006). Bone 38: 611-612.

Masabni, J., Andersen, R., Azarenko, A., Brown, G., Freer, J., Hayden, R., Hirst, P., McCluskey, B., Perry, R., 

Robinson, T., and Wolfe, D. (2007). Performance of Plum Rootstocks With 'stanley', 'valor', and 'veeblue' 

as the Scion in the 1990 Nc-140 Multi-Site Plum Trial. Journal of the American Pomological Society 61 : 

196-207.

Matthiensen, A., Yunes, J. S. *., and Codd, G. A. (1999). Occurrence, Distribution and Toxicity of Cyanobacteria 

From the Patos Lagoon Estuary, Southern Brazil. Revista Brasileira de Biologia [Rev. Bras. Biol.]. Vol. 

59, no. 3, pp. 361-376. Aug 1999.

McSpirit, Kelly (1998). Sustainable consumption: Patagonia's buy less, but buy better. Corporate Environmental 

Strategy 5: 32-40.

Meichtry de Zaburlin, N. (1999). Phytoplankton Community During the First Year After Filling up of Yacyreta 

Reservoir, Argentina. Revista de ictiologia. Corrientes [Rev. Ictiol., Numero Espec.]. Vol. 7, pp. 15-26. 

1999. 7: 15-26.

Mellado, M., Rodriguez, A., Olvera, A., Villarreal, J. A., and Lopez, R. (2004). Age and Body Condition Score and 

Diets of Grazing Goats. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 57, no. 5, 

pp. 517-523. Sep 2004.

Mendel, L. C. and Kirkpatrick, J. B. (2002). Historical Progress of Biodiversity Conservation in the Protected-Area 

System of Tasmania, Australia. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 1520-1529. Dec 

2002.

Mesquita Carvalho, M., De Paule Freitas, V., and Ferreira Xavier, D. (2002). Initial Flowering, Dry Matter Yield 

and Nutritive Value of Tropical Forage Grasses Under Natural Shading. Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira 

37 : 717-722.

Molina, A., Gallego, L., Torres, A., and Vergara, H. (1994). Effect of mating season and level of body reserves on 

fertility and prolificacy of Manchega ewes. Small Ruminant Research 14: 209-217.

Montaldo, H. and Martínez-Lozano, F. J. (1993). Phenotypic relationships between udder and milking 

characteristics, milk production and California mastitis test in goats. Small Ruminant Research 12: 329-

337.

Morcillo, F., Arconada, B., Fernandez, Y., Lacal, M., and Vadillo, L. (2004). [Study of the Environmental Impact of 

Natural Gas Pipelines Across a River]. Limnetica [Limnetica]. Vol. 23, no. 3-4, pp. 347-360. 2004. 23: 

347-360.

Mortenson, M. C., Schuman, G. E., Ingram, L. J., Nayigihugu, V., and Hess, B. W. (2005 ). Forage Production and 

Quality of a Mixed-Grass Rangeland Interseeded With Medicago Sativa Ssp. Falcata. Rangeland Ecology 
Page | 61

& Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 505-513. Sep 2005.

Murray, T. and Verhoef, A. (2007-). Moving towards a more mechanistic approach in the determination of soil heat 

flux from remote measurements: I. A universal approach to calculate thermal inertia. Agricultural and 

Forest Meteorology 147: 80-87.

Neel, M. C. and Cummings, M. P. (2003). Effectiveness of Conservation Targets in Capturing Genetic Diversity.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 219-229. Feb 2003.

Ocaña, Inma, Martinez-Vazquez, Jose M., Ribera, Esteban, Segura, Rosa M., and Pascual, Carlos (1986). Adenosine 

deaminase activity in the diagnosis of lymphocytic pleural effusions of tuberculous, neoplastic and 

lymphomatous origin. Tubercle 67: 141-145.

