UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

August 27,2013 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

PC Code: 029001 

DP Barcode: 410113 

SUBJECT: 

FROM_: 

REVIEWED 

BY: 

THROUGH: 

Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk, 

Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Assessments in Support of the 

Registration Review of 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone) 

Elizabeth Riley, Biologist ~ ~~ ~ I ~ ) \ ~ 

Environmental 

Andrew Shelby, 

Risk 

Environmental 

Branch VI 

Scientis~ ~ IJ 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

William P. Eckel, Senior Science Advisor 

Mark Corbin, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch VI 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Mark Corbin, Branch Chief 

Environmental Risk Branch VI 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

TO: Margaret Hathaway, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II 

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P) 

Page 1 of 57 
Page 2 of 58

Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate, Ecological Risk, 

Endangered Species, and Drinking Water Exposure Assessments in 

Support of the Registration Review of 1,3-Dichloropropene (Telone)

1,3-Dichloropropene CAS Registry Number: 542-75-6

PC Code: 029001

Prepared by:

Elizabeth Riley, Biologist

Andrew Shelby, Environmental Scientist

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch VI

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

William P. Eckel, Senior Science Advisor

Mark Corbin, ERB 6 Branch Chief 

May 22, 2013

Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention
Page 3 of 58

Table of Contents

1. Executive summary................................................................................................................. 4

2. Introduction............................................................................................................................. 6

3. Use Characterization............................................................................................................... 8

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments..................................................................... 12

4.1. Ecological Risk Assessment ................................................................................................. 12

4.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments......................................................................... 13

4.3. Clean Water Act Programs............................................................................................. 14

5. Environmental Fate and Transport........................................................................................ 14

5.1. Transformation Products................................................................................................ 18

6. Receptors............................................................................................................................... 22

6.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms ........................................................................................ 22

6.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms .................................................................................... 25

6.3. Ecological Incidents....................................................................................................... 26

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern ............................................................................................ 27

8. Analysis Plan ........................................................................................................................ 28

8.1. Stressors of Concern....................................................................................................... 28

8.2. Measures of Exposure .................................................................................................... 29

8.3. Measures of Effect ......................................................................................................... 32

9. Endangered Species Assessments...................................................................................... 32

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program ....................................................................... 32

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps ........................................................................ 32

11.1. Environmental Fate..................................................................................................... 32

11.2. Effects......................................................................................................................... 38

12. References ............................................................................................................................ 45

Appendix A- OPPIN Bibliography............................................................................................... 48

Appendix B- SIP and STIR Outputs............................................................................................. 56
Page 4 of 58

1. Executive summary

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

formulation for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and drinking water 

assessments to be conducted as part of the registration review of 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D; 

Telone). The problem formulation describes the methods planned to be used during the 

completion of drinking water and ecological risk assessments in support of registration review 

and provides an overview of the environmental fate, ecological effects, and potential risks

associated with the use of 1,3-D as well as uncertainties unique to the risk assessment of 1,3-D. 

This document also identifies additional studies that would be beneficial to the conduct of an 

ecological risk assessment. Major findings include:

The following environmental fate data gaps exist for 1,3-D:

• Aerobic Soil Metabolism Study for 1,3-D, 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacryllic 

acid (OCSPP Guideline 835.4100): An acceptable aerobic soil metabolism study has 

been previously submitted for two soils but the half-life estimates vary greatly, 14 days 

and 45 days. This results in a high 90th percentile average of 94 days, the value used as a 

model input parameter. Aerobic soil metabolism data on CAAL and CAAC are 

necessary to characterize degradate fate and parameterize models. In the absence of 

degradate aerobic soil metabolism data, degradate aerobic aquatic metabolism studies can 

be used for metabolism characterization but does not necessarily accurately reflect soil 

metabolism. 1,3-D aerobic soil metabolism half-lives are significantly longer than 1,3-D 

aerobic aquatic half-lives and a similar relationship is possible for degradates.

Additionally, given the volatility of parent and degradate, the chemical can reside in the 

vadose zone above the water table and be more affected by soil metabolism rather than 

aquatic metabolism.

• Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism Study for 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacryllic 

acid (OCSPP Guideline 835.4400): 1,3-D quickly degrades to the highly mobile and 

potentially persistent residues of concern, 3-chloroallyl alcohol (CAAL) and 3-

chloroacryllic acid (CAAC). These degradates have the potential to accumulate in 

groundwater where its only degradation pathways are hydrolysis and anaerobic 

metabolism. CAAL and CAAC are stable to hydrolysis allowing only for anaerobic 

metabolism as a possible degradation pathway in anaerobic aquifers. There is uncertainty 

relating to the anaerobic metabolism and the persistence or dissipation of these residues

of concern depends on the characterization of this pathway.

• Field Volatility Study (OCSPP Guideline 835.8100): A field volatility study for a 

tarped application at maximum labeled rate is needed. Tarped field volatility studies 

have been previously submitted but not at the maximum rate. Due to the high maximum 

application rate and the multi-pathway dissipation of 1,3-D, it is important to fully

characterize each use pattern that can result in significantly different dissipation and 

volatility behavior. In the absence of data, EPA cannot accurately characterize the routes 

and rates of the various dissipation pathways.

• Envrionmental Chemistry Methods/Independent Laboratory Validation (OCSPP 

Guideline 850.6100): A study has been submitted that will fulfill this data requirement if 

found to be acceptable. Pending review of the study, the data gap remains.
Page 5 of 58

The following ecological data gaps exist for 1,3-D:

• Estuarine/Marine Invertebrate Chronic Toxicity Study (OCSPP Guideline 

850.1350): 1,3-D has outdoor uses that may result in exposure to estuarine/marine 

invertebrates. In addition, the aerobic aquatic metabolism half-life (4.9 days) suggests 

that 1,3-D may persist in aquatic environments long enough for chronic exposure to be a 

concern. In the absence of data EPA will use an acute to chronic ratio (ACR) for the 

freshwater invertebrate to estimate a chronic endpoint for the estuarine/marine

invertebrate. 

• Freshwater Fish Early-Life Stage Toxicity Study (OCSPP Guideline 850.1400): A 

freshwater fish early life-stage test (embryo development through a portion of juvenile 

growth) using the TGAI is required for 1,3-D because the end-use product may be 

transported to surface water from the intended use site. Also, the following conditions 

are met: (1) the pesticide is intended for use such that its presence in water is likely to be 

continuous or recurrent regardless of toxicity, (2) the acute LC50 is less than 1 ppm, (3) 

the EEC in water is equal to or greater than 0.01 of the acute LC50 value or (4) the actual 

or estimated environmental concentration in water resulting from use is greater than 0.01 

of any acute LC50 or EC50 value and 1,3-D is persistent in water (i.e., half-life greater 

than 4 days). The preferred test species is fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). The 

European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) references a chronic freshwater fish endpoint 

for the fathead minnow of 0.032 ppm (EFSA 2009); however, this data would need to be 

submitted and reviewed by EPA to determine its suitability for use in risk assessment. 

• Estuarine/Marine Fish Early-Life Stage Toxicity Study (OCSPP Guideline 

850.1400): An estuarine/marine fish early life-stage test using the TGAI has not been 

submitted, since it was not considered to be necessary based on previous risk assessments 

for 1,3-D. However, because 1,3-D is expected to be applied in coastal counties, it could 

be transported via runoff to marine/environments, and the acute value for sheepshead 

minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) is < 1.0 mg/L, chronic toxicity data for 

marine/estuarine fish is needed. If chronic data for a freshwater species become available 

EPA may be able to use an ACR to estimate a chronic endpoint for the estuarine/marine 

fish. 

• Acute Avian Inhalation Study (Non-Guideline): Due to the fate properties of 

fumigants, in particular their high volatility, it is expected that birds will be exposed to 

fumigants in the vapor phase via inhalation. The standard toxicity studies with birds (i.e.,

acute oral and acute dietary) do not account for exposure to vapor phase pesticides. 

Therefore, to assess risks of 1,3-D to birds, EFED recommends that the Agency require a 

non-guideline avian inhalation study with the bobwhite quail (Colinus virginianus) for 

1,3-D. A protocol should be submitted to the Agency for approval prior to initiating the 

study. 

• Acute Honey Bee Vapor Exposure Study (Non-Guideline): Due to the fate properties 

of fumigants, in particular their high volatility, it is expected that honey bees and other 

insect pollinators will be exposed to fumigants in the vapor phase. Neither of the 

standard Tier I toxicity studies with honey bees (i.e., acute contact or acute oral toxicity 

study for honey bees) account for exposure to vapor phase pesticides. Therefore, to assess 

risks of 1,3-D to bees, EFED recommends that the Agency require a non-guideline acute 
Page 6 of 58

honey bee vapor exposure study for 1,3-D, to be conducted in lieu of the normally 

required acute honey bee contact study that would fulfill guideline 850.3020 and the 

newly proposed requirements for oral toxicity tests including adult and larval honey bees.

A protocol should be submitted to the Agency for approval prior to initiating the study. 

• Terrestrial Plant Vapor Exposure Study (Non-Guideline): Due to the fate properties 

of fumigants, in particular their high volatility, it is expected that terrestrial plants will be 

exposed to fumigants in the vapor phase. The standard toxicity studies with terrestrial 

plants (i.e., Tier I and II vegetative vigor) do not account for exposure to vapor phase 

pesticides. Therefore, to assess risks of 1,3-D to terrestrial plants, EFED recommends that 

the Agency require a non-guideline terrestrial plant vapor phase exposure study for 1,3-

D, to be conducted in lieu of the normally required Tier II vegetative vigor study that 

would fulfill guideline 850.4150. 

Major uncertainties:

The largest uncertainty in quantifying aquatic exposure in this assessment will be the impact of 

tarps, especially bedded tarps, on the likelihood of telone to runoff the field and the 

concentration of telone in the runoff. Tarps and bedded tarps are thought to reduce or eliminate 

the potential for aquatic exposure but this is not demonstrated in field data and cannot be 

quantified. Another uncertainty is the impact of rainfall occurring close to the time of 

application on the runoff and volatilization rates of telone in the environment.

For terrestrial exposure, estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) in air will 

conservatively assume that birds and mammals are not transient and are always being exposed to 

emissions of telone downwind from the treated field. Such an assumption is perhaps more 

representative for plants since they are not transient. One uncertainty for air EECs is the 

propensity for large exposures to occur on timescales less than one hour. Such conditions are 

often associated with temperature inversions when light and variable wind speeds and highly 

stagnant air with limited mixing can occur. Therefore, peak air concentrations may be 

underestimated. However, it is not expected that these conditions would significantly impact the 

expected frequency of exposure events since these conditions may only occur within a few hours 

of some days after fumigant applications. 

Another uncertainty includes the consideration of field size for the quantification of air EECs. 

Air EECs will be based on emissions occurring from a maximum field size of 80 acres. Eighty 

acres is considered to be the upper-bound field size for the maximum area that is typically treated 

in one day (USEPA, 2013b). 

2. Introduction

1,3-D is a soil fumigant that exerts toxic action on vital enzymes or enzyme systems in 

nematodes. Substitution of a sulfhydryl, ammonia, or hydroxyl group with the chlorine in 1,3-D 

results in restriction of the enzyme function, leading to paralysis and death (Cox 1992). The 

mechanism of action in other taxa (e.g., plants) is not understood. 
Page 7 of 58

1,3-D is commonly formulated as a pressurized gas, liquid ready to use, and emulsifiable and 

flowable concentrate. It can be applied as a soil fumigant via soil injection or drip irrigation. 

The use information presented in this problem formulation was obtained from the tables in the 

EFED Label Data Report dated 2/28/2013, from BEAD’s Chemical Profile for Registration 

Review (USEPA 2013), and from various evaluated labels. There are currently 16 Section 3 

registered products as well as 22 Special Local Needs (SLN) registrations for 1,3-D.

1,3-D is registered for preplant use on agricultural crop soils for the following: vegetables, fruit 

and nut crops, forage crops (grasses, legumes, and other non-grass forage crops), tobacco, fiber 

crops, and nursery crops (ornamental, non-bearing fruit/nut trees and forestry crops). 1,3-D has 

no residential uses but is registered for non-agricultural, preplant use on golf course turf,

ornamental and/or shade trees, ornamental herbaceous and non-flowering plants, and ornamental 

woody shrubs and vines. The only post-plant use for which 1,3-D is registered is in vineyards. 

This post-plant use is classified as a food-use.

BEAD provided agricultural information by state in its 1,3-D Chemical Profile for Registration 

Review (USEPA 2013). The BEAD report states: “The top states in terms of pounds a.i. applied 

during this period [2007-2011] were Washington (20%), Idaho (19%), California (15%), and 

North Carolina (13%).”

The following labeling statements appear on all 1,3-D labels to avoid contamination of aquatic 

environments and drinking water from use on agricultural products. 

ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD STATEMENTS 

o Do not apply directly to water, to areas where surface water is present or to 

intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water by 

disposal of equipment washwaters.

o Groundwater advisory: 1,3-dichloropropene is known to move through soil and 

under certain conditions has the potential to reach groundwater as a result of 

agricultural use. Application in areas where soils are permeable and groundwater 

is near the surface could result in groundwater contamination. 

In addition, the Telone II label includes the following restriction for use in karst areas: “Do not 

apply this product within 100 feet from the edge of karst topographical features. Karst 

topography is identified from landscape features that result from the dissolving activity of water 

in carbonate rock formations (limestone, dolomite and marble). Surface features that are 

associated with karst topography include sinkholes, caverns, springs, and sinking or disappearing 

streams. In North Dakota, South Dakota, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New York, Maine, New 

Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Utah, and Montana: Where groundwater aquifers exist at a 

depth of 50 feet or less from the surface, do not apply this product where soils are Hydrologic 

Group A.”

EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk assessments for 1,3-D in association with the 

updated toxicity, exposure, and usage information to determine if sufficient data are available 

and if further updates are needed to support registration review. Recent risk assessments include 

a 2007 assessment for the use of 1,3-D on grapes (DP Barcode 318737), the 2004 analysis of 
Page 8 of 58

risks to endangered and threatened salmon and steelhead (DP Barcode 303297), the 2008 

California Red-legged Frog assessment (USEPA, 2008), and the 1997 Reregistration Eligibility 

Decision (RED) (DP Barcodes 229720, 229725, 235916, and 235834). In addition, EFED

considered the latest Agency science policies and risk assessment methodologies. 

3. Use Characterization

1,3-D is a soil fumigant that exerts toxic action on vital enzymes or enzyme systems in 

nematodes. Substitution of a sulfhydryl, ammonia, or hydroxyl group with the chlorine in 1,3-D 

results in restriction of the enzyme function, leading to paralysis and death (Cox 1992).

It is registered for preplant use on agricultural crop soils for the following: vegetables, fruit and 

nut crops, forage crops (grasses, legumes, and other non-grass forage crops), tobacco, fiber 

crops, turf, and nursery crops (ornamental, non-bearing fruit/nut trees and forestry crops). The 

only post-plant use for which 1,3-D is registered is in vineyards. This agricultural post-plant use

is classified as a food-use. 1,3-D is also registered for preplant use on ornamental and/or shade 

trees, ornamental herbaceous and non-flowering plants, and ornamental woody shrubs and vines. 

1,3-D is commonly formulated as a pressurized gas, liquid ready-to-use, and emulsifiable and 

flowable concentrate. It can be applied as a soil fumigant via soil injection or drip irrigation. The 

chemical profile produced by the EPA’s BEAD (Biological and Economic Analysis Division 

) of the Office of Pesticide Programs, located in the docket, lists the use patterns of maximum 

exposures for the current uses of 1,3-D. The most dominant uses are on potatoes and tobacco 

with 11.8 million lbs a.i. and 4.1 million lb a.i. used per year, respectively. Almonds, carrots, 

cotton, onions, peanuts, and strawberries are also significant use patterns with more than one 

million lbs a.i. applied per year for each use. Table 1 lists all use patterns with application 

information from label extractions provided by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division 

(BEAD).

On many labels, neither maximum annual application rate nor maximum number of 

applications per year is specified. However, the registrant has submitted characterization of 1,3-

D use patterns with applications that typically occur more than once per year (Dow AgroScience, 

2013). Potatoes in the Pacific Northwest, cotton in the southern states, and tobacco along the 

east coast may receive a second application to manage perennial weeds, for growing a rotational 

crop, or to prepare for the following year’s crop. For nursery stock, protocols are in place in 

states including California that require two 1,3-D applications. In high value vegetable 

producing areas including California and Florida, 2 to 2.5 applications of 1,3-D per year may be 

made preceding each crop. Uses on corn, ornamentals, recreational lawns, and tree nuts have 

one or more labels with neither maximum annual application rate nor maximum number of 

applications per year and no characterization of use was provided from the registrant. For these 

use patterns, conservative assumptions will be made regarding number of applications per year. 

No more than two applications per year are expected but clarification from the registrant would 

reduce uncertainty.
Page 9 of 58

Table 1. Uses Site and Application Information for 1,3-D

Site 

Descrip

tion

Formula

tion 

Type

Max 

Applicatio

n Rate (lbs 

a.i./Acre)

Max.

Annual

Rate

Max. 

No. 

of 

Apps

per 

Year

Min. 

App. 

Interva

l

Application 

Methods Restrictions

Comments 

(Relevant data 

not included in 

other columns 

such as 

application 

timing, 

incorporation 

depth, etc)

Agricultu

ral 

crop/soils 

(unspecifi

ed)

RTU 380 NS NS NS

Soil 

fumigation:

plowsole or 

chisels

For use in 

Oregon only Preplant

Alfalfa RTU 247 NS NS NS

Soil 

fumigation: 

plowsole, 

chisels, or 

shank

For use in 

Washington 

only

Preplant (fall); late 

summer

Beans; 

beets RTU 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel, or 

shank

Soil 

fumigation: 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: shank

None Preplant

Carrot 

(includin

g tops); 

cauliflow

er; citrus; 

cole 

crops

RTU 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel, or 

shank

Soil 

fumigation: 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: shank

Certain labels 

refer to 

restrictions in 

Florida

Preplant

Corn 

(unspecifi

ed)

RTU

EC 581 581 1/NS NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel, or 

shank

Soil 

fumigation: 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: shank

Certain labels 

refer to 

restrictions in 

Florida

Preplant;

Preplant (fall);

Late summer

Cotton 

(unspecifi

ed)

RTU

EC 178 178 1 NA

Soil band 

treatment: 

plowsole or 

chisel

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

restrict use in 

specific 

counties in 

California

Preplant,

At planting

Deciduou

s fruit 

trees 

(unspecifi

ed)

RTU 

EC 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel or 

shank

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

refer to 

restrictions in 

Florida

Preplant 

Forest RTU 544 544 1 NA Soil band Certain labels Preplant
Page 10 of 58

Site 

Descrip

tion

Formula

tion 

Type

Max 

Applicatio

n Rate (lbs 

a.i./Acre)

Max.

Annual

Rate

Max. 

No. 

of 

Apps

per 

Year

Min. 

App. 

Interva

l

Application 

Methods Restrictions

Comments 

(Relevant data 

not included in 

other columns 

such as 

application 

timing, 

incorporation 

depth, etc)

nursery 

plantings 

(for 

transplant

)

treatment: 

chisel

Soil 

fumigation: 

plowsole or 

chisel

restrict use in 

specific 

counties

Fruits 

(processe

d and 

unspecifi

ed)

RTU

EC 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel or 

shank

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

restrict use in 

specific 

counties in 

California and 

Florida

Preplant

Golf 

course 

turf

RTU 49 49 1 NS

Soil 

fumigation: 

soil injector 

equipment

Certain labels 

only allow use 

in Arkansas 

and North 

Carolina

Foliar application

Grapes FC 18.5 37 NS NS

Soil 

fumigation: 

drip irrigation

Labels restrict 

use in certain 

counties

Established 

plantings; 

post harvest;

postplant

Hops RTU

EC 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel or 

shank

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

restrict use in 

specific 

counties in 

California

Preplant

Legume 

vegetable

s

RTU

EC 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel or 

shank

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

restrict use in 

specific 

counties in 

California and 

Florida

Preplant

Lettuce RTU

EC 581 581 1 NA

Broadcast: 

plowsole, 

chisel or 

shank

Soil fumigant: 

plowsole, 

chisel or drip 

irrigation

Tarp: chisel or 

drip irrigation

Certain labels 

restrict use in 

specific 

counties in 

California and 

Florida

Preplant

Melons SC/L

EC 85 NS 1 NS

Soil 

fumigation: 

drip irrigation

Only allowed 

in Texas and 

Arizona

Preplant

Mint RTU 572 572 1 NA Soil Labels restrict Preplant
Page 11 of 58

Site 

Descrip

tion

Formula

tion 

Type

Max 

Applicatio

n Rate (lbs 

a.i./Acre)

Max.

Annual

Rate

Max. 

No. 

of 

Apps

per 

Year

Min. 

App. 

Interva

l

Application 

Methods Restrictions

Comments 

(Relevant data 

not included in 

other columns 

such as 

application 

timing, 

incorporation 

depth, etc)

EC fumigation: 

drip irrigation

use in specific 

counties in 

California

Nursery 

stock; 

ornament

al woody 

shrub and 

vines

EC 572 572 1 NA Tarp: drip 

irrigation

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties 

Preplant

Onion EC 572 572 1 NA

Soil 

fumigation: 

drip irrigation

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties in 

California

Preplant

Ornament

al

RTU

EC 841 NS 1/NS NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties in 

Florida

Preplant

Peach RTU 346 NS 1 NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties 

Preplant

Peanuts RTU

EC 581 NS 1 NS

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties in 

California

Preplant

Pepper EC 80 NS NS NS Chemigation Preplant

Pineapple RTU

EC 581 NS 1 NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida

Preplant/At planting

Potato RTU

EC 581 NS 1/NS 365 d/NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida

Preplant

Radish RTU

EC 581 NS 1 365 d/NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida

Preplant

Recreatio

nal area 

lawn

RTU 49 NS 1/NS NS Soil 

fumigation Foliar

Soybean RTU

EC 572 NS 1 365 d

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Spruce 

(Forest) RTU 544 NS 1/NS 365 d

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties

Preplant

Stone 

Fruit RTU 346 NS 1

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties

Preplant

Strawberr

y

RTU

EC 542 NS 1/NS

14 d 

with 285 

lb a.i./ac 

applicati

on

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida

Preplant
Page 12 of 58

Site 

Descrip

tion

Formula

tion 

Type

Max 

Applicatio

n Rate (lbs 

a.i./Acre)

Max.

Annual

Rate

Max. 

No. 

of 

Apps

per 

Year

Min. 

App. 

Interva

l

Application 

Methods Restrictions

Comments 

(Relevant data 

not included in 

other columns 

such as 

application 

timing, 

incorporation 

depth, etc)

Sugar 

Beet

RTU

EC 581 NS 1/NS 365 d/NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties in 

California

Preplant/Prerenovation

Sweet 

Potato

RTU

EC 581 NS 1 NS

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Tobacco RTU

EC 581 NS 1 NS

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Tomato RTU

EC 387 NS 1 NS

soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Tree Nuts RTU

EC 581 NS 1/NS NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Vegetabl

es

RTU

EC 581 NS 1/NS

14 d 

with 285 

lb a.i./ac 

applicati

on

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties and 

in Florida and 

California

Preplant

Wheat RTU 178 NS 1/NS 365 

d/NS

Soil band 

treatment, soil 

fumigation, 

tarp, broadcast

Labels restrict 

use in specific 

counties

Preplant

RTU – Ready to use

EC – Emulsifiable Concentrate

SC- Suspended Concentrate

LEC- Liquid Emulsifiable Concentrate

NS – Not Specified

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

4.1. Ecological Risk Assessment 

The Agency has conducted multiple ecological risk assessments on 1,3-D that serve as a basis for 

this problem formulation document, including the Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED), the 

2008 CRLF assessment, and a new use assessments from 2007 for use of 1,3-D on grapes. The 

primary risk issues have been identified for fish and aquatic invertebrates. 
Page 13 of 58

The most recent, comprehensive assessment conducted for 1,3-D is the RED (USEPA, 1997), 

which was issued in October 1998. Though the RED provides the most recent, comprehensive 

assessment, maximum rates assessed do not reflect the current maximum rates for 1,3-D used 

today. In addition, the RED did not assess vapor phase exposure (i.e., the major exposure route) 

to birds, terrestrial invertebrates, or terrestrial plants due to a lack of data. The major ecological 

conclusions presented in the RED were as follows:

Table 2. Summary of Risk Concerns Identified for Chemical 1,3-D in Previous Assessments

Birds Mammals Terr.

Plants

Terr.

Inverts Fish BCF Aquatic Inverts

Aquatic 

Plants

Groundwater 

Contamination Persistence Degrades of Concern

Noa No NAb NAc Yesd No Yese NAf Yes No 3-chloroallyl 

alcohol;

3-

chloroacrylic 

acid

a No inhalation data were available to allow for an inhalation risk assessment. In addition, no reproduction data 

were available to allow for a chronic risk assessment, though chronic risks are not anticipated given the relatively 

short field dissipation half-life of 1,3-D. 

b No terrestrial plant toxicity data were available at the time of the RED. In the 2007 new use assessment for use of 

1,3-D on grapes risks to listed and non-listed dicotyledonous plants inhabiting semi-aquatic areas was likely due to 

runoff from treated fields. Given the relatively low application rate for grapes (18.5 lbs a.i/A versus a maximum 

application rate of 581 lbs a.i./A on several other crops), it is likely that the RED would have identified risks to 

plants if terrestrial plant toxicity data were available. Vapor phase exposure was not considered as the corresponding 

toxicity data were not available. 

c Risk to terrestrial invertebrates has not been assessed. Vapor phase exposure was not considered as the 

corresponding toxicity data were not available. 

d No data were available to assess chronic risks to fish.

e No data were available to assess chronic risks to aquatic invertebrates.

f Aquatic plants were not assessed in the RED. In the 2007 new use assessment for use of 1,3-D on grapes risks to 

listed and non-listed aquatic plants were minimal. However, the maximum application rate assessed for the new use 

(18.5 lbs a.i./A) is substantially less than the maximum application rate recognized on current labels of 1,3-D (581 

lbs a.i./A).

Yes = at least one LOC has been exceeded in previous assessments; No = LOCs have not been exceeded in previous

assessments; NA = RQs have not been calculated previously.

4.2. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

Characterization of drinking water exposure from surface water was addressed in 2008 

memorandum (D348051; “Characterization of Surface Water Modeling Results for Telone”). 

While not providing estimated concentrations, use of EFED’s standard surface water exposure 

model, PRZM-EXAMS, is qualified with a caution to the user for 1,3-D due to the chemical’s 

high volatility. The volatilization routines in PRZM have been evaluated however only 

volatilization at room temperature is modeled. Volatilization will be faster at summer outdoor 

temperatures, so this important process is not captured adequately. Thus, PRZM-EXAMS does 

not adequately model the major dissipation process for telone. Further, the memorandum 

reasons that the variable and limited aerobic soil metabolism data, lacking aerobic aquatic 

metabolism data, and incomplete degradate fate dataset do not allow for a refinement of EDWCs. 

