**UNITED STA TES ENVIRONMENTA**  **L PROTECTION A GENCY**  WA SHINGTON D.C., 20460 OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### MEMORANDUM **Date: May**  **2 1**  **, 201**  **4** DP Barcode: D415627 PC Code 129081

**SUBJECT: Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Section 3 New Use Registration** 

**of Sulfentrazone on**  **Apples TO:**  Barbara Madden , Risk Manager

Laura Nollen, Risk Manager Reviewer Registration Division (7504P) George Kramer , Chemist Charles W. Smith III , Chief R isk Assessment Branch 1 Health Effects Division (7509P) **FROM:** Michael R. Barrett, Senior Chemist

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507 P ) **THROUGH:** Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507 P ) EFED has evaluated the proposed new use on apples and reassessed current uses for an updated assessment of drinking water exposure to the sulfentrazone residues of concern (parent + 3

- cabox yl ic acid sulfentrazone or 3CAS.) S ee Appendix A for chemical identities and structures of sulfentrazone and 3CAS
. This updated assessment also supports the registration review of sulfentrazone. The recommen d ed values to be used in the drinking water exposure assessment are as follows:

 Acute exposure: 134 μg /L (ppb)

– estimated in groundwater with PRZM

- GW model

### 2

 Chronic exposure (for cancer risk): 98 μg /L

– estimated in groundwater with PRZM

- GW model The highest surface water values (these were lower than for groundwater) modeled were:  Acute exposure: 37.3 μg /L (ppb)

– estimated in surface water with PRZM

- EXAMS model  Chronic exposure (for cancer risk): 8.3 μg /L

– estimated in surface water with PRZM

EXAMS model The above values are the highest of all groundwater and surfa ce water scenarios modeled and determined to appropriately represent the current and proposed uses of sulfentrazone herbicide. EFED used the PRZM/EXAMS model for surface water and the PRZM

- GW and SCI

- GROW models for groundwater. Additional details on the m odeling procedures and results are provided below. The assessment incorporates some new methodology for the total residues of sulfentrazon e including the use of a new groundwater exposure model not available for previous assessments
. The highest exposure estimates are from model estimates for groundwater sources; significant exposure potential from groundwater sources has also been shown b y the results of four small

scale prospective groundwater monitoring studies.

## Drink **ing Water Exposure Assessment fo r the**  **Section 3 New Use Registration**  **of Sulfentrazone on Apples Table	of**  **Contents** Background
................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 4 Current and Proposed Uses Summary
................................ ................................ ........................ 4 Analy sis Plan
................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 6 Environmental Fate of Sulfentrazone and Model Input
................................ .............................. 7 Sulfentrazone Monitoring Data
................................ ................................ ................................ . 11 Prospective Small

- Scale Groundwater Studies
................................ ................................ ..... 11 Other Surface and Ground Water Monitoring Data
................................ .............................. 14 Exposure Analy sis
................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 15 Modeling Results Summary
................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 15 Comparison of Targeted Monitoring Data to Groundwater Modeling Results
........................ 18 Appendix A: I dentities and Chemical Structures for Sulfentrazone Residues of Concern
.......... 20 Appendix B: Drinking Water Exposure Modeling Input and Output Details
.............................. 22 Groundwater Modeling (PRZM

- GW and SCI

- GROW Models)
................................ .............. 22 Surface Water Modeling (EXPRESS or PE5 Shell using PRZM

- EXAMS)
............................ 25 Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations b y Scenario
................................ ....................... 25 Example EXPRESS Project (Input) File for PRZM

- EXAMS
................................ .............. 28 Example PE5 PRZM

- EXAMS Shell I np ut file and Output Summary
................................ . 35

### 4



## Backgr **ound Current	and	Proposed	Uses	Summary**  New uses have been requested for sulfentrazone on apples. A summary of current uses and the proposed use is provided in Table 1
. The proposed use on apples carries the maximum single and annual application rates for all cur rently registered uses (0.375 lb ai/ A; other use sites with the same maximum rates are identified in Table 1
. **Table 1**  **.** Application i nformation for r egistered u se s ites and the a pples p roposed u se of s ulfentrazone. **Crop or Non**  **** **Agricultural Use Si**  **` te**  **1 Single** 

**Min, lb ai/A**  **product ;**  **All sites Rates** 

**vary by soil**  **texture / %O.M.?**  **Max #**

**Appl i**  **** **cations .**  **Aerial**

**appli**   ** cation** **? Minim**  **.**

**Interval (day**  **s) PHI,** 

**days Maxim**  **.**

**single (1st)**  **applic., lb ai/A**  **Maxim .** 

**Annual Rate,**  **lb ai/A**


### PROPOSED USE: **Apples** 0.125 No 2* No 60 14 0.3750 0.3750 

### CURRENT USES: **Brassica leafy greens**  0.070 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.2000 0.2200 **Corn (GMO tolerant to**  **PPO herbic.)** 0.094 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.1875 0.3750
**Corn (GMO tolerant to**  **PPO herbic.)** 0.141 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.2500 0.3750 **Cowpeas succu. (TN)**  0.070 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.1875 0.1875 **Dry beans & peas (NO SD**  **MT M**  **N WY CO NE KS Wl**  **Ml OR ID WA OR WIT)**  0.070 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.2500 0.2500

1 

### Li mitations to crop strains or certain geographical areas (states) are given in parenthesis.

2 

### NS: Not specified

### Crop or

**Non**   ** Agricultural** **Use Si `**  **te 1**  **Single**

**Min, lb ai/A**  **product ;**  **All sites Rates** 

**vary by soil**  **texture / %O.M.?**  **Max #**

**Appl i**  **** **cations .**  **Aerial**

**appli**   ** cation** **? Minim**  **.**

**Interval (day**  **s) PHI,** 

**days Maxim**  **.**

**single (1st)**  **applic., lb ai/A**  **Maxim .** 

**Annual Rate,**  **lb ai/A Fallow,**  **Postharv. Burndown**  0.094 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.2500 0.2500 **Horseradish ((MN ND SD**  **MT CO NE**  **WY ID WA OR Wl Ml)**  0.070 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.2500 0.2500
**Lima beans succul. (TN)**  0.070 Yes NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 NS 2 0.1875 0.1875 **Melons** 0.250 No NS NS NS NS 0.2500 0.2500 **Peanuts (AL, GA, MS, NC,**  **SC, VA)** 0.150 No NS NS NS NS 0.2500 0.3000

**Potatoes** 0.094 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.2500 0.2500 **Rhubarb** 0.250 No 1.000 NS NA 46 0.2500 0.2500 **Soybeans** 0.141 No NS No NS NS 0.2484 0.2500 **Succulent Peas**  0.070 Yes NS No NS NS 0.1875 0.1875 **Sunflower subgr. 20B**  0.094 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.2500 0.2500 **Turnips** 0.250 No 1.000 NS NA 3 0.2500 0.2500 **Wheat -**  **spring (ID, OR, WA)**  0.188 No NS NS NS ca. 120 0.1875 0.1875 **Apples** 0.125 No 2* No 60 14 0.3750 0.3750 **Asparagus** 0.141 Yes NS NS NS 14 0.3750 0.3750 **Berries** 0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750 **Brassica h&s (Broccoli,**  **Cabbage** 0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Cabbage transplanted**  **(M N ND SD**  **MT CO NE**  **WY ID WA OR Wl or Ml)**  0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750

