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 

Environmental 

L. Melendez, 

Risk 

Chemist 

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 II PRZM/EXAMS models (surface waters), 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 other 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.

For 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 regional 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 128975) is a systemic fungicide 

pesticide for the control of a number of diseases. The 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 this 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 D349574, 

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, the registrants 

(Nichino America and Bayer CropScience), are requesting new uses 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

CH3

CH3
3

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

Furthermore, they are requesting to double 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 drift, 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 Constant. In laboratory tests, flutolanil was resistant to hydrolysis 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 than 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 

assessments for flutolanil (memorandum from Manying Zue to George Kramer dated 

01/06/2000, DP Barcode D261391). Therefore, no 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 information about flutolanil; therefore, results shown in 

this DWA are based on modeling only. In this DWA, EDWCs were calculated for the uses with 

the maximum application rates: 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 was reported; finally, for groundwater, the 

use of PRZM-GW was implemented and EDWCs are reported relative 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 PRZMGW (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/Use1 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 For rice the rate is 0.980 lb a.i./season ; meanwhile, for 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 was 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

The purpose of this DWA is to assess the 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 were obtained based on modeling, as opposed to monitoring, due to 

the absence of readily 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 such 

assessments is provided in the Problem Formulation for the chemical (DP Barcode D349574, 

dated 06/09/2008). Since the latest DWA (DP Barcodes D370201, D376798; dated 07/21/2010), 

the registrant 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 have been approved for use in EFED. This DWA reflects 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 water 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 flutolanil, based on the proposed Convoy® Fungicide (EPA 

Reg. No. 71711-28) and ProStar® 70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432-1223) labels. Changes in the 

label are shaded; modeled uses are bolded.

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 

APPS. (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; 1st

application 7-14 days 

after panicle 

differentiation

0
5

Table 2. Summary new use information for flutolanil, based on the proposed Convoy® Fungicide (EPA 

Reg. No. 71711-28) and ProStar® 70 WP Fungicide (EPA Reg. No. 432-1223) labels. Changes in the 

label are shaded; modeled uses are bolded.

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 

APPS. (days) APP. METHOD

INCORPO

-RATION 

DEPTH 

(inches)

Peanuts 1.425-1.90 

lb/A broadcast 

equivalent or 

0.713-0.950 

lb/A1

1 1.90 lb/A 

broadcast 

equivalent or 

0.950 lb/A1

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

1-24

Brassica (cole) Leafy 

Vegetables (Crop Group 

52) 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/year3 14 Broadcast 

application

0

Field 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, such 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 (within 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 waterway 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 the 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 calculated.

Environmental Hazard Statements

ProStar® 70WP Fungicide

This product is toxic to aquatic invertebrates. For terrestrial uses, do not apply to water, areas 

where surface water is present or to intertidal areas below the mean high water mark. Do not 

contaminate water when disposing of equipment washwaters.”

Convoy

® 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 of 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 Information

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 restrictions 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 supplemental 

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 or 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 labels

Convoy® Fungicide

Peanut is an already approved use; however, a change to the Convoy® Fungicide label includes 

the addition of banded applications. Since the maximum rate per acre is the same than 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 Barcodes

D370201, D376798, dated 07/21/2010) includes the EDWCs for this 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 previously 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 data. 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 application 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 modeled 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 Level 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 Level 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 Agricultural 

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 offsite 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 potential 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)

Flutolanil is applied to the field (on the surface of the soil, on seed or seed pieces, or foliarly); 

aerial 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 due 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. It is 

noted that flutolanil 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 flutolanil 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). Further, it can 

also be applied at very high rates. Vertical movement to subsurfaces is expected to be a 

moderate component for flutolanil, due 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 watertable aquifer. The depth of the well is site specific (i.e., scenario specific). The well extends into 

a shallow unconfined aquifer and has a well-screen

1 that starts 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 can 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 factors, 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 will be placed in PRZM/EXAMS, SCIGROW (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 the 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. There 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 keeping 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 point 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 physicochemical properties of flutolanil, including measured 

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, v4.13.12) Product Chemistry – – –

 CAS No. 66332-96-5 Product Chemistry – – –

 Molecular Weight 323.3 g/mol Product Chemistry – – –

 Physical State Solid (powder) 42606601 – – –

 Solubility (20oC) 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 (25oC) 4.87 x 10-8 mmHg 42606601 – – –

 Henry’s Law constant 2.12 x 10-9 atm-m3

/mol 42606601 Estimated from vapor 

pressure and water solubility.

