Antimycin A Human H ea lth Risk Assessment DP No
. 04 27904 

### UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D .C. 20460



### MEMORANDUM

Date: July 6, 2015 OFFICE OF CHE MICAL SAFETY AND POLL UTION PREVENTION



### SUB J ECT: Antimycin A

- Draft Human H ea lth Ri sk Assessment 

### fo r R eg istrati on R ev iew

P C Code: 0063 14 Dec is i on No.: 506169 Petiti o n No.: NA OP Barco de: 4 27904 R egis tration No.: NA R eg ulat o r y Actio n : Reg Review Case No .: NA Ri sk A ssess m e nt T y pe: Human Health TXR No.: NA CAS No.: 1397

- 94-0 40 CF R : NA MRID No. : NA


### FROM:

THROUG H: A lexa ndra Gave le k , M.S. , Biolo g ist W illi am D o n ova n , PhD , Chemis t 

# r

# ~1.,

# 11**L** c __ 

## UJ 

# $J;J

.**~"** 

# :;:. :;. Wi lli am Irw in , PhD , DABT , Toxicologist Risk Assessment Branch V N II Health Effec t s Di vision (7509P)

# rJ~~'r

Michae l Metzger, Branch C hief

# I 

# nJ Q Ri sk Assessme nt B ranc h V 

### N TI

### ~ · H ea lth Effects Di v isio n (7509 P ) 

### TO: Chri s tin a Sc he lt e ma Pes ti c id e Reeva luation Div iso n (PRD)

Page I of 10

### A ntim yc in A Hum a n Health Ri s k A ssess ment DP No. 0 42790 4
1.0 Exec utiv e S umma ry ...... . ........... . .. . ..... . ...................... .. ......... .. .. .. ........ ... . .. ...... ..... . .. ...... . .. . .. 3 2.0 Introduction and Use Pattern
.. .. ..... .. .. .. .. .. .. ........... .. ........ .. . .. .. .. . ... . ...... .... .. .. .. .. .. ............... 3 2.1 Co n s id e r at ion of Environmental Ju s tice
... ... . . ... .. .......... ... .. . .......... ..... . .. ..... .. . . . .... ... . . .. . . 4 3. 0 Hazard C haracteriz a tion and Dose- Re s p o n se Asse s s men t .................. .. ....... . . ... ........ .. . . 4 4.0 Dietary Ex po s ure 

### I Residue C h e mi stry Co n s iderati o n s . . . .. .. .. . ... . ..... .............................. 6 5.0 R es idential (Non-Occupational) Exposure a nd Ri s k Assess m e nt ... . .. ..... ......... .. .. .... .. .. . 7 6 .0 Aggregate E xposure ........ . . .... . .. ...... .. .. .. .. .. ...... ....... . ... .. .. . ... . ... . .. ..... .. . ... . . ....... . .. .. ..... .. . . ....... . 7 7. 0 C umul a tiv e Ex po s ure an d Risk Assess m e nt ....... . .. ...... ...... ......... .. . ..... ....... .... .. . ....... . ...... 7 8.0 Occupational E xpo s ure and Ri sk Assess ment . . .. .. . .... . . . .. . ... . . ...... ...... . .. ..... .. ...... .. . . .. .. ...... . 7 9 .0 Incid e nt R epo rt s . ......... . .. .. . . ....... . ... .. .. . ....... ... ......................... .. .. .. ...... . .. . .. . ... .. . .... .. . ... .... .. . .. . 8 10
. 0 Ref e rcn ces ........... .. . . ........... . . . .... . .......................... . .... . ......... ... ........... ....... ....... ...... . .. ..... . ... . . 8

- A ppendix A. Acute Toxico l ogy Profile
..... . .. . .... . ... . .. .. ....... . .......... .. . . ... . ......... .. .. .. ...... . . ... . .. ......... . 9 Appendix B. C hemical Identity and Physicochernical Properties
.. .. .... .......... .. ...... ... . .. .. ....... 10

Page 2 o f 10

### Antimycin A Human Health Risk Assessment DP No. D427904 

### 1.0 E x ec u t ive S umm ary This document represents the Health Effects D i vision's (HED) Draft Human Health Risk Assessment in support of Reg i stration Review of a nt imycin A (CAS Reg
. No
. I 