**Citrus** 0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750

### 6

**Crop or Non**  **** **Agricultural Use Si**  **` te**  **1 Single** 

**Min, lb ai/A**  **product ;**  **All sites Rates** 

**vary by soil**  **texture / %O.M.?**  **Max #**

**Appl i**  **** **cations .**  **Aerial**

**appli**   ** cation** **? Minim**  **.**

**Interval (day**  **s) PHI,** 

**days Maxim**  **.**

**single (1st)**  **applic., lb ai/A**  **Maxim .** 

**Annual Rate,**  **lb ai/A**
**Flax (ND SD MT**  **M N WY**  **CO NE KS)** 0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Fruiting veg. & Okra**  **(except cucurbits)**  0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Grapes** 0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750 **Mint** 0.141 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Railroad, Highway,**  **Roadside, Pipeline and**  **Utility Rights**   ** of** **- Way,**  **Industrial Areas, Fence**  **Rows, and Other listed**  **Non -**  **crop Sites** 0.250 No 1.000 Yes* NA NS 0.3750 0.3750

**Soybeans** 0.141 Yes NS Yes NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Strawberry** 0.070 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Sugarcane** 0.141 Yes NS Yes NS 120 0.3750 0.3750 **Tobacco** 0.141 Yes NS NS NS NS 0.3750 0.3750 **Tree nuts** 0.125 No 2 NS 60 3 0.3750 0.3750 **Turf: Sod Production,**  **lawns, golf fairways and**  **roughs** 0.125 No NS NS NS 90 for sod 0.3750 0.3750
NS=not specified 

## Analysis	Plan For the current assessment, a complete update of the drinking water exposure assessment was undertaken to reflect new exposure modeling capabilities in EFED (especially PRZM
- GW or

### 7

Pesticide Root Zone Model which allows for Tier 2 and site

- specific modeling of exposure from groundwater sources.) Additionally , this full y updated review of drinking water exposure supports the current Registration Review for sulfentrazone. The exposure models and versions used in this assessment include: 1. PRZM
- GW version 1.07 (compiled 3/14/2014) for Tier 1 and Tier 2 groundwater modeling. 2. SCI
- GROW ( **S** creening **C** oncentr ation **I** n **GRO** und **W** ater) version 2.3; for Tier 1 groundwater modeling 3. PRZM
- EXAMS (Pesticide Root Zone Model

– Exposure Analy sis Modeling S ys tem) including PRZM v ersion 3.12.2, compiled 5/ 12 / 2005 and EXAMS version 2.98.04.06 compiled 4/ 25 / 2005
. More inform ation on current EFED models is provided here: pp http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/ Previous estimates of sulfentrazone residues in drinking water were done separatel y for parent and the 3

- carbox yl ic acid sulfentrazone (3CAS) degradate. Sulfentrazone and its 3CAS degradate have a potential to reach both surface and ground

- waters that may be used as drinking water sources. This review updates our assessment with more current models and has no w taken a total toxic residues (TTR) approach to assessing exposure

– this approach is adequate for the Health Effects Division assumption of equal toxicity of parent and degradate. 

## Environmental	Fate	of	Sulfentrazone	and	Model	Input Sulfentrazone and its 3 CAS de gradate are highl y persistent and mobile in the environment (for example, model input values for aerobic soil metabolism was a first order degradation half

- life of 875 day s and a Koc value of 29 ml/g). A summary of sulfentrazone and the total to xic residues (TTR) or residues of concern (ROC) 2 

### e nvironmental fate properties from the available studies and the corresponding drinking water exposure model input selection values is provided in Table 2
. **Table 2**  **.** Phy sical/chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Properties of Sulfentrazone. **PARAMETER VALUE(S)**  **SOURCE (Study Acceptability**  **Classification) a**  **COMMENT S** 

2 Both terms are used interchangeably in this revie w to refer to the identity of the stressors included in this drinking water exposure assessment.

### 8

**PARAMETER VALUE(S)**  **SOURCE (Study Acceptability**  **Classification) a**  **COMMENT S** 

Molecular Structure

Chemical Name (common) Sulfentrazone CAS Number 122836
- 35
- 5 Nam e **IUPAC Name:** 2 ′,4′
- Dichloro

- 5 ′
- (4

- difluoromethyl

4,5
- dihydro

- 3
- methyl

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 1
- yl)methanesulfonanilide **CAS Name:** N
- [2,4
- dichloro

- 5
- [4
- (difluoromethyl)

- 4,5
- dihydro

- 3
- methyl

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 1
- yl]phenyl]methanesulfonamide Chemical Class Mode of Action Ar yl triazinone. Protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) Inhibitor / Inhibits an enzyme of chlorophyll and heme biosynthesis. https://ag.purdue.edu/btny/weeds cience/Documents/47575_FINA L_TakeAction_HerbicideClassC hart.pdf http://pnwhandbooks.org/weed/a grichemicals/sulfentrazone http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$de partment/deptdocs.nsf/all/prm64 87 Molecular Formula C 11 H 10 C l2 F 2 N 4 O 3 S
- Molecular Weight 387.2 Tomlin, C.D.S. (ed.). The Pesticide Manual

- World Compendium, 11 th ed. (1997) Solubility in water, ppm (25 o C) 400 @ pH 7.0 Product Chemistry Submissions

### 9

**PARAMETER VALUE(S)**  **SOURCE (Study Acceptability**  **Classification) a**  **COMMENT S** 
Vapor Pressure (25 o C) In mm Hg 9.75x10 - 10 To mlin, C.D.S. (ed.). The Pesticide Manual

- World Compendium, 11th ed., British Crop Protection Council, Surrey, England 1997, p. 1126 Henry’s Law Constant, atm
cu m/mole (25 o C) 6.37x10 - 13 Calculated Not volatile
Hy droly sis Half

- life @ pH7 (25 o C) (GL 835. 143 days at pH 5, 207
- 375 days at pH 7, 348 days at pH 9 ( 25 C) 41928202 (a) No major degradates over the 30
- day study. For DW modeling input, used 375
- day half

- life for parent and no hydrolysis beyond the 3

- carboxylic acid degradate for the TTR. Aq ueous Photolysis Half

- life (25 o C) pH 5 = 0.50 days pH 7 and 9 = 0.05 days MRID 43345424, 43588601 (a) Not used for TTR modeling. See soil photolysis section. Soil Photolysis Half

- life (25 o C) Sand soil = 98 days Sandy loam soil = 161 days 3
- hydroxymethyl metabolite reached a maximum of 3.9% of applied after 1 or 2 weeks (sampling continued for 33 days for both test soils.) MRID 43345425 (a) Value used for TTRs assuming more limited exposure to sunlight of residues in drinking waters.

Aer obic Soil Metabolism Half

- life (ASM) (T 1/2 ) T 1⁄2: 1.) 545 days parent, 746 days TTR in sandy loam soil 2.) 538 days parent, 622 days TTR in silty clay loam soil (25 C) The major accumulating degradate was 3

- carboxylic acid sulfentrazone which reached a maximum of 10.8%, but decline of parent was limited. Soil descriptions: 1.) WI (Saulk Co.) Thurston sandy loam soil (70% sand, 18% s i l t . 12% clay. 1.6% O.M., pH 6.7 , CEC 5.8 meq/100 g 2.) IL (LaSalle Co.) silty clay loam soil (17% sand, 45% s i l t . 38% clay. 4.8% O.M., pH 6.4, CEC 26 meq/100 g MRIDs 41928203, 42932117 (a) For TTR, 90% Upper C.I. of mean t 1/2 = **875** days. For parent sulfentrazone, 90% Upper C.I. o f mean t 1/2 = **552.3** days (input for PE5) Due to the high persistence of parent in these studies it is not possible to determine the ultimate extent of formation or the decline rates of the degradation products. Initially a 3

- hydroxymethyl metabolite is for med which subsequently is further oxidized to a 3

- carboxylic acid metabolite.

Anaerobic Soil Metabolism Half

- life (days) Stable (but anaerobicity was not sufficiently documented MRID 48958901 Study classified as supplemental but not a required study.

