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

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION



### MEMORANDUM

DATE:

SUBJECT:

TO:

AND:

FROM: 

### December 12, 2013

Tier IIII Estimated Drinking Waters Concentrations of Flutolanil for the

New Uses on Peanuts (Banded Applications), Brassica Leafy Vegetables (Crop Group 5) Plus Turnip Greens, Turf and Ornamentals for the Product Convoy® Fungicide, and for Increased the Annual Rate on Turf for the

Product ProStar® 70WP Fungicide · 

### (PC Code 128975; OP Barcodes 0414000, 0414001)

Erin Malone, Risk Manager Reviewer

William Cutchin, Review Manager #20 Cynthia Giles-Parker, Branch Chief Fungicide Branch Registration Division (7505P)

Jill Bloom, Chemical Review Manager

Tom Myers, Team Leader

Kevin Costello, Branch Chief

Risk Management and Implementation Branch II

Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (7508P)

Barry O'Keefe, Senior Biologist Christine Olinger, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch III

Health Effects Division (7509P)

Jose L. Melendez, Chemist

# ~**~~** Environmental Risk Branch V

-
. . . . 

# 2f

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED BY: 

### Mah T. Shamim, Ph.D., Branch Chief

Environmental Risk Branch V

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

This memorandum presents the Tier IIII Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for

flutolanil (CAS No. 66332-96-5), calculated using the Tier I Rice Model v.l.O (surface waters),

1

### 2 the Tier I I PRZM/EXAMS models (surface wate rs)

, the Tier I/II model PRZM

- GW (in the Tier I mode)

, and the Tier I groundwater model SCI

- GROW for use in the human health risk assessment. The registrant seeks to include the new uses of the chemical on peanuts ( via banded applications since various ot her methods of application are already approved for peanuts ), brassica leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5) plus turnip greens, turf and ornamentals in the product Convoy ® 

### Fungicide, and to double the annual rate on turf in the product ProStar ® 

### 70WP Fungicide

.

F or flutolanil , the results of this Drinking Waters Assessment (DWA) show that for surface water, the maximum acute Estimated Drinking Waters Concentration (EDWC) is 531 ppb of

flutolanil , which is associated with the use on rice ; the chronic value is ≤ 531 ppb . The maximum groundwater screening EDWC for acute exposure is 2730 ppb and the chronic value is 2530 ppb

, associated with the use on turf ( Table 1 )

.

A more definitive assessment may be performed, using Tier II aquatic models PRZM/EXAMS with regio nal PCAs, or use of the tier II tool PFAM for the use on rice (surface waters), and

additional refinement strategies with PRZM

- GW (groundwater)

. Should any questions arise, please, contact José Meléndez at melendez.jose@epa.gov

.

There are no major data gaps for flutolanil . However, certain uncertainties have been identified

in the database as shown and detailed below

.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Flutolanil ( α
, α
, α

- Trifluoro

- 3′

- isopropoxy

- o

- toluanilide, PC Code 128 975) is a syst emic fungicide pesticide for the control of a number of diseases

. Th e Fungicide Resistance Action Committee

classified it as FRAC Code 7 . Its target site of action is Complex II; succinate

- dehydrogenase respiration inhibitor ( SDHI)

. Flutolanil belongs to the chemical group phenyl

- benzamide

. Medium

- high risk resistance management is required for th is chemical ( Figure 1 )

.

Figure 1. Structure of Flutolanil

According to the recent “ Problem Formulation for the Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment in Support of the Registration Review of Flutolanil ” (DP Barcode D 349574

, 06/09/2008), uses approved for the chemical include among others potatoes and potato seed piece treatment, rice, peanuts, turf and ornamentals . Other uses have been approved since the problem formulation was issued

. In the current Section 3 New Use requests, t he registrants (Nichino America and Bayer CropScience), are requesting n ew u se s on brassica leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5) plus turnip greens, peanuts (via banded applications, but at the same maximum F F

F O N H O

C H 3 C H 3

### 3 per acre rate than previously approved), turf and ornamentals in the product Convoy ® 

### Fungicide. Furthermore, they are requesting to d ouble the yearly rate on turf in the product ProStar ® 

### 70WP Fungicide via addition of a second chemical treatment or application per year ( Table 2 )

.

Exposure to surface water is possible through surface water runoff, soil erosion and/or off

- target spray dr ift , or it may be directly applied to water on rice. Flutolanil has a moderate solubility, has a low propensity to volatilize, and will remain in the aqueous phase based on the low Henry's

Law Co nstant . In laboratory tests, flutolanil was resistant to hy drolysis at all pHs tested and to photolysis in water and on soil. Flutolanil also appears to be relatively resistant to aerobic and anaerobic degradation in both soils and aquatic environments with half

- lives greater than 200 days in soils and greater th an one year in water.

The Health Effects Division ’s (HED) Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) met

on 12/16/1999 and concluded that only the parent needs be included in drinking water exposure

assessment s for flutolanil (memorandum from Manying Z ue to George Kramer dated 01/06/2000, DP Barcode D261391)

. Therefore, n o degradates were modeled in this assessment. In previous DWAs, EDWCs were calculated for the uses on several of the uses of flutolanil. There is no readily available monitoring info rmation about flutolanil; therefore, results shown in this DWA are based on modeling only

. In this DWA, EDWCs were calculated for the use s with the maximum application rate s: for PRZM/EXAMS , the use on turf was modeled since it is the use with the highest rate among all crops; further, for the use on rice

, an update from previously reported EDWCs, using the Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 wa s reported ; finally

, f or groundwater, the

use of PRZM

- GW was implemented and EDWCs are reported rela tive to the use on turf

.

Results obtained from the models that yielded the highest EDWCs are summarized in Table 1

and results from all models are provided later in this review. A more definitive assessment could be performed, for example, using Tier II aquatic models PRZM/EXAMS with regional PCAs, or PFAM for the use on rice (surface waters), and performing additional refinements with PRZM

GW (groundwater)

.

Table 1. Maximum Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for drinking water human

health risk assessment based on ground application of flutolanil on turf and ground/aerial application

on rice
Drinking Water

Source Model Scenario /Use 1 Acute (ppb) Chronic (ppb) Cancer/Chronic (ppb)

Surface water Tier 1 Rice Model Rice 531 <531

Groundwater PRZM

- GW WI Sand Turf 2730 2530

1 F or rice the rate is 0.980 lb a.i./season ; meanwhile , f or the use on turf, the application rate is 17.1 lb a.i./A/year

.



### Uncertainties

Even though the database for flutolanil is substantially complete, one major limitation of the aquatic metabolism studies is that they were conducted for short periods of time, relative to the

half

- lives derived from the studies. There is only one aerobic aquatic metabolism study; thus the input value in EFED’s models w as three times the available half

- life. Other limitations of the aquatic models used in this DWA ( e.g. , Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 and PRZM

- GW v.1.01 ), are described in the characterization section.

### 4 PROBLEM FORMULATION

T he purpose of this DWA is to assess th e proposed new uses for flutolanil and update EDWCs accordingly. Previous assessments have been conducted for this chemical and this DWA builds upon their results. EDWCs w ere obtained based on modeling, as opposed to monitoring , due to

the absence of rea dily available monitoring data for this chemical . Flutolanil may reach drinking waters via runoff or drift. It may also be directly applied to water on rice.

Background

Previous DWAs have been conducted for several uses of flutolanil. A summary of suc h assessments is provided in the Problem Formulation for the chemical (DP Barcode D 349574

, dated 06/09/2008 )

. Since the latest DWA ( DP Barcodes D370201, D376798 ; date d 07/21/2010)

, the regis trant has proposed to include banded applications on peanuts, add uses on brassica (cole) leafy vegetables, narrow slightly the range of application rates on rice, and to double the application rate on turf by adding an additional application at the maximum rate to the products Convoy ® 

### Fungicide and ProStar ® 

### 70 WP Fungicide . Since previous DWAs have been issued, a new version of the Tier 1 Rice Model replaced the Interim Rice Model and the groundwater

PRZM

- GW ha ve been approved for use in EFED. This DWA reflect s those changes

. There is

no additional or new environmental fate data included in this assessment.

Use Characterization

Use Information

A summary table of all use patterns in the proposed labels , highlighting modeled uses , and shading crops for which changes are proposed , is presented below ( Table 2 ). The two labels

involved in this action are Convoy ® 

### Fungicide (or Flutolanil 40SC Fungicide) (EPA Reg. No.

71711

- 28) and ProStar ® 

### 70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432

- 1223 ). ProStar ® 

### 70 WP Fungicide is packaged in wate r soluble bags, containing 70.0% A.I. Convoy ® 

### is a suspension concentrate containing 3.8 lb a.i./gallon or 40.0% active ingredient

.

Table 2 . Summary new use information for f lutolanil , based on the proposed C onvoy ® 

### Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 71711

- 28) and ProStar ® 

### 70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432

- 1223) labels

. C hanges in the

label are shaded ; modeled uses are bolde d.

USE SINGLE

APP. RATE (lbs. a.i./A) NUMBER

OF APPS.

AT MAX

RATE MAXIMUM

SEASONAL

APP. RATE (lbs. a.i./A) MINIMUM

INTERVAL

BETWEEN

APP S . (days) APP. METHOD INCORPO

- RATION

DEPTH (inches)

Rice A 0.356

- 0.980

0.356

- 0.490
(one or two application

programs available) 1

2 0.980

0.980 N/A

10

- 14 Ground or aerial ; 1 st
application 7

- 14 days after panicle

differentiation 0

### 5 Table 2 . Summary new use information for f lutolanil , based on the proposed C onvoy ® 

### Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 71711

- 28) and ProStar ® 

### 70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432

- 1223) labels

. C hanges in the

label are shaded ; modeled uses are bolde d.