Octanol-Water Partition

 Coefficient (log KOW)

3.74 (initial conc. 10-2 M)

3.79 (initial conc. 10-3 M) 42606601 At 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 octanol/air partition coefficient (log KOA) 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 KOA 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 flutolanil.

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 (upgraded study, see below). 

Additional data in 43175810 was submitted by the registrant 

to upgrade 41841210. Stable.

835.4100 Aerobic Soil 

Metabolism

40342941

45756601

t1/2 = 190 days (volcanic ash); 320 days (loam); and 300 days 

(sandy loam) at 300C. Less than 3% of the applied was 

detected as DIP (desisopropyl flutolanil).

t1/2 = 216.6 days (sandy loam) at 250C. Results indicated 

that no major degradates were detected.

835.4200 Anaerobic Soil 

Metabolism 49075001 Study is in review.

835.4300 Aerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 41841212 t1/2 = 1 year at 250C. No major degradates were detected.

835.4400 Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism 41841211 t1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 250C. Less than 1% of 

the applied was found as DIP.

835.1230 LeachingAdsorption/ 

Desorption

42606626

42606627

40342943

41841213

Degradate DIP KOC = 288 (sand); 293 (loam); 396 clay 

loam); 317 (loamy sand) 

Parent KOC = 571 (sand); 592 (loam); 457 (clay loam); 628 

(clay loam); 1,005 (loamy sand)

Parent KOC = 1340 (sand); 883 (clay); 528 (sediment); 653 

(clay loam); 1,150 (sandy loam)

Mean Parent KOC from two studies is 780.7 mL/gOC; 

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. t1/2 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. t1/2 = 44 days (0-121 days); t1/2 = 225 

days (121 days – 18 months). Degradate DIP was not 

detected below 8 cm.

Turf field in CA. t1/2 = 65.4 days

Bare field in FL. t1/2 = 26.7 days 

835.6100 Long-term Soil 

Dissipation 43175804 Peanuts field in FL. t1/2 = 118 days (1st year); 126 days (2nd

year); 123 days (3rd year)
12

Table 5. Summary of Environmental Fate data for Flutolanil

Guideline Data Requirement Study MRID Results

835.6200 Aquatic Dissipation 42606618 Rice paddies: Sediment t1/2 = 303 days (GA);

Sediment t1/2 = 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 (nonedible); 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

NonguidelineSoil 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 &

48714001 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, flutolanil 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 aquatic 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 applications 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 the 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 kd values to range from 0.997 – 15.8, and 0.5 – 11.3, respectively. There is a 

low propensity for flutolanil to leach based on KOCs ranging from 457 – 1340 ml/gOC (MRID 

Nos. 41837803, 41837804, 43175809, 45756603, 45756602) and solubility of 6.53 ppm. This is 

supported in the field dissipation studies 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. 

Flutolanil 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 14

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 degradates 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 major 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 aquatic 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 08/09/2013), 

was used to facilitate inputting chemical and use specific parameters into the appropriate 

PRZM input files (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 runoff 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 EDWCs. 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 with 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 instantaneously 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 

concentration 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:

Cw = EDWC = water concentration [μg/L or ppb]

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

Kd = 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 whether 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 from 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 GWGUI (Graphical User Interface, version 1.0, August 31, 2012). PRZM-GW is a onedimensional, 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

agricultural 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 available 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 agricultural field. 