### 397

- 94

- 0)
. Antimycin A is a restricted use pesticide (RUP) used to e li minate invas i ve and unwanted scaled fish in ponds, lakes, streams, and catfish fanns. Due to the extensive use restricti ons for th is pesticide and acute deactivation methods , residues of ant imycin A are not expected in any food commodities following treatments, and thus there is no need for tolerances. In keeping with its limited uses, the scientific database for antimycin A is also lim ited. Briefly, the toxicology database for antimycin A includes the standard battery of acute toxicity stud ies and a 90-day oral toxic ity study in the rat. The open sc i entific literature contains reports concerning neurotoxicity and genotoxicity studies involv ing antimycin A
. Product chemistry data have been submitted and rev iewed
. No exposure studies have been submitted or are required to support the restricted use of antimycin A. Considering the use restrict ions, the low use rate, the short half-life, and the low potentia l for bioconcentration in aquatic organisms, HED concludes that there are no risks of concern resulting from the current reg iste r ed use of antimycin A according to the d i rections on the Fintrol ® Concentrate label. However, any expans ion of the use for Antimycin A would likely require additional stud ies and an additional human health r isk assessment. 

### 2 .0 Intr odu c ti o n a nd Use Pa t te rn Antimycin A is a restricted use pesticide (RUP) used to e li minate invasive/ unwanted fish i n ponds , lakes, streams, and catfish farms. Derived from 

### Streptomyces mold, anti mycin A inh i bits electron transfer in the m itochondr ia during cell resp iration. Ant i mycin A is tox ic to fish at low concentrations (0.5 to 25 ppb of active ingredient) w i th certa in species being more sensitive to the compound than others. Unlike other registered piscicides , fish are reportedly not able to detect and thus avoid antimyc in A in treatment areas. Antimycin A is used in fish management because low treatment concentrations are required to achieve management objectives and the compound is reported to degrade rapid l y, making it possible to restock treated a reas within a short time after treatment. Antimycin A is a restricted use pesticide used on l y by trained and/or certified app l icators
. There is currently only one registered product (Fintro l® Concentrate) that is used at low application rates result ing in water concentrations generally less than 25 ppb ant imycin A. 

### The labe ls include language to preclude significant human exposure , described be l ow. The personal protective equipment (PPE) on the label include long-sleeved shirt, long pants, chemical-resistant gloves, shoes plus socks, protective eyewear, dust/mist respirator and chemical-res istant apron for all mixers , loaders , and other handlers exposed to the concentrate through cleaning equipment or spi ll s. The PPE of long - sleeved shirt, long pants , chemical

resistant gloves, shoes plus socks, and protective eyewear are required for a ll app l icators and other handlers. When using handheld equ i pment, app li cators must wea r coveralls and a dust/mist respirator. Only protected handlers may be in the area during application
. The cert ified Page 3 of 10Antimyc in A Hum a n Health Risk Assessment DP No
. D4 27904
app licato r must supervise for th e duration of app li cat io n. R ecrea ti o n al access (i.e
.. wading, sw immin g, boatin g, fi s hin g) is not allow e d durin g treatm e nt o r for 7 days afte r treatment. Where practical , dead fish s h o uld b e buried. Surviving fis h mu st n o t be harves ted fo r food or feed fo r 1 2 month s afte r treatment. Water mu s t not be restocked w ith fish for 7 d ays after treatment or until leve ls are below the limit of detection (LO O )
. 