Okihashi, Masahiro, Takatori, Satoshi, Kitagawa, Yoko, and Tanaka, Yukio (2007). Simultaneous analysis of 260 

pesticide residues in agricultural products by gas chromatography/triple quadrupole mass spectrometry. J. 

AOAC Int. 90: 1165-1179.

Ono, Yukiko, Yamagami, Takashi, Nishina, Takeshi , and Tobino, Toshiaki (2006). Pesticide multiresidue analysis 

of 303 compounds using supercritical fluid extraction. Anal. Sci. 22: 1473-1476.

Ortiz, L. T. and Trevino, J. (1992). Tannins and Nutritive Value of Faba Bean Seeds in Chicks. Archivos de 

zootecnia. Cordova [ARCH. ZOOTEC.]. Vol. 41, no. 151, pp. 9-18. 1992.

Padin, O., Bitesnik, H., Nugent, P., Sverlij, S., Pelloni, G., and Testani, M. (2001). A Programme for the Sustainable 

Use of the Aquatic Resources of the Cuenca Del Plata, Argentina. Revista cubana de investigaciones 

pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. Numero Especial, [np]. 2001. [np].

Palau, A. (2006). Integrated Environmental Management of Current Reservoirs and Regulated Rivers. Limnetica 

[Limnetica]. Vol. 25, no. 1-2, pp. 287-302. 2006.

Pang, G.-F., Fan, C.-L., Liu, Y.-M., Cao, Y.-Z., Zhang, J.-J., Fu, B.-L., Li, X.-M., Li, Z.-Y., and Wu, Y.-P (2006). 

Multi-residue method for the determination of 450 pesticide residues in honey, fruit juice and wine by 

double-cartridge solid-phase extraction/gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid 

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Food Addit. Contam. 23: 777-810.

Pang, Guo-Fang, Cao, Yan-Zhong, Zhang, Jin-Jie, Fan, Chun-Lin, Liu, Yong-Ming, Li, Xue-Min, Jia, Guang-Qun, 

Li, Zeng-Yin, Shi, Yu-Qiu, Wu, Yan-Ping, and Guo, Tong-Tong (2006). Validation study on 660 pesticide 

residues in animal tissues by gel permeation chromatography cleanup/gas chromatography-mass 

spectrometry and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. Chromatogr., A 1125: 1-30.

Pang, Guo-Fang, Fan, Chun-Lin, Liu, Yong-Ming, Cao, Yan-Zhong, Zhang, Jin-Jie, Li, Xue-Min, Li, Zeng-Yin, 

Wu, Yan-Ping, and Guo, Tong-Tong ( 2006). Determination of residues of 446 pesticides in fruits and 

vegetables by three-cartridge solid-phase extraction-gas chromatography-mass spectrometry and liquid 

chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. J. AOAC Int. 89: 740-771.

Pang, Guo-Fang, Liu, Yong-Ming, Fan, Chun-Lin, Zhang, Jin-Jie, Cao, Yan-Zhong, Li, Xue-Min, Li, Zeng-Yin, 

Wu, Yan-Ping, and Guo, Tong-Tong ( 2006). Simultaneous determination of 405 pesticide residues in grain 

by accelerated solvent extraction then gas chromatography-mass spectrometry or liquid chromatographytandem mass spectrometry. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 384: 1366-1408.

Pang, Huai-Lin, Huang, Yin, Yin, Du-Lin, Yang, Hai, and Li, Wen-An (2007). 2-{4-[(E)-2,3-Diiodoallyl]-7-fluoro3-oxo-3,4-dihydro-2H-benzo[b][1,4]oxazin-6-yl}-2,3,4,5,6,7-hexahydro-1H-isoindole-1,3-dione. Acta 

Crystallogr., Sect. E: Struct. Rep. Online E63: o2742.

Partridge, Darcy Erin (2005). Potential for management of Sclerotinia blight of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) caused 

by Sclerotinia minor with the biological control agent Coniothyrium minitans.