### 10

**PARAMETER VALUE(S)**  **SOURCE (Study Acceptability**  **Classification) a**  **COMMENT S** 
Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life (days) In a water: loamy sand sediment sy stem = 3,283 MRID 43345426 (a) For aquatic exposure modeling (both parent and TTR) assumes that this input value is a zero rate (per EFED Guidance). Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Half

- life (days) Study results not accepted at this time. More data are being requested. Reported results (not cleared for use in exposure assessment): 679 SFO Pond water: silty clay

loam sediment (20oC, sediment pH 6.1; 5.1% OM) 612 SFO Canal water: san dy loam sediment system (20oC, sediment pH 6.0; 2.1% OM) 90% Upper C.I. of mean t 1/2 = 748.6 days (input for PE5) MRID 48958902 (s) With no accepted data at this time, input (half

- life) for PE5 is 2x ASM. For model input use: 1,105 days for parent. 1,750 days for Total Toxic Residues (TTR)

Soil Partition Coefficient (K d ) (mL/g) 1. Jackson sandy loam, 3.8% OM, pH 6.9 2. Georgetown silt loam, 5.9% OM, pH 7.1 3. Troy Grove silty clay loam, 3.9% OM, pH 7.0 4. Tavares sand, 0.4% OM, pH 6.0 Respective K f values: 0.55; 0.77; 0.77 and 0.15 Respective n values: 1.01; 1.03; 1.09; 0.98 MRID 41911604 (Batch equilibrium soil Adsorption/Desorption study. (a) See also 43355903 (column leaching study) Freundlich K des values were 1.23
- 1.44 for the four soils. No t used for drinking water exposure model input.

Organic Carbon Partition Coefficient (K oc ) (mL/g oc ) See K d entry above for soil id. Respective K fo c values: 29, 26, 40, 77 MRID 41911604. For PRZM modeling, chose Koc = **29** (median of the 3 non

- sand soil values) for model input. Koc adequately accounts for adsorption. This value used for both parent and TTR modeling. Log Octanol/water partition coefficient (K ow )(25 ◦ C) Log K ow = 0.99 @ pH 7 K ow = 9.9 Terrestrial Field Dissipation Half

- life 4 to 24 months at 4 sites. MRIDs 43651008, 43651009, 43345434. (a) Leaching was further evaluated in four prospective groundwater monitoring studies

– discussed in text of this document.

### 11

**PARAMETER VALUE(S)**  **SOURCE (Study Acceptability**  **Classification) a**  **COMMENT S** 

Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) in fish Negl igible MRID 43345433 BCF study normally is not triggered when the K ow is <<< 1000 pK a ( acid dissociation constant) 6.56 Hatzios KK, ed; Herbicide Handbook of the Weed Science Society of America. 7th ed. Suppl. Champaign, IL: Weed Sci Soc Amer p. 67 (1998)

a Study classification (a) = acceptable study ; (s) = supplemental study


## Sulfentrazone	Monitoring	Data The most relevant data available to support and characterize this drinking water exposure assessment are derived from four small

- scale prospective groundwater monitoring studies that were submitted b y the registrant to EPA; the monitoring results of these studies are summarized in Table **7** . A brief su mmary of other available monitoring data is also provided below. 

### Prospective	Small **- Scale	Groundwater	Studies**  The small

- scale prospective groundwater monitoring stud y is required for certain pesticides with high field leaching potential under the Office o f Chemical Safet y and Pollution Prevention (OSCPP) Guideline no. 835.7100. These studies provide detailed characterization of the amount of leaching and impacts on shallow unconfined aquifers of the pesticide and its degradates. The sites chosen for these studies overlie gro undwater that is relatively vulnerable to contamination and is capable of serving as source water for drinking. The registrant, FMC Corporation , has conducted prospective ground

- water monitoring studies at four sites ( described in Table **3** , Table **4** , Table **5** , and Table **6** ) . The first study conducted (the >95 th 

### %ile study ) was not completed before it had to be terminated. Three additional studies were required based on the original registration at the time of sulfentrazone for so ybeans. Selection of the three sites was to approximately represent the 75 th 

### , 85 th 

### , and 95 th 

### percentile vulnerability

of ground water in the projected use area using currentl y available resources such as soil, hy drology , crop production, and weather data in conjunction with fate and transport models and general pesticide monitoring data. These sites are referred b y t he shorthand notat ion of the 75%, 85%, and 95% sites. A short description of the four study sites is provided in the tables below.

### 12

Table 3 . Description of “95th percentile ” ground

- water vulnerability site IN2
. Soil Series: **Tyner loamy sand.** Fam ily: Mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Typic Udipsamments. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer typically 80% sand, 12% silt, and 8% clay with 1.0 to 1.7% o.m. Grades to a sand texture at 1 to 5 feet and below (up to 97% sand). Acidic (pH 4.7 to 7.0), b ecoming alkaline below 16 or 18 feet. (DP Barcode D255967, no MRID assigned; 5/4/99 report, page 29f.) Location1 Hanna, LaPorte County, Indiana. Crop Soy beans Pesticide 6/11/99: sulfentrazone @ 0.14 lbs ai/acre (the target application rate w as 0.17 lbs ai/acre). Tracer 6/11/99: 81.7 (100.5?) lbs bromide /acre (tw o different rates given, presumably representing actual confirmed and nominal application rates, respectively.) Depth to ground w ater Average of 18 feet below ground surface.

Table 4 . Description of “85th percentile ” ground

- water vulnerability site IN1
. Soil Series: **Shipshe sandy loam .**  Fam ily: Loamy

- skeletal, mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Typic Argiudoll. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer sandy loam, 60% sand, 23% silt, and 17% clay with 3.2 to 4.8% organic matter. Grading to sand below about 3 feet. Acidic (pH 5.6 to 6.9), alkaline below

about 3 feet, mean pH above 8 below 4 foot depth. (MRID 447733
- 01, DP Barcode D254419, page 65). Location Leesburg, Kosciusko County, Indiana. Crop Soy beans Pesticide 6/23/98: sulfentrazone @ 0.2 lbs ai/acre ; 6/14/99: sulfentrazone to one

- half of field @ 0.2 lbs ai/acre. Tracer 6/23/98: 105 lbs bromide/acre Depth to ground w ater 27 to 33 feet

### 13

Table 5 . Description of “75th percentile ” ground

- water vulnerability site IN3
. Soil Series: **Coupee silt loam .**  Fam ily: Mixed. Subgroup: Mesic Ultic Hapludulfs. Characteristics at test site: Surface layer (up to about a 2

- foot depth) ty pically loam to clay loam with approximately 25 to 50% sand, 25 to 45% silt, and 10 to 35% clay with, in the upper six inches 3.9 to 4.6% o.m., grading down to around 0.5% o.m. below 2 feet. Grades to a loamy sand texture from 2 to 6 feet and is predom inantly sand below 6 feet (up to 97% sand). The soil is generally mildly acidic to occasionally mildly alkaline in the upper tw o feet (pH 5.1 to 7.5), the pH is variable in the same general range up to about a 14

- foot depth, and the remaining part of th e vadose zone is alkaline from 14 to 30 feet below ground surface with a median pH of about 8.5 at the low er depths (DP Barcode D279430, MRID 453772
- 01; 3/16/01 report date, received 12/3/01; see page 72f for summary statistics of soil characteristics ) Location 2 miles south of the town of LaPorte, LaPorte County, Indiana. Crop Soy beans Pesticide 6/20/00: sulfentrazone @ 0.204 lbs ai/acre (the target application rate w as 0.20 lbs ai/acre). Tracer 6/20/00: 102 lbs bromide/acre (as 152 lbs KBr). Depth to ground w ater Average of 21 feet below ground surface (original measurement, believed to represent seasonally high levels).
Table 6 . . Description of “>95th percentile ” ground

- water vulnerability site NC1
. Soil Series: **Tarboro loam y sand.**  Characteristics at test site: Profile: >90% sand throughout the profile., Surface O.M. <1.5% and rapidly declining with depth. Location Edgecombe County, North Carolina. Crop Soy beans Pesticide ~5/15/1992: sulfentrazone @ 0.5 lbs ai/acre. Tracer 5/14/1992: 263 lbs bromide/acre (as 400 lbs KBr). Depth to ground w ater From 6 to 10 feet below

ground surface.