Finally, the memorandum concludes EFED’s concern about human exposure to telone is via the 
Page 14 of 58

groundwater exposure route due to being shielded from many of the processes that can contribute 

to its more rapid dissipation from surface water.

Characterization of drinking water exposure from groundwater was addressed in 2009 

(D367253) and 2010 memoranda (USEPA, 2010). The 2009 memorandum describes 1,3-D as a 

non-persistent compound that hydrolyzes on the order of days to weeks to the daughter products 

3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid, and then to carbon dioxide and chloride ions. The 

memorandum further describes 1,3-D as less likely to contaminate ground water than chemically 

similar but more persistent compounds such as chlorinated methanes, ethanes, and ethylenes. 

The memorandum concludes the non-persistent nature of 1,3-D makes contamination of aquifers 

less likely than for similar compounds (chlorinated volatiles) that are more persistent and the 

presence of other chlorinated volatiles in aquifer studies is a line of evidence, indicating that 

telone could have reached ground water if it were sufficiently persistent. The 2010 

memorandum reports on extensive groundwater monitoring by USGS showing that 1,3-D is not 

among the man-made chemicals found in ground water in karst areas (i.e., vulnerable 

groundwater areas where limestone bedrock is dissolved by acids in rainwater). Similar but 

more persistent chemicals (multiple chlorinated two- and three-carbon compounds) such as 

solvents and dry-cleaning chemicals had been detected. The memorandum concludes that telone 

is not found as a ground water contaminant because of its rapid volatilization from soil, and 

because any telone that reaches groundwater is degraded by hydrolysis before it can travel far 

from the application site. The memorandum provides location information on karst regions and 

USGS monitoring sites, indicating the extensive nature of the USGS monitoring effort.

A drinking water assessment will be needed for registration review. Although surface water and 

groundwater concentrations of 1,3-D may be discountable, its degradates, 3-chloroallyl alcohol 

and 3-chloroacryllic acid, are residues of concern and have potential to be present in 

groundwater or surface water.

4.3. Clean Water Act Programs

1,3-D is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired under 

section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. No Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) criteria have 

been developed for 1,3-D. Aquatic benchmarks have been established for 1,3-D and are 

available at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm. Any data 

submitted or otherwise located as part of the registration review process may be used to update 

aquatic life benchmarks if applicable. 

5. Environmental Fate and Transport

The cis and trans isomers of 1,3-dichloropropene (1,3-D; CAS No. 542-75-6; PC Code 029001) 

are highly volatile and mobile under most environmental conditions. The major hydrolysis 

degradates, 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid, are both mobile, but are expected to 

be less volatile. The degradates are stable to hydrolysis in sterile, buffered water, but are quickly 
Page 15 of 58

degraded in aerobic aquatic metabolism studies (3-chloroallyl alcohol, half-life 1.2 days at 25°C, 

total 3-chloroacrylic acids, 3.4 days, MRID 44975503).

The primary routes of 1,3-D dissipation in the field appear to be volatilization, leaching, abiotic 

hydrolysis, and aerobic soil metabolism. In air, 1,3-D does not degrade through direct photolysis;

however, there can be degradation through free-radical (OH and ozone) processes. Experimental 

data for reaction with hydroxyl and ozone, cited in the EPISuite AOP v1.91 program (Kwok, 

ESC and Atkinson, R., 1994) suggest that the half-life for telone in air is on the order of 1.0 to 

1.1 days, with the reaction dominated by hydroxyl addition to the double bond.

In water, hydrolysis is temperature dependent with an increase in stability at lower temperatures. 

This seems to indicate that in warm climates, degradation will occur more rapidly than in cooler 

climates. According to laboratory mobility studies, 1,3-D is mobile in a variety of soils including 

loamy sand (Kd= 0.23), sand (Kd= 0.32) and clay (Kd= 0.42 and 1.09. These mobility data, in 

addition to ground-water monitoring information, have clearly demonstrated that 1,3-D is highly 

mobile in soil. Mobility data for 3-chloroallyl alcohol (MRID 44940323) give a Koc range of 10 

to 55, with a mean of 31.

As mentioned above, 1,3-D is highly volatile (vapor pressure 34 mmHg). The factors influencing 

the volatility of 1,3-D from a field plot include, but are not limited to: soil organic matter, wind 

speed, soil moisture content, depth of incorporation-injection, soil temperature and soil porosity. 

Studies indicate that approximately 25 percent of applied volatilizes within the first two weeks 

after application. Wind is a major factor in the dispersion of 1,3-D as higher concentrations are 

measured in the air at night when winds are often lighter. During the day, an increase in wind 

velocity also increases vapor dispersion and lowers the measurable amount of material.

1,3-D has one major degradate, 3-chloroallyl alcohol, and one minor degradate, 3-chloroacrylic 

acid. The 3-chloroallyl alcohol is the major hydrolysis degradation product and is formed at 72% 

of applied. The 3-chloroacrylic acid is produced through aerobic soil metabolism at lower and 

variable amounts depending on the soil type. In studies submitted to the Agency, 3-chloroacrylic 

acid formed at 1 % - 6% of applied. The degradation pathway is presumed to be 1,3-D to 3-

chloroallyl alcohol to 3-chloroacrylic acid. A selection of environmental fate and transport 

properties of 1,3-D is summarized Table 3.

Table 3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of 1,3-D

Parameter Value Description Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass (molecular 

formula)

110.97 g/mol (C3H4Cl2) -- (Calculated)

Vapor pressure (25°C) 34 mm Hg Highly volatile Footprint1

: 

Accessed 5/6/13

Aqueous solubility (20°C) 2.5 g/L Soluble Footprint1: 

Accessed 5/6/13
Page 16 of 58

Parameter Value Description Source

Henry’s Law Constant (20°C) 1.7 x10-3 atm-m3/mol Highly volatile Footprint1

:

Accessed 5/6/13

Log octanol-to-water partition 

coefficient

(log KOW)

1.82 Moderately hydrophilic Footprint1

: 

Accessed 5/6/13

Persistence

Hydrolysis half-life (20°C) 13.5 days Degrades to 3-chloro-2-

propen-1-ol.

MRID 158442

Air photolysis half-life (25°C) Stable Xenon arc lamp used MRID 40390101

Aerobic soil metabolism halflife (25°C)12 days (silt loam)

54 days (loamy sand)

MRID 42642301

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism 

half-life (20-29°C)

-- 1,3-D degraded 1.4-3X 

more rapidly in soil 

slurries than in soil free 

solutions

MRID 40727

Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

half-life (25°C)

4.9 days MRID 44975502

Mobility

Freundlich soil-water partition 

coefficients (KF); organic 

carbon-normalized Freundlich 

coefficients (KFOC)

0.23, 0.32, 0.42, 1.09 

L/kg;

20, 25, 41, 42 L/kgOC

Mobile MRID 40538901

Field Dissipation

Terrestrial field dissipation halflife; injection depth; leaching 

depth

1 day; injected to 13-14 

inches; leaching up to 90 

inches

345 lbs a.i./ac applied to 

Norfolk loamy sand in 

North Florida. 

Volatilization and 

leaching are both 

significant dissipation 

pathways. CAAL was 

detected in soil but 

neither 1,3-D nor CAAL 

were detected in 

groundwater.

MRID 40855501
Page 17 of 58

Parameter Value Description Source

Field Volatility +3 days – 126 μg/m2/sec

+4-6 days – 29 to 80 

μg/m2

/sec

+7-9 days – 17 to 63 

μg/m2

/sec

+10-12 days – 12 to 28 

μg/m2

/sec

+12-14 days – 5 to 18 

μg/m2/sec

12 to 18 inch direct 

injection to sandy loam 

12.3 gallons/A (Telone 

II, 96.6% a.i.)

MRID 42545101

Drip irrigation 

application to 5 inches 

soil depth of 4.33 

gallons a.i./A in sandy 

loam.

MRID 44795602

Broadcast

+1hr – 9 μg/m2/sec

+14hr – 37 μg/m2/sec

+32-62hr – 13-23 

μg/m2

/sec

+68hr – 30 μg/m2/sec

+73hr – 12 μg/m2/sec

+86hr – 6 μg/m2/sec

+217hr – 2 μg/m2/sec

Winged row shank

+2hr - 2 , μg/m2/sec

+20hr - 32 μg/m2/sec

+32hr - 14 μg/m2/sec

+68hr - 8 μg/m2/sec

+87hr - 5 μg/m2/sec

+104-188hr -1-2

μg/m2

/sec

Broadcast injection 

shank to 14 inch soil 

depth with 12.0 gallons 

a.i./A in sandy loam

Winged row shank to 12 

inch soil depth at 6.7 

gallons a.i./A in sandy 

loam

MRID 45010501

+6hr- 128 μg/m2/hr

+12hr - 76 μg/m2/hr

+1day- 50 μg/m2/hr

+1.5day- 14μg/m2/hr

+2.5day- 4 μg/m2/hr

+4day - <1 μg/m2/hr

5.19

gallons a.i./A (50.7 lb 

a.i./A) by direct 

injection (approximately 

5-inch soil depth) to a 

turf plot of sand soil

MRID 

45120701/45222501

+3hr- 32 μg/m2/hr

+8hr- 15 μg/m2/hr

+30hr- <1 μg/m2/hr

5.12 gallons a.i./A

(49.8 lb a.i./A) by direct 

injection (5-inch soil 

depth) to nine golf 

fairway plots

MRID 45120702
Page 18 of 58

Parameter Value Description Source

Prospective Groundwater Onsite well screened at 

15-20 feet (maximum):

1,3-D: 579 ppb

CAAL: 2,737 ppb

CAAC: 1,092 ppb

303 DAT: 4.2 ppb

Offsite down gradient 

well (maximum): 

1,3-D: 84 ppb

CAAL: 194 ppb

CAAC: 153 ppb

603 DAT: 1.3 ppb

283 lbs a.i./ac were 

applied to a field in 

Portage County, 

Wisconsin with an 

unconfined aquifer at a 

depth of 15 to 18 feet 

below grade. Aquifer 

materials range from 

sand to coarse sand with 

gravel.

MRID 44952201

Onsite well screened at 4 

feet (maximum):

1,3-D: 833 ppb

CAAL: 360 ppb

CAAC: 424 ppb

Onsite well screened at 

10 feet (maximum):

1,3-D: 22 ppb

CAAL: <0.01 ppb

CAAC: 9 ppb

Offsite down gradient 

well (maximum):

1,3-D: 0.23 ppb

CAAL: <0.01 ppb

CAAC: <0.01 ppb

193 lbs a.i./ac were 

applied to a field in 

South Florida with an 

unconfined aquifer at a 

depth of 4 feet below 

grade. Aquifer 

materials range from 

fine sand to fine sandy 

loam.

MRID 44444501

1 - http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aeru/footprint/index2.htm

5.1. Transformation Products

The major organic degradate of 1,3-D in submitted environmental fate studies is 3-chloroallyl 

alcohol (in hydrolysis and aerobic soil metabolism) and the minor degradate is 3-chloroacrylic 

acid (in aerobic aquatic and soil metabolism studies). Error! Reference source not found.4

summarizes the transformation products of 1,3-D and their maximum amounts formed and 

Tables 5 & 6 summarize submitted data for 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid.
Page 19 of 58

3-chloroallyl alcohol is highly mobile but metabolizes very rapidly in aerobic soil and aquatic 

systems (t1/2 = 0.5-1.2 days). 3-chloroacrylic acid is also highly mobile but metabolizes 

somewhat less readily than 3-chloroallyl alcohol (t1/2 = 3.4-12.4 days). 

Table 4. 1,3-D and Its Environmental Degradates 

Name Chemical 

Name

Chemical 

Structure Study Type Ref.

(MRID)

Maximum 

%AR (day)A

Final %AR 

(study length)

PARENT

1,3-D 1,3-dichlor-1-

propene

CAS No.:

542-75-6

Formula:

C3H4Cl2

MW: 110.97

g/mol

MAJOR TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS

3-

chloroall

yl 

alcohol

3-chloro-2-

propen-1-ol

Formula:

C3H5ClO

MW: 92.52 

g/mol

Hydrolysis 158442 72% (22 d) 72% (22 d)

Aerobic soil 42642301 22.1% (105 d) 22.1% (105 d)

Aerobic aquatic 44975502 6.4% (1 d) 1.2% (21 d)

Terrestrial 

dissipation 40855501 1.5% (0 d) n.d. (562 d)

3-

chloroac

rylic 

acid

3-chloro-2-

propenoic 

acid

Formula:

C3H3ClO2

MW: 106.51 

g/mol

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism 44975502 9.5% (7 d) 1.4% (21 d)

Aerobic soil 

metabolism 42642301 8.5%( 7 d) 1.7% (105 d)

A Bolded values indicate a major degradate was formed or that a degradate is of toxicological significance B n.d. means “not detected”.

C Terrestrial field study percentages represent the ratio of degradate concentration to the maximum parent 

concentration, both in the top layer of soil.