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

08/09/2013).

SCI-GROW

SCI-GROW (Screening Concentration In GRound 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. These scenarios 

are intended to represent turf areas (such as golf courses, parks, sod farms, and recreational 

fields). Scenarios are intended to have year round coverage. Meanwhile, 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 appears that this timing is common. The label 

instructs applications when 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 Flutolanil1

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Output File Name Flutolanil --- ---

Chemical Name Flutolanil Label Proposed labels

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 labels2
16

Table 6. Input Parameters Utilized in PRZM/EXAMS for Flutolanil1

Parameter (units) Value(s) Sources Comments

Interval between 

Applications (days)

14 Minimum allowed by the 

label.

Proposed labels2

Crop Names and Days of 

Application (day-month)

CA turf - 15-03

FL turf - 15-03

PA turf - 15-03

Multirun for the crop with 

the highest EDWCs, 

assuming year round apps.

When conditions are 

favorable for disease or 

prior to the onset of high 

heat. This is interpreted 

to occur in the early 

Spring.

Proposed labels2; these scenarios are 

intended to represent turf areas (golf 

courses, parks, sod farms, and recreational 

fields). Scenarios are intended to have year 

round coverage.

KOC (ml/gOC) 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/gOC

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

(days)

= 308.3

40342941; 45756601 90th 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, t90,n-1 = 

3.078

Method of Application Ground Label Proposed labels2

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 labels2

; ground methods of 

application.

Spray Drift (fraction) 0.01 Label Proposed labels2

; 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 t1/2 = 1 year at 250C.

Anaerobic Aquatic 

Metabolism (days)

0 (stable) 41841211 t1/2 > 13 years in a clay sediment at 250C; 

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-m3/mol)

3.17 x 10-9 42606601 Reviewer calculated from vapor pressure and 

water solubility. Assume temperature of 250C

EXAMS Environment ir298.exv --- Default for index reservoir (DWA), as 

Field Size opposed to pond scenario (ERA). 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 labels2

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 Parameters for Flutolanil1

PARAMETER (units) VALUE1 SOURCE COMMENT

Application date 

(day/month)

15-03 or 

set to 

occur in 

the early 

Spring for 

all crops

Proposed 

labels2

Delmarva emergence 10-04, crop maturation 30-05, 

harvest 15-06; Proposed label. 

Proposed 

labels2

FL citrus crop emergence 01-01, crop maturation 01-02, 

harvest 31-12

Proposed 

labels2

FL potatoes emergence 15-02, crop maturation 01-05, 

harvest 01-06

Proposed 

labels2

GA coast emergence 01-05, crop maturation 01-08, 

harvest 01-10

Proposed 

labels2

NC coast emergence 15-05, crop maturation 01-08, 

harvest 01-11

Proposed 

labels2

WI sand emergence 01-05, crop maturation 21-07, 

harvest 20-10

Maximum Application Rate

(kg a.i./ha) 9.64

Proposed 

labels2

Maximum single application rate in two applications 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 

labels2 1=ground; 2=above canopy

Partition Coefficient (KOC

mL/gOC) 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/gOC

Aerobic Soil Metabolism 

Half-life (days) 435.1 40342941; 

45756601

90th 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 300C; results

corrected to 250C as follows: 268.7, 452.5, and 424.2 

days respectively; additionally, 216.6 days in the other

study, which was conducted at 250C; mean = 340.5

days; std. dev. = 115.55 days, n = 2, t90,n-1 = 3.078

Hydrolysis Half-life (days) 0 40342940 Relatively stable 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 Fungicide.

The input parameter values in SCI-GROW are as shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Input Parameters for Flutolanil in SCI-GROW v.2.31

Parameter (units) Input Value Data Source Notes

Output file Flutolanil_2013.txt Not applicable - - - - -

Chemical name Flutolanil Proposed labels2 - - - - -

Application rate (lbs 

a.i./A) 8.6 Proposed labels2 Maximum labeled rate and number of 

applications. Number of applications 2 Proposed labels2

KOC (mL/gOC) 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.2.31

Parameter (units) Input Value Data Source Notes

1,340 mL/gOC. 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 two studies 

are available: 190, 320, 300 days in one 

study at 300C; and 216.6 days in the other 

study conducted at 250C; median = 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 Table 9.