USE SINGLE

APP. RATE (lbs. a.i./A) NUMBER

OF APPS.

AT MAX

RATE MAXIMUM

SEASONAL

APP. RATE (lbs. a.i./A) MINIMUM

INTERVAL

BETWEEN

APP S . (days) APP. METHOD INCORPO

- RATION

DEPTH (inches)

Peanuts 1.425

- 1.90

lb/A broadcast equiv alent or

0.713

- 0.950

lb/A 1 1 1.90 lb/A

broadcast equiv alent or 0.950 lb/A 1 N/A Ground banded applications, 40

- 60 days after planting; PHI=90 days 0

Peanuts 0.297

- 0.475

0.594

- 0.950 4

~ 6

2~3 1.90 10

- 14

21

- 30 Ground or aerial or chemigation , begin applications ~45

- 60 days after planting, PHI=40 days 0

Peanuts 0.742 1 0.742 N/A In furrow 4

- 8 inch band application at plant prior to covering

with soil 1

- 2 4

Brassica (cole) L eafy

V egetables (Crop Group

5 2 ) plus Turnip Greens 0.772 1 0.772 N/A In a narrow band directed at transplanted plant bases immediately

after transplanting in

30

- 50 gallons per acre; or to the row at plant as

an in

- furrow directed spray; or, as soil drench

at planting; PHI=45 days 0

Turf B ( golf courses

, sod farms, spot fields, residential

, institutional, municipal and commercial areas) 2.9

- 8.6 2 17.1 /y ear 3 14 Broadcast application 0

F ield grown ornamentals

in nurseries and landscapes 2.1 2 4.2 14

- 21 Foliar (except

Nassau and Suffolk Counties) 0

Container ornamentals in nurseries, greenhouses and

shade houses 43 4 NS 21

- 28 Drench or chemigation applications 0

Potatoes 0.700

- 1.09 1 1.09 N/A In furrow application to a 4

- 8 inch band prior to covering with soil Crop specific

Potato seed piece

treatment 0.24

- 0.36;

~0.015 lb

a.i./100 lb seed pieces 1 0.36 N/A Seed piece treatment Crop specific

Cotton, soybean and

sugar beet seeds

treatment 0.06

- 0.12 lb

a.i./100 lb

seed 1 0.06

- 0.12 lb

a.i./100 lb

seed N/A Seed treatment equipment Crop specific

Footnotes : NS=not specified; N/A=not applicable 1 Assuming a 16

- inch band and 32

- inch row spacing, the maximum rate is 0.95 lb a.i./A for banded applications. 2 Includes the following crops: Broccoli; broccoli, Chinese (gai lon); broccoli raab (rapini); Brussels sprouts; cabbage; cabbage, Chinese (bok choy); cabbage, Chinese (napa); cabbage, Chinese mustard(gai choy); cauliflower; cavalo broccolo; collards; kale ; kohlrabi; mizuna; mustard greens; mustard spinach; rape greens.

3 Review of previously approved labels for this chemical shows that this application rate is twice as high as previously approved

. For certain pests, the chemical should not be applied to more than 10,000 square feet per acre of turf area. However, for certain other pests, suc h a restriction is not applicable. For use rates greater than 4.4 fl oz per 1,000 square feet (

~ 8.4 lb a.i./A) , do not

### 6 apply CONVOY ® within 100 feet of any freshwater or marine estuary, ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterway that drain directly (withi n 1⁄2 mile or 2640 ft) into estuaries. For use rates greater than 2.2 oz per 1,000 square feet ( ~4.2 lb a.i./A) , do not apply ProStar 70WP Fungicide within 100 feet of an estuary or marine habitat or within 100 ft of any ditches, drainage tiles, or

other wa terway that drain directly (within 1⁄2 mile or 2640 ft) into estuaries or marine habitats

. 4 Seeding depth for peanuts is typically 1

- 2 inches (see e.g. , Texas Peanut Production Guide, Texas Cooperative Extension, Texas A&M University System).

A Even though EDWCs were calculated previously for the use on rice, it did not use currently approved models. Therefore, new

EDWCs will be calculated.

B The use on turf represents the maximum individual and seasonal rate; further, the application rate in t he label is twice as high as previously calculated and around three times higher than other crops in the label. EDWCs for this use will also be calcul ated.



### Environmental Hazard Statements

ProStar ® 

### 70WP Fungicide This product is toxic to aquatic inverteb rates. For terrestrial uses, do not apply to water, areas where surface water is present or to intertidal areas be l ow the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters. ”

C onvoy ® 

### Fungicide “This product is toxic to fish and invertebrates. Do not apply to water, areas where surface water is present, or to intertidal waters below the mean high water mark. Do not contaminate water used for watering livestock or domestic purposes. Exposed treated seed or seed pieces may be hazardous to birds or other wildlife. Cover or collect treated seed spilled during loading and planting. Dispose of all excess treated seed and seed packaging by burial away from bodies of water. Do not contaminate bodies of water when disposing o f planting equipment wash water.”

Certain language is presented in the label for Convoy ® 

### Fungicide . It is related to spray drift; however, it is advisory in nature and not mandatory and, thus, it is not further provided in this

DWA

.

Other Label Informat ion

Methods of application for flutolanil include banded applications in furrow or on transplanted plants, seed treatments (potato seed pieces, cotton, soybean, and sugar beet seeds treatment), foliar applications which could include both ground or aerial applications (aerial applications are

allowed on rice and peanuts). For certain uses there are restriction s on applications in certain

New York counties (Nassau and Suffolk).

Some labels also have restrictions for applications near marine/estuarine areas. For example, for Convoy ® 

### Fungicide

, for the use on rice, the following statement is shown in the supplem ental

label: “ This pesticide is toxic to shrimp. Do not apply this product within three miles of any estuarine/marine waterways or watershed.” Further, for the same use

, “Flooded fields may be used for aquaculture of crayfish only following rice harvest.”

Additionally, for the uses on turf, “ For use rates over 2

. 2 oz per 1,000 sq. ft. do not apply ProStar 70 WP Fungicide within 100 ft

. of any estuary or marine habitat or within 100 ft

. of any ditches, drainage tiles

, or other waterways that drain directly into (within 1⁄2 mile of estuaries or marine

habitats. ”

### 7 “Use Precautions for Turf Application For use rates greater than 4.4 fl oz per 1,000 square feet, do not apply Flutolanil 40SC within 100 feet of any freshwater o r marine estuary, ditches, drainage tiles, or other waterway that drains directly (within 1⁄2 mile) into estuaries. Do not apply more than 13.25 fl oz per 1,000 square feet as a broadcast application during a single growing season. ” [ Note Flutolanil 40SC is the same than Convoy ® 

### 40SC. ]

Proposed changes for these two product label s

Convoy ® 

### Fungicide

Peanut is an already approved use ; however, a c hange to the Convoy ® 

### Fungicide label includes the addition of banded applications. Since the maximum rate per acre is the same th an for previously approved uses, and the seasonal rate is much smaller than for the use on turf, this use

will not be modeled in this review.

Furthermore, brassica (cole) leafy vegetables (Crop Group 5)

, plus turnip greens , is also an approved crop (approved in other products) , which is being proposed to be included in the label

for Convoy ® 

### Fungicide

. Since the maximum rate is the same, a previous review ( DP Barcode s
D 370201, D 3 76798, dated 07/21/2010) includes the EDWCs for th is use

.

For the use of flutolanil on rice in this product, the lower end of the application rate range was slightly increased. The maximum rate remained the same (from 11.8

- 33.0 fl oz product/A to

12.0

- 33.0 fl oz/A). Even though EDWCs were calculated prev iously for the use on rice, it used the Interim Rice Model, which has been replaced with the Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 . Therefore,

new EDWCs for this use will be calculated. The Interim Rice Model was later reevaluated and calibrated against monitoring dat a. The Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 will be used to calculate

EDWCs for the use on rice.

ProStar ® 

### 70WP Fungicide and Convoy® 40SC Fungicide Lastly, the registrant is proposing to include applications on turf to the product Convoy ® 

### 40SC

and double the applicat ion rate on turf from a maximum yearly rate of 8.6 lb a.i./A to 17.1 lb a.i./A, by adding a second application for the product ProStar ® 

### 70WP

. Given that the maximum application rate is higher than previously assessed, and that it is higher than for any other crop,

this use will be model ed in this review.

Usage

A Screening Level Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flutolanil (SLUA), dated 02/07/2013, provided by BEAD, shows that application of flutolanil on certain crops ( Table 3 ).

Table 3

. Screening Lev el Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flutolanil (Reporting

Timeframe 2004

- 2011) , dated 02/07/2013
Percent Crop Treated
Crop Lbs. A.I. Average Maximum

Peanuts 100,000 10 20

Potatoes 40,000 10 20

### 8 Table 3

. Screening Lev el Estimates of Agricultural Uses of Flutolanil (Reporting

Timeframe 2004

- 2011) , dated 02/07/2013
Percent Crop Treated
Crop Lbs. A.I. Average Maximum

Potatoes, Seed Treatment 10,000 5 10

Rice 2,000 <1 < 2.5

All numbers are rounded. <2.5 = Less than 2.5 percent of crop treated. <1 = Less than 1 percent of crop treated.