Pascual, J. A., Ayuso, M., Hernandez, T., and Garcia, C. (1997). Phytotoxicity and Fertilizer Value of Different 

Organic Materials. Agrochimica 41 : 50-62.

Pe(acute)rez, R., Morales, R., Sa(acute)nchez-Anta, M. A. A., Amor, A., and Navarro, Y. F. (2008). Analysis of the 

Characters With Diagnostic Differential Value in Prunus X Gondouini (A. Poit. & Turpin) Render and 

Their Progenitors Prunus Avium L. And Prunus Cerasus L. Botanica Complutensis 32 : 193-203.

Penner, Donald (2007). Novel adjuvants for targeting pesticide delivery. J. ASTM Int. 4: No pp. given.

Perez-Arvizu Esteban M, Aragon-Noriega, E. Alberto, and Espinosa Carreon Leticia (2009). Response of the 

Shrimp Population in the Upper Gulf of California to Fluctuations in Discharges of the Colorado River.

Crustaceana [Crustaceana]. Vol. 82, no. 5, pp. 615-625. 2009.

Petersen, J. L. and Ueckert, D. N. (2005). Fourwing Saltbush Seed Yield and Quality: Irrigation, Fertilization, and 

Ecotype Effects. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 299-

307. May 2005.

Peterson, G. D., Cumming, G. S., and Carpenter, S. R. (2003). Scenario Planning: a Tool for Conservation in an 

Uncertain World. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 358-366. Apr 2003.
Page | 62

PINSKY MALIN L, SPRINGMEYER DANE B, GOSLIN MATTHEW N, and AUGEROT XANTHIPPE (2009). 

Range-Wide Selection of Catchments for Pacific Salmon Conservation. Conservation Biology [Conserv. 

Biol.]. Vol. 23, no. 3, pp. 680-691. Jun 2009. 23: 680-691.

Pintore, Marco, Piclin, Nadege, Benfenati, Emilio, Gini, Giuseppina, and Chretien, Jacques R (2003). Database 

mining with adaptive fuzzy partition: Application to the prediction of pesticide toxicity on rats. Environ. 

Toxicol. Chem. 22: 983-991.

Pullin Andrew S, Baldi Andras, Can Ozgun Emre, Dieterich Martin, Kati Vassiliki, Livoreil Barbara, Lovei Gabor, 

Mihok Barbara, Nevin Owen, Selva Nuria, and Sousa-Pinto Isabel (2009). Conservation Focus on Europe: 

Major Conservation Policy Issues That Need to Be Informed by Conservation Science. Conservation 

Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 818-824. Aug 2009.

Quayle James F and Ramsay Leah R (2005). Conservation Status as a Biodiversity Trend Indicator: 

Recommendations From a Decade of Listing Species at Risk in British Columbia. Conservation Biology 

[Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1306-1311. Aug 2005.

Ramírez, R. G., Rodríguez, A., Tagle, L. A., Del Valle, A. C., and González, J. (1990). Nutrient content and intake 

of forage grazed by range goats in northeastern Mexico. Small Ruminant Research 3: 435-448.

Rennings, Klaus and Wiggering, Hubert (1997). Steps towards indicators of sustainable development: Linking 

economic and ecological concepts. Ecological Economics 20: 25-36.

Richardson Elizabeth A, Kaiser Michel J, Edwards-Jones Gareth, and Possingham Hugh P (2006). Sensitivity of 

Marine-Reserve Design to the Spatial Resolution of Socioeconomic Data. Conservation Biology [Conserv. 

Biol.]. Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 1191-1202. Aug 2006.

Rodriguez, A. (2005). [Contamination by Petroleum Hydrocarbon Residues in the Seaport of Guayaquil and Its Area 

of Influence Due to Shipping Activities, Period 1984 to 2004]. Acta oceanografica del Pacifico [Acta 

Oceanogr. Pac.]. Vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 7-22. Feb 2005. 13: 7-22.