### If drinkin g w ater intakes are p resen t w ith in the treatm en t area, th e certified app li cator must no tif y the public water s uppl y o r individual u sers and th e int ake must be c lo sed during treatme nt and until leve ls are below of the LOD. T h e cert ifi ed applicator must placard a ll access to the treatment area . Pl acards mu st be placed eve ry 250 fee t a lo n g th e s h o re line of the trea ted area o r a t public access points. Plac ards mu st re s tri ct recreational access to th e area for 7 d ays afte r treatment , prohibit swimming or wad in g in th e treate d wate r , and prohibit consump t ion o f water or dead fish from the t reat ed water. Th e chem ical structu r e and phy s ioch e mical prop e rti es of Antimyc in A ca n b e fo und in Appendix 

### B. 

### 2.1 Co n s id e r a ti o n of E nvironm ent a l
. Ju sti ce Pote nti al areas of enviro nm en t a l justi ce concerns, to the ex te nt possibl e, were considered in this hum a n health ri sk assess m e nt , in accordance wi th U
. S
. Ex ecut ive Order 1 2898, "Federa l Actions to Add ress Env irom11 e ntal Ju s tic e in Min o rity Population s and Low- In co m e P op ulation s," (http ://www.eh.doc.gov/oepa/gu id ance/ju s tice/ eo 12898.pdf. As a p a rt of eve ry pesticide risk assessme nt , OPP consider s a large variety of consumer subgroups according to well-establis hed procedures. Tn li ne wi th OPP policy, H ED es tim a t es ri s k s to population s ub groups from p es ticid e exposures that are b ase d on patte rn s of that s ub gro up 's food and wate r co n s umpti o n , and activities in and arou nd the home that in volve pestici d e use in a res idential se tting. Exte n sive data on food consumption patterns are comp iled by the US D A und er the Co ntinuin g S urv e y of Food In take by Individual s (CS FlI) and a r e u se d in pesticid e ri s k assessments for all registered food uses of a pesticide. Th ese d a ta are a n a lyzed and categori ze d by subg roup s based on age, seaso n of th e ye ar , e th nic group, and region of the co untry . Additio n ally, O PP is able to assess dietary exposure to sma ll er, s p ec ia li ze d subgro up s and ex p osu re assessments are performed when co ndition s o r c ircumstances warra nt. Wh e neve r appropriate , n o n-dietar y exposures based on home use of pesticide products and associated risks for adult app lic ato rs and for toddl e rs , yo uth s, and adults ente rin g or playin g o n treated areas po s t-app li catio n are eval uate d
. Further co n si derati o n s are cu rre ntl y in deve lopment as OPP h as committed resou rces an d expertise to the d eve lopm e nt of s p ec ia li zed so ftwar e and model s th a t consid e r expos ure to bystand ers and fa rm wo rke rs as we ll as li festy le and trad iti ona l dietary pat terns among specific s ubgroup s. 

### 3 .0 Hazard Charac t e r izati o n a nd Do se-Res pon se Assess m ent A ntimyc in A i s a res tricted use pi sc icidc. It s pe s ti c idal mod e of action is to inhi bit e lec tron tran s p o rt of th e mit oc hondri a a t Comp l ex lll , required for energy generat ion in all eukaryotes. T he targe t o rgan fo r ant imyc in A in rats is the gastroi nte stina l tract , ba se d on a 90-day rat ora l s tud y o n a 23% a.i. for mul at ion, w ith a s tudy LO A EL of 0.5 m g/kg/day ( th e lowest dose te ste d ) based on diarrh ea a nd soft feces. It s h ou ld be note d that oth e r components in th e for mul atio n (i.e. ace tone a nd s urfac t ants) may h ave contributed to the toxicity reported. Pag e 4 of 10Antimycin A Human H ea lth Risk Assessment DP No. 0427904