SLUA data sources include: USDA

- NASS (United States Department of Agriculture's National A gricultural Statistics Service); and, Private Pesticide Market Research

. These results reflect amalgamated data developed by the Agency and are releasable to the public



### Conceptual Model

The conceptual model is a written description and visual representation of potential routes of off

site movement of the pesticide or degradates of concern into surface or ground water that may be a source of drinking water. This is a Tier I / II drinking water assessment that uses modeling data to estimate the ground water and surface water concentrations of pesticides in drinking water source water (pre

- treatment) resulting from pesticide use on sites that are highly vulnerable. This initial tier screens out chemicals with low pot ential risk and provides estimated exposure concentrations for the human health dietary risk assessment. For flutolanil, the following drinking water hypothesis is being employed for this assessment:

Flutolanil use in accordance with the label, results in potential contamination of, both, surface and ground water resources.



### The conceptual site model is depicted in Figure 2 . Through a preliminary iterative process of examining available data, the conceptual model ( i.e. , the drinking water hypothesis) was refined to reflect the likely exposure pathways that are most relevant and applicable to this assessment.

Figure 2

. General Conceptual Model for Pesticide Transport (Flutolanil)

F lutolanil is applied to the fi eld (on the surface of the soil, on se ed or seed pieces, or foliarly);

a erial and ground applications are allowed on peanuts and rice . Crop absorption (crop uptake) is

### 9 likely when there is foliage since this chemical is systemic . On the other hand, it is expected that

flutolanil will also leach d ue to the moderate sorption and high persistence of the chemical in

most environments

. It appears that spray drift is possible due to the methods of application, except for seed treatments, resulting in possible contamination of nearby bodies of water. I t is

noted that f lutolanil may only be applied by ground methods to some of the crops . As the field may be kept irrigated, large runoff events may be a factor in horizontal movement due to the

moderate tendency of the chemical to dissolve and to partition with the soils. Since f lutolanil is a relatively persistent compound, it may be available for very long periods of time in the field (on

the order of many months to years, depending on the environmental conditions). F urther, it can

also be applied at ve ry high rates. Vertical movement to subsurfaces is expected to be a moderate component for flutolanil , d ue to its moderate tendency to bind combined with its persistence and its high application rates proposed in the label. Volatilization is not expected to be an important route of dissipation for the active ingredient due to its relatively low Henry’s

Law Constant

. No major (≥10%) degradates were observed in any of the laboratory studies (refer to Tables 4 and 5 )

.

The ground water conceptual model (PRZM

- GW), is based on a rural drinking water well

beneath an agricultural field (a high pesticide use area) drawing from an unconfined, high water

table aquifer

. The depth of the well is si te specific ( i. e. , scenario specific). The well extends into

a s hallow unconfined aquifer and has a well

- screen 1 

### that start s at the top and extends down into

the aquifer

. The length of the well

- screen represents the region of the aquifer where drinking

water is collected. The well

- screen length is well

- specific and c an be adjusted. Processes included in the conceptual model that influence pesticide transport through the soil profile include water flow, chemical specific dissipation and transportation parameters ( i.e. , degradation and sorption), and crop specific fact ors, including transpiration, pesticide interception and management practices.



### Analysis Plan

Evaluation of submitted labels for the new uses indicates that the highest seasonal rate is for turf, with 17.1 lb a.i./A/year. Therefore, focus on this use wi ll be placed in PRZM/EXAMS, SCI

GROW (v.2.3) , and PRZM

- GW (v.1.0)

. Additionally, due to the fact that the chemical is used on rice, the Tier 1 Rice Model (v.1.0) will be used to calculate surface waters EDWCs for this

use (seasonal rate 0.95 lb a.i./A)

. It should be indicated that rice is cultivated only in certain areas of the contiguous U.S. while turf applications appear to be possible in wide areas.

In PRZM/EXAMS, three available turf scenarios will be modeled: FL, PA and CA turf. In

PRZM

- GW all six available standard scenarios will be used in order to model the uses on turf. In all models, the maximum application rate indicated in the label will be used. The timing of application will be the one typical for the crop modeled (assumed to occur in th e early spring)

.

Even though the database for flutolanil is substantially complete, one major limitation of the metabolism studies is that they were conducted for relatively short periods of time, compared to

the half

- lives derived from the studies. Ther e is only one aerobic aquatic metabolism study; thus

1 A well screen is a filtering device that allows groundwater from unconsolidated and semi

- consolidated aquifers to

enter the well while at the same time k eeping the majority of sand and gravel out of the well.

### 10 the input value in EFED’s models will be three times the available half

- life. For more details about these uncertainties, see the Characterization section.

Exposure output of interest to HED will be po int estimates and if necessary in future modeling, distributions will be provided. Acute and chronic EDWCs will be provided.

ANALYSIS

Fate and Transport Characterization

A detailed summary table of physic o chemical properties of flutolanil , including me asured parameters, values, data sources, and comments, is included in Table 4

.

Table 4 . Summary of physicochemical properties of flutolanil

PARAMETER VALUE(S) (units) SOURCE COMMENT

Chemical Name (IUPAC) α
, α
, α

- Trifluoro

- 3′

- isopropoxy

- o

- toluanilide Product Chemistry

– – –

Chemical Name (CAS) N

- [3

- (1

- Methylethoxy)phenyl]

- 2

- (trifluoromethyl)benzamide Product Chemistry

– – –

SMILES Code C(F)(F)(F)c1ccccc1C(=O)Nc2cccc(OC(C)C)c2 ( EPI Suite, v 4.1 3.12) Product Chemistry

– – –

CAS No. 66332

- 96

- 5 Product Chemistry

– – –

Molecular Weight 323.3 g/mol Product Chemistry

– – –

Physical State Solid (powder) 42606601

– – –

Solubility ( 20 o C ) 6.53 mg/L or ppm 41841202, 42606601

– – –

Other Solubilities Acetone 143.9 g/100 mL Methanol 23.2 g/100 mL

Ethanol 37.4 g/100 ml Dimethylformamide 302.8 g/mL

Ethyl acetate 67.5 g/100 mL Chloroform 67.4 g/100 mL

Benzene 13.5 g/100 ml Toluene 5.7 g/100 ml Xylene 2.9 g/100 ml

N

- Hexane 0.09 g/100 ml 42606601

– – –

Vapor Pressure ( 25 o C ) 4.87 x 10 - 8 mmHg 42606601

– – –

Henry’s Law constant 2.12 x 10 - 9 atm

- m 3 /mol 42606601 Estimated from vapor pressure and water solubility.

Octanol

- Water Partition Coefficient ( log K OW ) 3.74 (initial conc. 10 - 2 M) 3.79 (initial conc. 10 - 3 M) 42606601 A t an unspecified

temperature



### Flutolanil shows a moderate water solubility (6.53 mg/L)

, and low vapor pressure and Henry’s Law Constants. These properties suggest that the chemical is unlikely to volatilize to a meaningful degree. The octanol/ water partition coefficient suggests that flutolanil could bioconcentrate in fish; however, the fish BCF study showed a low degree of bioconcentration and rapid depuration ( Table 5 ). The estimated log octa nol/ air partitio n coefficient ( log K OA 

### ) of

### 11 10.6 (EPISuite, v.3.20) suggests that bioaccumulation of flutolanil in terrestrial organisms is possible (Kelly et al . 2007). However, there is uncertainty associated with this Log K OA 

### since the value is obtained by model estimation. The fish BCF study showed a rapid depuration and it appears unlikely that very high levels of bioaccumulation would occur (see below)

. Table 5 shows a summary of environmental fate parameters for flutolan il.

Table 5 . Summary of Environmental Fate data for Flutolanil

Guideline Data Requirement Study MRID Results

835.2120 Hydrolysis 40342940 Stable at pH 5, 7, and 9

835.2240 Photolysis in Water 41841208

41841209 Stable at pH 7

835.2410 Photodegradation

on Soil 41841210

43175810 Stable (u pgraded study , see below ).

Additional data in 43175810 was submitted by the registrant to upgrade 41841210. Stable.

835.4100 Aerobic Soil

Metabolism 40342941

45756601 t 1/2 = 190 days (volcanic ash); 320 days (loam); and 300 days (sandy loam) at 30 0 C . Less than 3% of the applied was detected as DIP (desisopropyl flutolanil )

.

t 1/2 = 21 6.6 days (sandy loam) at 25 0 C

. Results indicated that no major degradates were detected

.

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil

Metabolism 49075001 Study is in review.

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 41841212 t 1/2 = 1 year at 25 0 C . No major degradates were detected

.

835.4 4 00 Anaerobic Aquatic

Metabolism 41841211 t 1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 25 0 C

. Less than 1% of the applied was found as DIP

.

835.1230 Leaching

Adsorption/ Desorption 42606626

42606627

40342943

41841213 Degradate DIP K OC = 288 (sand); 293 (loam); 396 clay loam); 317 (loamy sand)

Parent K OC = 571 (sand); 592 (loam); 457 (clay loam); 628 (clay loam); 1,005 (loamy sand)

Parent K OC = 1340 (sand); 883 (clay); 528 (sediment); 653 (clay loam); 1,150 (sandy loam)

Mean Parent K OC from two studies is 78 0 .7 mL/g OC ; moderately mobile according to EFED’ s standard soil mobility classification (FAO 2000)

Aged soil (8 months) shows that no major transformation products were observed and that no metabolites will be of

concern.

835.6100 Terrestrial Field Dissipation 41837804

43175809

45756603

45756602 Turf field in CA. t 1/2 was not reported. Parent was found in

24

- 30 inch soil zone. Degradate DIP was found in 12

- 18

inch zone

Peanuts field in FL. t 1/2 = 44 days (0

- 121 days); t 1/2 = 225 days (121 days

– 18 months). Degradate DIP was not

detected bel ow 8 cm.