Rodriguez Ramirez, A. A. and Valencia Touriz, M. E. (2000). Study of Coastal Water Quality in the Galapagos 

Island, 1999. Acta Oceanografica del Pacifico [Acta Oceanogr. Pac.]. Vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 79-96. 2000. 10: 

79-96.

Rogers, J. O., Fulbright, T. E., and Ruthven, D. C. (2004). Vegetation and Deer Response to Mechanical Shrub 

Clearing and Burning. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 

41-48. Jan 2004.

Rojas, N. E. T., Rocha, O., Mainardes Pinto, C. S. R., and da Silva, A. L. (2004). Influence of Different Levels of 

Pond Water Alkalinity on the Growth of Prochilodus Lineatus Larvae. Boletim do Instituto de Pesca Sao 

Paulo [Bol. Inst. Pesca Sao Paulo]. Vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 99-108. 2004.

Root, K. V., Akcakaya, H. R., and Ginzburg, L. ( 2003). A Multispecies Approach to Ecological Valuation and 

Conservation. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 196-206. Feb 2003.

Rothley, K. D., Berger, C. N., Gonzalez, C., Webster, E. M., and Rubenstein, D. I. (2004). Combining Strategies to 

Select Reserves in Fragmented Landscapes. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 

1121-1131. Aug 2004.

Rouillon, Annik (1982). The international union against tuberculosis. Tubercle 63: 247-253.

Saint-Anne Dargassies, S. (2011). Introduction ŕ la sémiologie du développement neurologique du nourrisson 

normal: 2. Méthode d'exploration neurologique. Journal of the Neurological Sciences 1: 578-585.

Sanchez Trujillo, R. (2001). The Effects of Lobster Fishing Gear on the Cuban Marine Environment. Revista 

cubana de investigaciones pesqueras [Rev. Cub. Invest. Pesq.]. no. No. Especial I, [np]. 2001.

Sanz Sampelayo, M. R., Hernandez-Clua, O. D., Naranjo, J. A., Gil, F., and Boza, J. (1990). Utilization of goat milk 

vs. milk replacer for granadina goat kids. Small Ruminant Research 3: 37-46.

Schindler, J. R., Fulbright, T. E., and Forbes, T. D. A. (2004). Shrub Regrowth, Antiherbivore Defenses, and 

Nutritional Value Following Fire. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 

57, no. 2, pp. 178-186. Mar 2004.

Schreck, E., Geret, F., Gontier, L., and Treilhou, M (2008). Development and validation of a rapid multiresidue 

method for pesticide determination using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry: A realistic case in 

vineyard soils. Talanta 77: 298-303.

Schreier, Thomas (2003). Flumioxazin. 1: 502-508.

Scott, George H., Askew, Shawn D., Wilcut, John W., and Bennert, Andrew C (2002). Economic evaluation of 

HADSS computer program in North Carolina peanut. Weed Sci. 50: 91-100.

Seaquist, Jonathan W. and Olsson, Lennart (1999). Rapid estimation of photosynthetically active radiation over the 

West African Sahel using the Pathfinder Land Data Set. International Journal of Applied Earth 

Observation and Geoinformation 1: 205-213.
Page | 63

Skelly, D. K., Yurewicz, K. L., Werner, E. E., and Relyea, R. A. (2003 ). Estimating Decline and Distributional 

Change in Amphibians. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 744-751. Jun 2003.

Smagin, V. N., Zhurov, N. N., Yaroshevsky, D. A., and Yevdokimov, O. Y. (1983). Optimization of electrodialysis 

process at elevated temperatures. Desalination 46 : 253-262.

Solymos Peter and Feher Zoltan (2005). Conservation Prioritization Based on Distribution of Land Snails in 

Hungary. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 1084-1094. Aug 2005.