The toxicological database is inadequate to cond uct a quant itative ri sk assessment. The only subchronic rat s tud y is an 90-day oral study on the 23% formulation. The Agency lacks information regardin g developmental , r e productive , neurological , immun o lo g ical , dermal , inhalation and chronic tox ic ity of antimycin A. There are no guideline muta ge nicity studies for antimycin A; however , two literature in vitro studies did not detect a mutag e nic response. 90- Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rat In a s ub-chr o nic oral toxicit y s tudy ( MRID 4553330 l , 4676260 I ), Fintrol ® Concentrate (23% acti ve in g red ie nt (a .i. ), Batch # 1977 ) was administered to I 0 S prague-Dawley rat s/sex/ dose in the diet at dose levels of 0 , 0.5, 5 and l 0 m g/kg/day of Antim yc in A from D ay 0 until D ay 41 and 0, 0.5 , I 0 and 20 m g/kg/day from Day 42 until study termin a ti o n (Groups I , TI , III and IV , r espective ly). The followin g parameters were examined: clin ica l signs, body we ig ht , food consumption, functional observat ional battery , hema tolo gy, clinical chemistry , gross les ion s, se lected o rga n weights , and hi s topatholog y o f se lected tissue s and organs. No adverse neurological effects were observed in any groups as assessed b y the functional observational battery (FOB) conducted at 3 months
. Also , s urvival , gross lesions, and microscopic pathology findings we r e not affected by treatm en t w ith the te s t material and no eye abnorma liti es we re observed during ophthalmoscop ic examinations. No treatmen t-related hemat o lo gy findings were observed except for neutrophils in th e Group I V females. The neutrophil in the females was s ignificantl y hi g he r (145%) than that of the contro l group, but this findin g was n o t corroborated b y gross or micro sco pic pathology , thus was not considered toxicolo g ically sign ific ant. No treatm e nt-related clinical chemistry findings were observ e d exce pt for two se rum parameters, total protein and ca lcium
. T o tal protein in the Group I II male s and Group IV females and calcium in th e Group IV fe m a l es we re s ig nificantl y less (15-18%) than th ose o f the contro l gro up ; h oweve r , these findin gs were not corroborated by gross or microscopic patholog y and were not cons id ered toxicolo g ically significant. At 0.5 m g/kg , ani mals had diarrhea in one male on days 3 1 a nd 32, and soft feces in 3 females on e ight days (Days 33, 40, 4 1 , 86-90) were observed. In both Groups III and IV (5 and I 0 mg/ kg) animals , in creasing incidence of diarrhea o r soft feces were observed when compared to the control or Group II animals. Group IV ma le and female ra t s gained 2 1% le ss weig ht than the control anjmals, however, n o treatment
- re lated effects were obse rved on absolute bod y weights and food consumption at all dose s . Increased incidence o f diarrhea and so ft s tool was considered as a treatment-related effect of the form ulati on. The LOA E L was 0.5 m g/kg/day based on occ urr e nce of in creased incidence of d iarrhea or so ft feces. Th e NOAEL was n ot es tablished. This study is classified as acceptab le/ guideline and satisfies the gu id e li ne require ments (OP PT S 870.31 OOa ; OECD 408) for a su b-chronic ora l toxicity study in th e rat. Neurotoxicity
Page 5of10Antimyci n A Human H ea lth Ri sk Asse ss ment 

### DP No. 

### 0427904
In coo rdin ation , i mpai red reflexe s and resp iratory distress have been reported in mice inj ected intravenou s l y wi th antimycin A ( HSDB 

### 2007); however , this ex p osure rou te is not expected for human s. G e n otox ic ity In the mouse lymp h oma thymidi n e kinase locus assay 

### (in v itr o m amma li an ce ll gene mut at ion te s t), no sig nifi cant muta gen ic activ ity was prod uced by antimyci n A tested at concentrations in the ran ge of 

### 0.526 X 10 · 5 to 

### 5.26 X 10 · 5 mol/ L. Th e s tudy was not co ndu c te d in the presence of S9 act i vat io n (Wan genh e im and Bolc sfo ldi 1 988)
. In the D NA a lka lin e un wi ndin g assay , no significant mutag e nic ac ti v ity was produced b y antimycin A te s ted at concentratio n s in the ran ge of 

### 1 .5 X I 0· 5 to 

### 150 X I 0· 5 mol/ L. The s tud y was not cond u c ted in th e pre se n ce of S 9 act i vation. The D NA a lkaline un w indin g assay i s based on the m easurem e nt of the proportions of single

- to doub le-stranded DNA by alkaline unwindin g and hydr oxya patite e luti o n in mouse lymphoma ce ll s treated 

### in vitro with various chemical s. (Ga rberg e t a l. 1988). Ac ut e T ox icity Th e acute toxicity of antimyc in A that indicates that it has a high oral toxi c ity (Catego ry 

