OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

July 09, 2015

PC Code: 109303

MEMORANDUM DP Barcode: 423260

SUBJECT: Aldicarb: Transmittal of Data Evaluation Record for Environmental Fate Study

FROM: Edmund Wong, Environmental Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

THRU: Brian Anderson, Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch 2

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

TO: Susan Bartow, Chemical Risk Manager

Kevin Costello, Acting Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch IV

Office of Pesticide Programs

This memorandum is to inform you that the analytical method for aldicarb in soil (ECM 

& ILV) have been reviewed and finalized. Study MRIDs and classification are listed in Table 1

below.

Table 1. DER for Environmental Fate Study of Aldicarb

MRID Study Type

(OCSPP Guideline) DER Electronic File Name(s) Study Classification

49477402

49477403

49513501

Environmental Chemistry 

Method in Soil & 

Independent Laboratory 

Validation

(850.6100)

098301_49477402_49477403_ 49513501_DERFate_850.6100_7-9-15.doc

098301_49477402_49477403_850.6100_calculations.xls

Supplemental
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 2 of 11

Analytical method for aldicarb in Temik 15G in soil

Reports: ECM: EPA MRID No.: 49477402. DeVellis, S. R. 2014. Temik 15G 

(Aldicarb) – Validation of the Analytical Method for the Determination of a 

Test Substance in Soil. Smithers Viscient Study No.: 14070.6100. Report 

prepared by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts, sponsored by 

Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Gig Harbor, Washington, and submitted 

by AgLogic, LLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 31 pages. Final report issued 

September 10, 2014.

ILV: EPA MRID No. 49477403. Wu, X. 2014. Independent Laboratory 

Validation (ILV) of the Analytical Method: Temik 15G (Aldicarb) –

Validation of the Analytical Method for the Determination of a Test 

Substance in Soil. Smithers Viscient Study No.: 14070.6102. Report 

prepared by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts, sponsored by 

Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Gig Harbor, Washington, and submitted 

by AgLogic, LLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 38 pages. Final report issued 

September 24, 2014.

Addendum: EPA MRID No.: 49513501. Wu, X. 2014. Technical Response 

Letter prepared by Smithers Viscient, Wareham, Massachusetts, sponsored

by Pyxis Regulatory Consulting, Inc., Gig Harbor, Washington, and 

submitted by AgLogic, LLC, Chapel Hill, North Carolina; 6 pages. Dated

November 6, 2014.

Document No.: MRIDs 49477402, 49477403 & 49513501

Guideline: 850.6100

Statements: ECM: The study was conducted in accordance with USEPA FIFRA and 

OECD Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) standards (p. 3 of MRID 

49477402). Signed and dated No Data Confidentiality, GLP, and Quality 

Assurance statements were provided (pp. 2-4). A statement of the 

authenticity of the study report was included with the quality assurance 

statement (p. 4).

ILV: The study was conducted in accordance with USEPA FIFRA GLP 

standards (p. 3 of MRID 49477403). Signed and dated No Data 

Confidentiality, GLP, and Quality Assurance statements were provided (pp. 

2-4). A statement of the authenticity of the study report was included with 

the quality assurance statement (p. 4).

Addendum: The Technical Response Letter did not include any No Data 

Confidentiality, GLP, Authenticity, and Quality Assurance statements;

however, it was signed by the author (p. 2 of MRID 49513501). 

Classification: This analytical method is classified as supplemental. However, the study is 

upgradable when the acceptable performance data of soil fortification at the 

stated LOQ of 11.0 μg/kg is submitted, along with all the performance data 

(including chromatograms) of the fortified soil recovery levels in the ECM 

and ILV, as well as sufficient information to verify that the ECM laboratory 

was distinct from the ILV. Currently, the ECM cannot be validated with the 

study’s stated LOQ of 11.0 μg/kg because the lowest level of soil 
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 3 of 11

fortification in the study is at 100 μg/kg, which is 10X the LOQ. In the ECM 

and ILV, no performance data was provided at the LOQ to validate the 

method. The reviewer reported the LOQ for the method based on the ECM 

report. Insufficient information was provided to verify that the ECM 

laboratory was distinct from the ILV laboratory. An insufficient number of 

samples was prepared for all fortification levels in the ECM. In the ECM, no

chromatograms were provided for two of the three fortification levels.