Spencer Ricky-John and Thompson Michael B (2005). Experimental Analysis of the Impact of Foxes on Freshwater 

Turtle Populations. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 845-854. Jun 2005.

Springett, V. H. (1965). The value of BCG vaccination. Tubercle 46: 76-84.

Tanabe, Yoo and Nishii, Yoshinori (2006). Mild and efficient condensation of glycolate ester with 

dihalodinitrobenzenes. Kwansei Gakuin Univ. Nat. Sci. Rev. 10: 27-32.

Tarasoff, C. S., Louhaichi, M., Mallory-Smith, C., and Ball, D. A. (2005). Using Geographic Information Systems 

to Present Nongeographical Data: an Example Using 2-Way Thermogradient Plate Data. Rangeland 

Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 215-218. Mar 2005.

Tatem, Andrew J., Lewis, Hugh G., Atkinson, Peter M., and Nixon, Mark S. (2001). Multiple-class land-cover 

mapping at the sub-pixel scale using a Hopfield neural network. International Journal of Applied Earth 

Observation and Geoinformation 3: 184-190.

Texas Sea Grant (2005). Clean Texas Boater Program: Clean Boating...smooth Sailing. 2 pp.

Thomson Diane M (2005). Matrix Models as a Tool for Understanding Invasive Plant and Native Plant Interactions.

Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 917-928. Jun 2005.

Thomson Diane M and Schwartz Mark W (2006). Using Population Count Data to Assess the Effects of Changing 

River Flow on an Endangered Riparian Plant. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 

1132-1142. Aug 2006.

Tomigahara, Yoshitaka, Matsui, Masayoshi, Matsunaga, Haruyuki, Isobe, Naohiko, Kaneko, Hideo, Nakatsuka, 

Iwao, Yoshitake, Akira, and Yamane, Setsuo (1999). Metabolism of 7-Fluoro-6-(3,4,5,6-

tetrahydrophthalimido)-4- (2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (S-53482) in Rat. 1. Identification 

of a Sulfonic Acid Type Conjugate. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 305-312.

Tomigahara, Yoshitaka, Onogi, Mihoko, Kaneko, Hideo, Nakatsuka, Iwao, and Yamane, Setsuo (1999). Metabolism 

of 7-Fluoro-6-(3,4,5,6-tetrahydrophthalimido)-4- (2-propynyl)-2H-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (S-53482, 

Flumioxazin) in the Rat: II. Identification of Reduced Metabolites. J. Agric. Food Chem. 47: 2429-2438.

Toropov, Andrey A. and Benfenati, Emilio (2006). QSAR models for Daphnia toxicity of pesticides based on 

combinations of topological parameters of molecular structures. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 14: 2779-2788.

Tubb, M. (1987). Unique Commemorative for Industry's 40th Anniversary. OCEAN IND. Vol. 22, no. 10, pp. 13-

14. 1987.

Tuelp, Holger C., Goss, Kai-Uwe, Schwarzenbach, Rene P., and Fenner, Kathrin (2008). Experimental 

Determination of LSER Parameters for a Set of 76 Diverse Pesticides and Pharmaceuticals. Environ. Sci. 

Technol. 42: 2034-2040.

Ungar, E. D., Henkin, Z., Gutman, M., Dolev, A., Genizi, A., and Ganskopp, D. (2005). Inference of Animal 

Activity From Gps Collar Data on Free-Ranging Cattle. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland 

Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 58, no. 3, pp. 256-266. May 2005.

Usenik, Valentina, Kastelec, Damijana, Veberic, Robert, and Stampar, Franci (2008-). Quality changes during 

ripening of plums (Prunus domestica L.). Food Chemistry 111: 830-836.

Usenik, Valentina, Stampar, Franci, and Veberic, Robert (2009-). Anthocyanins and fruit colour in plums (Prunus 

domestica L.) during ripening. Food Chemistry 114: 529-534.