Table 5. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of 3-Chloroallyl Alcohol

Parameter Value Description Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass (molecular 

formula)

92.52 g/mol (C3H5ClO) (Calculated)

Vapor pressure (25°C) 3.5 mm Hg May volatilize from dry 

surfaces

EpiSuite

Aqueous solubility (25°C) 129 g/L Highly Soluble EpiSuite

Henry’s Law Constant (20°C) 2.5 x10-6 atm-m3/mol Semi-volatile EpiSuite
Page 20 of 58

Parameter Value Description Source

Log octanol-to-water partition 

coefficient

(log KOW)

0.57 Hydrophilic EpiSuite

Persistence

Hydrolysis half-life (25°C) Stable MRID 44948601

Aerobic soil metabolism halflife 0.5 days Footprint: 

Accessed 5/6/13

Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

half-life (25°C)

1.2 days MRID 44975503

Mobility

Freundlich soil-water partition 

coefficients (KF); organic 

carbon-normalized Freundlich 

coefficients (KFOC)

0.10, 0.11, 0.09, 0.20, 

0.05, 0.10, 0.04, 0.15, 

0.17 L/kg;

15, 12, 11, 4, 12, 10, 4, 

12, 5 L/kgOC

Highly Mobile MRID 44940323

Table 6. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid

Parameter Value Description Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

Molecular mass (molecular 

formula)

106.51 g/mol 

(C3H3ClO2)

(Calculated)

Vapor pressure (25°C) 0.2 mm Hg May volatilize from dry 

surfaces

EpiSuite

Aqueous solubility (25°C) 58 g/L Highly Soluble EpiSuite

Henry’s Law Constant (25°C) 2.1 x10-7 atm-m3/mol Semi-volatile EpiSuite

Log octanol-to-water partition 

coefficient

(log KOW)

0.80 Hydrophilic EpiSuite

Persistence

Hydrolysis half-life (25°C) Stable MRID 44940321

Aerobic soil metabolism halflife (20°C)12.4 days Footprint: 

Accessed 5/6/13

Aerobic aquatic metabolism 

half-life (25°C)

3.4 days MRID 44975504

Mobility
Page 21 of 58

Parameter Value Description Source

Freundlich soil-water partition 

coefficients (KF); organic 

carbon-normalized Freundlich 

coefficients (KFOC)

0.02 L/kg;

3.4 L/kgOC

Highly Mobile Footprint: 

Accessed 5/6/13
Page 22 of 58

6. Receptors

Table and Table provide a summary of the aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups, 

respectively, and most sensitive surrogate species tested to characterize the potential acute and 

chronic ecological effects of 1,3-D. Table and Error! Reference source not found. provide a 

summary of the available toxicity data for aquatic taxonomic groups for the degradates 3-

chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic alcohol, respectfully. Information on the toxicity of the 

degradates to terrestrial taxonomic groups are discussed below. In addition, the tables provide a 

preliminary overview of the potential acute toxicity of 1,3-D by providing the acute toxicity 

classifications. Based on the available ecotoxicity information, 1,3-D is particularly toxic to 

estuarine/marine fish, freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates and aquatic plants. However, 

1,3-D is also slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish and terrestrial animals. Available data 

on the major degradate, 3-chloroallyl alcohol, suggest that it is more toxic than parent 1,3-D to 

mammals, aquatic plants and freshwater fish. Available data on the other major degradate, 3-

chloroacrylic acid, suggest that it is more toxic to mammals and aquatic plants but less toxic to 

freshwater fish than parent 1,3-D. Additional detail is included in the following tables.

6.1. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

Table 7. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for 1,3-D

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate Species Toxicity Value

(all units in 

terms of 

measured 

active 

ingredient)

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

Freshwater fish1

Acute

Walleye

(Stizostedion 

vitreum)

LC50 = 1.08

mg/L

Moderately

toxic 40098001

Chronic 

(Early 

LifeStage)

-- -- -- --

Freshwater 

invertebrates

Acute Water Flea 

(Daphnia magna)

EC50 = 0.09

mg/L

Very highly

toxic 40098001

Chronic Water Flea 

NOAEC = 0.07 

mg/L

LOAEC = 0.105

mg/L

Endpoint: 

growth (length) 

and mean 

progeny

-- 45007501

Estuarine/marine 

fish Acute

Sheepshead minnow

(Cyprinodon 

variegatus)

LC50 = 0.87

mg/L Highly toxic 44843901
Page 23 of 58

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate Species Toxicity Value

(all units in 

terms of 

measured 

active 

ingredient)

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates

Acute Saltwater mysid

(Mysidopsis bahia)

LC50 = 0.70

mg/L Highly toxic 44843904

Acute

Eastern Oyster 

(Crassostrea 

virginica)

EC50 = 0.64

mg/L 

Endpoint: shell 

growth

Highly toxic 44843903

Aquatic plants 

and algae

Vascular Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba)

NOAEC = 1.2

mg/L

EC50 = 20 mg/L

-- 44843914

Nonvascular

Freshwater diatom

(Navicula 

pelliculosa)

NOAEC = 2.7

mg/L

EC50 = 7.9 mg/L

-- 44843909

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

Table 8. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for 3-Chloroallyl

alcohol

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

Freshwater fish1 Acute

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

LC50 = 0.986 mg/L Highly toxic 44940306

Freshwater 

invertebrates Acute Water Flea EC50 = 2.3 mg/L Moderately 

toxic 44843902

Aquatic plants 

and algae

Vascular Duckweed

NOAEC = 0.042

mg/L

EC50 = 1.6994

mg/L

-- 44940320

Nonvascular

Saltwater diatom

(Skeletonema 

costatum)

NOAEC = 0.071 

mg/L

EC50 = 0.248 mg/L

-- 44940316

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

Table 9. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for 3-

Chloroacrylic acid

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

Freshwater fish1 Acute

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

LC50 = 69.5mg/L Slightly toxic 44940307

Freshwater 

invertebrates Acute Water Flea EC50 = 55 mg/L Slightly toxic 44940308
Page 24 of 58

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute

Toxicity 

Classification

Source

Aquatic plants 

and algae

Vascular Duckweed

NOAEC = 0.023

mg/L

EC50 = 0.22 mg/L

-- 45007504

Nonvascular

Green algae

(Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

NOAEC = 

0.181mg/L

EC50 = 0.432 mg/L

-- 44940319

1 Freshwater fish may be surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

Based on the above toxicity data for the degradates, the 3-chloroallyl alcohol is more toxic to 

freshwater fish and invertebrates than the 3-chloroacrylic acid. The acid is classified as slightly 

toxic to both taxa while the 3-chloroallyl alcohol degradate is classified as very highly toxic to 

freshwater fish and moderately toxic to freshwater invertebrates. The alcohol degradate is also 

more toxic to rainbow trout than the parent compound. As a result, this degradate could pose 

greater risk to freshwater fish than the parent, depending on how much of it is formed in the 

environment. Since the degradates of 1,3-D are mobile and persistent in the environment, it is 

possible that the degradates could reach marine/estuarine environments. The ratio of acute 

toxicity between the parent and alcohol degradate for rainbow trout is 3.99 (LC50 of 3.94 ppm for 

1,3-D/LC50 of 0.986 ppm for 3-chloroallyl alcohol). If the ratio of toxicity is the same for 

marine/estuarine fish, then an approximate LC50 for 3-chloroallyl alcohol for the sheepshead 

minnow is 0.218 ppm (LC50 of 0.87 for 1,3-D/3.99). Using the peak exposure estimate of 0.039 

ppm for 3-chloroallyl alcohol in the risk assessment for grapes resulted in an estimated RQ of 

0.18, which exceeds the listed species and acute restricted use LOCs for aquatic animals. 

Therefore, data should be submitted to demonstrate the toxicity of 3-chloroallyl alcohol to 

marine/estuarine fish and invertebrates. The 3-chloroacrylic acid degradate was less toxic than 

the parent for both the freshwater fish and invertebrate tested (rainbow trout and D. magna, 

respectively).

Except for the saltwater diatom (S. costatum), aquatic plant results for the degradates were the 

reverse of that for freshwater fish; the acid degradate was more toxic than the alcohol degradate. 

Except for S. costatum the acid degradate is also more toxic than the parent compound. However, 

the sensitivity to the alcohol degradate as compared to the parent was mixed, L. gibba and S. 

costatum were more sensitive to the alcohol degradate than the parent whereas A. flos-aquae, N. 

pelliculosa, and S. capricornutum were more sensitive to the parent than the alcohol degradate. 

Duckweed (L. gibba) was the most sensitive to both degradates, and was more sensitive to both of 

these than the parent compound. 
Page 25 of 58

6.2. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

Table 10. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for 1,3-D

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

Source 

Birds1

Acute

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus 

virginianus)

LD50 = 152 mg/kgbw

Moderately

toxic 00118938

Sub-acute 

dietary Bobwhite quail LC50 > 10,000mg/kg-diet

Practically 

non-toxic 00120907

Chronic -- -- -- --

Mammals

Acute Oral

Laboratory rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

LD50 = 224 mg/kgbw (females)Moderately 

toxic 40220901

Acute 

Inhalation Laboratory rat LC50 = 3.31 mg/L -- 42954802

Chronic

Dietary Laboratory rat 

NOAEL = 5

mg/kg/day

Endpoint: body 

weight, 

hyperkeratosis 

and/or basal cell

-- 42954802

Chronic 

Inhalation Laboratory rat

NOAEL Maternal = 

20 ppm

NOAEL 

Developmental = 60 

ppm

-- 00144715

00152848

Insects Acute 

contact

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera 

L.)

LD50 >60.43 μg/bee Practically 

non-toxic

00028772

00018842

Terrestrial 

plants2

Seedling 

Emergence

Monocot –

onion 

NOAEC = 11.69 

lb/A

EC25 > 11.69 lb/A

None

-- 45007502

Dicot – tomato

NOAEC = 2.19 lb/A

EC25 = 4.81 lb/A

Endpoint: shoot dry 

weight

-- 45007502

Vegetative 

Vigor

Monocot –

onion 

NOAEC = 2.19 lb/A

EC25 = 3.5 lb/A

Endpoint: shoot 

length

45007502

Dicot – tomato

NOAEC = 4.08 lb/A

EC25 = 6.86 lb/A

Endpoint: shoot dry 

weight

45007502

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.
Page 26 of 58

2

The report provides toxicity levels tested and toxicity values in units of ppm. These were converted to lbs a.i./acre 

by multiplying the concentration in ppm (mg/L) by the volume of treatment solution used to treat each plant (0.35 L). 

Mass was divided by the area of each pot (6.5 in diameter) and the resulting value was converted to pounds/acre.

Terrestrial toxicity tests do not accurately represent the major route of exposure for 1,3-D. Vapor 

phase exposure (e.g., inhalation study for birds) studies are required to accurately describe the risk 

associated with currently registered uses of 1,3-D. An acute avian inhalation LD50 is derived in 

the STIR model (described in Section 7) using avian acute oral, mammalian oral, and mammalian 

inhalation toxicity data, adjusted for difference in diffusion across the avian lung membrane 

compared to the mammalian lung membrane. Using this approach, the adjusted acute avian 

inhalation LD50 for 1,3-D is 1.25 mg/kg-bw for a 0.02 kg bird, which is two orders of magnitude 

more sensitive than the acute oral LD50 of 109.51 mg/kg-bw for the same size bird. 

Terrestrial plant toxicity of 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid data were collected 

simultaneously with the 1,3-D tests on terrestrial plants described above (MRID 45007502). The 

results of these tests demonstrate no significant effects of the degradates at the concentrations 

tested, and that the hazard resulting from exposure of non-target plants to these degradates is

unlikely. 

Two acute oral studies with laboratory rats have been submitted, which indicated an LD50 of 91 

mg/kg-bw for both the alcohol and acid degradates (MRID 44843905 and 44940309), indicating 

that the degradates are more toxic than the parent compound (LD50 of 224 mg/kg-bw). This value 

would classify the alcohol and acid degradates of 1,3-D as moderately toxic. 

Data are not available to determine the toxicity of the degradates of 1,3-D (3-chloroallyl alcohol 

and 3-chloroacrylic acid) to birds, reptiles, and terrestrial phase amphibians. Based on evidence 

that mammals are more sensitive to the degradates than the parent, it is likely that birds are also 

more sensitive to the acid and alcohol degradates than to the parent.

6.3. Ecological Incidents

The ecological incident information system (EIIS) is an OPP database that houses ecological 

incidents that have been reported to the Agency. When available, EIIS includes date and location 

of an incident, type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides 

known or suspected of contributing to the incident, and results of any chemical residue analysis or 

other analyses conducted during incident investigation. EIIS incidents are categorized according 

to the certainty that the incident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Monitoring System 

(AIMS) is a database administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly 

available data on reported avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the incidents listed in 

this database are also in the EIIS. 

EIIS returned eight terrestrial plant incidents in Washington, California, Idaho, Florida, 

Mississippi, and South Carolina attributed to 1,3-D use with “possible” to “highly probable”

certainty (USEPA, 2007b). Most of the incidents resulted from registered uses of products coformulated with 1,3-D and chloropicrin; however, a few resulted from use of 1,3-D only. Incident 
Page 27 of 58

#I007358-001 occurred in January 1998 when apple trees were planted on a field previously 

treated with 1,3-D and chloropicrin. Some trees didn’t leaf out fully, were sick, or died. Incident 

#I012366-064 occurred in March 2001 when a registered use of 1,3,-D and chloropicrin damaged 

52 acres of watermelons. Incident #I013636-048 occurred in April 2001 when 80 acres of grape 

fields were fumigated with 1,3-D. Roughly half of the crop died as a result of 1,3-D phytotoxicity 

and a settlement was reached. Incident #I014702-075 occurred in June 2002 when a registered use 

of 1,3-D damaged 20 acres of potatoes, resulting in poor yield and crop quality. Incident 

#I014702-076 occurred in September 2003 when a registered use of 1,3-D and chloropicrin 

damaged 91 acres of watermelon seedlings. Incident #s I014871-001 and I016962-028 occurred 

in July 2003 and May 2005, respectively, when golf courses treated with 1,3-D experienced 

significant burn shortly after application. Incident #I017958-012 occurred in August 2006 when 

1,3-D applied to peach seedlings several months before killed the entire crop. In addition to the 

terrestrial plant incident, EIIS reports one aquatic incident (#I016738-016) when 1,3-D and 

chloropicrin applied to strawberry fields via irrigation accidently spilled into a nearby creek, 

resulting in 1000 fish killed. Residues taken from the fish confirmed the exposure. 