### Maximum groundwater concentrations observed in each of the four studies are summarized in ( Table **7** ). The four sites were selected b y the registrant to be representative of >9 5 th 

### (NC1 site), 95 th 

### (IN1 site), 85 th 

### (IN2 site), and 75 th 

### (I N3 site) percentile groundwater vulnerability in likel y sulfentrazone use areas at the time of the studies. The results indicate that sulfentrazone or the

### 14

acid degradate SCA may

eventuall y leach to groundwater at a wide variet y of sites where it is used. Whether parent sulfentrazone or SCA are the do minant moiety found in groundwater over the long

- term will likely

depend on the relative resistance to hy droly sis of sulfentrazone in the vadose zone and in groundwater from site to site. Long

- term observed concentrations may be higher than those observed if sulfentrazone continues to be used at a site over multiple y ears. Table 7 . Maximum observed concentrations of sulfentrazone and its acid degradate in shallow groundwater below

or immediately downgradient of treated fields at fou r sites. **Chemical NC1**  **Site IN1** 

**Site IN2** 

**Site IN3** 

**Site** Concentration in ppb (days after initial applicat. of obs.) Sulfentrazone 37.4 (160d) 0.86

(577d) 0.11

(153d) 0.26

(634d) 3
- Carboxylic Acid Sulfentrazone 11.4 (160d) 2.50

(455d) <5

(variable) 1.61

(1499d) **SITE DESCRIPTIONS: NC1**  **(>9 5**  **th site**  **)** = The test site w as located near the town of Tarboro in Edgecombe County, North Carolina, and wa s located in a setting classified as very high vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Soil series = Tarboro sand to loamy sand. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.50 lb ai/acre. (MRID 43345434 and 43926814 ). Average depth to groundwater = 9.2 feet.
**IN1 (95**  **th site**  **)** = The test site was loca ted near the town of Leesburg in Kosciusko County, Indiana, and w as located in a setting classified as 85 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Soil series = Tyner loamy sand to sandy loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0. 17 lb ai/acre. Average depth to groundwater = 18.9 feet. (MRID 46816001 ). **IN2 (85**  **th site**  = The test site was located near the town of Hanna in LaPorte County, Indiana, and was located in a setting classified as 95 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Soil series = Shipshe loamy sand to sandy loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.22 to 0.44 lb ai/acre. Average depth to groundwater = 30 feet. (MRID 47453601 ). **IN3 (75**  **th site)**  = The test site was located near the town of La Porte in LaPorte County, Indiana, and was located in a setting classified as 75 th percentile in terms of vulnerability to groundwater contamination. Soil series = Coupee silt loam. Sulfentrazone application rate = 0.22 lb ai/acre. Average depth to grou ndwater = 21 feet. (MRID 47453602 ).



### Other	Surface	and	Ground	Water	Monitoring	Data S urface and ground water data from other available pesticide monitoring programs were reviewed to provide additional context concerning the potential presence of sulfentrazone in ambient water resources. In most major monitoring programs for pesticides in surface and

### 15

ground waters sulfentrazone has not been included in the list of analy tes. No significant detections were located in any of the following sources: Th ese water monitoring programs do not target sample collection to peak use locations or application times for particular pesticides, nor do they target sample collection to high precipitation events ( i.e. , high

- runoff events) or areas highl y vulnerable to g roundwater contamination. Additionally , the sampling frequency in these monitoring programs was not designed t o capture peak concentrations. Therefore, the monitoring data reported by these programs may

not represent the highest concentrations in ambient s urface water, and are considered qualitative information for the purposes of this ecological risk assessment
. T he groundwater monitoring site s also were not selected based upon sulfentrazone use. U.S. Geological Survey National Water Qualit y Assessment pr ogram
– data query at: http://cida.usgs.gov/nawqa_queries_public/ (only 2 groundwater sample results retrieved, neither had a quantified detection. Sulfentrazone has only recently been added to th e anal yt ical schedule for the USGS multi

- residue monitoring used in NAWQA and similar monitoring programs. ) U.S. Geological Survey

surface water mid

- continent herbicide monitoring program: http://co.water.usgs.gov/midconherb/html/sulfonylurea.html ). (sulfentrazone apparentl y not analyzed for). USDA Pesticide Data Program (PDP) Data

- The PDP drinking water monitoring p roject provides non

- targeted pesticide occurrence data in raw, finished (treated/tap), and groundwater for selected community

water s ys tems in the United States. Sulfentrazone has not been reported in surface water or groundwater monitoring data from 2003 to 2012 but it appears to not have been monitored for. PDP data are available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/pdp
. CDPR. 2013. Sampling for Pesticide Residues in California Well Water. 2012 Update. C alifornia Environmental Protection Agency , Department of Pesticide Regulation. 262 pp. Sacramento, CA. Available at: www.cdpr. **ca** .gov/docs/emon/pubs/ehapreps/eh0801.pdf Sulfentrazone residues were not reported in an y of the ground water samples. 

## Exposur **e	Anal ys**  **is Modeling	Results	Summary**  Table 8 (groundwater EDWCs) and **Table 9**  (surface water EDWCs) summarize the results from scenarios with highe r exposure estimation for the 3 exposure models used: 1. Groundwater exposure with PRZM

- GW (for the 3 of the 6 standard scenarios determined to well

- represent labeled and proposed uses for sulfentrazone.) 2. Groundwater exposure with SCI

- GROW (no site

- specific scenario, provides a single

### 16

screening value.) 3. Surface water with PRZM

- EXAMS “index” reservoir (for the 3 scenario / input combinations that yielded the highest acute and/or chronic exposure estimates) Complete modeling results for all of the scenarios ca n be found in A ppendix B : Drinking Water Exposure Modeling Input and Output
. The highest exposure values were determined with PRZM

- GW scenarios that were determined to represent possible exposure from uses allowed on the product labels. Note that for the PRZM
- GW three of the six scenario results were, after examination of the sulfe ntrazone product labels, determined to not be representative of sulfentrazone uses allowed on the label. For example, the label does not allow use on any sand texture soils with organic matter content < 1%. The label also does not allow use on cotton and the modeling results from a scenario based on the cotton use also were not used. EFED has used, however, one scenario with slightly less than 1% organic matter (the Delmarva scenario) since it does seem to represent well areas where sulfentrazone may be us ed and there is not likely to be much difference in EDWCs from a soil with 0.9% O.M. compared to 1.0% O.M.
**Table 8**  **.** PRZM
- GW and SCI

- GROW estimates of sulfentrazone in groundwater [μg/L ]
. **Groundwater Scenario**  **Application**

**Date Relat ive**  **to Emergence Topsoil %** 

**OM Topsoil** 

**Textural Class**  **(% sand)**  **Highest**

**daily value**  **Post**

**Breakthrough Average**  **Avg**

**Breakthrough Time**  **(days) Scenarios Represent**  **ing Labeled Uses for Sulfentrazone** 

### Delmarva Sw. corn +10 0.89 Sand (92%) **98.0 81.0**  1417 FL Potato +10 7.21 Sand (93%) 62.1 55.8 1174 GA Coastal Plain Peanut +10 1.29 Sandy loam (66%) 40.4 35.0 1693 **S CI**  **- GROW 2.3 Tier**  **I** 1 

### SCI
- GROW Tier 1 NA Variable Usually sand or lm. Sa. 57.5 57.5 NA **Scenarios which Represent Sites for which the Label does not Permit Application**  2 FL Central Ridge Citrus 

### +10 0.25 Sand (96%) 92.4 85.1 1007

### 17

**Groundwater Scenario**  **Application**

**Date Relat ive**  **to Emergence Topsoil %** 

**OM Topsoil** 

**Textural Class**  **(% sand)**  **Highest**

**daily value**  **Post**

**Breakthrough Average**  **Avg**

**Breakthrough Time**  **(days)** NC Coastal Plain Cotton 

### +10 1.05 Loamy sand (76%) 117.0 92.7 2221 WI Central Sands Corn 

### +10 0.79 Sand (95%) 112.0 85.8 2760 NA = not available. 1 SCI
- GROW is a regression model based upon observations at multiple sites with highly permeable (usually sand or loamy sand) soils and shallow unconfined aquifers with the water table about 10 to 25 feet below the surface. This is similar to most of the PR ZM
- GW standard scenarios. 2 Reasons for rejection: FL Citrus = Use not allowed on soil type. NC Cotton = Site best represents crop not used on. WI Corn = Use not allowed on soil type.