Vencill, William K. and Ferrell, Jason A (2004). Sorption and desorption of Flumioxazin to soil, clay minerals, and 

ion-exchange resins. AGRO-079.

Vencill, William K., Grey, Timothy L., and Culpepper, Stanley (2006). Fate of selected herbicides in a plasticulture 

system. Abstracts of Papers, 231st ACS National Meeting, Atlanta, GA, United States, March 26-30, 2006

AGRO-039.

Villar, L., Romo, A. M., and Perdigó, M. T. ( 1993). The beechwoods of the central prepyrenees (Spain). A 

preliminary survey for conservation. Biological Conservation 66: 85-93.

Visser, W. J., Roelofs, J. M. M., and Duursma, S. A. (1981). Bone density in the iliac crest. Metabolic Bone 

Disease and Related Research 3: 187-190.

Vivas, S., Casas, J., Pardo, I., Robles, S., Bonada, N., Mellado, A., Prat, N., Alba-Tercedor, J., Alvarez, M., del Mar 

Bayo, M., Jaimez-Cuellar, P., Suarez, M. L., Toro, M., Vidal-Abarca, M. R., and et al. (2002). Multivariant 

Estimates in the Exploration of Environmental Tolerance of Families of Macroinvertebrates in the 
Page | 64

Mediterranean Rivers of the Guadalmed Project. Limnetica [Limnetica]. Vol. 21, no. 3-4, pp. 149-173. 

2002.

Volesky, J. D., Schacht, W. H., Reece, P. E., and Vaughn, T. J. (2005). Spring Growth and Use of Cool-Season 

Graminoids in the Nebraska Sandhills. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. 

Vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 385-392. Jul 2005.

Waldron, B. L., ZoBell, D. R., Olson, K. C., Jensen, K. B., and Snyder, D. L. (2006). Stockpiled Forage Kochia to 

Maintain Beef Cows During Winter. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 

59, no. 3, pp. 275-284. May 2006.

Waltert Matthias, Mardiastuti, A. n. i., and Muehlenberg Michael (2004). Effects of Land Use on Bird Species 

Richness in Sulawesi, Indonesia. Conservation Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 1339-1346. 

Oct 2004.

Wenger Seth J (2008). Use of Surrogates to Predict the Stressor Response of Imperiled Species. Conservation 

Biology [Conserv. Biol.]. Vol. 22, suppl. 6, pp. 1564-1571. Dec 2008.

White, C. S., Pendleton, R. L., and Pendleton, B. K. (2006). Response of Two Semiarid Grasslands to a Second Fire 

Application. Rangeland Ecology & Management [Rangeland Ecol. Manage.]. Vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 98-106. 

Jan 2006.

Williams, Nigel (2004-). Britain pledges science funding boost. Current Biology 14: R591.

Xu, Xiu-Li, Li, Li, Zhong, Wei-Ke, and He, Yu-Jian (2009). Multi-residue analysis of 205 crop pesticides using 

mini-solid phase extraction-large volume injection-GC-MS. Chromatographia 70: 173-183 .
Page | 65

Appendix 2. The Risk Quotient Method and Levels of Concern

The Risk Quotient Method is the means used by EFED to integrate the results of exposure and 

ecotoxicity data. For this method, Risk Quotients (RQs) are calculated by dividing exposure 

estimates by the acute and chronic ecotoxicity values (i.e., RQ = EXPOSURE/TOXICITY). 

These RQs are then compared to OPP's levels of concern (LOCs). These LOCs are criteria used 

by OPP to indicate potential risk to non-target organisms and the need to consider regulatory 

action. EFED has defined LOCs for acute risk, potential restricted use classification, and for 

endangered species. 

