UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

ANO POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

Date: June 9, 2015 

PC Code: 129122 

DP Barcodc: 0424568 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

REVI EWED 

BY: 

THROUGH: 

TO: 

Registration Review: Problem Formulation for Environmental Fate, Ecological 

Risk and Endangered Species for Diclosulam 

Mary Clock-Rust, Bi ologis ~CJA- --g-. ~ 

Jim Carleton. Ph.D., Senior Scientist 

Environmental Risk Branch IV 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Environmenta l Scientist 

Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor 

Environmental Risk Branch IV 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

(;,/<1/1S 

Jean Holmes, DVM, MPH. Branch Chief (l,,A~ ~ ~~ / J ,r 

Environmental Risk Branch IV ~,- Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Matthew Manupclla, Chemical Review Manager 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch 2 

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division (7508P) 

The Environmental fate and Effects Division (EfEO) has completed the preliminary problem 

fonnulation (attached) for the ecological risk, environmental fate and endangered species 

assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of the herbicide diclosulam (PC 

Code: 129 122). The problem formulation draws on information from both open literature and 

studies submitted by the technical registrants in response to data requirements. An updated 

drinking water assessment has been completed for diclosulam 1

• This document is intended to 

provide an overview of what is currently known regarding the environmental fate and ecological 

effects associated with diclosulam and its degradates, and outlines uncertainties regarding 

attributes of the parent compound and its transformation products. It describes the preliminary 

ecological risk hypothesis and the processes that will be used during the completion of 
environmental fate and ecological risk assessments in support of Registration Review. This 

document also recommends studies that should be included in a data call-in (DCI) to address 

uncertainties surrounding the environmental fate and potential ecological effects of diclosulam.

It is noted that diclosulam labels contain an error in the application rate for soybeans. The labels

inaccurately state that the application rate is 6 oz. per acre, rather than the correct rate of 0.6 oz.

per acre (0.0315 lb a.i./acre/year). Email correspondence to OPP’s Registration Division (RD) 

from the registrant has confirmed that the 6 oz./A soybean application rate is in error, (though 

this correspondence did not affirm the correct rate). In the same email, the registrant also 

indicated that although diclosulam is registered for use on soybeans, there is currently no actual 

usage on this crop within the U.S.1. Consistent with this assertion, the Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division (BEAD) has informed EFED that no information or usage data exist which 

would suggest that diclosulam is actually used on soybean fields2in the United States.

It should be noted that the Strongarm® label for diclosulam does not list a maximum number of 

applications per year or the retreatment interval for peanuts. 

 

1 Email correspondence between Jenn Hughes/Dow and Susan Bartow/OPP. 2/12/15.

2 US EPA, 2014.
2

Problem Formulation for the 

Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk and 

Endangered Species 

in Support of the Registration Review of 

Diclosulam

Diclosulam (CAS Number 145701-21-9)

Prepared by:

Mary Clock-Rust, Biologist

Jim Carleton, Ph.D., Senior Scientist U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Pesticide Programs

Environmental Fate and Effects Division

Environmental Risk Branch IV

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW

Mail Code 7507P

Washington, DC 20460

Reviewed by:

Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D., Environmental Scientist

Thomas Steeger, Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor

Approved by:

Jean Holmes, DVM, MPH, Branch Chief

June 9, 2015
3

1. Executive Summary

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

formulation (attached) for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and 

drinking water assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of diclosulam.

This problem formulation describes the methods to be used during the completion of drinking 

water and ecological risk assessments in support of Registration Review, and provides an 

overview of the environmental fate, ecological effects, and potential risks associated with the use 

of diclosulam as well as uncertainties unique to risk assessment of diclosulam. This document 

also identifies additional studies that would be beneficial to the conduct of an ecological risk 

assessment.