PC Code: 098301

Reviewer: Edmund Wong

Environmental Chemist Date: 07/09/2015

Executive Summary

This analytical method, Smithers Viscient Study No.: 14070.6100, is designed for the 

quantitative determination of aldicarb in soil at 11 μg/kg using LC/MS/MS. No performance data

was provided in the ECM or ILV to validate the method at the LOQ, instead the method was 

validated at 10×LOQ, 100×LOQ, and 700×LOQ (ECM only). Insufficient information was 

provided to verify that the ECM laboratory was distinct from the ILV laboratory, although the 

analytical instruments used were different. The reviewer assumed that the method was validated 

in the first trial by the ILV laboratory.

Table 1. Analytical Method Summary

Analyte(s) 

by 

Pesticide

MRID

EPA 

Review Matrix Method Date

(dd/mm/yyyy) Registrant Analysis

Limit of 

Quantitation

(LOQ)

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Method

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

Aldicarb1 49477402 &

495135012

49477403 & 

495135012 Soil 10/09/2014 AgLogic 

LLC LC/MS/MS 11 μg/kg3

1 The test substance was Temik 15G, but the LOQ was established for aldicarb.

2 MRID 49513501 was an addendum to the ECM and ILV. It was a technical response letter written by the ILV 

study author in response to “comments...received from Susan Bartow, Chemical Review Manager at the EPA, 

OCSPP, OPP, PRD, regarding the aldicarb validation and ILV studies” (p. 1 of MRID 49513501). 

3 Method was not validated at LOQ. See also Reviewer Comment #2. 

I. Principle of the Method

The test substance was Temik 15G (14.81% aldicarb; pp. 8-11 of MRID 49477402). The 

fortification levels were based on the aldicarb active ingredient.

Samples (5.00 g dry weight) of soil were fortified, as necessary, then extracted twice with 0.1% 

formic acid in acetonitrile (2 x 20.0 mL) by shaking via orbital shaker table for 30 minutes at 150 

rpm (pp. 12-13 of MRID 49477402). Soil and extract were separated by centrifugation (10 

minutes at 3000 rpm) and decanting. The volume of the combined extracts was adjusted to 50 

mL using 0.1% formic acid in acetonitrile. Samples were further diluted (200-5000 dilution 
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 4 of 11

factor) into calibration range with acetonitrile:purified reagent water (20:80, v:v) prior to 

analysis.

Samples were analyzed for aldicarb by HPLC/MS/MS (AB Sciex API 5000 mass spectrometer,

equipment number: EQP5368) employing a XBridge C18, 2.1 mm x 50 mm, 2.5 μm column and 

mobile phase of (A) purified reagent water with 0.1% formic acid and (B) acetonitrile with 0.1% 

formic acid [percent A:B at 0.10-0.50 min. 85.0:15.0, 2.50-5.00 min. 5.0:95.0, 5:10-6.50 min. 

85.0:15.0) with an AB Sciex Turbo V ESI Ion Spray source (positive ionization mode and 

multiple reaction monitoring, MRM; p. 14 of MRID 49477402). Injection volume was 100 μL. 

Aldicarb was identified using the following ion transition: 213.10ĺ89.00 amu. The retention 

time was ca. 2.9 minutes. The ECM study author noted that similar analysis columns could be 

used and that the injection volume could be changed (decreased only, 100 μL = maximum).

In the ILV, the method was performed exactly as written in the ECM (pp. 10-15 of MRID 

49477403). The extraction procedure and HPLC/MS/MS method were almost identical. 

However, the analytical instrument used is different (AB Sciex API 5000 mass spectrometer, 

equipment number: EQP5297). Two noted differences in the analytical conditions were that the 

retention time for aldicarb was ca. 1.8 minutes and that the injection volume was decreased to 50 

μL (p. 14).

In the ECM, the Limit of Quantification (LOQ) and Limit of Detection (LOD) were reported as

11.0 μg/kg and 1 μg/kg, respectively (p. 17 of MRID 49477402). In the ILV, the LOQ and LOD 

were reported as 9.39 μg/kg and 2 μg/kg, respectively (See Reviewer Comment #2; p. 18 of 

MRID 49477403).