The criteria indicate that a pesticide used as directed has the potential to cause adverse effects 

on non-target organisms. LOCs currently address the following risk presumption categories: 

(1) acute - there is a potential for acute risk; regulatory action may be warranted in addition to 

restricted use classification; 

(2) acute restricted use - the potential for acute risk is high, but this may be mitigated through 

restricted use classification; 

(3) acute endangered species - the potential for acute risk to endangered species is high, 

regulatory action may be warranted; and 

(4) chronic risk - the potential for chronic risk is high, regulatory action may be warranted. 

Currently, EFED does not perform assessments for chronic risk to plants, acute or chronic 

risks to non-target insects, or chronic risk from granular/bait formulations to mammalian or 

avian species. 

The ecotoxicity test values (i.e., measurement endpoints) used in the acute and chronic RQs are 

derived from required studies. Examples of ecotoxicity values derived from short-term 

laboratory studies that assess acute effects are: (1) LC50 (fish and birds), (2) LD50 (birds and 

mammals), (3) EC50 (aquatic plants and aquatic invertebrates), and (4) EC25 (terrestrial 

plants). Examples of toxicity test effect levels derived from the results of long-term laboratory 

studies that assess chronic effects are: (1) the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Concentration 

(LOAEC) (birds, fish, and aquatic invertebrates), and (2) the No Observed Adverse Effect 

Concentration (NOAEC) (birds, fish and aquatic invertebrates). The NOAEC is generally used 

as the ecotoxicity test value in assessing chronic effects. Risk presumptions, along with the 

corresponding RQs and LOCs are summarized in Table B1.
Page | 66

Table B1. Agency risk quotient (RQ) metrics and levels of concern (LOC) per risk class.

Risk Class Risk Description RQ LOC

Aquatic Animals (fish and invertebrates)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC50

1

0.5

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use 

classification

Peak EEC/LC50

1

0.1

Acute Listed 

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

Peak EEC/LC50

1

0.05

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals 

from chronic exposures 

60-day EEC/NOEC (fish) 1

21-day EEC/NOEC 

(invertebrates)

Terrestrial Animals (mammals and birds)

Acute Potential for effects to non-listed animals from acute 

exposures

EEC2/LC50 (Dietary) 0.5

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute 

Restricted Use

Potential for effects to animals from acute exposures

Risks may be mitigated through restricted use 

classification

EEC2/LC50 (Dietary) 0.2

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Acute Listed 

Species

Listed species may be potentially affected by acute 

exposures

EEC 2/LC50 (Dietary) 0.1

EEC/LD50 (Dose)

Chronic Potential for effects to non-listed and listed animals 

from chronic exposures

EEC 2/NOAEC 1

Plants

Non-Listed Potential for effects to non-target, non-listed plants 

from exposures

EEC/ EC25 1

Listed Plant Potential for effects to non-target, listed plants from 

exposures

EEC/ NOEC 1

EEC/ EC05

1 LC50 or EC50. 2 Based on upper bound Kenaga values.
Page | 67

Appendix 3. Results from the Screening Imbibition Program

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Flumioxazin

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 1.8

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 100

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2250

Avian test species mallard duck

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 250

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 500

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 0.3096 0.3096

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 3845.8028 76.9161

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.0001 0.0040

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 1.4580 1.4580

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1168.2572 12.4031

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 0.0012 0.1176

Conclusion*

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds

Drinking water exposure 

alone is NOT a potential 

concern for birds
Page | 68

Appendix 4. Results from the Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

Welcome to the EFED 

Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

This tool is designed to provide the risk assessor with a rapid method for determining the potential

significance of the inhalation exposure route to birds and mammals in a risk assessment.

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Flumioxazin

Enter Chemical Use Herbicide

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 354

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 2.40E-06

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.3825

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 2250

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 5000

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 3.93

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 4.57E-02

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.75E-03

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 9.86E+00

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 5.83E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.04E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 4.10E-03 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 4.57E-02

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 7.22E-03

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 2.34E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 3.09E-05 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 5.08E-02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 2.17E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant

**NOTE**: When entering values, press the "Enter" key 

in order to update linked cells.