### Table **9 .**  PRZM/EXAMS estimated surface water EDWCs for sulfentrazone (with PCA a, 3 

### )
.

**Scenario State**  **Crop Basis**

**of Scenario**  **App. Date**

**rel. to Planting**  **1 -**  **in -**  **10 year 30**  **- year**  **ave peak**  **10 yr**

**average** [μg/L] 

### Top Ten Scenario Based EDWCs for **Acute Exposure**  FL Sugarcane 40 37.3 3.2 1.6 FL Peppers 40 34.9 4.8 2.8 MS Sugarcane 40 32.7 4.7 2.5 LA Corn
- 1 31.3 5.3 1.8 FL Sugarcane
- 1 28.0 3.5 1.7 FL Peppers
- 1 22.7 3.1 1.2 FL Cucumber

- 1 19.8 2.4 1.6

3 

### Echeverria et al., 2012. Guidance on Development Use of Percent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustme nt Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments:2012 Update http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pca_adjustment_dwa.html

### 18 **Scenario State**  **Crop Basis**

**of Scenario**  **App. Date**

**rel. to Planting**  **1 -**  **in -**  **10 year 30**  **- year**  **ave peak**  **10 yr**

**average** [μg/L] FL Strawberry 40 16.7 2.5 1.6 PA Citrus
- 1 16.5 3.0 1.4 FL Tomato 40 15.2 3.1 1.5 

### Top **Ten Scenario Based EDWCs for Chronic Exposure** CA Citrus
- 1 13.4 11. 9 8.3 CA Grapes
- 1 12.1 10.2 7.7 MI Asparagus
- 1 10.6 9.1 7.5 CA Tomato
- 1 11.5 8.1 5.0 OR Xmas Trees
- 1 7.7 5.8 4.2 FL Turf

- 1 6.4 4.8 4.1 PA Turf

- 1 6.0 4.6 4.1 ND Canola

- 1 7.1 5.0 3.5 NY Grapes
- 1 6.8 4.1 3.0 OR Grass seed

- 1 6.6 4.3 3.1
a PCA (Percent Crop Area) = 0. 95 turf and all agricultural land combination b A is aerial spray and G is ground spray c A pplication date Month

- Day



### Further r efinement may

be possible for the estimates which could potentially lead to lower groundwater exposure estimates, possibly significantly closer to previous estimates. For example, sulfentrazone monitoring data exist from four PGW studies at sites that with the intrinsic groundwater vulnerability in the moderately

to high range ( A vulnerability anal ys is was part o f the site selection for these studies .) 

## Comparison	of	Targeted	Monitoring	Data	to	Groundwater	Modeling **Results** Since the highest model estimates were for groundwater a closer comparison was made of the targeted and well

- characterized monitoring data from the four small

- scale prospective groundwater monitoring (PGW) studies to the PRZM

- GW groundwater model results. The actual application rates asso ciated with the observed concentrations in the PGW studies were adjusted for the maximum label rates according to the soil characteristics of the PGW site (i.e. label rates are varied b y soil type for crops with the higher rates

– see “site specific maximu m rate” in Table

### 19

10 ). The result of these adjustments were that the highest observed concentration of the TTR at a maximum l abel rate is calculated to be 18.3 ug/L which is several times less than the model ed maximum concentration. One possible major reason for the difference between the PRZM

- GW values and the observed concentrations is that PRZM

- GW is being run with standard Tier I assumptions of application every y ear at the maximum permitted rate for 30 or more consecutive ye ars. An impact of this assumption for persistent compounds, particularl y those with no hy drol ys is, is that the pesticide concentration in the aquifer may inc rease from several y ears of application before a sort of equilibrium concentration is reached (due to the slow flow through in the aquifer). Should refinement be needed of the drinking water exposure numbers further efforts should focus on matching PRZM

- GW simulation inputs to the PGW data and then adjusting PRZM
- GW inputs for sulfentrazone TTR simulations in a scientificall y justifiable way to provide more certain exposure predictions.
**Table 10**  **.** Maximum observed concentrations of sulfentrazone and its acid degradate at four sites (adjusted to represent a site specific maximum rate as specified on product labels ).
**Chemical NC1**  **>95%ile** 1 **Site IN1** 

**95%ile Site**  **IN2**

**85%ile Site**  **IN3**

**75%ile Site**  Concentration in ppb (days after initial applic. of obs.) Sulfentrazone 14.03 NA 0.16 0.44 3
- Carboxylic Acid Sulfentrazone 4.28 NA 5.38 2.74 Total Toxic Residues (parent + 3CAS) 1 18.30 NA 5.54 3.19 Actual a pplication rate 0.50 0.17 0.22 0.22 Site s pecific m aximum r ate on label 0.19 NA 0.32 0.38 1 Refers to the vulnerability ranking of the registrant for the site based on a survey of soybean production soils. See earlier text for site descriptions.
**2** Actual ug/L. Molecular w eights of parent and 3CAS are 387.1 and 417.18, respectively. NA

– Not applicable since the IN1 site does not meet current label criteria for applications of products containing sulfentrazone.

### 20



## Appendix	A:	Identities	and	Chemical	Structur **es	for Sulfentr**  **azone	R esidues	of	Concern** 
**Sulfentrazone Full Chemical Names**  **IUPAC:** 2 ′,4′
- Dichloro

- 5 ′
- (4

- difluorometh yl

- 4,5
- dihy dro

- 3
- methy l

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 1
- yl )methanesulfonanilide **CAS:** N
- [2,4
- dichloro

- 5
- [4
- (difluoromethy l)

- 4,5
- dihy dro

- 3
- methy l

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 1
- yl ]pheny l]methanesulfonamide **CAS No.:** 122836
- 35
- 5 **Formula:** C 11 

### H 10 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 3 

### S **MW:** 387.1 g/mol **SMILES:** CL c1cc(CL)c(NS(=O)(=O)C)cc1N2N=C(C)N(C(F)F)C2(=O)

### 21



## Sulfentrazone 3 **- carboxylic acid (SCA)**  **IUPAC:** 1
- (2,4

- Dichloro

- 5
- (N

- (meth yl sulfony l)amino)

- phen y]
- 4
- difluoromethy l

- 4,5
- dihy dro

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 3
- carbox yl ic acid **CAS:** N
- [2,4
- dichloro

- 5
- [4
- (difluoromethy l)

- 4,5
- dihy dro

- 5
- oxo - 1 H
- 1,2,4
- triazol

- 1
- yl ]pheny l]methanesulfonamido

- 3
- carbox yl ic acid **CAS No.:**  134391
- 01
- 08 **Formula:** C 11 

### H 8 

### Cl 2 

### F 2 

### N 4 

### O 5 

### S **MW:** 417.18 g/mol **SMILES:** CS(=O)(=O)Nc1cc(c(cc1Cl)Cl)n2c(=O)n(c(n2)C(=O)O)C(F)F

### 22



## A **ppendix B**  **: Drinking	W**  **ater	Exposur e**  **Modeling	Input	and Output**  **Details Groundwater	Modeling	(PRZM**  **- GW	and	SCI**  **- GROW**  **Models )** 