As of 30 April, 2012, AIMS identified no ecological incidents involving 1,3-D. 

Registrants reported 5 minor plant incidents and 1 minor wildlife incident with 1,3-D between 

2000 and 2012. Unless additional information on these aggregated incidents becomes available, 

they will be assumed to be representative of registered uses of 1,3-D in the risk assessment.

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of 1,3-D indicate that leaching to ground 

water, atmospheric deposition, and runoff represent potential transport mechanisms of 1,3-D to 

aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways were 

screened using the SIP (Screening Imbibition Program) and STIR (Screening Tool for Inhalation 

Risk) screening methods and were found to be exposure pathways of concern (LOC exceedances 

are expected). SIP and STIR are described in detail at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm.

As applied according to the registered labels, 1,3-D and its degradates will be available in the soil 

to non-target organisms. The degradates are expected to form at the site of application, and are 

also expected to move to the same environmental compartments as the parent compound via the 

same pathways. The only exception to this is movement via volatilization, since the degradates 

are not expected to volatilize to the same degree as 1,3-D. 

The primary exposure route for terrestrial animals is expected to be inhalation of volatilized 1,3-

D. Ingestion of soil containing 1,3-D and its degradates at the treatment site is also expected. 

Applications through above-ground irrigation lines may result in formation of puddles of treated 

irrigation water and also contact with the foliage of terrestrial plants, which could expose 

terrestrial animals via drinking water and on-field plant food resources. The latter two routes are 

expected to be minor compared to the greater exposure through inhalation. Runoff and vapor 

phase drift of 1,3-D and its degradates could also result in exposure to plants that inhabit 

terrestrial and semi-aquatic areas off-site. 
Page 28 of 58

Volatilization of 1,3-D from the application site and subsequent movement via wind is expected 

to result in deposition into nearby water. Leaching (and to a lesser extent runoff and erosion) is 

also expected to move 1,3-D and its degradates to nearby water bodies. Once reaching these 

environments, some 1,3-D is expected to volatilize, while the remainder will likely degrade into 

3-chloroallyl alcohol (alcohol degradate) and 3-chloroacrylic acid (acid degradate). These 

compounds are expected to remain in the water column. 

Exposure to aquatic organisms is likely to occur, and will affect both fish and invertebrates. 

Exposure may occur via ingestion or uptake through the gills (inhalation pathway) and/or 

integument (dermal pathway). Aquatic plants are also expected to be exposed via direct contact 

or vascular uptake.

8. Analysis Plan

8.1. Stressors of Concern

8.1.1. Ecological Risk Assessment

The stressor of concern for terrestrial plants is the 1,3-D parent rather than the degradates;

exposure to the alcohol and acid degradates is not expected to result in hazard. The stressors of 

ecological concern for terrestrial animals are 1,3-D and the degradates, 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 

3 chloroacrylic acid. The degradates are not expected to be as volatile as the parent (vapor 

pressure = 472 pa for the alcohol and 28.4 pa for the acid degradate) so exposure to terrestrial 

animals would be limited to food residues, incidental soil ingestion, and drinking water. Based on 

acute toxicity studies with the laboratory rat, the degradates, 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-

chloroacrylic acid, are more toxic than the parent (LD50 of 91 mg/kg-bw for the degradates versus 

224 mg/kg-bw for the parent). Data on the comparative toxicity of the 1,3-D parent and its 

degradates are not available for birds. Although exposure via contaminated drinking water is 

possible for terrestrial animals, the main route of exposure to terrestrial animals to 1,3-D is 

expected to be through inhalation. For birds, based on 1,3-D’s vapor pressure and calculations 

using STIR, the maximum 1-hour vapor inhalation dose for birds is 17,300 mg/kg. By contrast, 

based on 1,3-D’s solubility limit and calculations using SIP, the upper bound daily drinking water 

intake dose for a bird is 1,782 mg/kg bw. Multiplying the STIR estimate of one hour by 12 (to 

match the daily exposure duration of the SIP estimate) yields 207,600 mg/kg which is 2 orders of 

magnitude more than the potential drinking water dose. For 1,3-D, this suggests that the potential 

daily inhalation exposure of a bird is substantially greater than the potential daily drinking water 

exposure for a bird, indicating that inhalation exposure may be of more concern. Additionally, 

acute oral and acute inhalation toxicity data are available for the laboratory rat (MRIDs 40220901 

and 40220903, respectively). The data indicate that for mammals, 1,3-D is more toxic via 

inhalation exposure than via oral exposure (oral LD50 = 224 mg/kg-bw, acute inhalation LD50

89.7 mg/kg-bw [converted in STIR from LC50 3.31 mg/L]). Therefore, any risks associated with 

terrestrial animals and exposure to 1,3-D via inhalation are expected to be protective of other 

potential routes of exposure (including via drinking water). For terrestrial animals and 1,3-D, the 

risk assessment will therefore focus on risks associated with inhalation.
Page 29 of 58

The stressors of concern for aquatic organisms are 1,3-D and the aquatic degradates 3-chloroallyl 

alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid. Submitted data indicate that the alcohol and acid degradates 

have similar toxicity to that of 1,3-D (see Section 6). More specifically, the alcohol degrade is 

slightly more toxic to freshwater fish and aquatic plants and the acid degradate is slightly less 

toxic to aquatic animals slightly more toxic to aquatic plants. 

8.1.2. Drinking Water 

The drinking water assessments conducted to support the registration review human health risk 

assessments of 1,3-D will incorporate model estimates of 1,3-D residues of concern, which are the

parent compound, 3-chloroallyl alcohol, and 3-chloroacrylic acid (Personal communication, Ideliz 

Encarnacion, 2013), in surface and ground waters. The 1,3-D residues of concern may be 

reevaluated pending receipt and review of additional environmental fate and toxicity data for 1,3-

D and its degradates. 1,3-D is not likely to be found in groundwater and surface water due to 

rapid degradation and volatility. 3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-chloroacrylic acid, however, are 

more persistent, less volatile, and highly mobile. These chemical properties indicate substantial 

risk for drinking water exposure via groundwater.

8.2. Measures of Exposure 

EFED will use standard available models to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic and terrestrial 

organisms as described at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_db.htm. 

Available Monitoring Data

From more than 20,000 groundwater samples testing for 1,3-D, there are 3 detections in 

Washington ranging from 0.315 ppb to 0.028 ppb of total 1,3-D (combined cis and trans isomers). 

In addition, monitoring for 1,3-D has included targeted sampling near Tampa, Florida. Thirty

public water supply wells were sampled but no telone was found despite its use in the area 

(USGS, 2006). From more than 5,000 groundwater samples testing for 1,3-D, CAAC, and CAAL 

in Europe, there were two detections of 0.12 ppb and 0.4 ppb in the alluvial gravels of the River 

Tiétar in the Caceres region of Spain (Terry, et al. 2008).

No domestic monitoring data is available for 1,3-D degradates, 3-chloroallyl alcohol, or 3-

chloroacryllic acid. Based on the rapid hydrolysis of 1,3-D, the high mobility of CAAL and 

CAAC, and detections up to 2.7 ppm in prospective groundwater monitoring studies, it may be 

expected that the degradates would be detected in groundwater.

Aquatic Exposure Modeling

The models used to predict aquatic estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) are the 

Pesticide Root Zone Model coupled with the Exposure Analysis Modeling System 

(PRZM/EXAMS) publically available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/pe5_user_manual.htm. The PRZM/EXAMS 

Standard Pond scenario will be used to estimate the aquatic EECs in surface water. Since both 

surface chemigation and incorporated chemigation and injection application methods for 1,3-D 

application exist, two separate runs will be conducted for each crop scenario addressing the 
Page 30 of 58

surface and incorporated applications. The PRZM volatilization algorithm will be used to address 

both 1,3-D’s upward movement in soil to the runoff extraction zone and escape to the atmosphere.

In addition, the degradates of 1,3-D will be incorporated in the residues of concern modeled for 

exposure to aquatic organisms because of available toxicity data indicating they are more toxic 

than the parent. The alcohol degradate will be included with 1,3-D in the residues of concern 

modeled for exposure to aquatic animals, while both the acid and alcohol degradates will be 

included with 1,3-D in the residues of concern modeled for exposure to aquatic plants

Terrestrial Exposure Modeling

Screening level calculations have suggested that the inhalation exposure pathway may be 

significant for terrestrial wildlife. This exposure pathway is far more significant than potential 

exposure via drinking water and will be further considered at the time of the risk assessment. 

Dietary exposure to terrestrial wildlife is not anticipated.

1,3-D acute exposures of the birds, mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, and plants through 

inhalation and vapor exposure are determined using the EECs from atmospheric dispersion 

models relying on the input of 1,3-D atmospheric flux measurements from the collection field 

volatility (flux) studies. For detailed descriptions of the field volatility studies reviewed for 

chloropicrin, see Appendix C. Field Volatility Study Summaries. Consistent with the aquatic 

exposure assessment, the ecological risk assessment will assess two separate scenarios addressing 

surface and incorporated application of 1,3-D. The Agency’s recommended screening dispersion 

model for the near field, the American Meteorological Society/EPA Regulatory Screening Model 

(AERSCREEN), will be used to generate Tier I EECs. The Tier I analysis will consider the 

maximum flux rate for each application method from the collection of 1,3-D flux studies and 

worst-case meteorological conditions (light winds and stagnant conditions) to calculate peak air 

EECs, representing one-hour average concentrations. Documentation on the AERSCREEN 

model is available at http://www.epa.gov/scram001/dispersion_screening.htm. The exposure 

scenario evaluated in the Tier 1 analysis will assume that the terrestrial receptors are directly 

downwind from the emissions source. This is illustrated in Figure 8 below.

Figure 8. Schematic showing soil fumigant air exposure scenario due to volatilization and 

subsequent release from soil evaluated in Tier 1 analysis.

Wind, Dispersion, 

and 

Accumulation 

of Vapors or Gas

Volatilization of 

residues in soil

Soil incorporated and 

chemigation fumigant 

application
Page 31 of 58

If the Tier 1 EECs for either surface or incorporated applications result in an exceedance with the 

LOC, EECs will be further examined using the Tier 2 model, the Probablistic Exposure and Risk 

Model for Fumigants (PERFUM). PERFUM is parameterized by a time series of flux data 

obtained from field volatility studies. PERFUM considers these flux values with a robust 

statistical sampling of meteorological data from points within rings surrounding a treated field 

(usually 5 years of hourly meteorological data). The current version of PERFUM processes 

estimated air concentrations from EPA’s previously recommended atmospheric dispersion model 

in the near field, the Industrial Source Complex Short-Range Model, Version 3 (ISCST3). 

ISCST3 has since been replaced by the refined mode of AERSCREEN, the AERMOD model, as 

the recommended refined dispersion model in the near field. However, both ISCST3 and 

AERMOD are similar by that they both use Gaussian plume dispersion principles. The 

framework for PERFUM is illustrated in Figure9 below. Estimated air concentrations are 

calculated and binned by percentile distributions within each ring and averaging time period. 

First, a peak one-hour averaging period will be used to calculate air EECs. If necessary, a higher 

averaging period equivalent to the exposure duration in toxicity studies will be used to 

characterize the RQs resulting from utilizing the one-hour peak EECs. The highest 90th percentile 

estimated air concentration from all averaging periods from the receptor ring closest to the edge 

of the field will be considered as the upper-bound EEC to determine the RQ. The PERFUM 

model is publically available on the web from the follow link:

http://www.exponent.com/projectdetail.aspx?project=450. For this soil fumigant assessment, 

maximum air exposure will occur at the edge of the field corresponding to the where 1,3-D mass 

emissions from the treated field will accumulate to maximum levels along the fetch of wind 

blowing over the treated field.

Figure 9. Illustration of the spatial and temporal aspects of the source to receptor configuration in 

PERFUM. The wind rose (left) illustrates the frequency distribution of variations in wind speed and 

wind direction that PERFUM accounts for in the transport of the vapor plume from the treated 

source to receptors (right).

All modeling scenarios will be parameterized based on field volatility flux data normalized to an 

80 acre field. 

Receptor 

Rings

Treated 

Field
Page 32 of 58

For exposure to plant seedlings, EFED’s standard terrestrial plant exposure model, TerrPlant will 

be used. Although TerrPlant EECs are based on runoff, TerrPlant will capture the overall 

exposure of plant seedlings whether it occurs from diffusion in the gas phase or runoff of 

dissolved 1,3-D. The Agency is currently developing a replacement model for TerrPlant. If the 

replacement has been approved prior to the initiation of the risk assessment, this new model will 

be used instead.

8.3. Measures of Effect 

Toxicity data presented in Section 6 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk 

quotients. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open literature 

prior to conduct of the risk assessment will also be considered. The open literature studies are 

identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2007c), which employs 

a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and 

wildlife. The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight into the direct and 

indirect effects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that are sensitive to the 

chemicals and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the affected 

communities.

9. Endangered Species Assessments

Consistent with the Agency’s responsibility under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the

Agency will evaluate risks to species federally listed as threatened and/or endangered from 

registered uses of pesticides in registration review. The process for evaluating potential risks to 

listed species is further described at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/riskasses.htm. Both endangered species 

assessments previously conducted determined that 1,3-D may affect but is not likely to adversely 

affect the California red-legged frog, salmon or steelhead. 

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

1,3-D was not included in the first group of 67 chemicals issued an order to conduct Tier 1 EDSP 

testing. For additional information the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/. 

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

11.1. Environmental Fate

Table and Table 3. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for 1,3-D
Page 33 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

835.2120 Hydrolysis 158442 Acceptable No

835.2370 Air photolysis 117046 Supplemental No

40390101 Acceptable

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

42642301 Acceptable Yes An acceptable aerobic soil metabolism 

study has been previously submitted for 

two soils but the half-life estimates vary 

greatly, 14 days and 45 days. This 

results in a high 90th percentile average 

of 94 days, the value used as a model 

input parameter.