Turf field in CA. t 1/2 = 65 .4 days

Bare field in FL. t 1/2 = 26.7 days

835.6100 Long

- term Soil Dissipation 43175804 Peanuts field in FL. t 1/2 = 118 days (1st year); 126 days (2 nd
year); 123 days (3 rd year)

### 12 Table 5 . Summary of Environmental Fate data for Flutolanil

Guideline Data Requirement Study MRID Results

835.6 2 00 Aquatic Dissipation 42606618 Rice paddies: Sediment t 1/2 = 303 days (GA);

Sediment t 1/2 = 63 days (CA)

860.1400 Accumulation in Irrigated Crops 42606615 Rice paddies in AR and LA. Parent and DIP did not accumulate in irrigated crops

850.1730 Accumulation in

Fish 40342944

41841214 &

41841215 Japanese carp.

BCF in whole fish = 13

- 26 L/Kg (in 0.1 ppm water)

BCF in whole fish = 9.3

- 24 L/Kg (in 0.01 ppm water) Bluegill sunfish. BCF = 13 L/Kg (edible); 270 L/Kg (non

edible); 150 L/Kg (whole fish) ; >95

- 99% of the TRR were eliminated after 3 days of depuration.

850.1950 Aquatic Non

- target Organism 42641101 Rice paddy in LA. Parent and degradate DIP were not found in Grayfish

Non

guideline Soil Storage Stability 42606616 Stable at least 2 years

850.6100 Analytical Method (Water) 48796401 Reported LOQ = 0.1μg/L; LOD = 0.03 μg/L

850.6100 Analytical Method (Soil) 48763101 &

4871400 1 Reported LOQ = 0.01mg/kg; LOD = 0.003 mg/kg



### The main route of dissipation of flutolanil is through aerobic soil metabolism. In laboratory

tests, f lutolanil was resistant to hydrolysis at all pHs tested and practically resistant to photolysis

on both soils and in water. Flutolanil also appears to be relatively resistant to aerobic and anaerobic degradation in both soils and aqu atic environments with half

- lives of more than 200 days in soils and greater than one year in water. When flutolanil is applied to the field, it is expected to reach crop canopy (via foliar appl ications or translocated since it is a systemic pesticide ), and the soil (through incorporation in planted seeds, or foliar applications) . Flutolanil can reach adjacent bodies of water through drift or runoff (dissolved or in eroded soil). Given the relatively high persistence of this chemical, it may also have t he potential to leach to

subsurfaces. Flutolanil does not have major (>10%) degradation products.

Batch equilibrium studies for flutolanil

, and the transformation product desisopropyl flutolanil (DIP ) determined k d 

### values to range from 0.997

– 15.8

, and 0.5

– 11.3, respectively. There is a

low propen s ity for flutolanil to leach based on K OC 

### s ranging from 457

– 1340 ml/g OC 

### (MRID Nos. 41837803, 41837804, 43175809, 45756603, 45756602) and solubility of 6.53 ppm. This is supported in the field dissipation s tudies in which parent or DIP were not detected below the 36

- inch sample depth. However, a prospective ground water has not been conducted nor requested to confirm whether or not it may leach. A prospective ground water study has been waived.

Flutolan il and its minor degradate DIP may be transported to surface water through erosion of soil particles containing bound flutolanil or dissolved in runoff water. Partition coefficients were not available for the other degradates, but would appear, based on their structure, to be as mobile as the parent.

### 13 The maximum BCF for flutolanil was 270 L/Kg non

- edible fish ( 13 L/Kg edible tissue, 150 L/Kg whole fish) as determined by total 1 4 

### C

. Depuration after termination of exposure was rapid

with more than 95 % depurated in 3 days. These results would indicate a low propensity to

bioconcentrate or bioaccumulate.

At the present time, there is an anaerobic soil metabolism study which is in review; however, the

anaerobic soil metabolism half

- lives are not used in modeling.

In laboratory aerobic metabolism studies, no major transformation products were identified. Three minor degradate s were identified. 3'

- hydroxy

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- benzanilide (DIP) was formed no more than 3% of the applied. Two other degradates were formed in minor amounts (<1%). These were 3'

- methoxy

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- benzanilide (MDP) and 4'

- hydroxy

- 3

- methoxy

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- benzanilide (HMD). Flutolanil was observed to degrade faster under anaerobic conditions during the flooded stage of the study. Two minor degradates not identified

under aerobic conditions were observed. These were: 3'

- (hydroxymethy1ethoxy)

- 2

- trifluoromethyl

- benzanilide (HIP) and 4'

- hydroxy

- 3'

- isopropoxy

- 2

- triflouromethyl

- benzanilide (HFT). Although DIP is not a majo r degradates found in the laboratory fate studies, it was monitored in all terrestrial and aquatic field dissipation studies.

As indicated earlier, the environmental fate database for flutolanil is substantially complete. It was noted that for the aquati c metabolism studies, the study duration was short compared to the

calculated half

- lives. The aerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for a period of 1 month, compared to a half

- life of 1 year; meanwhile, the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study

was conducted for 161 days, compared to a half

- life of >13 years. Therefore, the results were extrapolated and are uncertain. Finally , the aerobic soil metabolism for three of four soils was conducted for 180 days, compared to half

- lives of ≥190 days , which brings additional uncertainty to the results. There is an anaerobic soil metabolism study which is currently in review, but the results of this study will not affect this DWA since the anaerobic soil metabolism is not an input value in any of the drinking water models.

Drinking Water Exposure Modeling

Surface Water Models

PRZM/EXAMS
For agricultural uses, exposure concentrations for surface drinking waters assessments were estimated based on EFED’s Tier 2 aquatic model PRZM/EXAMS. A graphical user interface (PE5 v. 5.0, November 15, 2006), developed by the EPA (see more at http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/science/models_pg.htm#aquatic

, accessed 08/09/20 13), was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate PRZM input fi les (inp) and EXAMS chemical files. The Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v. 3.12.2, May 12, 2005) field or orchard crop scenario is the basic file which describes the local or regional climatological information, soil hydrology, soil characteristics, crop characteristics, and the pesticide properties necessary to determine pesticide loadings to surface (or ground) water. This basic file constitutes the first part of the “exposure scenario.” It simulates the processes in the agricultural field, such as run off and erosion, on a daily time step. The runoff and erosion flux output data from PRZM are used as chemical loadings to the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v. 2.98.04.06, April 25, 2005),

### 14 which simulates surface water, in order to predict the E DWCs. EDWCs were determined using a reservoir scenario which describes a vulnerable surface drinking waters scenario for the EXAMS component of the modeling exercise. The index reservoir represents potential drinking water exposure from a specific area w ith specific cropping patterns, weather, soils, and other factors. In general, a drinking water reservoir is a natural or artificial lake used to store water for use as drinking water by a local community. Reservoirs are usually fed by a

number of streams , both perennial and ephemeral, which in turn are fed by precipitation and runoff from the surrounding watershed, as well as from groundwater discharge. Pesticides applied to land near reservoirs and the streams that feed reservoirs can enter

these water bodies through runoff, spray drift, and leaching to groundwater (USEPA 2010a)

.



### Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0

The Tier I Rice Model ( v

. 1.0 , May 8, 2007) ( relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide conservative estimates of environmental concentrations resulting from application of pesticides to rice paddies. When a pesticide is applied to a rice paddy, the model assumes

that it will instantan eously partition between a water phase and a sediment phase. This screening

- level model is based on the Interim Rice Model, which has been used in EFED for four years to estimate pesticide concentrations in rice paddies. The single, screening

- level

concen tration calculated with this model represents both short and long term surface water exposure and can be used for both aquatic ecological risk assessments and drinking water exposure assessments for human health risk assessment. The simplified or reduced equation for the Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 is as follows 

### :

Where:

C
w = EDWC = water concentration [μg/L or ppb]

m ai ' = mass applied per unit area [kg/ha] (i.e., the seasonal application rate)

K d = water

- sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

Note that neither the degradation of the pesticide nor the mass transfer from the aqueous phase to the sediment is considered in this conceptualization, which greatly simplifies the

model. The absence of degradation adds conservatism to the model (i.e., estimated concentrations should be higher than those usually found in rice paddies). The absence of mass transfer processes can either add or reduce conservatism depending on numerous

conditions such as wh ether the pesticide is soil or water applied and whether actual degradation occurs preferentially in the sediment or the water compartment; however, consideration of this parameter is a refinement beyond a Tier I conceptualization. See http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm#rice ( accessed 08/09/13)



### Ground Water Models

PRZM

- GW Tier 1 groundwater estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) for a chemical, resulting f rom its use for bare ground pre

- plant applications were derived with PRZM

- GW (Pesticide Root Zone Model for Groundwater, version 1.0, August 31, 2012 ), using the GW

GUI (Graphical User Interface, version 1.0, August 31, 2012 ). PRZM

- GW is a one

dimensional , finite

- difference model that estimates the concentrations of pesticides in groundwater. It accounts for pesticide fate in the crop root zone by simulating pesticide transport and degradation through the soil profile after a pesticide is applied to an

### 15 ag ricultural field. PRZM

- GW permits the assessment of multiple years of pesticide application (up to 100 years) on a single site. Six standard scenarios, each representing a different region known to be vulnerable to groundwater contaminations, are availabl e for

use with PRZM

- GW for risk assessment purposes. In PRZM

- GW simulations, each of these

standard scenarios was used. PRZM

- GW output values represent pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable groundwater supply that is located directly beneath a rural a gricultural field.