**PRZM -**  **GW Sample**  **PGI (input) File** Sulfetraz TTR 0 746 True 29 1 1

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 0.42,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 10,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, False 1 last 0.0,0.0,0.0

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, future expansion future expansion future expansion future expansion future expansion future expansion future expansion Wisconsin Corn

- WI Central Sands C: \ Models \ Inputs \ Metfiles \

w14920.dvf 0.76 0.36 18 90,100 100 0.25 01 05

### 23

21 07 20 10 1 2 0.1 0.9 4.0 9 1.63,1.63,1.68,1.68,1.59,1.59,1.59,1.59 0.24,0.24,0.22,0.22,0.23,0.23,0.23 0.034,0.034,0.025,0.025,0.016,0.016,0.016 0.46,0.46,0.14,0.09,0.09,0.08,0.07,0.07 True 95,95,96,96,97,97,97,97 2.3,2.3,2.5,2.5,1.7,1.7,1.7,1.7 5 .6 0.2 50 1

PR

ZMG W-Inp File _S ulfe traz T TR ; Co rn -W I C en tral San ds. tx t **Figure 1**  **. PRZ M**  **- GW input file for the WI central sands (based on corn) scenario.** 



### PRZM **- GW Model Output** 
**Scenario I** 

**D Crop Basis**  **Peak(ppb**

**) PBT**  **Avg(ppb )**  **SimAv**

**g BrkThru(** 

**d) Throughput** 

**s 90**  **- day**  **Avg**

**. DELMARVA_STD.SC**  **N** Sweet Corn 134 98 81 1416.943 7.734959 134 **FLCITRUS_STD.SCN** Citrus 118 92.4 85.1 1007.226 10.88137 117 **FLPOTATO_STD.SCN** Potato 79.6 62.1 55.8 1174.253 9.333593 79. 5 **GACOASTAL_STD.SC N**  Peanuts 50.8 40.4 35 1693.468 6.471926 50. 8 **NCCOASTAL_STD.SC** Cotton 173 117 92.7 2220.823 4.935106 173

### 24

**N WISANDS_STD.SCN**  Corn 130 112 85.8 2759.691 3.971459 130

Su lfentrz -T TR

6StdSc en arios_C AM1 _batc 1 WISA ND S_ST D0. zt s **Figure 2**  **. Daily tim e series output file for PRZ**  **M -**  **GW Wisconsin corn / central sands scenario.** 

**Figure 3**  **. FL (Central Ridge) Citrus Scenario**

**– sulfentrazone TTR time series.** 

**Figure 4**  **. NC Coastal Cotton Scenario**

**– sulfentrazone TTR time series.** 

### 25

**SCIGROW Modeling Input and Results**  SCIGROW VERSION 2.2: NOVEMBER 1, 2001 RUN No. 1 FOR SULFENTRAZONE ** INPUT VALUES **

--------------------------------------------------- ----- APP RATE APPS/ TOTAL/ SOIL AEROBIC SOIL METAB (LBS/AC) YEAR SEASON KOC HALFLIFE (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------- .375 1 .375 43.0 545.00 GROUND - WATER SCREENING CONCENTRATION (IN UG/L

- PPB)

-------------------------------------------------------- 15.701670

--------------------------------------------------------


## Surface	Water	Modeling	( **EXPRESS	or PE5	Shell	using	PRZM**  **- EXAMS)**  **Estimated	Drinking	Water	Concentrations	by	Scenario** The results for each scenario / application modeled are presented in Table 13 and 14 as generated by the EXPRESS modeling shell. Note that these reflect PCA factors that wer e later adjusted upward to reflect all allowed use sites. The PCA values in this table were: 46% for corn 41% for so ybeans 87% for all other crops
**Table 11**  **. Estimated drinking water concentrations in index reservoir, applications made**  **one day prior to planting. State**  **Scenar**

**Crop ExpMedia**  **1 -**  **Da y**  **4 -**  **Day 21 Day**  **60 Day 90 Day**  **Yearly** LA Sgc Limnetic 27.971 26.961 24.264 18.096 4.563 2.025

### 26

FL Sgc Limnetic 26.961 22.959 19.523 13.911 3.322 1.638 FL Pep Limnetic 21.811 20.958 18.331 13.389 2.996 1.182 FL Cuc Limnetic 19.053 18.296 15.851 11.471 2.351 1.539 MS Cor Limnetic 15.898 15.410 13.478 10.175 2.699 0.905 FL Cit Limnetic 15.851 13.311 11.910 9.309 2.842 1.370 FL Str Limnetic 13.885 13.546 12.110 9.492 2.485 1.164 CA Cit Limnetic 12.928 12.928 12.920 12.754 11.623 8.325 CA Gra Limnetic 11.658 11.658 11.571 11.397 9.788 7.393 CA Tma Limnetic 11.032 11.023 10.849 10.501 7.747 4.807 FL Cbb Limnetic 10.501 10.249 9.292 7.561 2.430 1.199 MI Asp Limnetic 10.162 10.162 10.075 9.901 8.787 7.246 MI Bea Limnetic 9.755 9.592 9.243 8.517 3.852 2.447 GA Pcn Limnetic 8.643 8.427 7.634 6.112 1.944 0.936 PA Tma Limnetic 8.499 8.406 8.008 7.126 3.332 1.626 NC Tba Limnetic 8.477 8.395 8.100 7.457 4.865 2.074 ME Pot Limnetic 7.800 7.713 7.435 6.742 3.479 2.264 OR Xma Limnetic 7.417 7.392 7.282 7.059 5.577 4.024 CA Wal Limnetic 6.993 6.947 6.739 6.274 3.848 2.447 NC Pnt Limnetic 6.909 6.853 6.522 6.167 2.733 1.690 ND Cno Limnetic 6.819 6.785 6.671 6.409 4.808 3.411 NY Gra Limnetic 6.495 6.460 6.321 6.040 3.901 2.900 KS Srg Limnetic 6.447 6.386 6.044 5.355 2.924 1.599 PA App Limnetic 6.408 6.365 6.150 5.679 3.311 1.410 FL Tma Limnetic 6.116 5.888 5.045 3.677 0.967 0.624 OR Gra Limnetic 6.033 5.999 5.884 5.619 3.901 2.864 FL Tur Limnetic 5.821 5.804 5.726 5.552 4.383 3.767 PA Tur Limnetic 5.485 5.467 5.398 5.282 4.225 3.729 IL Cor Limnetic 5.438 5.352 5.083 4.441 1.794 1.018 NC App Limnetic 5.091 5.025 4.784 4.287 2.242 1.138 OR Fil Limnetic 5.077 5.035 4.856 4.494 2.592 1.878 OH Cor Limnetic 4.758 4.713 4.490 4.016 1.729 0.744 NC Cor Limnetic 4.667 4.578 4.324 3.798 1.597 0.645 OR App Limnetic 4.371 4.337 4.193 3.897 2.564 1.033 MS Syb Limnetic 4.319 4.237 3.843 3.101 0.955 0.560 OR Min Limnetic 3.594 3.568 3.456 3.223 2.030 1.739 ND Whe Limnetic 3.496 3.474 3.393 3.222 2.038 1.432 PA Cor Limnetic 2.838 2.806 2.695 2.427 1.401 0.718 ID Pot Limnetic 2.714 2.704 2.674 2.571 1.876 1.634 Maximum: **27.971 26.961**  **24.264 18.096**  **11.623 8.325** 

### 27

**Table 12**  **. Estimated drinking water concentrations in index re servoir, applications made**  **40 day**  **s prior to planting.**  **State Scenar** 