44630202 In review

835.4200 Anaerobic soil 

metabolism

40025901 Acceptable No

835.4400 Aerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

44975502 Acceptable No

835.4400 Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

40727 Supplemental No A sufficiently quantitative anaerobic 

aquatic metabolism study has not been 

submitted and 1,3-D will be considered 

stable to this pathway for the purposes 

of aquatic and drinking water exposure 

modeling. However, anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism is not expected to be a 

significant degradation pathway for 1,3-

D therefore more data is not expected to 

affect risk conclusions.

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching

40538901 Supplemental No

42515501 Acceptable –

Aged Column 

Leaching

835.6100 Terrestrial 

field 

dissipation

40403301 Supplemental No

40855501 Acceptable

45022301 Supplemental

835.7100 Prospective 

Ground Water

94726 Supplemental No

44939601 Supplemental

835.8100 Field Volatility 119187 Supplemental Yes A field volatility study for a tarped 

application at maximum labeled rate is 

needed. Tarped field volatility studies 

have been previously submitted but not 

at the maximum rate. Due to the high 

maximum application rate and the multipathway dissipation of 1,3-D, it is 

important to fully characterize each use 

pattern that can result in significantly 

different dissipation and volatility 

behavior.

42265701 Supplemental

42545101 Acceptable

42967601 Supplemental

44795602 Acceptable

45010501 Acceptable

45112901 Supplemental

45112902 Supplemental

45120701

45222501

Acceptable

45120702 Acceptable

45296101 Supplemental

94724 Acceptable
Page 34 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

41057701 Unacceptable

33253 Supplemental

47813901 In review

48085701 In review

850.6100 Water and Soil

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods

44536511 In review Yes A study has been submitted that will 

fulfill this data requirement if found to 

be acceptable. Pending review of the 

study, the data gap remains.

850.6100 Soil

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

44536508 In review Yes

Water

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

44536509 In review Yes

identify environmental fate studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, as 

well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to support risk 

assessment.

Table 3. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for 1,3-D

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

835.2120 Hydrolysis 158442 Acceptable No

835.2370 Air photolysis 117046 Supplemental No

40390101 Acceptable

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

42642301 Acceptable Yes An acceptable aerobic soil metabolism 

study has been previously submitted for 

two soils but the half-life estimates vary 

greatly, 14 days and 45 days. This 

results in a high 90th percentile average 

of 94 days, the value used as a model 

input parameter.

44630202 In review

835.4200 Anaerobic soil 

metabolism

40025901 Acceptable No

835.4400 Aerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

44975502 Acceptable No

835.4400 Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

40727 Supplemental No A sufficiently quantitative anaerobic 

aquatic metabolism study has not been 

submitted and 1,3-D will be considered 

stable to this pathway for the purposes 

of aquatic and drinking water exposure 

modeling. However, anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism is not expected to be a 

significant degradation pathway for 1,3-

D therefore more data is not expected to 

affect risk conclusions.
Page 35 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data 

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching

40538901 Supplemental No

42515501 Acceptable –

Aged Column 

Leaching

835.6100 Terrestrial 

field 

dissipation

40403301 Supplemental No

40855501 Acceptable

45022301 Supplemental

835.7100 Prospective 

Ground Water

94726 Supplemental No

44939601 Supplemental

835.8100 Field Volatility 119187 Supplemental Yes A field volatility study for a tarped 

application at maximum labeled rate is 

needed. Tarped field volatility studies 

have been previously submitted but not 

at the maximum rate. Due to the high 

maximum application rate and the multipathway dissipation of 1,3-D, it is 

important to fully characterize each use 

pattern that can result in significantly 

different dissipation and volatility 

behavior.

42265701 Supplemental

42545101 Acceptable

42967601 Supplemental

44795602 Acceptable

45010501 Acceptable

45112901 Supplemental

45112902 Supplemental

45120701

45222501

Acceptable

45120702 Acceptable

45296101 Supplemental

94724 Acceptable

41057701 Unacceptable

33253 Supplemental

47813901 In review

48085701 In review

850.6100 Water and Soil

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods

44536511 In review Yes A study has been submitted that will 

fulfill this data requirement if found to 

be acceptable. Pending review of the 

study, the data gap remains.

850.6100 Soil

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

44536508 In review Yes

Water

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

44536509 In review Yes
Page 36 of 58

Table 3. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for the Chemical 3-Chloroallyl Alcohol

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requireme

nt

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data

835.2120 Hydrolysis 44948601 Acceptable No

835.4100 Aerobic soil 

metabolism

--- --- Yes Aerobic soil metabolism data on CAAL 

and CAAC are necessary to characterize 

degradate fate and parameterize 

models. In the absence of degradate 

aerobic soil metabolism data, degradate 

aerobic aquatic metabolism studies can 

be used for metabolism characterization 

but does not necessarily accurately 

reflect soil metabolism. 1,3-D aerobic 

soil metabolism half-lives are 

significantly longer than 1,3-D aerobic 

aquatic half-lives and a similar 

relationship is possible for degradates.

Additionally, given the volatility of 

parent and degradate, the chemical can 

reside in the vadose zone above the 

water table and be more affected by soil 

metabolism rather than aquatic 

metabolism.

835.4300 Aerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism 

44975503 Acceptable No

835.4400 Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

--- --- Yes 1,3-D quickly degrades to the highly 

mobile and potentially persistent 

residues of concern, 3-chloroallyl 

alcohol and 3-chloroacryllic acid. These 

degradates have the potential to 

accumulate in groundwater where its 

only degradation pathways are 

hydrolysis and anaerobic metabolism. 

3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-

chloroacryllic acid are stable to 

hydrolysis allowing only for anaerobic 

metabolism as a possible degradation 

pathway in anaerobic aquifers. There is 

uncertainty relating to the anaerobic 

metabolism and the persistence or 

dissipation of this residue of concern 

depends on the characterization of this 

pathway
Page 37 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requireme

nt

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data

835.1230 Adsorption/ 

desorption

44940323 Supplemental No

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods

soil 44536501 In review Yes A study has been submitted that will 

fulfill this data requirement if found to 

be acceptable. Pending review of the 

study, the data gap remains.

Water 44536505 In review

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

Soil 44536502 In review Yes

Water 44536507 In review

A ND means “not yet determined; studies are in review.”

Table 4. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for the Chemical 3-Chloroacrylic Acid

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requireme

nt

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data

835.2120 Hydrolysis 44940321 Acceptable No

835.4100 Aerobic soil 

metabolism

--- --- Yes Aerobic soil metabolism data on CAAL 

and CAAC are necessary to characterize 

degradate fate and parameterize 

models. In the absence of degradate 

aerobic soil metabolism data, degradate 

aerobic aquatic metabolism studies can 

be used for metabolism characterization 

but does not necessarily accurately 

reflect soil metabolism. 1,3-D aerobic 

soil metabolism half-lives are 

significantly longer than 1,3-D aerobic 

aquatic half-lives and a similar 

relationship is possible for degradates.

Additionally, given the volatility of 

parent and degradate, the chemical can 

reside in the vadose zone above the 

water table and be more affected by soil 

metabolism rather than aquatic 

metabolism.

835.4300 Aerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism 

(degradate)

44975504 Acceptable No

835.4400 Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

--- --- Yes 1,3-D quickly degrades to the highly 

mobile and potentially persistent 

residues of concern, 3-chloroallyl 

alcohol and 3-chloroacryllic acid. These 

degradates have the potential to 

accumulate in groundwater where its 

only degradation pathways are 

hydrolysis and anaerobic metabolism. 

3-chloroallyl alcohol and 3-

chloroacryllic acid are stable to 

hydrolysis allowing only for anaerobic 

metabolism as a possible degradation 
Page 38 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requireme

nt

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions EPA 

will Make in Absence of Data

pathway in anaerobic aquifers. There is 

uncertainty relating to the anaerobic 

metabolism and the persistence or 

dissipation of this residue of concern 

depends on the characterization of this 

pathway.

835.1230 Adsorption/ 

desorption

44940322 Supplemental No

Environmental 

Chemistry 

Methods

Water and 

Soil

44536504 In review Yes A study has been submitted that will 

fulfill this data requirement if found to 

be acceptable. Pending review of the 

study, the data gap remains. Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation

Soil 44536503 In review Yes

Water 44536506 In review

11.2. Effects

Table 5 and Table 6 identify ecological effects studies by MRID that offer data for each 

guideline requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed 

in order to support risk assessment. Rationale for the additional data requested is presented below 

the tables.

For the major alcohol and acid degradates, toxicity data are available for freshwater fish, 

freshwater invertebrates, vascular and non-vascular aquatic plants, and terrestrial plants. Table 7

and Table 12 identify ecological effects studies that are needed for the effects assessment for the 

degradates.

Table 5. Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Chemical 1,3-D

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.1010 Freshwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

40098001 Supplemental No --

00117044 Supplemental

850.1025

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055

Saltwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity 

44843904 Acceptable No --

44843903 Acceptable

850.1075 Freshwater fish 

acute toxicity 

40098001 Supplemental No --

40098001 Supplemental

44849101 Acceptable

00039692 Acceptable

40098001 Supplemental
Page 39 of 58

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

STE0DI01

USEPA

1977

Acceptable

00117043 Supplemental

STE0DI02

USEPA

1977

Acceptable

00039692 Acceptable

850.1075 Saltwater fish 

acute toxicity 

44843901 Acceptable No --

850.1300 Freshwater 

invertebrate 

life cycle 

45007501 Supplemental No

850.1350 Saltwater 

invertebrates 

life cycle 

(None) (N/A) Yes In the absence of data EPA will use 

an acute to chronic ratio (ACR) to 

estimate a chronic endpoint for the 

saltwater invertebrate. 

850.1400 Freshwater fish 

early-life stage

45145001 Invalid Yes While environmental fate data 

suggest that, from a time standpoint, 

1,3-D may be short lived in the water 

column and not chronically 

persistent, chronic toxicity data for 

freshwater invertebrates and fish are 

essential for capturing any sublethal 

effects that 1,3-D may elicit. 

Sublethal exposures of aquatic 

species to 1,3-D at certain points of 

the life cycle may elicit effects on 

growth and reproduction. Currently, 

no data are available with which to 

assess sublethal effects of 1,3-D to 

aquatic species. 
Page 40 of 58

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.1400 Saltwater fish 

early-life stage

(None) (N/A) Yes While environmental fate data 

suggest that, from a time standpoint, 

1,3-D may be short lived in the water 

column and not chronically 

persistent, chronic toxicity data for 

freshwater invertebrates and fish are 

essential for capturing any sublethal 

effects that 1,3-D may elicit. 

Sublethal exposures of aquatic 

species to 1,3-D at certain points of 

the life cycle may elicit effects on 

growth and reproduction. Currently, 

no data are available with which to 

assess sublethal effects of 1,3-D to 

aquatic species. 

850.1500 Fish life cycle No --

850.4400 Aquatic plant 

Toxicity Test 

using Lemna 

spp.

44843914 Acceptable No --

850.4500 Algal toxicity 44940314 Acceptable No --

44843909 Supplemental

44843910 Acceptable

850.4550 Cyanobacteria 44843911 Acceptable No --

Table 6. Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for 1,3-D

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.2100 Avian oral 

toxicity

00118938 Acceptable No Though data are not available for a 

passerine species, oral toxicity studies 

do not assess the relevant exposure for 

1,3-D. Therefore, this study is not 

requested at this time. 

850.2200 Avian dietary 

toxicity 

00120907 Acceptable No --

00120908 Acceptable

850.2300 Avian 

reproduction

(None) (N/A) No
Page 41 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

NonguidelineAcute Avian 

inhalation

(None) (N/A) Yes Due to the fate properties of fumigants, 

in particular their high volatility, it is 

expected that birds will be exposed to 

fumigants in the vapor phase via 

inhalation. The standard toxicity 

studies with birds (i.e., acute oral and 

acute dietary) do not account for 

exposure to vapor phase pesticides. 

Therefore, to assess risks of 1,3-D to 

birds, EFED recommends that the 

Agency require a non-guideline avian 

inhalation study for 1,3-D. An acute 

avian inhalation study on oneupland 

game bird species is needed to 

establish LC50s.

850.3020 Honey bee 

acute contact 

toxicity

00018842 Acceptable No --

850.3030 Honey bee 

residue on 

foliage

(None) (N/A) No --

850.3040 Field testing 

for pollinators

(None) (N/A) No --

NonguidelineHoney bee 

acute vapor 

phase 

exposure

(None) (N/A) Yes Due to the fate properties of fumigants, 

in particular their high volatility, it is 

expected that honey bees and other 

insect pollinators will be exposed to 

fumigants in the vapor phase. Neither 

of the standard Tier I toxicity studies 

with honey bees (i.e., acute contact or 

acute oral toxicity study for honey 

bees) account for exposure to vapor 

phase pesticides. Therefore, to assess 

risks of 1,3-D to bees, EFED 

recommends that the Agency require a 

non-guideline acute honey bee vapor 

exposure study for 1,3-D, to be 

conducted in lieu of the normally 

required acute honey bee contact study 

that would fulfill the newly proposed 

requirements for oral toxicity tests 

including adult and larval honey bees. 

850.4100 Seedling 

Emergence

and Seedling 

Growth

45007502 Acceptable No --

850.4150 Vegetative 

Vigor

45007502 Acceptable No --
Page 42 of 58

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

NonguidelineTerrestrial 

plant vapor 

phase 

exposure

(None) (N/A) Yes Due to the fate properties of fumigants, 

in particular their high volatility, it is 

expected that terrestrial plants will be 

exposed to fumigants in the vapor 

phase. The standard toxicity studies 

with terrestrial plants (i.e., Tier I and II 

vegetative vigor) do not account for 

exposure to vapor phase pesticides. 