### I) for th e tec hni cal grade ac ti ve in gred ie nt (TGA I) pesticide , but lower toxicity concern (Cate go ry 

### II ) for the one act ive l y regi s tered e nd-u se pesti c id e produ ct containing 

### 23% a.i
.. The 

### 23% formulation is a Catego ry 

### II eye irritant , but the irritation w ith a 

### 0.5% so l ut io n of the tec hnica l a ntim yc in i s a Catego ry 

### Ill eye irritant ( i. e . , reso lved in 

### 2 d ays)
. Co n ve r se ly, the 

### 23% formulation of ant imyc in is n o t a dermal irrit a nt while the TGA I i s a Category 

### llI demrnl irritant. The acute toxici ty data for ant im yc in A in pre se nted in Appe n dix A. 

### 4.0 D ietary E x po s ur e I 

### R esi du e Chemi s try Con s id e r at io n s For aquatic use pesticides , there i s a potential for human exposure through dr inkin g wate r a nd fish consumption. H owever, in the case of a ntim ycin A, sufficient u se re s triction s are included on the Fintrol ® F i s h Tox icant Kit lab e l to e l iminate human dietary e xposures. For water , the u se in stru c tion s s pecify that flowing wate r (i ncludin g outfl ow from standin g water s uch as lakes and aquacult ure ponds) from tr eatment areas must be deactivated with pota ss ium p erma n ganate. When drinkin g water int akes are pre se nt within treatment areas, the intak es mu st be c losed during treatm en t a nd until m o nitorin g samp les d e monstra te a nti m yc in A leve ls are below the lim it of detection of 

### 0.0 15 ppb. Aquaculture Trea tment A reas Surviving fish from se lective k ill s a t aquaculture sites mu s t not be harvested for food or feed for a minimum of 

### 1 2 month s after tr eatm e nt. F o llowin g co mpl e te kill treatments , restock in g is p erm itted o nl y af ter a min imum of 7 d ays or o n ce three consecutive moni to ring samp les ta ken n o l ess th a n 

### 4 hours apa rt d e monstrate th e a ntim ycin A levels are below the limit of detectio n of 

### 0.015 ppb. Treatm en t Areas Other Than Aquaculture Page 6o f 10

### An tim yc in A Hum an Health Risk Asse ss ment OP No. D4 27904 Th e u se in struc ti ons req uire th e place me nt of warnin g placards at trea tm ent si tes proh ibitin g recreational acce ss (e.g., wadi ng, swimming , bo atin g, fi s hin g, etc.) wi thin th e treatment area while ant imycin A i s being app li ed and for 7 days a ft e r treatment , and the consumption of dead fi s h or treated water. The s ig ns are to be removed no earlier than 7 

### day s after treatment and no late r than 14 

### day s afte r treatment. Conclusions. 

### Considering these use re s trictions togeth e r with the low use**rate (~**  

### 25 ppb) , th e s hort half- li fe of an tim yc in A under t y pic a l o utdo or aq uat ic conditions ( half-li fe < 1 2 

### hour s) , a nd low potent ial fo r bioconcentration in aquatic o rgani s m s , H E D 

### co nclud es that there i s no reasonable expectation of an tim ycin A re sid ues in aquat ic organism s o r drinking water; thu s, tolerances are no t req uired fo r fish , m o ll us ks , or crus taceans , and a dietary risk assessmen t is not requ ired. 5 .0 Res id enti a l (No n-O cc up a ti o nal ) Ex p os ure and Ri s k Assess m ent 

### Recrea tional access ( i .e . , wad in g, swimming , boating , and fishing ) i s not allowed du rin g treatme nt or for 7 

### clays after treatment. D epe ndin g on env ironmental co nd ition s, th e exp ec ted half-life of antimycin A range s from seve ra l minutes t o ap proxim ate ly 1 2 

### ho urs . Ass umin g a 1 2 

### hou r ha lf-life , th e Age nc y estimates that at least 99 % 

### of th e compo und wi ll have degraded after 7 

### day s ( An timyc in A RED , 5/ 2007). No re s idential expo s ure i s expec t e d based on the reg i stered uses and label re s trictions and a residential expos ure assess ment is not required
. 6 .0 Agg r ega t e Ex po s ure 

### There is minimal expos ure expec t e d for antimycin A ; th e refore. a quantitative aggregate assess ment i s not req uired fo r anrimyc in A. 