**Crop ExpMedia**  **1 -**  **Da y**  **4 -**  **Day 21 Day**  **60 Day 90 Day**  **Yearly** FL Pep
- Limnetic 37.253 35.679 19.018 13.755 3.035 1.491 FL Sgc
- Limnetic 33.573 31.120 24.986 19.392 4.635 2.707 LA Sgc
- Limnetic 31.416 29.162 22.272 14.581 4.550 2.370 FL Str
- Limnetic 16.060 15.016 12.389 7.579 2.444 1.564 PA Tma
- Limnetic 14.572 14.024 13.207 9.996 2.969 1.464 FL Cuc
- Limnetic 14.494 14.198 12.171 7.554 2.452 1.088 FL Cit
- Limnetic 13.354 12.693 11.240 9.344 2.660 1.499 FL Tma
- Limnetic 13.102 12.667 10.005 7.803 1.737 0.996 ME Pot
- Limnetic 12.702 12.354 11.293 9.347 3.371 1.938 PA App
- Limnetic 12.023 11.684 10.988 9.709 3.409 1.322 NC App
- Limnetic 11.145 10.579 8.600 7.076 2.226 1.038 KS Srg
- Limnetic 10.799 10.623 10.074 7.954 2.549 1.192 ND Cno
- Limnetic 9.405 9.118 8.478 6.582 3.030 1.605 GA Pcn
- Limnetic 8.857 8.511 7.473 4.211 1.135 0.749 MI Bea
- Limnetic 8.732 8.553 7.983 7.048 3.118 1.858 FL Cbb

- Limnetic 8.312 8.035 7.274 5.002 1.874 1.134 NY Gra
- Limnetic 6.775 6.602 6.047 5.271 2.383 1.638 MS Cor
- Limnetic 6.504 6.067 5.437 4.341 1.237 0.626 CA Cit
- Limnetic 6.418 6.326 5.942 5.296 2.389 1.135 OR Xma
- Limnetic 5.457 5.364 5.025 4.503 2.233 1.328 NC Pnt
- Limnetic 5.207 5.116 4.670 4.240 1.692 0.980 PA Cor
- Limnetic 5.193 5.009 4.692 4.224 1.388 0.601 CA Tma
- Limnetic 5.039 4.947 4.726 4.171 1.746 1.097 OR Gra
- Limnetic 4.807 4.695 4.262 3.520 1.630 0.976 MS Syb

- Limnetic 4.498 4.297 3.860 3.342 1.043 0.435 NC Tba

- Limnetic 4.466 4.394 4.137 3.464 1.328 0.918 FL Tur
- Limnetic 4.322 4.269 3.978 3.443 1.346 0.922 IL Cor
- Limnetic 4.286 4.176 3.870 3.262 1.222 0.642 ND Whe

- Limnetic 4.054 3.950 3.567 2.877 1.519 1.086 CA Wal

- Limnetic 3.978 3.917 3.654 3.182 1.362 0.964 CA Gra
- Limnetic 3.828 3.768 3.547 3.121 1.411 1.011 OR Fil

- Limnetic 3.655 3.611 3.477 3.176 1.485 1.109 PA Tur
- Limnetic 3.611 3.569 3.369 3.030 1.555 1.133 OH Cor
- Limnetic 3.502 3.427 2.731 2.158 0.790 0.522

### 28

NC Cor
- Limnetic 3.311 3.207 2.916 2.472 0.904 0.495 OR App
- Limnetic 2.856 2.831 2.706 2.430 1.028 0.526 MI Asp
- Limnetic 2.854 2.818 2.669 2.366 1.443 1.266 OR Min
- Limnetic 2.723 2.689 2.545 2.257 1.136 0.894 ID Pot
- Limnetic 1.986 1.960 1.860 1.621 0.743 0.609 Maximum: **37.253 35.679**  **24.986 19.392**  **4.635 2.707** 



### Example	EXPRESS	Project	(Input)	File **for	PRZM -**  **EXAMS** Master Project File Created: 2014
- 04
- 11 at 16:36:30 Express v. 1.03.02 (2007
- 07
- 20) Parent Compound: Sulfentrazone TTR

Scenario Group File: 0 No GroupFile Scenario Type: 3 

### PRZM Crop Selector: 00000000000001000100110010000001000000010000100011 PRZM Crop Selector: 10000001000110000110000000000011010101000000100000

PRZM Crop Selector: 00010011010100000000000100000100000010001100000000

PRZ M Crop Selector: 00101010111000001000000000000000000000000000000000 Chemical Input Data Controls: 1 1 0 1 0 Express Operational Mode: OPP Chemical Name(s): Sulfentrazone TTR |

Molecular Weight: 387.2 Plant Uptake Factor: 0.000 Partition Coefficient Method: 1 1 Partition Coefficient Value: 29.00 29.00

Vapor Pressure: 0.9750E
- 09 Solubility : 400.0 Soil Degradation Half
- Life: 875.0

% Degradate formed: 80.00 0.000 0.000 Foliar Half
- Life: 0.000 Foliar Washoff Coefficient: 0.5000 Air Diffusion Coefficient: 4300. Enthalpy of Vaporization: 20.00 Application DataSets Number: 39 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 91.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0

### 29 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400

Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 6.400

Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 2 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Rel ative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 1.000 Drift Inde x Reservoir % : 6.400

Efficiency % : 99.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2

### 30 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Applicat ion Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 4 6.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000

### 31 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 46.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750

### 32 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Applicat ion Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 2 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1 30

Month : 0 0 CAM : 2 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 4.000 Rate : 0.1500 0.1500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00 16.00

Effici ency % : 95.00 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000

### 33

Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Applicat ion Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 41.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.2500 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Rel ative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Inde x Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

### 34 Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Applicat ion Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 87.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute : - 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.3750 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00

### 35 Application Parameters: 1 1 2 2 1 0 0 56.00 0 Days Relative/Absolute :

- 1

Month : 0 CAM : 2 Depi (cm) : 4.000 Rate : 0.1875 Drift Farm Pond % : 5.000 Drift Index Reservoir % : 16.00

Efficiency % : 95.00 Product chem./hydr. status: 1 1 1 Aerobic Dissipatio n (days) : 1750. Q10 Base Temperature : 25.00 Q10 Limnetic : 2.000 Anaerobic Dissipation(days): 0.000

Q10 Base temperature: 25.00 Q10 Benthic : 2.000 Photolysis Half
- Life (days): 98.00 Number of Hydrolysis Obs.: 3 Hydrolysis Temperatures: 25.00 Hydrolysis C1: 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 0.000E+00 pH Hydrol. C1: 5.00 7.00 9.00

Melting Point:
- 99 .00 

### Example	PE5	PRZM **- EXAMS	Shell	Input	file	and	Output	Summary** 

stored as LA
- Sgc_SlfnAer1pht98.out Chemical: Sulfentrazone TTR PRZM environment: LAsugarcaneSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:56:00 EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Thuday , 29 August 2002 at 16:34:12 Metfile: w13970.dvf modified Wedday, 3 July 2002 at 10:05:36 Water segment concentrations (ppb) Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 1961 20.67 19.97 17.4 12.29 8.345 2.058 1962 8.707 8.402 7.255 5.341 4.336 2.198 1963 14.42 13.91 12.47 9.568 6.544 2.262 1964 12.85 12.41 10.99 6.911 4.866 2.146 1965 18.3 17.64 15.19 11.14 7.599 2.907 1966 11.87 11.45 9.858 8.587 6.959 2.877 1967 7.74 7.464 6.431 5.437 4.563 1.799 1968 6.602 6.419 6.043 4.497 3.164 1.406 1969 9.258 8.929 8.039 3.931 2.808 1.197 1970 23.33 22.5 20.41 15.78 12.33 4.01 1971 10.32 9.954 8.568 7.599 6.327 2.557 1972 20.73 19.98 18.09 13.69 10.14 3.342 1973 15.07 14.53 12.68 9.33 7.15 2.771 1974 5.452 5.261 4.544 3.999 3.216 1.64