II. Recovery Findings

ECM (MRID 49477402): Mean recoveries and relative standard deviations (RSDs) were within 

guideline requirements (mean 70-56'IRUDQDO\VLVRIaldicarb in sandy loam soil 

at fortification levels of 100 μg/kg (10×LOQ), 1000 μg/kg (100×LOQ) and 7000 μg/kg 

(700×LOQ; Table 1, p. 21). The number of samples was three for all fortification levels. No 

samples were fortified at the LOQ. Aldicarb was dosed as Temik 15G (14.81% as aldicarb); the 

fortification rate was based on aldicarb active ingredient (pp. 9, 11). The soil was not 

characterized (Rochester Sandy Loam soil, SMV Lot No. 021814, Sample ID 2014 100 ROCH 

LOAM); soil moisture was determined prior to testing (11.44%; p. 10). 

ILV (MRID 49477403): Mean recoveries and relative standard deviations (RSDs) were within 

guideline requirements (mean 70-56'IRUDQDO\VLVRIaldicarb in sandy loam soil 

at fortification levels of 100 mg/kg (10×LOQ) and 1000 mg/kg (100×LOQ; Table 1, p. 21). No 

samples were fortified at the LOQ. Aldicarb was dosed as Temik 15G (14.81% as aldicarb); the 

fortification rate was based on aldicarb active ingredient (pp. 9, 11). The soil was not 

characterized (Rochester Sandy Loam soil, SMV Lot No. 021814, Sample ID 2014 100 ROCH 

LOAM); soil moisture was determined prior to testing (27.35%; p. 10). The number of trials was 
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 5 of 11

not specifically reported; however, the reviewer assumed that the method was validated in the 

first trial (pp. 8, 18).

Table 2. Initial Validation Method Recoveries for Aldicarb in Sandy Loam Soil1

Analyte Fortification 

Level (μg/kg)

Number 

of Tests

Recovery 

Range (%)

Mean 

Recovery (%)

Standard 

Deviation (%)

Relative Standard 

Deviation (%)

Sandy Loam Soil

Aldicarb2

100 3 75.8-82.4 79.4 3.3 4.2

1000 3 85.3-93.8 88.3 4.8 5.4

7000 3 83.3-91.0 88.0 4.1 4.7

Data (corrected recovery results) were obtained from Table 1, p. 21 of MRID 49477402 and DER Attachment 2 

(means, s. d. and RSD).

1 Soil matrix was not characterized; soil moisture was determined prior to testing (11.44%; p. 10 of MRID 

49477402).

2 Aldicarb was dosed as Temik 15G (14.81% as aldicarb; p. 9 of MRID 49477402). Ion transition monitored was 

ĺDPX.

Table 3. Independent Validation Method Recoveries for Aldicarb in Sandy Loam Soil1

Analyte

Fortification 

Level 

(mg/kg)

Number 

of Tests

Recovery 

Range (%)

Mean 

Recovery (%)

Standard 

Deviation (%)

Relative Standard 

Deviation (%)

Sandy Loam Soil

Aldicarb2 0.100 5 86.5-99.3 94.6 4.84 5.12

1.00 5 111-120 114 3.72 3.27

Data (results) were obtained from Table 1, p. 21 of MRID 499477403.

1 Soil matrix was not characterized; soil moisture was determined prior to testing (27.35%; p. 10 of MRID 

49477403).

2 Aldicarb was dosed as Temik 15G (14.81% as aldicarb; p. 9 of MRID 49477403). Ion transition monitored was 

ĺDPX.

III. Method Characteristics

In the ECM, the LOQ and LOD were reported as 11.0 μg/kg and 1 μg/kg, respectively (p. 17 of 

MRID 49477402). The LOQ was calculated from the LOQ of the instrument (using the lowest 

concentration calibration standard) and the dilution factor of the control samples (pp. 16-17; 

Appendix 1, p. 29). The LOD was determined by calculating the average noise level in the

chromatograms of purified water control solutions and comparing them to the signal of a lowest 

calibration standard of known concentration. The LOD was calculated as three times the 

concentration equivalent of the mean noise level of peaks near the retention time of the analyte. 