### 7
. 0 C umul a ti ve E xp os ure a nd Ri s k Assess m ent 

### Unlike ot her pe s ticides for which EPA has followed a c umul ati ve ri s k a pproac h based on a co mm o n mec h ani s m of to x ic it y, EPA ha s no t made a common mec h ani s m of toxicity findin g for antimyc in A 

### and any oth e r substances and antim yc in A 

### does not appear to produce a tox ic me tabo lite produ ce d by other substance s. For the purp oses of this to le rance acti o n , therefore , EPA h as not assume d that ant imyc in A ha s a co mm o n mechanism of t ox icity wi th other substa nces . Fo r information r ega rdin g EPA ' s effo rts to de termin e which chem i cals have a commo n me c ha ni s m of toxici ty and to evalu ate th e cumulative effects of s uch c he mi cal s , see the policy s tatement s re leased by E P A 's Offic e of Pesticide Programs co ncerning common mec ha ni s m determinations and procedures for cum ul a tin g effects fro m s ub stances fou nd to have a common mechani s m on EPA's we b s ite a t http: //www.epa . gov/ pe s ti ci de s /cumu lati ve/. 8.0 O cc up a ti o n a l Ex p os ure a nd Ri s k Assess m en t 

### Occupationa l exposure is expec ted to be neglig ible for th e registered uses of A ntim yc in A. Ex po s ure to trained a pp li cators during antimycin A ap p lication is lik e ly to be low , bas ed on th e low vo lume u se, physical & 

### che mica l ch aracterist ic s, and required PP E.

Page 7 of 10An tirn ycin A Human He alth Risk Assessment DP No. D427904 

### 9 . 0 Incident Report s There were no inc ident cases repo rted for antimycin A to e ith e r IDS o r SENSOR-Pesticides. There does not app ear to be a concern at thi s time that would warrant further inv est igati o n (S
. Recore , 4/ 1 5/ 15, DP426688). 

### 10.0 Reference s Antimyci n A: Tier l Re view of Hum a n In cidents. DP# 42 668 8. Ap ril 1 5, 2015. S. R eco re. Antimycin A: Re v ise d H ea lth Effects Divisi o n Con s id erations 

### fo r the Rere g i s trati o n Eligibility Decision (RE D ) Document. 

### DP# 33864 1. Apri l 18 , 2007. D. Smegal. Product C hem i stry Review of Fintrol Concen trate (Antimyci n A). DP# 389850
. June 6 , 2011. M. Riv era Pi ansay. Re re g istrat io n Eligib ility Decision for Antimycin A. E P A 738-R

- 07-007
. May, 2007. Garbe rg, 

### P , Akerblom E.L., B o lcsfo ldi , G. 1988. Evalu a ti o n of a G enotoxicity Test Measur in g DNA-Strand Break s in Mouse Lymphoma Cells by Alka lin e Unwi ndin g and Hydrox yap at ite Elution. MUTA T RES 203 :1 55-176,1988 H azardous Substances D ata B a nk ( H SD B ). 2007. Antimyc in A. h ttp: // toxnet.nl m . nih .gov. Apr il l 7, 2007. Kuhn, 

### J (200 I ) Fintro l Conce ntrate (A ntim yc in ) : 90- da y o ral tox icity s tud y in rat (d iet). Sti llmeadow , In c., S u gar Land, TX. Laboratory S tud y No. 6024-00 , A ugu s t 2 8 , 200 I. Submitte d by Aquabiotics Corp. MR ID 4553330 

### I

. Unpub lish ed. USEPA 2005. An tim ycin A Use Closure Memo. Case No. 4121. Memo from 

### L. Wom1e ll 

### (S RRD ) to Antimyc in A RED Team. October 26, 20 05
. USE P A 2006. Antimycin A Drinkin g Water Cha racterization Mem o from D. Y oung Environmen t al Fate and Effec t s Di v i s io n (EFE D ) , to 