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

Input Parameter Value Justification Source

Application Rate (mai') 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 labels2

Soil-to-Water Partition 

Coefficient (Kd) 7.807

Binding is correlated with organic carbon. Kd = 

Mean KOC (780.7 mL/gOC) x 1% OC content = 

7.807 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 10 shows a summary of the EDWCs obtained in PRZM/EXAMS.

Table 10. Ranges of Tier II Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations (EDWCs) for 

surface water based on application of flutolanil on turf

Drinking Water 

Source (Model 

Used)

Use Scenario (rate 

modeled in lb a.i./A, 

no of apps, interval 

in days)

Natl.

PCA

% 

Estimated Drinking Water Concentrations1

(EDWCs) ( 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 11.

Table 11. 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

% 

Estimated 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 potatoes N/A 33 Incomplete1 Incomplete1/0.656

FL potatoes with extended 

weather file N/A 40.8 35.8 16634/2.17

Tier I GA coast N/A 113 Incomplete1 Incomplete1/0.799

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 Incomplete1 Incomplete1/0.823

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 12 gives EDWCs for the same use using SCI-GROW.

Table 12. 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

% 

Estimated 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, associated with the use of the chemical on golf courses, individual results were not 

reported.
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 aquatic metabolism condition is ≥1 

year, which also indicates high persistence. Its mean KOC of 781 mL/gOC 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 13 provides a summary of the maximum EDWCs obtained from each of the models used 

in this DWA.

Table 13. Summary table: Maximum EDWCs for drinking water human health risk assessment based 

on ground application of flutolanil on turf or aerial/ground applications on rice1

Drinking Water

Source Model Scenario1 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=date 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 duration 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 account 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 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.

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

from 14-28 days. For rice, 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. The 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 found.

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 EDWCs (Tier 1 Rice Model v.1.0 for 

surface waters, and PRZM-GW for groundwater), a PCA is not applicable. The 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 adjustment 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 water 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 groundwater 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 (M1) 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 route of dissipation of flutolanil is aerobic soil metabolism. There are four half-lives 

available. Three of them were obtained at 300C; 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 14a. 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 1st. EDWCs for the 

applications on June 1st (01-06) are corrected for PCA as follows:

Table 14b. 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 linked 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 parameters, 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 estimated 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 environment 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 can 

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 application 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 transfer 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 transfer 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, 

consideration 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 following:

- 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/m3

.

- Grain density is 2650 kg/m3.
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 found 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 

concentrations 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, when 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 hydrolysis 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 should 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 scenarios 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 allows 

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 were 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-GROW 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 even for highly vulnerable groundwater. 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 solely 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.

REFERENCES 

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 Agriculture 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, 2000. 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 and Guidance for Developing a Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment. 

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

USEPA 2007a. 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 05/08/2007.

USEPA 2007b. Tier II Drinking Water Exposure Assessment Guidance. OCSPP/OPP/

Environmental Fate and Effects Division. Dated 05/28/2007.

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 Environmental Fate and 

Transport of Pesticides Version 2.1. OCSPP/OPP/Environmental Fate and Effects 

Division. Dated 10/22/2009.

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

EXAMS and PE5 and WQTT Advisory Note Number 9: Temperature Adjustments for 

Aquatic 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 Effects Division. Dated 12/05/2011.

USEPA 2012a. 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 2012b. 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.

USEPA 2012c. 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

1973 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

0.290322580645161 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 66.74 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 torr

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

Hydrolysis: 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.1.01

For all the scenarios, the following input screen was obtained.
29

For the FL citrus scenario, the following output screen was obtained from 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.