### 36

1975 3.435 3.313 2.943 1.954 1.5 95 0.7309 1976 17.08 16.47 14.63 11.66 8.209 2.36 1977 14.77 14.24 12.9 9.996 7.033 2.746 1978 17.28 16.66 14.58 8.218 5.65 2.301 1979 9.907 9.554 8.806 6.937 5.104 2.671 1980 57.66 55.6 48.27 35.69 26.79 7.205 1981 15.33 14.8 12.8 9.461 7.701 2.78 1982 10 .85 10.56 9.123 5.089 3.56 1.193 1983 6.485 6.256 5.398 3.967 3.346 1.82 1984 38.29 37.25 33.4 25.36 19.64 5.214 1985 18.97 18.44 16.81 12.75 9.94 4.136 1986 34.81 33.57 29.23 21.72 16.87 4.951 1987 13.7 13.21 11.4 8.712 6.445 2.914 1988 7.235 6.977 6.493 5.444 4.08 1.943 1989 15.64 15.15 13.13 11.62 9.001 2.867 1990 25.71 24.79 21.49 16.51 12.26 3.934 Sorted results Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly 0.032258064516129 57.66 55.6 48.27 35.69 26.79 7.205 0.0645161290322581 38.29 37.25 33.4 25.36 19.64 5.214 0.0967741935483871 34.81 33.57 29.23 21.72 16.87 4.951 0.129032258064516 25.71 24.79 21.49 16.51 12.33 4.136 0.161290322580645 23.33 22.5 20.41 15.78 12.26 4.01 0.193548387096774 20.73 19.98 18.09 13.69 10.14 3.934 0.225806451612903 20.67 19.97 17.4 12.75 9.94 3.342 0.258064516129032 18.97 18.44 16.81 12.29 9.001 2.914 0.290322580645161 18.3 17.64 15.19 11.66 8.345 2.907 0.32258064516129 17.28 16.66 14.63 11.62 8.209 2.877 0.354838709677419 17.08 16.47 14.58 11.14 7.701 2.867 0.387096774193548 1 5.64 15.15 13.13 9.996 7.599 2.78 0.419354838709677 15.33 14.8 12.9 9.568 7.15 2.771 0.451612903225806 15.07 14.53 12.8 9.461 7.033 2.746 0.483870967741936 14.77 14.24 12.68 9.33 6.959 2.671 0.516129032258065 14.42 13.91 12.47 8.712 6.544 2.557 0.548387096 774194 13.7 13.21 11.4 8.587 6.445 2.36 0.580645161290323 12.85 12.41 10.99 8.218 6.327 2.301 0.612903225806452 11.87 11.45 9.858 7.599 5.65 2.262 0.645161290322581 10.85 10.56 9.123 6.937 5.104 2.198 0.67741935483871 10.32 9.954 8.806 6.911 4.866 2.146 0. 709677419354839 9.907 9.554 8.568 5.444 4.563 2.058 0.741935483870968 9.258 8.929 8.039 5.437 4.336 1.943 0.774193548387097 8.707 8.402 7.255 5.341 4.08 1.82 0.806451612903226 7.74 7.464 6.493 5.089 3.56 1.799 0.838709677419355 7.235 6.977 6.431 4.497 3.34 6 1.64 0.870967741935484 6.602 6.419 6.043 3.999 3.216 1.406 0.903225806451613 6.485 6.256 5.398 3.967 3.164 1.197 0.935483870967742 5.452 5.261 4.544 3.931 2.808 1.193 0.967741935483871 3.435 3.313 2.943 1.954 1.595 0.7309

### 37

0.1 33.9 32.692 28.456 21.199 16.416 4.8695 Average of yearly averages: 2.76453 Inputs generated by pe5r.pl
- September 2008 Data used for this run: Output File: LA
- Sgc_SlfnAer1pht98 Metfile: w13970.dvf PRZM scenario: LAsugarcaneSTD.txt EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv Chemical Name: Sulfentrazone TTR Description Variable Name Value Units Comments Molecular weight mwt 387.2 g/mol Henry's Law Const. henry atm - m^3/mol Vapor Pressure vapr 9.75E
- 10 torr Solubility sol 400 mg/L Kd Kd mg/L Koc Koc 29 mg/L Photolysis half
- life kdp 98 days Half
- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1750 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 874.9 days Halfife Hydrolysis: pH 7 0 days Half
- life Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 0.4203 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.95 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.05 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 11
- 10 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd
- mmm Record 17: FILTRA IPSCND 1 UPTKF Record 18: PLVKRT PLDKRT FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run) Drift/Efficiency Source DRFTEFF fixed, basic, or advanced Input file for RegDISP Advanced REGDISPFILE Model flag for RegDISP Basic REGDISPMODEL aerial, ground, airblast, or chemigation Buffer BUFFER ft Maximum Wind Speed MAXWS mph Flight Direction FLIGHTDIR deg

### 38

### 39



## APPENDIX **Updated FIRST Modeling Inputs and Results**  **(** for additional details see DP Barcode: D28497; review dated 4/17/2003) **: FIRST Output File**  RUN No. 1 FOR Sulfentrazone ON Citrus etc * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE %CROPPED INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) AREA (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .375( .375) 1 1 43.0 400.0 AERIAL(16.0) 87.0 .0
FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (RESERVOIR) (RES.

- EFF) (RESER.) (RESER.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 545.00 2 N/A .50

- 62.00 ****** 58.66 UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 JAN 1, 2007

------------------------- ------------------------------------------- PEAK DAY (ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------

32. 102 5.047

RUN No. 3 FOR Sulfentraz. acid ON Citrus Etc * INPUT VALUES *

-------------------------------------------------------------------- RATE (#/AC) No.APPS & SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE %CROPPED INCORP ONE(MULT) INTERVAL Koc (PPM ) (%DRIFT) AREA (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- .041( .041) 1 1 .0 400.0 GRANUL( .0) 87.0 .0
FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DA YS)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- METABOLIC DAYS UNTIL HYDROLYSIS PHOTOLYSIS METABOLIC COMBINED (FIELD) RAIN/RUNOFF (RESERVOIR) (RES.

- EFF) (RESER.) (RESER.)

------------------------------- ------------------------------------- .00 2 N/A .00

- .00 .00 .00 UNTREATED WATER CONC (MICROGRAMS/LITER (PPB)) Ver 1.1.0 JAN 1, 2007

-------------------------------------------------------------------- PEAK DAY (ACUTE) ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC) CONCENTRATION CONCENTRATION

--------------------------------------------------------------------

3.735 2.678

### 40

**SCIG ROW Modeling Input and Results**  SCIGROW VERSION 2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE SciGrow version 2.3 chemical:Sulfentrazone TTR time is 5/19/2014 14:16: 6

------------------------------------- --------------------------

--------- Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (ml/g) metabolism (days)

---------------------------------------------------------------

--------- 0.375 1.0 0.375 2.90E+01 875.0

---------------------------------------------------------------

--------- groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 5.75E+01 ******************************** ******************************



## Results of Vadose Zone Monitoring at Four Prospective Groundwater **Monitoring Sites**

**Table 13**  **.** Maximum o bserved concentrations of sulfentrazone and its acid degradate in soil

- pore water 7
- to 9
- feet below the surface of treated fields at four sites compared to Tier 1 estimated concentrations using the SCI

- GROW model. **Chemical NC1**  **IN1 IN2**  **IN3 SCI**  **** **GROW**

### 41 **Site Site**  **Site Site**  Sulfentrazone 22.5 (186d) 0.28

(911d) 0.35*

(1229d) 0.09

(1149d) 15.7
3
- Carboxylic Acid Sulfentrazone 38.1 (186d) 4.28

(577d) 3.36

(363d) 0.07

(753d) 10.3
* Also at 0.44 ppb 2135 days after the original application after an additional application 1961 days after the initial application. The degradate w as detected at a maximum concentration of 0.33 ppb at 2226 days after this last application
.