Ecological Effects Data Gaps Include:

850.2300 Avian Reproduction Toxicity with mallard ducks (Anas platyrhnchus)

850.1350 Invertebrate Lifecycle Toxicity test with a marine/estuarine invertebrate species

850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Test with a marine/estuarine fish species 

850.1400 Fish Early Life Stage Toxicity Test with a freshwater fish species

EFED recommends that additional data be requested to allow for a more comprehensive 

evaluation of potential effects to honey bees, consistent with Guidance for Assessing Pesticide 

Risks to Bees (USEPA et al., 2014). These studies include:

Non-Guideline Tier 1 Pollinator Toxicity Data3

o Honey bee adult acute oral toxicity using TGAI (e.g., OECD 2134)

o Honey bee larvae acute oral toxicity using TGAI (e.g., OECD 2375, protocol 

required)

o Honey bee adult chronic oral toxicity (protocol required)

o Honey bee larvae chronic oral toxicity (protocol required)

o Honey bee semi-field (tunnel or colony feeding) test –TEP (protocol required)

o Field trial of residues in pollen and nectar – TEP (protocol required)

o Field testing for pollinators – TEP (850.3040; protocol required)

In the absence of data, EFED will be unable to complete a risk assessment for terrestrial 

invertebrates (specifically, insect pollinators). Exposure may occur as a result of diclosulam uses 

through contact (e.g., for soil-dwelling bees) and through ingestion of residues on plants treated 

with diclosulam.

 

3 http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessment_guidance_06_19_14.pdf

4 OECD. 1998. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Honeybees, Acute Oral Toxicity Test. OECD/OCDE 213 Adopted: 21st

September 1998. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9721301e.pdf?expires=1395850163&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=DA5C05C00A6B947E222C562C20D

9EDA1 (last accessed 04/15/15) 

5 OECD. 2013. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Honey bee (Apis mellifera) larval toxicity test, single exposure. OECD/OCDE 

237 Adopted 26 July 2013. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9713171e.pdf?expires=1395849980&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=486E98B9ADBE06C29723801743480

A3B (last accessed 04/15/15)
4

Also, in the February 2000 assessment6, co-location data were required for endangered plants 

grown in areas where soybeans and peanuts are grown.

Environmental Fate Data Gaps Include:

835.4100 Aerobic Soil Metabolism; test substance diclosulam, data needed on one (or more) 

additional soils, with characterization of unextracted residues.

2. Introduction

Diclosulam (N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-5-ethoxy-7-fluoro[l,2,4]triazolo-[l,5-c]

pyrimidine-sulfonamide; CAS No. 145701-21-9) is an herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds 

in soybeans and peanuts. Its mode of action in plants is inhibition of acetolactate synthase 

(ALS), an enzyme common to the biosynthesis of branch-chain amino acids (Whitcomb, 19997).

Diclosulam can be absorbed by plant roots and foliage; thus, the chemical is considered 

systemic. Plant growth is inhibited within 2 hours following treatment2. While cell division and 

growth are rapidly inhibited, plant death can be protracted. Diclosulam is marketed by Dow 

AgroSciences under the trade name Strongarm® (84% a.i.), which is formulated as water 

dispersible granules in water soluble packets.

EFED evaluated the most recently completed ecological risk assessments for diclosulam, along 

with currently available toxicity, exposure, and usage-related information to determine if 

sufficient data are available, or whether further updates are needed to support Registration 

Review. Past risk assessments have included a Section 3 Registration for the use of diclosulam

on soybeans and peanuts

3

. In addition, EFED considered the latest Agency science policies and 

risk assessment methodologies. The structure of diclosulam, as well as the chemical names and 

other identifiers can be found in Table 4.

3. Use Characterization

Diclosulam was initially registered for use on soybeans and peanuts in 2000. In March 2000, the 

Agency completed a screening-level ecological risk assessment (USEPA, 2000) in support of the 

Section 3 Registration on soybeans and peanuts. There are 24(c) Special Local Needs (SLN) 

registrations indicating a special local need for diclosulam to control tropical spiderwort in 

peanut in Georgia, Florida and Mississippi as well as on cottonwood plantations in Missouri and 

Tennessee. No additional uses of diclosulam have been registered since completion of the 

Section 3 registration. According to the BEAD Chemical Profile for Registration Review 

(USEPA, 2014), although the chemical is registered for use on both peanuts and soybeans, usage 

between at least 2000-2012 was limited to application on peanuts, with an average of 4,000 lb 

a.i. applied annually in the U.S., primarily in the states of Georgia and Alabama. Details 

regarding the two registered diclosulam uses are given in Table 1. 

 

6 US EPA, 2000

7 Whitcomb, C.E., 1999. An Introduction to ALS-inhibiting herbicides. Toxicology and Industrial Health 15 (1-2); 

231-239.
5

The single formulated product containing diclosulam is Strongarm® herbicide (84% a.i.; EPA 

Reg. No. 62719-287), which is packaged in water-soluble packets. Diclosulam labels state that a 

single pre-plant application is allowed on soybeans, but on peanuts, pre-plant and postemergence applications are allowed. 