See http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/index.htm#przm_gw (accessed 08/09/2013).



### SCI

- GROW

SCI

- GROW (Screening Concentration I n G R ound Water version 2.3 ) is a regression model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in ground water used as drinking water. SCI

- GROW was a model developed by fitting a linear model to groundwater concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RILP) as the independent

variable. Groundwater concentrations were taken from 90

- day average high concentrations from Prospective Ground Water studies; the RILP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism

and the soil

- water partition coefficient. The output of SCI

- GROW represents the concentrations that might be expected in shallow unconfined aquifers under sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most vulnerable to pesticide contamination likely to serve as a drinking water source

. More information at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/#scigrow (accessed 08/09/13)

.



### Scenario Selection

Based on an analysis of the use information, it was found that the maximum application rate among all crops is for applications on turf; therefore, for both surface and groundwater, the modeling will be conducted with PRZM/EXAMS

, and PRZM

- GW and SCI

- GROW

, respectively. Additionally, since this chemical can be applied on rice, modeling this use will also be conducted. Scenario selection for turf use will include CA, FL and PA turf. T hese scenarios are intended to represent turf areas ( such as golf courses, parks, sod farms, and recreational fields). Scenarios are intend ed to have year round coverage. Mean while, all six available

standard scenarios will be modeled in PRZM

- GW. Application dates will initially simulate early spring, since from the labels for the use on turf, it a ppears that this timing is common. The lab el instructs applications w hen conditions are favorable for disease or prior to the onset of high heat. This is interpreted to occur in the early spring. For the uses on rice, modeling will be conducted using the Tier 1 Rice Model.

Model Inputs

Table 6 shows the input values used in PRZM/EXAMS.

Table 6 . Input Parameters Utilized in PRZM/EXAMS for F lutolanil 1

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Output File Name F lutolanil

--- --- Chemical Name F lutolanil Label Proposed label s 2

Application Rate ( Kg

a.i./ha ) 9.64 Highest single application rates according to the label; Proposed labels. 2 8.6 lb a.i. /A

Number of Applications

Allowed 2 Maximum allowed by the

label , at the maximum rate

. Proposed labels 2

### 16 Table 6 . Input Parameters Utilized in PRZM/EXAMS for F lutolanil 1

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Interval between Applications (days) 14 Minimum allowed by the

label

. Proposed labels 2

Crop Names and Days of Application (day

- month) CA turf

- 15

- 03

FL turf

- 15

- 03

PA turf

- 15

- 03 Multirun for the crop w ith the highest EDWCs, assuming year round apps

. W hen conditions are

favorable for disease or prior to the onset of high heat. This is interpreted

to occur in the early Spring. Proposed labels 2 ; these scenarios are intended to represent turf areas (golf courses, parks, sod farms, and recreational fields). Scenarios are intended to have year round coverage.

K OC (ml/g OC ) 780.7 40342943; 42606627 Sorption is correlated with organic carbon content. Represents the mean of the following

10 values: 457, 528, 571, 594, 628, 653, 883, 1,005, 1,150, and 1,340 mL/g OC Aerobic Soil Metabolism (days)

= 308.3 40342941; 45756601 90 th percentile confidence bound on the mean

half

- life value: four values from two studies

available: 190 , 320, 300 days in one study, and 216.6 days in the other ; mean = 256.65 days; std. dev. = 63.08 days , n = 2, t 90,n

- 1 = 3.078 Method of Application Ground Label Proposed labels 2

Buffer zone (ft) 0 Label Buffer restriction applies only to estuarine/ marine bodies of water (100 ft). Therefore, for index reservoir, no buffer applies.
Application Efficiency (fraction) 0.99 Label Proposed labels 2 ; ground methods of application. Spray Drift (fraction) 0.01 Label Proposed labels 2 ; ground methods of application. Solubility in Water (ppm) 6.53 41841202, 42606601 Solubility at 20oC.

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) 1095 41841212 Value is multiplied by 3 since only one value

is available t 1/2 = 1 year at 25 0 C. Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism (days) 0 (stable) 41841211 t 1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 25 0 C; therefore, it is assumed to be stable.
Hydrolysis at pH 7 0 (stable) 40342940 Relatively stable at a pH range of 5

- 9.

Aqueous Photolysis (days) 0 (stable) 41841208; 41841209 Stable at pH 7.

Molecular Weight (g/mole) 323.3 Product Chemistry

--- Vapor Pressure (torr) 4.87 x 10
- 8 42606601 VP at 25oC

Henry’s Law Constant (atm

- m 3 /mol) 3.17 x 10
- 9 42606601 Reviewer calculated from vapor pressure and water solubility. Assume temperature of 25 0 C

EXAMS Environment ir298.exv

--- Default for index reservoir (DWA) , as opposed to pond scenario (ERA)

. Field Size Reservoir

--- Runoff Overall

--- --- PRZM Scenario and Metfile CA turf

- w23234.dvf

FL turf

- w12834.dvf

PA turf

- w14751.dvf As suggested by the shell (PE5). .dvf extensions; as suggested by the shell (PE5).

Incorporation Depth (cm) 0.0 Label Proposed labels 2

CAM (Chemical Application Method) 2 Label CAM = 2 linear foliar based on crop canopy

IPSCND (Condition for disposition of pesticide remaining on foliage after harvest) 3 Label 3 = Left as is on foliage

FEXTRC, Foliar extraction 0.5

--- 1

--- PLDKRT, Decay rate on foliage 0

--- 1

---

PLVKRT, Volatilization rate from foliage 0

--- 1

---

UPTKF, Uptake factor 0

--- 1

--- N/A=does not apply

1 Data were selected according to EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated 10/22/ 2009 and approved 11/10/ 2009. 2 Proposed labels of Convoy® Fungicide and ProStar® 70WP Fungicide. t t t s

n input n

= + −

1 2 90 1

/ , ( )

### 17 The input parameter values in PRZM

- GW are as shown in Table 7

.

Table 7

. Tier 1 PRZM

- GW v.1.0 Input P arameters for Flutolanil 1

PARAMETER (units) VALUE 1 SOURCE COMMENT

Application date (day/month) 15

- 03 or

set to
occur in the early Spring for all crops Proposed

labels 2 Delmarva emergence 10

- 04, crop maturation 30

- 05,

harvest 15

- 06; Proposed label. Proposed

labels 2 FL citrus crop emergence 01

- 01, crop maturation 01

- 02,

harvest 31

- 12 Proposed

labels 2 FL potatoes emergence 15

- 02, crop maturation 01

- 05,

harvest 01

- 06 Proposed

labels 2 GA coast emergence 01

- 05, crop maturation 01

- 08,

harvest 01

- 10 Proposed

labels 2 NC coast emergence 15

- 05, crop maturation 01

- 08,

harvest 01

- 11 Proposed

labels 2 WI sand emergence 01

- 05, crop maturation 21

- 07,

harvest 20

- 10 Maximum Application Rate (kg a.i./ha) 9.64

Proposed

labels 2 Maximum single application rate in two application s on turf , with the maximum number of applications allowed at the maximum rate, and the minimum interval between applications . Single maximum application rate is 8.6 lb

a.i./A = 9.64 kg a.i./ha

. Number of Applications per

Year 2

Retreatment Intervals (days) 14

Chemical Application Method (CAM) 2 Proposed

labels 2 1=ground; 2=above canopy

Partition Coefficient ( K OC mL/g OC ) 780.7 40342943;

42606627 Sorption is correlated with organic carbon content. Represents the mean of the following 10 values: 457, 528, 571, 594, 628, 653, 883, 1,005, 1,150, and 1,340 mL/g OC

Aerobic Soil Metabolism

Half

- life (days) 435.1 40342941;

45756601 90 th percentile confidence bound on the mean half

- life value: four values from two studies are available: 190, 320, 300 days in one study conducted at 30 0 C; results

corrected to 25 0 C as follows: 268.7, 452.5, and 424.2 days respectively; additionally, 216.6 da ys in the other study , which was conducted at 25 0 C ; mean = 340.5 days; std. dev. = 115.55 days, n = 2, t 90,n

- 1 = 3.078 Hydrolysis Half

- life (days) 0 40342940 Relatively s table at all pHs tested.

1 Parameters are selected as per “Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model” v.1.0, dated October 15, 2012. 2 Proposed labels of Convoy® Fungicide and ProStar® 70WP Fungic ide.



### The input parameter values in SCI

- GROW are as shown in Table 8

.

Table 8 . Input Parameters for Flutolanil in SCI

- GROW v.2.3 1



### Parameter (units) Input Value Data Source Notes
Output file F lutolanil _2013.txt Not applicable

- - - - - Chemical name Flutolanil Proposed labels 2

- - - - - Application rate (lbs a.i./A) 8.6 Proposed labels 2 Maximum labeled rate and number of applications. Number of applications 2 Proposed labels 2

K OC (mL/g OC ) 640.5 40342943;

42606627 Binding is correlated with OC. There are a

total of 10 values as follows: 457, 528, 571, 594, 628, 653, 883, 1,005, 1,150, and t t t s

n input n

= + −

1 2 90 1

/ , ( )

### 18 Table 8 . Input Parameters for Flutolanil in SCI

- GROW v.2.3 1



### Parameter (units) Input Value Data Source Notes
1,340 mL/g OC . Values do not show greater

than 3

- fold variation; therefore, use the

median value.