In the ILV, the LOQ and LOD were reported as 9.39 μg/kg and 2 μg/kg, respectively (p. 18 of 

MRID 49477403). The LOQ was calculated in the same manner as that of the ECM (p. 17). The 

LOD was established by evaluating the signal-to-noise (S:N) ratio from samples of known 

concentration and blank samples (Appendix 1, p. 32). 
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 6 of 11

Table 4. Method Characteristics

Aldicarb (dosed as Temik 15G)1

Limit of Quantitation (LOQ) 11.0 μg/kg

Limit of Detection (LOD) 1 μg/kg

Linearity (Least squares

calibration curve r and 

concentration range)2

Sandy loam

r

2 = 0.99635 (ECM)

r

2 = 0.99902 (ILV)

(0.0500-2.0 μg/L)

Repeatable No; n =3

Reproducible Yes for 10×LOQ and 100×LOQ; 

No samples were dosed at LOQ in the ECM or ILV

Specific No3

Data were obtained from p. 17; Table 1, p. 21; Figure 4, p. 25 of MRID 499477402; and p. 18; Table 1, p. 21; Figure 

1, p. 22 of MRID 499477403.

1 Aldicarb was dosed as Temik 15G (14.81% as aldicarb; pp. 9, 11 of MRID 49477402; pp. 9, 11 of MRID 

49477403). Fortification rates were based on aldicarb active ingredient.

2 Reviewer-calculated r2 values for the provided ECM calibration curve was 0.9958; reviewer-calculated r2 values 

for the provided ILV calibration curve was 0.9989 (DER Attachment 2).

3 No chromatograms were provided for the LOQ in the ECM or ILV since no samples were dosed at the LOQ. In 

the ECM, chromatograms were only provided for a control sample, one calibration standard and one fortification 

level (Figures 1-3, pp. 22-24 of MRID 49477402). In the ILV, chromatograms were provided for a control 

sample, a reagent blank, one calibration standard and both fortification levels (Figures 2-6, pp. 23-27 of MRID 

49477403).
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 7 of 11

III. Method Deficiencies and Reviewer’s Comments

1. The ECM cannot be validated with the study’s stated LOQ of 11.0 μg/kg because the 

lowest level of soil fortification in the study is at 100 μg/kg, which is 10X the LOQ. The 

study is upgradable when an acceptable performance data of soil fortification at the LOQ 

of 11.0 μg/kg is submitted for both ECM and ILV. The reviewer reported the LOQ for 

the method based on the ECM report. The LOQ was reported as 11.0 μg/kg in the ECM

(p. 17 of MRID 49477402). In the ILV, the LOQ was reported as 0.00939 mg/kg in a 

table of study results; this value confirmed the value reported by the ECM (p. 18 of 

MRID 49477403). However, the LOQ was reported as “approximately 0.10 mg/kg” in 

the Introduction Section (p. 8) of the ILV study report and "approximately 0.100 mg/kg" 

in the last sentence of the Results and Discussion Section (p. 18). Table 1 of the ILV 

identified the 0.100 mg/kg samples as LOQ A-E (p. 21). Figure 3 of the ILV reported the 

0.100 mg/kg recovery sample with a Sample ID of “LOQ C” (p. 24). In the sponsorapproved Study Protocol of the ILV, the LOQ was also reported as 0.100 ppm (Appendix 

1, p. 32). In the ECM, this value (0.100 mg/kg) corresponded to the “Low Concentration” 

however, the LOQ was never reported as 0.100 mg/kg or 100 μg/kg in the Tables or the 

Results section of the ECM (pp. 13, 17-18; Table 1, p. 21; Appendix 1, p. 29 of MRID 

49477402).

2. The levels of LOD and LOQ cannot be verified and validated due to the lack of 

performance data. In the ECM and ILV, no performance data was provided for the LOQ 

to validate the method. A validation sample set should consist of, at a minimum, a 

reagent blank, two unspiked matrix control samples, five matrix control samples spike at 

the LOQ, and five matrix control samples spiked at 10×LOQ for each analyte and matrix.