The maximum application rates (both single and annual) are 0.0315 lb a.i./acre for soybeans (0.6 

oz Strongarm®/acre) and 0.0236 lb a.i./acre for peanuts (0.45 oz Strongarm®/acre), applied by 

ground only. It is noted that diclosulam labels contain an error in the stated application rate for 

soybeans: they state that the allowable application rate is 6 oz. per acre, rather than the 0.6 oz.

per acre that would correspond with the label maximum of 0.0315 lb a.i./acre. Email 

correspondence between OPP’s Registration Division and the registrant has confirmed that this 

soybean application rate is in error (though to EFED’s knowledge this correspondence did not 

acknowledge what should be the correct rate, i.e. 0.6 oz Strongarm®/acre). The registrant has 

also indicated that although diclosulam is registered for use on soybeans, there is no current 

usage on this crop8in the U.S. BEAD has confirmed that no information or usage data exist to 

suggest that diclosulam is used on U.S. soybean fields.

Table 1. Methods and rates of application of currently registered uses of diclosulam.

Use Scenario Application 

Type

Maximum 

Single 

Application 

Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

Maximum # 

of apps/yr

RTI

(days)

Maximum 

Annual 

Application 

Rate

(lbs a.i./A)

Peanuts Ground 0.0236 NS1 NS1 0.0236 

Soybeans Ground 0.0315 1 NA 0.0315

1 Not stated: for peanuts no maximum number of applications or minimum retreatment interval are given on the label. 

For modeling, a single application per year at the maximum rate was assumed.

The chemical profile produced by the Office of Pesticide Programs’ Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division (BEAD), lists the use patterns of maximum exposures for the current uses of 

diclosulam9. For assessing potential risks to non-target taxa, EFED will use the application 

scenarios that result in maximum exposure for a given use. Any absence of information on the 

labels that specifies the maximum single application rate, the application interval, the annual 

maximum rate allowed (lbs a.i./year), or application method may result in conservative 

assumptions.

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

In February, 2000, EFED completed an environmental fate and ecological risk assessment for 

diclosulam as part of the Section 3 new chemical registration (USEPA 2000)10. At maximum 

 

8 Email correspondence between Jenn Hughes/Dow and Susan Bartow/OPP. 2/12/15.

9 US EPA, 2014. BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Diclosulam. 12/12/2014.

10 US EPA, 2000. EFED Risk Assessment for Section 3 Registration of Diclosulam. 2/29/2000. 
6

application rates on diclosulam labels, risks were identified for listed and non-listed species of

terrestrial plants. 

The likelihood of direct adverse effects to birds, mammals, fish and aquatic invertebrates from 

acute exposure to diclosulam was considered to be low. The likelihood of adverse effects to 

mammals from chronic exposure to diclosulam was also expected to be low. Chronic risk to 

birds was judged to be possible (eggshell thinning was observed in mallard ducks at all of the 

dietary test levels); however, the relevant study failed to establish a definitive chronic toxicity 

estimate (data to address this deficiency were recommended by EFED in 2000, but have not yet

been submitted). The potential for adverse effects to freshwater fish, marine/estuarine fish and 

marine/estuarine invertebrates was uncertain, since chronic toxicity data were not available for 

these taxa at the time the Section 3 assessment was completed.

There have been no additional ecological risk assessments conducted on diclosulam since 2000, 

nor have new environmental fate or ecological effects data been submitted by the registrant in 

support of the registered uses on peanuts and soybean. In 2003, diclosulam was the subject of a 

United States Supreme Court decision (No. 03-388, Dennis Bates, et. al., petitioners v. Dow 

Agrosciences, LLC). The Supreme Court ruled that citizens damaged by pesticides have the right 

to sue companies of these toxic products, saying that federal pesticide law does not offer 

adequate protection from “manufacturers of poisonous substances.”

a. Ecological Risk Assessment 

EFED conducted an environmental fate and ecological risk assessment on diclosulam that serves

as a basis for this problem formulation6. Risks were identified for terrestrial and aquatic plants, 

which is consistent with the mode of action of diclosulam and its use as an herbicide. However, 

risk quotients have also exceeded concern levels for terrestrial and aquatic animals as well. 

These risk concerns are briefly summarized in Table 2.