Soil metabolism half

- life (days) 258.3 40342941;

45756601 There are four half

- life values; therefore,

use the median: values from t wo studies are available: 190, 320, 300 days in one study at 30 0 C; and 216.6 days in the other study conducted at 25 0 C; me di an = 258.3 days
1 Data were selected according to EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated 10/22/2009 and approved 11/10/2009

. 2 Proposed labels of Convoy® Fungicide and ProStar® 70WP Fungicide.



### The input parameter values in the Tier 1 Rice Model are as shown in T able 9

.

Table 9 . Tier I Rice Model v1.0 input parameters for flutolanil on rice

Input Parameter Value Justification Source

Application Rate ( m ai ' ) 1 .098 0.980 lb a.i./A/year = 0.980 lb a.i./A x 1.1208 Kg·A/ha·lb = 1.098 Kg a.i./ha Proposed labels 2

Soil

- to

- Water Partition Coefficient (K d ) 7.8 0 7 Binding is correlated with organic carbon

. K d = Mean K OC (78 0 .7 mL/g OC ) x 1% OC content =
7.8 0 7 mL/g

. 40342943; 42606627

1 Data were selected according to Tier I Rice Model v1.0 for Estimating Pesticide Concentrations in Rice Paddies, dated and approved 05/08/2007 and EFED Guidance on Input Parameters v.2.1, dated 10/22/ 2009 and approved 11/10/ 2009

. 2 Proposed labels of Convoy® Fungicide and ProStar® 70WP Fungicide. Maximum rate in a single application assumed.



### Model Results / EDWCs for the Use of Flutolanil

Table 1 0 shows a summary of the EDWCs obtained in PRZM/EXAMS.

Table 1 0 . Ranges of Tier II Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for surface water based on application of flutolanil on turf

D rinking Water

Source (M odel

Used ) U se Scenario (rate

modeled in lb a.i./A, no of apps, interval in days ) Natl.

PCA

% E stimate d Drinking Water Concentrations 1

(EDWC s ) ( ppb)

Acute (1

- in

- 10

- year) Chronic (1

- in

- 10

- year) Cancer 30

- year Daily Average

Surface water (PRZM/EXAMS) CA turf ( 8.6x2 @ 14 ) 45 50.8 36.5 26.1

FL turf (8.6x2 @ 14) 45 74.7 48.6 36.6

PA turf (8.6x2 @ 14) 45 81.7 65.1 37.5
1 EDWCs presented have already been adjusted for National PCA. For all scenarios, applications occur in March 01 (01

- 03).



### For the applications of flutolanil on rice, the EDWC expression is as shown below, where the input parameters selected for the model and their justification and sources are in Table 8

. The surface water EDWC = 531 μg/L.

### 19 The PRZM

- GW results obtained for each scenario for the use of flutolanil on turf are

summarized in Table 1 1

.

Table 1 1 . Ranges of Tier I EDWCs for surface water based on application of flutolanil on turf . Maximum values are shaded.

Drinking

Water Source (Model Used) Use Scenario (rate

modeled 8.6 lb a.i./A x 2

applications at 14 day

intervals ) Natl.

PCA

% Estimate d Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) (ppb) and Breakthrough Time (days)

Highest Daily

Value Post Breakthrough Average Average Simulation Breakthrough Time / Throughputs

Groundwater (PRZM

- GW) Tier I Delmarva N/A 1220 976 6667 days/ 1.64

Tier I FL citrus N/A 1290 1240 6950 / 1.66
Tier I FL potatoe s N/A 33 Incomplete 1 Incomplete 1 / 0.656
FL potatoes with extended

weather file N/A 40.8 35.8 16634/2.17

Tier I GA coast N/A 113 Incomplete 1 Incomplete 1 / 0.799

GA coast with extended

weather file N/A 519 491 13667/2.65

Tier I NC coast N/A 1200 1108 7365/ 1.49

Tier I WI sand N/A 609 Incomplete 1 Incomplete 1 / 0.823

WI sand with extended

weather file N/A 2730 2530 13423/2.69

Shaded values represent the highest EDWCs. 1 In these cases, the weather file was extended. Corrected results are shown in the next row.



### Table 1 2 gives EDWCs for the same use using SCI

- GROW.

Table 1 2 . Ranges of Tier I EDWCs for surface water based on application of flutolanil on turf

Drinking Water Source (Model Used) Use Scenario (rate modeled) Natl.

PCA

% Estimate d Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) ( ppb)

Acute and Chronic

Groundwater (SCI

- GROW) Turf N/A 5.49



### Monitoring Data

There is no readily available monitoring data for this chemical. Flutolanil was not found in the USGS National Water Quality Assessment Data Warehouse (NAWQA), when verified by

constituent finder (at http://infotrek.er.usgs.gov/apex/f?p=NAWQA:HOME:0

, accessed 08/14/2013)

. An open literature article was found (Baris et al. , 2010) . Despite that this comprehensive review indicates that this chemical has been monitored in surface and groundwater, associate d with the use of the chemical o n golf courses, individual results were not

repo rted.

### 20 Drinking Water Treatment

There is no readily available data on impacts of water treatment on the dissipation and/or the formation of transformation products that may occur. Flutolanil is persistent under hydrolysis and aqueous photolysis condition. Further, its half

- life under a quatic metabolism condition is ≥1 year, which also indicates high persistence. Its mean K OC 

### of 781 mL/g OC 

### is moderate ; it is possible that primary treatment may reduce the levels of flutolanil due to its tendency to bind. However, there is no information available at this time to determine the levels of reduction.

EXPOSURE CHARACTERIZATION

Table 1 3 provides a summary of the maximum EDWCs obtained from each of the models used

in this DWA.

Table 1 3

. Summary table: Maximum EDWCs for drinking water human health risk assessment based on ground application of flutolanil on turf or aerial/ground applications on rice 1

Drinking Water

Source Model Scenario 1 Acute (ppb) Chronic (ppb) Cancer/Chronic (ppb)

Surface water P /E app on 15

- 03 PA Turf 81.7 65.1 37.5 P/E app on 01

- 06 PA Turf 265 233 91.8

Tier 1 Rice Model Rice 531 <531

Groundwater PRZM

- GW WI Sand Turf 2730 2530

SCI

- GROW Turf 5.49 < 5.49

P/E=PRZM/EXAMS ; app=dat e of application

1 For the use on turf, the application rate is 17.1 lb a.i./A/year, while for rice the rate is 0.980 lb a.i./season.



### Input Parameters As indicated earlier, the environmental fate database for flutolanil is substantially complete. It was noted that for the aquatic metabolism studies, the study durati on was short compared to the

half

- lives obtained. The aerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for a period of 1 month, compared to a half

- life of 1 year. Furthermore, there is only one study and the half

- life needed to be multiplied by three to ac count for the lack of two studies. Meanwhile, the anaerobic aquatic metabolism study was conducted for 161 days, compared to a half

- life of >13 years. In this assessment, flutolanil was assumed to be stable under anaerobic aquatic

metabolism conditions. Given the persistence demonstrated by flutolanil to hydrolysis, and to both aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism, the assumptions made in modeling do not appear

to be unreasonable. Finally, the aerobic soil metabolism for three of four soils was cond ucted for 180 days, compared to half

- lives of ≥190 days, which brings additional uncertainty to the results. There is an anaerobic soil metabolism study which is currently in review, but the results of this study will not affect this DWA since the anaerob ic soil metabolism is not an input value in any of the drinking water models.

Application Rates In this DWA, two uses were assessed and found to yield the highest EDWCs : turf and rice. For both uses the maximum application rate and the minimum interval between applications were

assumed. For rice a single application is assumed while for turf two applications with an interval of 14 days are assumed. For rice, the usage information from BEAD indicates that typically the maximum percent crop treated is <2 .5% (not to be confused with PCA). Usage information

### 21 provided by BEAD showed that the use on rice accounted for <2% of the total pounds recorded. Depending on the pests to be treated, the range of application rates on turf is 2.9

- 8.6 lb

a.i./A /applicatio n, with a seasonal rate of 17.1 lb a.i./A and intervals between application ranging

from 14

- 28 days. For r ice, the range is 0.356

- 0.490 lb a.i./A /application for one treatment regimes and 0.356

- 0.980 lb a.i./A/application for single treatment regimes. Th e seasonal rate is 0.980 lb a.i./A and the intervals between application ranges from 10

- 14 days for the two treatment regimes

. BEADs report usually does not provide non

- agricultural uses; therefore, the usage information on turf would be unlikely to be fo und

.

According to the USDA Risk Management Agency, only the following nine states have a 2012 rice program: Arkansas, California, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Texas ( http://www.rma.usda.gov/data/cropprograms.html , accessed 08/20/2013 ).

Flutolanil is also used on multiple other crops and application rates are lower than for turf.

Percent Crop Area It is noted that for the models that yielded the highest EDWC s (Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 for surface waters, and PRZM

- GW for groundwater), a PCA is not applicable

. T he maximum PCA for rice is 21% (see USEPA 2012a) ; however, a PCA is not typically used for rice. Rice culture violates two assumptions of PCA adjustmen t factors: that there is uniform hydrology across the drainage area and that chemical concentrations at drinking water intakes are being driven by runoff. Rice paddy hydrology is substantially different from the surrounding drainage area and rice paddy wa ter release does not occur at the same time as runoff events. The rice PCA may only be used in models that account for rice hydrology. Additionally, for the use on turf the

maximum PCA is 45% (USEPA 2012a) ; however, this value is not used in PRZM

- GW. A percent cropped area (PCA) adjustment factor should not be applied to PRZM

- GW model output data to generate EDWCs. The conceptual model for groundwater exposure, as implemented using PRZM

- GW, represents pesticide concentrations in a vulnerable groundw ater supply that is located directly beneath a single, rural agricultural field and assumes the entire field (zone of influence) is treated. The zone of influence does not represent an entire watershed.