### L. Wom1ell/T. Myers 

### (S RRD ) and C. Olinger ( HED). Jun e 2 1 , 2006, 0 3 107 32 Wangcnheim , 

### J. , Bolcsfoldi G. Mouse Lymphom a Ll5178Y Thym idin e Kinase Locus Assay of 50 compounds. MU T AGENES I S 3:193

- 205 , 1988

P age 8 of 10Antimyc in A Hum an Health Ri sk Assessment 

### DP No. 04 27904 Append ix A. Acute Toxicology P r ofil e

G uid e line St ud y Title Re s ults Toxicit y Category IO CS PPI 870.1100 Acute Rat Oral Tox ici t y Stud y Technical I LD so 

### = 28 mg/ kg (Tox Record 000684)

23 % Fonnulati on II LD so 

### = 286 m g/kg (ma les) LD so 

## = 36 1 m g/k g (fe males) LD so 

## = 316 mg/kg (comb ined ) (MRID 4593720 I, Acceptable) 870.1 2 00 Acute Rat D e rm a l Toxicity 23 % Formulation IV LD so> 5000 mg/kg ( MRID 46762604, Acceptable) 870
. 1300 Ac ute Rat Inh a l atio n Technical II Tox ic ity Stu dy LC so < 0.166 rn g/L (D I 89202) 23% Formulation I V LC so >2.59 mg/ L (MMAD-2.8 um ; GSD-4. 1) (MR ID 46762605 , Acceptable) 870.2400 Primar y Rabbit Eye Technical 111 Irrit atio n St ud y lnitation resolved within 48 hours for a 0.5% solution

0189 202 23 % Formulation II Eye Opacity Findings: In non-wa shed assay: at I hr , 2 / 3 animals had sca t1 ered di IT use areas of opacity , I / 3 had easily discernible tran s lu cent areas of

opacity
. At 24 hr s , I / 3 had scanered ditTuse area s of opacity. From 48 to 72 hrs,

2

/ 3 h ad scattered diffuse areas of opacity. I n washed assay: at I hr, 1 / 3 animals had scattered ditTuse areas of opac ity , 2 / 3 had eas il y discernible tran s lucent areas of opacity, 1 / 3 had scanered diffuse areas of opacity. (MRJD 46762603, Acceptable) 870
. 2500 P rim ary Rabbit Sk in Technical 111 Irrit a ti on S tud y Some irritation was noted when 5 % antimycin was applied for 3 day s (Tox Record 000684)

23% Formulation


## - Not a dem 1a l irritant (MRID 46762602 , Accep table) 870.2 600 Local Ly mp h No d e Ass ay , Mou se NA NA

Page 9of10

### Antimycin A Hum an H ealth Ri s k A ssess me nt 

### DP No. 0427904 Appendix B. Chemica l Identity and Ph ysicoc hemica l Properties

T a bl e 8.1. Antim yc in A No m e nclature. S tru cture CH 3

0 0
0

... 111 11NH 0 HO NH CHO 0 Common name Antimycin A PC Code 00 6314 IU

P/\ C name (2 R
. 3S.6 S. 7 R , 8R) -3

- [(3

- for m amido

- 2- hydroxybc nzoy l )a mino ]-8-hexy l- 2.6 -dimcth y l

- 4. 9- dioxo

- I ,5

- dioxonan

- 7

- yl 3

- meth y lbutanoate CAS r egistr y numb e r 1397-94-0 Molecular Formula Mo l ecu lar W e i

g ht 5 48
. 63 g/mol Chemica l Class Nitrosalicylani li de End

- use product (E P) Fin trol ® concentrate (EPA Reg. No. 39096

- 2)

T able 8.2. P hys icochemical Prop e rtie s of Antimycin A. Pa rame t e r Value R..: fe r e nce Meltin g poin t/ range I 33

- I 35 ° C Ph ys ica l S tate White to ye ll owis h so lid Stability S tab le if s to r e d at 0° C and pro tected fro m li g ht. 0389850. M
. Ri vera Pi a nscy . Sol ubility Low 06 -J VN

- 20 11 Vapo r pressure 2 .3 1 X I Q · 1S@ 24
. 3 ° C ( mm I lg) Octanol/wat..:r panition coefficie nt. ( l og 4
. 2 1 K

ow)



### Page 10 of 10