Samples were only prepared at 10×LOQ, 100×LOQ and 700×LOQ (ECM only; Table 1, 

p. 21 of MRID 49477402; Table 1, p. 21 of MRID 49477403).

3. The laboratory which performed the ECM, Smithers Viscient, was the same laboratory 

which performed the ILV (p. 1 of MRID 49477402; p. 1 of MRID 49477403). OCSPP 

guidelines state “If the laboratory that conducted the validation belonged to the same 

organization as the originating laboratory, the analysts, study director, equipment, 

instruments, and supplies of the two laboratories must have been distinct and operated 

separately and without collusion. The analysts and study director of the ILV must have 

been unfamiliar with the method both in its development and subsequent use in field 

studies.” Based on the information reported in the ECM, ILV and Addendum MRIDs 

(MRIDs 49477402, 49477403 and 49513501), the reviewer concluded that insufficient 

information was provided to verify that the ECM laboratory was distinct from the ILV 

laboratory.
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 8 of 11

Regarding analysts and study director: In the lists of Key Study Personnel for the ECM 

and ILV, the study directors were different (p. 5 of MRID 49477402; p. 5 of MRID 

49477403). In addition, the ECM listed two analysts (chemists) while the ILV listed no 

analysts. However, the Technical Report Writer and Director of Chemistry were identical 

between the ECM and ILV. OCSPP guidelines specify "the personnel conducting the 

independent validation should not report to the same study director who was involved in 

developing the original method or who may have used the method to develop data for 

laboratory field studies to support pesticide registration or reregistration actions."

Regarding equipment, instruments and supplies: In Section 2.0 Materials and Methods of 

the ECM and ILV, the test and reference substances, reagents, laboratory equipment and 

analytical instruments were identical, although not always listed in the identical order 

(pp. 8-10, 14 of MRID 49477402; pp. 9-10, 14-15 of MRID 49477403). In EPA MRID 

No. 49513501 which was a Technical Response Letter prepared by Smithers Viscient 

(written by the ILV study author) in response to comments from Susan Bartow, Chemical 

Review Manager at the EPA, the ILV study author “confirmed” that the analytical 

instruments were “totally different systems, each with its own HPLC and MS/MS 

detector” (p. 2 of MRID 49513501). The ILV study author reported that the Sciex 5000

system (Smithers Viscient EQP No. 5368) was used for the ECM while the Sciex W5000 system (Smithers Viscient EQP No. 5297) was used for the ILV. The reviewer 

could not validate the identity of the Sciex W-5000 system from the AB Sciex website 

(www.absciex.com). In the Technical Response Letter, the Equipment Lists of the ECM 

and ILV were also provided. The reviewer observed the following issues with these lists 

(pp. 4, 6 of MRID 49513501): 

1) The ECM system was entitled “SPS Equipment Number: EQP5368”, not 

“SMV Equipment Number: EQP5368” or “Smithers Viscient EQP No. 5368”. 

The ILV system was entitled “SMV Equipment Number: EQP5297”, as expected.

2) The Manufacturer/Model/Part Number of the Mass Spectrometer of the ILV 

was reported as “AB Sciex/ API 5000”. The designation “Sciex W-5000” was not 

indicated anywhere on the ILV equipment list. However, the reviewer noted that 

the Serial Numbers differed for the Mass Spectrometers of the ECM and ILV. 

3) The Serial Numbers of the MDS Sciex APPI Sources were identical in the 

ECM and ILV, “EQP 5273”.

4) The Software of the ECM was reported as “Analyst 1.4.2” in the equipment 

list, but was reported as “Analyst 1.6” in the ECM MRID No. 49477402 (p. 10 of 

MRID 49477402). “Analyst 1.6” was the Software used in the ILV.

5) The ILV study author reported on p. 2 of the Technical Response Letter that 

the information detailing that supplies and equipment used in the studies was 

“also included in the ILV report on pages 69 and 70” (p. 2 of MRID 49513501). 