Residues of Concern As indicated earlier, the MARC committee had decided that for flutolanil the residues of concern were comprised solely by the parent compound. “ Metabolism studies in water showed that flutolanil is resistant to all modes of abiotic and biotic degradation. The residues in water are the parent compound (M 1 ) and M4; and the parent is the major residue. The committee concluded that only the parent needs be included in the drinking water exposure assessment for flutolanil. ”

PRZM/EXAMS

The main rout e of dissipation of flutolanil is aerobic soil metabolism. There are four half

- lives

available. Three of them were obtained at 30 0 C; temperature adjustment was required for

PRZM

- GW, resulting in longer half

- lives. This correction does not apply to PRZM/EXAMS or

to SCI

- GROW. For the crop that yielded the highest EDWCs in this model, Multirun results were obtained (PA Turf), with biweekly applications in order to observe the impacts of the date of applications . The application on 15

- 03 was excluded, since it is the application date used in

### 22 all the crop runs . The results are presented with a maximum of one decimal place in the following table. The highest results are shaded.

Table 14 a. EDWCs (ppb uncorrected for PCA ) from a Multirun for the PA Turf scenario (all dates but 15

- 03)

DATE peak 96 hr 21 day 60 day 90 day Yearly Overall avg

15

- 01 148.3 147.3 141.6 131 124.3 102.8 76.3

01

- 02 134.8 133.8 131 124.5 119.9 103.6 70.2

15

- 02 141.7 139.8 136 128.3 122.9 105.9 70.4

01

- 03 155.2 154.2 149.4 139.9 135.9 120.4 76.4

01

- 04 242.3 241.3 232.2 214.8 203.7 182.7 105.1

15

- 04 309.8 306.1 291.5 270.4 260.6 245.5 130.7

01

- 05 378.3 376.9 372.4 363.4 358.1 332.7 158.4

15

- 05 452.9 451.4 445.9 437 430.8 398.6 177.0

01

- 06 589.7 588.5 582.9 571.1 563.6 517 203.9

15

- 06 502.8 496.1 470.4 439.9 432.3 399.8 182.4

01

- 07 373.6 369.7 356.7 347 335.8 274.3 155.8

15

- 07 362.8 361.5 351 326.8 312.1 258.7 154.4

01

- 08 359.5 355.8 340 330 324.1 267.7 150.8

15

- 08 376.5 375.1 368.7 357.6 350.6 270.2 150.9

01

- 09 372.5 371.3 366.4 356.7 351.8 237.9 136.2

15

- 09 294 292.1 287.4 270.9 257.1 187.4 105.2

01

- 10 165.7 164.7 158.8 145.9 139.5 116 85.6

15

- 10 145.8 144.8 139.9 128.9 122.8 108.0 79.4

01

- 11 120.4 118.6 113.7 103 98.3 85.833 68.2

15

- 11 143.1 142.1 131.6 116.2 104.7 92.824 69.8

01

- 12 111.7 110.6 107.5 96.0 93.2 83.303 64.8



### Note that the PCA of 45% has not been applied above and that the EDWCs were highly variable throughout the year . The highest EDWCs were obtained in June 1 st



### . EDWCs for the applications on June 1 st 

### (01

- 06) are corrected for PCA as follows:

Table 14 b. Maximum EDWCs from PRZM/

EXAMS

, corrected for PCA

, for PA turf (ppb)

DATE Acute Chronic Cancer/Chronic

01

- 06 265 233 91.8



### Three available turf scenarios were used to represent nationwide use of flutolanil on turf for uses

such as golf courses, parks, sod farms, and recreational fields. These three scenarios are intended to have year round turf coverage

.

In general, the link ed PRZM/EXAMS model produces EDWCs that are expected to be exceeded

once within a ten

- year period. The Pesticide Root Zone Model is a process or “simulation” model that calculates what happens to a pesticide in an agricultural field on a day

- to

- day basis. It

### 23 considers factors such as rainfall and plant transpiration of water, as well as how and when the pesticide is applied. It has two major components: hydrology and chemical transport. Water movement is simulated by the use of generalized soil paramet ers, including field capacity, wilting point, and saturation water content. The chemical transport component can simulate pesticide application on the soil or on the plant foliage. Dissolved, adsorbed, and vapor

- phase

concentrations in the soil are estim ated by simultaneously considering the processes of pesticide uptake by plants, surface runoff, erosion, decay, volatilization, foliar wash

- off, advection, dispersion, and retardation.

Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the overall uncertainty of the modeled concentrations. Additionally, model inputs from the environmental fate degradation studies are chosen to represent the upper confidence bound on the mean values that are not expected to be exceeded in the environm ent approximately 90 percent of the time. Mobility input values are chosen to be representative of conditions in the environment. The natural variation in soils adds to the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors such as application date, crop emergence date, and canopy cover can also affect estimated concentrations, adding to the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors within the ambient environment such as soil temperatures, sunlight intensity, antecedent soil moisture, and surface water temperatures ca n cause actual aquatic concentrations to differ for the modeled values.

Tier I Rice Model v.1.0 The Tier I Rice Model v1.0 relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide conservative estimates of environmental concentrations resulting from appli cation of pesticides to rice paddies. When a pesticide is applied to a rice paddy, the model assumes that it will instantaneously partition between a water phase and a sediment phase. Note that neither the degradation of the pesticide nor the mass transf er from the aqueous phase to the sediment is considered in this conceptualization. The absence of degradation adds conservatism to the model ( i.e. , estimated concentrations should be higher than those usually found in rice paddies). The

absence of mass t ransfer processes can either add or reduce conservatism depending on numerous conditions such as whether the pesticide is soil or water applied and whether actual degradation occurs preferentially in the sediment or the water compartment; however,

consider ation of this parameter is a refinement beyond a Tier I conceptualization. Most of the assumptions used in this model help ensure that the outputs are protective of most environments associated with rice agriculture. The model assumptions include the fol lowing:

- Movement of pesticide on suspended sediment is not considered.

- Degradation does not occur.

- Volatilization and other dissipation processes are not considered.

- Partitioning to sediment is instantaneous.

- Water is available for human or wildlife exposure instantaneously.

- Water column depth is 10 cm.

- Sediment depth is 1 cm.

- All pore space is saturated with water.

- Organic carbon fraction is 0.01.

- Bulk density is 1300 kg/m 3



### .

- Grain density is 2650 kg/m 3



### .

### 24 Tier I model estimates are screening estimates and, as such, are expected to exceed peak values found in the environment in most cases. This expectation is due to the protective assumptions of

the model listed above. Estimates from the Tier I model generally do not represent typical

concentrations f ound in human drinking water, as they represent paddy discharge water. However, these concentrations may be a reasonable upper bound estimate of acute concentrations. In human drinking water exposure, the chronic concentrations as well as offsite

concent rations are expected to be conservative. A higher tier rice model should be used to estimate chronic exposure to compounds that degrade rapidly into degradates that are not of risk

concern.

If Tier I estimates calculated by this screening method do not exceed the level of concern in a risk assessment, there is high confidence that there will be little or no risk above the level of concern from exposure through water resources. However, because of the uncertainties associated with a screening method, whe n a level of concern is exceeded it cannot be determined

whether the exceedance will in fact occur or whether this method has overestimated the

exposure.

PRZM

- GW

PRZM

- GW has been determined to be an effective tool for establishing upper bound pesticide concentrations in groundwater for national as well as site

- specific assessments. As such, it could be used as a screening model for Tier I drinking water assessments. Since hydrol ysis is generally the only transformation pathway considered at soil depths greater than one meter, it can have a large impact on the PRZM

- GW EDWCs. Flutolanil is stable to hydrolysis in a pH range of 5 to 9. For Tier I assessments, all six scenarios sho uld be run for national scale pesticide assessments. However, if the use is restricted by geography, the user should identify the best representative surrogate scenario(s). Since the use on turf can occur nationwide, in a first tier try, all the scenari os were modeled. In cases where the “throughputs” value for a model

run were less than one, modeling was repeated with the appropriate extended weather file. An

extended weather file contains the same weather as the standard 30

- year weather file and allo ws the user to run the simulation for up to 100 years in order to observe breakthrough. This was

needed for three of the six standard scenarios: FL potatoes, GA coast, and WI sand. Even though six scenarios modeled are not strictly turf scenarios, they w ere regarded as if they were planted to turf, in the first tier exposure assessment.

SCI

- GROW Pesticide concentrations estimated by SCI

- GROW represent conservative or high

- end exposure values because the model is based on groundwater monitoring studies which were conducted by applying pesticides at maximum allowed rates and frequency to vulnerable sites ( i.e. , shallow aquifers, sandy, permeable soils, and substantial rainfall and/or irrigation to maximize leaching). In most cases, a large majority of the use areas will have ground water that is less vulnerable to

contamination than the areas used to derive the SCI

- GROW estimate. For this reason, it is not appropriate to use SCI

- GROW concentrations for national or regional exposure estimates. The

SCI

- GRO W estimate is based on environmental fate properties of the pesticide, the application rate, and the aerobic soil metabolism of the chemical. Experience shows that if a pesticide is substantially subject to abiotic hydrolysis ( i.e. , not stable over the 30

- day period that most such studies for registration are run), this generally mitigates its long

- term groundwater contamination

### 25 potential. If the hydrolysis data demonstrate that the pesticide in question is subject to hydrolysis, then this should be noted because it means that the SCI

- GROW value may be an

overestimate ev en for highly vulnerable ground water. For flutolanil, this is not the case. The

SCI

- GROW concentration has usefulness as a screening or upper

- bound value because the regression is based s olely upon scenarios in which the vulnerability of groundwater contamination was much higher than the vast majority of agricultural use scenarios.