Therefore, to assess risks of 1,3-D to 

terrestrial plants, EFED recommends 

that the Agency require a nonguideline terrestrial plant vapor 

exposure study for 1,3-D. 

Table 7. Ecological Effects Data for the 1,3-D Degradate, 3-chloroallyl alcohol

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.1075 Freshwater fish 

acute toxicity 

44940306 Supplemental No --

850.1010 Freshwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

44843902 Supplemental No --

850.4400 Aquatic plant 

growth:

Tier II vascular 

plants

44940320 Supplemental No --

850.4500 Algal toxicity 44843913 Supplemental No --

44940315 Supplemental

44940316 Supplemental

850.4550 Cyanobacteria 44843902 Supplemental No --

Table 82. Ecological Effects Data for the 1,3-D Degradate, 3-chloroacrylic acid

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.1075 Freshwater fish 

acute toxicity 

44940307 Acceptable No --

850.1010 Freshwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

44940308 Acceptable No --
Page 43 of 58

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment?

Current Additional Data Need

850.4400 Aquatic plant 

growth:

Tier II vascular 

plants

45007504 Supplemental No --

850.4500 Algal toxicity 44940317 Supplemental No --

44940319 Supplemental

45007503 Supplemental

850.4550 Cyanobacteria 44940318 Supplemental No --

Guideline Number: N/A (Non-Guideline Study)

Study Title: Acute Avian Inhalation

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Volatilization is the major route of dissipation for 1,3-D. In order to determine toxicological 

responses associated with vapor exposure to 1,3-D, an acute avian inhalation study is being 

requested.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The acute avian inhalation data are needed to asses potential acute risks to birds associated with 

the inhalation route of exposure. The data will allow the Agency to better assess the risks to 

these organisms, including the likelihood of potential risks to endangered species, either by 

direct effects or by indirect effects such as reducing food sources to listed predators and 

scavengers. Results of this study would be used to calculate acute risks to birds from exposure 

to 1,3-D and to identify whether current labeling is appropriate and whether further mitigation is 

necessary.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

If the data indicate that 1,3-D poses a significant acute risk to birds, the Agency may explore 

additional decision options to minimize the risk of 1,3-D to these species. If future endangered 

species risk assessments are performed without these data, the Agency would have to assume 

that chloropicrin "may affect” birds directly and other endangered species indirectly through loss 

of prey. The lack of these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in 

complying with the Endangered Species Act and could result in inappropriate mitigation 

measures.

Guideline Number: N/A (Non-Guideline Study)

Study Title: Acute Honey Bee Vapor Exposure Study

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Due to the fate properties of fumigants, in particular their high volatility, it is expected that 

honey bees and other insect pollinators will be exposed to fumigants in the vapor phase. Neither 

of the standard Tier I toxicity studies with honey bees (i.e., acute contact or acute oral toxicity 
Page 44 of 58

study for honey bees) account for exposure to vapor phase pesticides. Therefore, to assess risks 

of 1,3-D to bees, EFED recommends that the Agency require a non-guideline acute honey bee 

vapor exposure study for 1,3-D, to be conducted in lieu of the newly proposed requirements for 

oral toxicity tests including adult and larval honey bees. 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Data from an acute honey bee vapor exposure study will be used to determine the potential for 

1,3-D to affect non-target terrestrial invertebrates in the terrestrial environment. Of particular 

interest is quantification of a toxicity endpoint, i.e., a 4-hour LC50, that can be used to derive 

risk quotients. In the absence of vapor exposure data specific for honey bees, risk to terrestrial 

invertebrates, including listed species, will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

If future ecological risk assessments are performed without these data, the Agency would have 

to presume risk to non-target terrestrial invertebrates, including honey bees, from use of 1,3-D. 

Therefore, use of 1,3-D and its formulated products may need to be restricted in areas where 

terrestrial invertebrates, including honey bees, could be exposed. The lack of these data will 

limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in mitigating potential risks and could result 

in use restrictions for 1,3-D that are unnecessarily severe.

Guideline Number: N/A (Non-Guideline Study)

Study Title: Terrestrial Plant Vapor Exposure Study

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Due to the fate properties of fumigants, in particular their high volatility, it is expected that 

terrestrial plants will be exposed to fumigants in the vapor phase. The standard toxicity studies 

with terrestrial plants (i.e., Tier I and II vegetative vigor) do not account for exposure to vapor 

phase pesticides. Therefore, to assess risks of 1,3-D to terrestrial plants, EFED recommends that 

the Agency require a non-guideline terrestrial plant vapor exposure study for 1,3-D. 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Data from a terrestrial plant vapor exposure study will be used to determine the potential for 1,3-

D to affect non-target terrestrial plants in the terrestrial environment. Of particular interest is 

quantification of a toxicity endpoint, i.e., a 4-hour IC25, that can be used to derive risk quotients. 

In the absence of vapor exposure data specific for plants, risk to plants, including listed species, 

will be assumed.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

If future ecological risk assessments are performed without these data, the Agency would have 

to presume risk to non-target terrestrial plants from use of 1,3-D. Therefore, use of 1,3-D and its 

formulated products may need to be restricted in areas where terrestrial plants could be exposed. 

The lack of these data will limit the flexibility the Agency and registrants have in mitigating 

potential risks and could result in use restrictions for 1,3-D that are unnecessarily severe.

Guideline Number: 835.8100

Study Title: Field Volatility Study

Rationale for Requiring the Data
Page 45 of 58

A field volatility study for a tarped application at maximum labeled rate is needed. Tarped field 

volatility studies have been previously submitted but not at the maximum rate. Due to the high 

maximum application rate and the multi-pathway dissipation of 1,3-D, it is important to fully 

characterize each use pattern that can result in significantly different dissipation and volatility 

behavior.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Data will be used to characterize the environmental fate of 1,3-D in tarped applications. How 

much 1,3-D dissipates through volatilization, leaching, and degradation for tarped applications 

will be determined from the study.

How could the data impact the Agency’s future decision-making?

Field volatility strongly informs the risk characterization of fumigant pesticides. The EFED 

standard model for aquatic exposure, PRZM-EXAMS, does not provide as reliable estimates for 

fumigants as it does for less volatile pesticides. Because of this, field studies are relied upon, 

quantitatively, which can impact the calculation of risk quotients and the eventual risk 

conclusions. 

12. References 

Cox, C. 1992. 1,3-Dichloropropene: Journal of Pesticide Reform. 12 (1):33-37 and references 

therein. Available at http://www.pesticide.org/dichloropropene.pdf

Dow AgroSciences’ Responses to Information Needs for the Registration Review of 1,3-D

(Telone®) May 30, 2013

Jones, R.D. et al., 2000. Guidance for use of the Index Reservoir and Percent Crop Area Factor 

in Drinking Water Assessments (March 21, 2000). Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Arlington, VA.

Terry, A. et al. 2008. An monitoring programme for 1,3-dichloropropene and metabolites in 

groundwater in five EU countries. Pest Management Science. 64: 923-932.

EFSA. 2009. Conclusion on the peer review of the pesticide risk assessment of the active 

substance (EZ)-1,3-dichloroprone. European Food Safety Authority, Parma, Italy. 

Available at http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/doc/1341.pdf

USEPA. 1999. Guidance for Use of the Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Exposure 

Assessments. Arlington, VA.

USEPA. 2000. Drinking Water Screening Level Assessment. Part A: Applying a Percent Crop 

Area Adjustment to Tier II Surface Water Model Estimates for Pesticide Drinking Water 
Page 46 of 58

Exposure Assessments. FQPA Science Policy Document .Public Comment Draft 

September 1, 2000. Federal Register: October 11, 2000 (volume 65, number 197). 

Electronic copy available at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/trac/science/ .

USEPA. 2002a. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate 

and Transport of Pesticides, Version II (February 28, 2002). Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Arlington, VA.

U.S. EPA. 2002b. Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM) Field and Orchard Crop Scenarios: 

Standard Procedures for Conducting Quality Control and Quality Assurance. Office of 

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

Protection Agency. Arlington, VA. 

U.S. EPA. 2003b. Use of Regional Percent Crop Area Factors in Refined Drinking Water 

Assessments. US EPA Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), Environmental Fate and 

Effects Division (EFED), Water Quality Technical Team (WQTT). Arlington, VA

USEPA, 2003c. SCI-GROW 2.3: Windows Version of SCI-GROW. September 30, 2003. Office 

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

Protection Agency. Arlington, VA. 

USEPA. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide 

Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf.

USEPA. 2004. Analysis of Risks to Endangered and Threatened Salmon and Steelhead. Office of 

Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. Available at 

http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/effects/#1,3-d.

USEPA. 2007. Environmental Risk Assessment for Proposed Section 3 New Use Registration of 

1,3-Dichloropropene in Drip Irrigation in Grapes. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Arlington, VA.

USEPA. 2008. Risks of Telone Use to the Federally Threatened California Red-legged Frog. 

Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. 

Available at http://www.epa.gov/oppfead1/endanger/litstatus/effects/redlegfrog/index.html#telone. 

USEPA. 2010. National-scale assessment of Telone in karst area ground water. Office of 

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

Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. 

USEPA. 2013. BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review: 1,3-Dichloropropene (1,3-D) 

(029001). Office of Pesticide Programs, Biological and Economic Analysis Division, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Arlington, VA. 
Page 47 of 58

USEPA. 2013b. Guidance for Conducting Fumigant Exposure Assessments in Ecological Risk 

Assessments. Draft Interim Divisional Guidance. Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Draft October 10, 2012.

US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5267, Anthropogenic Organic

Compounds in Ground Water and Finished Water of Community Water Systems in the

Northern Tampa Bay Area, Florida, 2 02-04
Page 48 of 58

Appendix A- OPPIN Bibliography

029001 1,3-Dichloropropene Eco Effects Bibliography

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

118938 Fink, R.; Beavers, J.; Joiner, G.; et al. (1982) Acute Oral LD50--

Bobwhite Quail: Telone II Soil Fumigant: Project No. 103-207. 

Final rept. (Unpublished study received Sep 22, 1982 under 464-

EX-63; prepared by Wildlife International Ltd., submitted by Dow 

Chemical U.S.A., Midland, MI; CDL:248415-C) 

119181 Ross, D.; Cameron, M.; Roberts, N. (1977) The Acute Oral 

Toxicity (LD50) of Vorlex to the Mallard Duck According to E.P.A. 

Guide- lines: SHG 135-WL/77331. (Unpublished study received 

Nov 29, 1977 under 2139-55; prepared by Huntingdon Research 

Centre, Eng., submitted by Nor-Am Agricultural Products, Inc., 

Naper- ville, IL; CDL:232346-B) 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

52564 or 

120908

Fink, R. (1975) Final Report: Eight-Day Dietary LCI50^--Mallard 

Ducks: Project No. 103-150. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 

1980 under 464-EX-63; prepared by Truslow Farms, Inc., 

submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; 

CDL:099515-U) 

52565 or 

120907

Fink, R. (1975) Final Report: Eight-Day Dietary LCI50^--Bobwhite 

Quail: Project No. 103-149. (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 

1980 under 464-EX-63; prepared by Truslow Farms, Inc., 

submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; 

CDL:099515-V) 

119183 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, M. (1977) The Subacute 

Toxicity (LC50) of Vorlex to the Pheasant: SHG 135-WL/77647. 

(Unpub- lished study received Nov 29, 1977 under 2139-55; 

prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., submitted by 

Nor-Am Agricul- tural Products, Inc., Naperville, IL; CDL:232346-

D) 

119185 Ross, D.; Roberts, N.; Cameron, M. (1977) The Subacute 

Toxicity (LC50) of Vorlex to the Mallard Duck: SHG 135-

WL/77637. (Unpub- lished study received Dec 15, 1977 under 

2139-55; prepared by Huntingdon Research Centre, Eng., 
Page 49 of 58

submitted by Nor-Am Agricul- tural Products, Inc., Naperville, IL; 

CDL:232497-B) 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

39692 Bentley, R.E. (1975) Acute Toxicity of M-3993 to Bluegill 

(?~Lepomis macrochirus~?) and Rainbow Trout (?~Salmo gaird-

?~neri~?). (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1980 under 464-

EX-63; prepared by Bionomics, EG&G, submitted by Dow 

Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:099515-T)

109669 Stevenson, D.; Reiff, B. (1975) Soil Fumigant D.D.; Its Toxicity to 

Fish: GRR-TLGR.0035.75. (Unpublished study received Sep 5, 

1978 under 201-119; prepared by Shell Research Ltd., Eng., 

submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:235252-

F) 

109671 Reiff, B.; Thorpe, E.; Rees, H. (1978) The Acute Toxicity of 1,3-

Dichloropropene to the Golden Orfe (Idus idus melanotus): Group 

Research Report TLGR.0057.78. (Unpublished study received 

Sep 5, 1978 under 201-119; prepared by Shell Research Ltd., 

Eng., submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:235252-H) 

117040 see 

117044

Dow Chemical U.S.A. (1980) (Telone II Toxicity Data--Water 

Flea and Other Freshwater Species). (Compilation; unpublished 

study re- ceived Sep 22, 1982 under 464-EX-63; CDL:248415-A) 

117043 Buccafusco, R.; Ells, S.; LeBlanc, G. (1981) Acute toxicity of 

priority pollutants to bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). Bull. 

Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 26:446-452. (Also In unpublished 

submission received Sep 22, 1982 under 464-EX-63; submitted 

by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, MI; CDL:248415-E) 

119175 Cope, O. (1968) Letter sent to R. Glasser dated Jun 7, 1968 

?Tox- icity data of D-D to specific fish|. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1975 under 201-119; prepared by U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Fish Pesticide Research Laboratory, submitted 

by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:225436-B) 

119177 Stevenson, D. (1975) Soil Fumigant D.D: Its Toxicity to Fish: 

GRR- TLGR.0035.75. (Unpublished study received Dec 12, 1975 

under 201-111; prepared by Shell Research, Ltd., Eng., 

submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:225436-

D) 
Page 50 of 58

159224 Fraser, W.; Pell, I. (1977) The Acute Toxicity of Vorlex to the 

Bluegill Sunfish, the Mirror Carp, the Rainbow Trout: 

SHG126FT/77272. Unpublished study prepared by Huntingdon 

Re- search Centre. 15 p. 

Vorlex = mixture with MITC

ACC 230287 

MITC study

Fraser, W.; Pell, I. (1977) The Acute Toxicity of 

Methylisothiocyanate to Bluegill Sunfish, the Mirror Carp, the 

Rainbow Trout: 11p. Submitted by Nor-Am Core Agricultural, Inc. 

2139-55, 5/27/77 (230287). 

44849101 Kirk, H.; Hugo, J.; Marino, T. (1999) Telone II Soil Fumigant: An 

Acute Toxicity Study with the Bluegill Sunfish Lepomis 

macrochirus Rafinesque: Lab Project Number: 981185. 

Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences, LLC. 39 p. 

44940306 Marino, T.; Kirk, H.; Hugo, J. (1999) 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL: An 

Acute Toxicity Study with the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus 

mykiss Walbaum: Lab Project Number: 991005. Unpublished 

study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 38 p. 

44940307 Marino, T.; Kirk, H.; Hugo, J. (1999) 3-Chloroacrylic Acid: An 

Acute Toxicity Study with the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus 

mykiss Walbaum: Lab Project Number: 991041. Unpublished 

study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 36 p. 

TN 1118 U.S. EPA (1977) Report on the Toxicology of dichloropropene 

92% Active Ingredient to Bluegill. (U.S. EPA, Chemical and 

Biological Investigations Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, Static Jar, 

Test No. 1118, 10/4/77, Unpublished Report).

TN 1083 U.S. EPA (1977) Report on the Toxicology of dichloropropene 

92% Active Ingredient to Rainbow Trout. (U.S. EPA, Chemical 

and Biological Investigations Branch, Beltsville, Maryland, Static 

Jar, Test No. 1083, 10/4/77, Unpublished Report).

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of 

Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160. 579 p.

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference

117040- see 

117044

Dow Chemical U.S.A. (1980) (Telone II Toxicity Data--Water 

Flea and Other Freshwater Species). (Compilation; unpublished 

study re- ceived Sep 22, 1982 under 464-EX-63; CDL:248415-A) 

117044 LeBlanc, G. (1980) Acute toxicity of priority pollutants to water 

flea (Daphnia magna). Bull. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 24:684-

691. (Also In unpublished submission received Sep 22, 1982 

under 464-EX-63; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, 

MI; CDL:248415-F) 

119186 Morrissey, A. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Vorlex to the Water 
Page 51 of 58

Flea ...: Flow-through Test: UCES Project No. 11506-74. 

(Unpublished study received Jun 5, 1979 under 2139-55; 

prepared by Union Carbide Corp., submitted by Nor-Am 

Agricultural Products, Inc., Naperville, IL; CDL:238635-A) 

44843902 Marino, T.; Kirk, H.; Hugo, J. (1999) 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL: An 

Acute Toxicity Study with Daphnia, Daphnia magna Straus: Lab 

Project Number: 991006. Unpublished study prepared by The 

Dow Chemical Co. 44 p. 

44940308 Marino, T.; Kirk, H.; Rick, D. (1999) 3-Chloroacrylic Acid: An 

Acute Toxicity Study with the Daphnia, Daphnia magna Straus: 

Lab Project Number: 991042. Unpublished study prepared by 

Dow Chemical Co. 47 p. 

40098001 Mayer, F.; Ellersieck, M. (1986) Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of 

Freshwater Animals. US Fish & Wildlife Service, Resource Publication 160. 579 p.

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

117042 Heitmuller, P.; Hollister, T.; Parrish, P. (1981) Acute toxicity of 54 

industrial chemicals to sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon 

variegatus). Bull. Environm. Contam. Toxicol. 27:596-604. (Also 

In unpublished submission received Sep 22, 1982 under 464-

EX-63; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, MI; CDL: 

248415-D) 

44843901 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) Telone II: A 96-Hour FlowThrough Acute Toxicity Test with the Sheepshead Minnow 

(Cyprinodon variegatus): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 

103A-110: 103/090198/SHE96H2. Unpublished study prepared 

by Wildlife International Ltd. 62 p. {OPPTS 850.1075} 

44843903 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) Telone II: A 96-Hour Shell 

Deposition Test with the Eastern Oyster (Crassostrea virginica): 

Final Report: Lab Project Number: 103A-111. Unpublished study 

prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 60 p. {OPPTS 850.1025} 

44843904 Drottar, K.; Krueger, H. (1999) Telone II: A 96-Hour FlowThrough Acute Toxicity Test with the Saltwater Mysid 

(Mysidopsis bahia): Final Report: Lab Project Number: 103A-109. 

Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd. 62 p. 

{OPPTS 850.1035} 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle 

Study

MRID Citation Reference
Page 52 of 58

39692 Bentley, R.E. (1975) Acute Toxicity of M-3993 to Bluegill 

(?~Lepomis macrochirus~?) and Rainbow Trout (?~Salmo gaird-

?~neri~?). (Unpublished study received Jul 22, 1980 under 464-

EX-63; prepared by Bionomics, EG&G, submitted by Dow 

Chemical U.S.A., Midland, Mich.; CDL:099515-T) 

45007501 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Marino, T.; et al. (1999) Evaluation of the 

Chronic Toxicity of Telone II Soil Fumigant to the Daphnid, 

Daphnia magna Straus: Lab Project Number: 981201: 991086. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 61 p. 

45145001 Marino, T.; Kirk, H.; Hugo, J. et al. (2000) Telone II Soil 

Fumigant: Toxicity to the Early Life Stages of the Fathead 

Minnow, Pimephales promelas Rafinesque: Lab Project Number: 

991081. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical 

Company. 60 p. 

122-1 Seed Germination/Seedline Emergence and Vegetable 

Vigor

MRID Citation Reference

45007502 Schwab, D. (1999) Effect of 1,3-Dichloropropene, 3-Chloroallyl 

Alcohol, and 3-Chloroacrylic Acid on the Emergence and 

Vegetative Vigor of Non-Target Terrestrial Plants: Lab Project 

Number: 45386: 990043. Unpublished study prepared by ABC 

Labs., Inc. 157 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225} 

122-2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference

44588903 van Dijk, A. (1990) W141 Methyl Isothiocyanate: Acute Toxicity 

of Methyl Isothiocyanate (MITC) to Scenedesmus subspicatus 

(OECD Algae Growth Inhibition Test): Lab Project Number: TB 

88025: RCC 219003. Unpublished study prepared by RCC 

Umweltchemie AG. 46 p. 

123-1 Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegitative 

vigor

MRID Citation Reference

45007502 Schwab, D. (1999) Effect of 1,3-Dichloropropene, 3-Chloroallyl 

Alcohol, and 3-Chloroacrylic Acid on the Emergence and 
Page 53 of 58

Vegetative Vigor of Non-Target Terrestrial Plants: Lab Project 

Number: 45386: 990043. Unpublished study prepared by ABC 

Labs., Inc. 157 p. {OPPTS 850.4100, 850.4225} 

123-2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference

44843909 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of Telone II Soil Fumigant Exposed Freshwater 

Diatom Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 991178. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 98118 p. 

44843910 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of Telone II Soil Fumigant Exposed Saltwater Diatom, 

Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 981168. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 38 p 

44843911 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of Telone II Soil Fumigant Exposed Bluegreen Alga, 

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: 981177. Unpublished 

study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 39 p. 

44843912 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL Exposed Bluegreen Alga, 

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: 991003. Unpublished 

study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 41 p. 

44843913 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL Exposed Freshwater 

Diatom, Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 991004. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 42 p. 

44843914 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of Telone II Soil Fumigant Exposed Aquatic Plant, 

Duckweed, Lemna gibba L. G-3: Lab Project Number: 981165. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 42 p. 

44940314 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of Telone II Soil Fumigant Exposed Freshwater Green 

Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 

981159. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 38 p. 

44940315 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL Exposed Freshwater 

Green Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project 

Number: 991002. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical 

Co. 44 p. 

44940316 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL Exposed Saltwater 

Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 991010. 

Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 41 p. 

44940317 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid Exposed Freshwater Diatom, 
Page 54 of 58

Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 991058. Unpublished 

study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 44 p. 

44940318 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid Exposed Bluegreen Alga, 

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: 991066. Unpublished 

study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 40 p. 

44940319 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid Exposed Freshwater Green 

Alga, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 

991065. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 43 p. 

44940320 Kirk, H.; Hugo, M.; Gilles, M. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroprop-2-EN-1-OL Exposed Aquatic Plant, 

Duckweed, Lemna gibba L. G-3: Lab Project Number: 991030. 

Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 53 p. 

45007503 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; McClymont, E.; et al. (1999) 

Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid Exposed 

Saltwater Diatom, Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 

991067. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 

40 p. 

45007504 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1999) Phytotoxicological 

Evaluation of 3-Chloroacrylic Acid Exposed Aquatic Plant, 

Duckweed, Lemna gibba L. G-3: Lab Project Number: 991059. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 53 p. 

44901710 Smyth, D.V., S.J. Kent and N. Shillabeer (1997?) MNBA: Toxicity 

to the Green Alga Selenastrum capricornutum. Brixham 

Environmental Laboratory, Devon, England. Laboratory ID 

BL6066/B. Sponsor: Zeneca Ag Products, Wilmington, DE.

141-1 Acute Toxicity to Honeybees

18842 Atkins, E.L., Jr., L.D. Anderson and E.A. Greywood (1969) Effect 

of Pesticides on Apiculture: Project No. 1499; Research Report 

CF-7501. (Unpublished Study Received May 8, 1971 under 

1F1174, Prepared by Univ. of California – Riverside, Dept. of 

Entomology, Submitted by Ciba Agrochemical Co., summit, NJ, 

CDL:090973-B).

28772 Atkins, E.L., Jr., E.A. Greywood and R.L. Macdonald (1973) 

Toxicity of Pesticides and Other Agricultural Chemicals to Honey 

Bees: laboratory Studies. Rev. by Univ. of California – Riverside, 

Dept. of Entomology. Riverside, Calif: UC, Agricultural Extension 

Service. (Also In Unpublished Submission Received Apr 2, 1980 

under 464-556, Submitted by Dow Chemical USA, Midland, Mich. 

CDL:242149-Z).

66708 Atkins, E.L., Jr., L.D. Anderson and E.A. Greywood (1969) Effect 

of Pesticides on Apiculture: Project No. 1499; No. 2177. Annual 

Report (Unpublished Study Including Submitter Summary 

Received August 8, 1971 under 1G1055, Prepared by Univ. of 

California – Riverside, Dept. of Entomology, Submitted by 

Thompson Hayward Chemical Co., Atlanta, GA CDL:091888-H).
Page 55 of 58

Non Guideline Selections

42299400 Washington State Dept. of Health (1992) Submission of a sheep 

kill incident report for Telone II fumigant. Transmittal of 1 incident. 

42299401 Washington State Dept. of Health (1989) Report of Investigation 

by the State of Washington as a Result of a Sheep Kill Where an 

Area was Fumigated with Telone II. Unpublished study. 32 p. 

45106202 Stott, W.; Gollapudi, B. (2000) Mammalian and Environmental 

Toxicity of 1,3-Dichloropropene Metabolites: 3-Chloroallyl Alcohol 

and Chloroacrylic Acid: Lab Project Number: BAH042600-02. 

Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Company. 16 

p. 

117047 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980) Ambient Water 

Quality Criteria for Dichloropropane and Dichloropropene. By 

Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Criteria and 

Standards Div., Office of Research and Development, 

Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Carcinogen 

Assessment Group, Environmental Research Laboratories. 

Washington, DC: USEPA. (EPA 440/5-80-043, available from: US 

Department of Commerce, National Technical Information 

Service, Springdale, VA 22161, Published Study CDL:248417-B
Page 56 of 58

Appendix B- SIP and STIR Outputs

STIR

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name 1,3-D

Enter Chemical Use Fumigant

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 110.97

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 2.30E+01

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 774.65

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 152

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 224

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 3.31

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 1.37E+05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.73E+04

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.25E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.38E+03 Proceed to Refinements

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 8.19E+01

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 6.54E+00 Proceed to Refinements

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 1.37E+05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 2.17E+04

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.97E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.10E+02 Proceed to Refinements

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.03E+02

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 5.22E-01 Proceed to Refinements
Page 57 of 58

SIP

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name 1,3-D

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 2200

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 224

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian 

species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 5

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian 

species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 152

Avian test species northern bobwhite quail

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 0

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 0

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species

Body weight (g) of other avian species

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird 

species

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 378.4000 378.4000

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 172.2920 3.8458

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 2.1963 98.3930

Conclusion*

Exposure through 

drinking water alone is a 

potential concern for 

mammals

Exposure through 

drinking water alone is a 

potential concern for 

mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 1782.0000 1782.0000

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 109.5053 0.0000
Page 58 of 58

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 16.2732 0.0000

Conclusion*

Exposure through 

drinking water alone is a 

potential concern for 

birds

Due to insufficient data, 

risk cannot be precluded

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. 

Therefore, when aggregated with other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through 

drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.