However, the ILV MRID contained only 38 pages.
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 9 of 11

The communication between the ECM and ILV was also questioned by Susan Bartow, 

Chemical Review Manager at the EPA. The ILV report stated that “communications 

occurred with the Sponsor Monitor” and that the communications would be included with 

the raw data; however, no communications were included in the ILV (p. 16 of MRID 

49477403; p. 1 of MRID 49513501). The ILV report stated that communication included 

protocol and method clarification, acquisition of the test materials and test matrix, and 

pre-validation evaluation and method establishment (p. 16 of MRID 49477403). In the 

Technical Response Letter, the ILV study author “confirmed that there were no project 

related communications between the study personnel who performed the ILV and the 

sponsor monitor...[or]...the study personnel who performed method 

development/validation” (p. 1 of MRID 49513501). Furthermore, the ILV study author 

explained that communications were not included in the ILV report because no 

communications occurred. 

Overall, the reviewer determined that the information provided in EPA MRID No.

49513501 (a Technical Response Letter prepared by Smithers Viscient, written by the 

ILV study author) did not provide valid, conclusive responses to comments from Susan 

Bartow, Chemical Review Manager at the EPA, since the instrument lists and summary 

of communication in the Technical Response Letter contained inconsistencies with 

information provided in the original ECM and ILV reports.

4. In the ECM, only three samples were prepared at each fortification level (10×LOQ,

100×LOQ and 700×LOQ; Table 1, p. 21 of MRID 49477402). The OCSPP guidelines 

specify that five matrix control samples are prepared at each fortification level.

5. In the ECM, chromatograms were only provided for a control sample, one calibration 

standard and one fortification level (Figures 1-3, pp. 22-24 of MRID 49477402). 

Chromatograms were not provided for the 100 μg/kg or 7000 μg/kg fortification levels. A

reagent blank was not included. In the ECM and ILV, no chromatograms were provided 

for samples dosed at the LOQ since they were not included in the studies.

6. In the Study Protocol, the directed test concentrations for the ILV were “approximately 

0.1, 1 and 7 mg (a.i.)/kg” (Appendix 1, p. 29 of MRID 49477403). The omission of the 7 

mg/kg test concentration was not included in the Protocol Deviations section of the ILV 

(p. 19). 

7. The soil matrix was the same in the ECM and ILV (p. 10 of MRID 49477402; p. 10 of 

MRID 49477403). The Lot No. and Sample ID was the same, but the soil moisture 

content differed between the two studies.

8. It was reported for the ILV that one set of nineteen samples (10 fortified and 2 unfortified 

samples, 1 reagent blank and 6 solvent standards) required 8 hours (one working day) to 

complete the preparation and extraction (p. 16 of MRID 49477403). Subsequent LC/MS 

analysis was performed overnight.
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 10 of 11

V. References

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines, OCSPP 

850.6100, Environmental Chemistry Methods and Associated Independent Laboratory 

Validation. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Washington, DC. EPA 

712-C-001.

40 CFR Part 136. Appendix B. Definition and Procedure for the Determination of the Method 

Detection Limit-Revision 1.11, pp. 317-319.
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 11 of 11

Attachment 1: Chemical Names and Structures

Aldicarb

IUPAC Name: (EZ)-2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propionaldehyde O-methylcarbamoyloxime

CAS Name: 2-Methyl-2-(methylthio)propanal O-[(methylamino)carbonyl]oxine

CAS Number: 116-06-3

SMILES String: O=C(O\N=C\C(SC)(C)C)NC

Structure not available
Aldicarb (PC 098301) MRIDs 49477402 (ECM)/ 49477403 (ILV)/ 49513501 (Addendum)

Page 12 of 11

Test Material: Aldicarb

MRID: 49477402

Title: Temik 15G (Aldicarb) – Validation of the Analytical Method for the 

Determination of a Test Substance in Soil

MRID: 49477403

Title:

Independent Laboratory Validation (ILV) of the Analytical Method: 

Temik 15G (Aldicarb) – Validation of the Analytical Method for the 

Determination of a Test Substance in Soil

EPA PC Code: 098301

OCSPP Guideline: 850.6100

For CDM Smith

Primary Reviewer: Lisa Muto Signature:

Date: 2/9/15

Secondary Reviewer: Lynne Binari Signature: 

Date: 2/9/15

QC/QA Manager: Joan Gaidos Signature: 

Date: 2/9/15