All Models This assessment is national in character and EDWCs should be regarded as upper bound

estimates. National PCAs were used in PRZM/EXAMS, while PCAs are not applicable for the Tier 1 Rice Model, PRZM

- GW or SCI

- GROW.

A more definitive assessment could be performed, for example, using Tier II aquatic models PRZM/EXAMS with regional PCAs, or PFAM for the use on rice (surface waters), and performing additional refinements with PRZM

- GW (groundwater)

. For PRZM

- GW a number of refinement strategies have been identified and they can be used in a definitive assessment.

REF E RENCES

Baris, R.D., S.Z. Cohen, N.L. Barnes, J. Lam, and Q. Ma. 2010. Urban Pesticides Risk Assessment and Management Review : Quantitative Analysis of Over 20 Years of Golf Course Monitoring Studies. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 29, No. 6, pp. 1224

– 1236, 2010

Food and Agricu lture Organization of the United Nations. FAO PESTICIDE DISPOSAL

SERIES 8. Assessing Soil Contamination: A Reference Manual. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. Editorial Group, FAO Information Division: Rome, 200 0. Accessed at the following URL 08/15/2013: http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E00.htm

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 2006. Tier I Drinking Water Assessment

Guidance a nd 

### Guidance for Developing a Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment

. 

### OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 01/27/2006.

USEPA 2007 a . Guidance for Tier 1 Estimation of Aqueous Pesticide Concentrations in Rice

Paddies and Tier I Rice Model v1.0 for Estimating Pesticide Concentrations in Rice

Paddies

. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 05/08/ 20 07.

USEPA 2007 b

. Tier II Drinking Water Exposure Assessment Guidance

. OCSPP/OPP/

Environmental Fate and Effects Divisio n. Dated 05/28/ 20 07.

USEPA 2007c. Characterization of Drinking Water Exposure for Dietary Risk Assessment.

OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 12/13/2007.

### 26 USEPA 2009. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environm ental Fate and Transport of Pesticides Version 2.1. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects

Division. Dated 10/22/2009

.

USEPA 2010 a . Development and Use of the Index Reservoir in Drinking Water Exposure

Assessments. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 04/15/2010 and approved 09/14/2010.

USEPA 2010 b . Guidance for Making Temperature Adjustments to Metabolism Inputs to

EXAMS and PE5 and WQTT Advisory Note Number 9: Temperature Adjustments for Aquat ic Metabolism Inputs to EXAMS and PE5. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 09/21/2010 and approved 10/18/2010

.

USEPA 2011. Finalization of Guidance on Incorporation of Water Treatment Effects on

Pesticide Removal and Transformations in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments and The Incorporation of Water Treatment Effects on Pesticide Removal and Transformations in Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Drinking Water Assessments

. OCSPP/OPP/

Environmental Fate and Effe cts Division. Dated 12 /05/2011.

USEPA 2012 a

. Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area and Percent Turf Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments: 2012 Update.

OCSPP/OPP/ Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 03/16/2012.

USEPA 2012 b

. Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters for Modeling Pesticide Concentrations in Groundwater Using the Pesticide Root Zone Model. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate

and Effects Division. Dated 10/15/2012

.

U SEPA 2012 c

. Guidance for Using PRZM

- GW in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 10/15/2012

.



## APPENDIX

Model Input and Output Files

Example Output File from PRZM/EXAMS for PA Turf : Results should be multiplied by the applicable PCA = 45%

.

stored as Flutolanil.out

Chemical: Flutolanil

PRZM environment: PAturfSTD.txt modified Thuday, 23 February 2006 at 18:55:08

EXAMS environment: ir298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:07

Metfile: w14751.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:59

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 35.56 35.08 33.29 30.81 30.17 15.45

1962 31.19 30.99 30.24 29.06 28.39 25.3

1963 30.76 30.6 29.95 28.79 28.22 26.19

1964 32.8 32.61 31.85 30.99 30.78 28.55

1965 31.47 31.3 30.66 29.49 28.9 26.57

### 27 1966 95.05 93.63 88.32 79.48 74.95 39.37

1967 72.98 72.6 70.84 67.72 66.74 60.38

1968 112 111 106 97.99 93.33 76.49

1969 186 183 175 161 153 105

1970 182 180 174 164 158 132

1971 137 136 133 129 126 115

1972 302 298 282 255 240 160

1 973 178 177 174 168 168 160

1974 178 177 174 168 164 146

1975 142 142 139 134 135 128

1976 116 116 115 113 112 107

1977 107 106 105 102 100 89.74

1978 98.3 97.74 95.88 92.42 91.9 83.54

1979 77.06 76.83 75.86 74.47 73.97 71.43

1980 85.15 84.67 82.8 80.95 81 .13 71.09

1981 68.02 67.8 66.83 65.46 64.67 61.07

1982 129 127 126 117 112 79.83

1983 127 126 122 118 115 94.19

1984 135 134 130 124 125 106

1985 109 108 106 103 101 93.61

1986 106 106 103 98.53 96.12 90.07

1987 90.03 89.57 87.75 84.26 82.73 80.76

1988 75. 59 75.35 74.39 73.01 72.38 68.18

1989 107 106 105 99.69 96.98 77.09

1990 110 109 106 99.75 96.68 81.76

Sorted results

Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 302 298 282 255 240 160

0.0645161290322581 186 183 175 168 168 160

0.0967741935483871 182 180 174 168 164 146

0.129032258064516 178 177 174 164 158 132

0.161290322580645 178 177 174 161 153 128

0.193548387096774 142 142 139 134 135 115

0.225806451612903 137 136 133 129 126 107

0.258064516129032 135 134 130 124 125 106

0.2 90322580645161 129 127 126 118 115 105

0.32258064516129 127 126 122 117 112 94.19

0.354838709677419 116 116 115 113 112 93.61

0.387096774193548 112 111 106 103 101 90.07

0.419354838709677 110 109 106 102 100 89.74

0.451612903225806 109 108 106 99.75 96.98 83.54

0.483870967741936 107 106 105 99.69 96.68 81.76

0.516129032258065 107 106 105 98.53 96.12 80.76

0.548387096774194 106 106 103 97.99 93.33 79.83

0.580645161290323 98.3 97.74 95.88 92.42 91.9 77.09

0.612903225806452 95.05 93.63 88.32 84.26 82.73 76.49

0.645161290322581 90.03 89.57 87.75 80.95 81.13 71.43

0.67741935483871 85.15 84.67 82.8 79.48 74.95 71.09

0.709677419354839 77.06 76.83 75.86 74.47 73.97 68.18

0.741935483870968 75.59 75.35 74.39 73.01 72.38 61.07

0.774193548387097 72.98 72.6 70.84 67.72 6 6.74 60.38

0.806451612903226 68.02 67.8 66.83 65.46 64.67 39.37

0.838709677419355 35.56 35.08 33.29 30.99 30.78 28.55

0.870967741935484 32.8 32.61 31.85 30.81 30.17 26.57

0.903225806451613 31.47 31.3 30.66 29.49 28.9 26.19

0.935483870967742 31.19 30.99 30.24 29.06 28.39 25.3

0.967741935483871 30.76 30.6 29.95 28.79 28.22 15.45

0.1 181.6 179.7 174 167.6 163.4 144.6 Average of yearly averages: 83.322

Inputs generated by pe5.pl

- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run: Output File: Flutolanil

Metfile : w14751.dvf

PRZM scenario: PAturfSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: ir298.exv

Chemical Name: Flutolanil Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

### 28 Molecular weight mwt 323.3 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 3.17E

- 9 atm

- m^3/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 4.87E

- 8 t orr Solubility sol 6.53 mg/L

Kd Kd mg/L

Koc Koc 780.7 mg/L Photolysis half

- life kdp 0 days Half

- life Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 1095 days Halfife Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 0 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 308.3 days Halfife
Hydrol ysis: pH 7 0 days Half

- life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm Application Rate: TAPP 9.64 kg/ha Application Efficiency: APPEFF 0.99 fraction Spray Drift DRFT 0.01 fraction of application rate applied to pond Application Date Date 15

- 03 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd

- mm or dd

- mmm
Interval 1 interval 14 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.
app. rate 1 apprate 9.64 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND 3

UPTKF 0

Record 18: PLVKRT 0

PLDKRT 0

FEXTRC 0.5 Flag for Index Res. Run IR Reservoir
Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF total none, monthly or total(average of entire run)



### Output File from SCI

- GROW v.2.3, for the Use on Turf

SCIGROW

VERSION 2.3

ENVIRONMENTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL

FOR AQUATIC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:Flutolanil
time is 8/15/2013 12:42:55

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

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

------- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 8.600 2.0 17.200 6.40E+02 258.3

------------------------------------------------------------------------ groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 5.49E+00

************************************************************************



### Example Output File from PRZM

- GW v.1.0 1

For all the scenario s , the following input screen was obtained.

### 29 For the FL citrus scenario, the following output screen was obtained fr om the model.

For the WI sand, the average breakthrough time was incomplete, which is shown as an example.

### 30 For the same scenario, a run was conducted using an extended weather file. Results are shown

below.