Table 2. Summary of Risk Concerns Previously Identified for Diclosulam

Birds Mammals Terr.

Plants

Terr.

Inverts Fish BCF Aquatic Inverts

Aquatic 

Plants

Groundwater 

Contamination Persistence Degradates of Concern

Yesa No Yes No Data Yesb No Yesb Yes Yes Yes NAc

a There are insufficient chronic toxicity data for birds to confirm or rule out potential chronic adverse effects.

b Due to chronic toxicity data gaps, there is uncertainty around the potential for chronic risks to freshwater and 

marine/estuarine fish and marine/estuarine invertebrates. 

c A previous assessment (USEPA, 2000) noted six major degradates/transformation products having structural 

similarity to the parent, that were identified in submitted fate studies. The assessment deemed these to “not be of 

significant concern due to their lower herbicidal effects and low levels”, however noted that the formation of 

degradate TPSA is expected to also result in formation of 2,6-dichloroaniline, which is a “known carcinogen”.

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

previous assessments; NA = RQs have not been calculated previously.

b. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments
7

The previous environmental fate and ecological risk assessment (USEPA 2000) provided acute 

and chronic estimated drinking water concentrations (EDWCs) of 1.55 and 1.36 μg a.i./L, 

respectively. More recently, a drinking water assessment (DWA) for Registration Review was 

conducted prior to the finalization of this Problem Formulation in response to specific needs of 

the Health Effects Division (HED)

11

. Maximum EDWCs for diclosulam are shown below.

Drinking Water Source

(Model Used)

Use (rates modeled) Maximum Estimated Drinking Water Concentration

(EDWC) 

Acute (μg/L) Chronic (μg/L) Cancer (μg/L)

Surface water

(SWCC: MSsoybeanSTD 

scenario, ground application)

0.0315 lb a.i./A/yr 4.44 0.874 0.261

Groundwater (PRZM-GW)

0.0315 lb a.i./A/yr

(soybeans, NC 

Norfolk loamy sand 

soil: cotton)

15.8 11.0 11.0

c. Clean Water Act Programs

Diclosulam is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired 

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

have been developed for diclosulam. At this time aquatic benchmarks

(http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm) have not been 

established for diclosulam. Any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the Registration 

Review process may be used to develop aquatic life benchmarks if applicable. 

5. Environmental Fate and Transport

Environmental Fate Characterization

Diclosulam exhibits pH-dependent aqueous solubility, which ranges from about 100 mg/L at pH 

5 to greater than 4000 mg/L at pH 9. Diclosulam’s acid dissociation constant (pKa) is 4.09 at 20 

°C, which suggests that the chemical exists in anionic (negatively charged) form at 

environmentally relevant pH levels. Diclosulam’s relatively low reported vapor pressure [5 x 10-

15 mm Hg (at 25 °C)] is probably influenced by its pKa (i.e., only undissociated molecules can 

volatilize); at environmentally relevant pH values, the compound is not expected to appreciably 

volatilize. Similarly, diclosulam’s reported octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow) decreases as 

pH increases from 5 to 9. Diclosulam’s low Kow (maximum of 263 at pH 5) suggests that it is 

not likely to significantly bioconcentrate in aquatic organisms. 

General physical/chemical properties are summarized in Table 3, and submitted environmental 

fate data for diclosulam are summarized in Table 4. Based on these data, diclosulam is not 

 

11 US EPA, 2015.
8

considered to be persistent12 if unextracted residues in the aerobic soil studies (MRID 43441045) 

are not considered, but persistent if these residues are included. Aerobic soil metabolism may be 

an important mechanism of degradation, but uncertainty about this exists because soil extraction 

of most samples involved the use of only an acetone:HCl (95:5 v:v) mixture. High levels (from 

22 to 51% between 56 and 140 days after treatment in three soils) of residues were unextracted 

and uncharacterized, and the possibility that some of these could have consisted of parent 

diclosulam cannot be ruled out. When unextracted residues are included, diclosulam’s aerobic 

soil half-lives increase from a range of 29.8-57.6 days to a range of 177-2520 days. Photolysis 

(MRID 44192603) may be an important contributor to diclosulam’s degradation at the soil 

surface, and anaerobic aquatic metabolism (MRID 44192604) may be important under anaerobic 

conditions (e.g., in benthic sediments). Hydrolysis of the chemical (MRID 43441043) is rapid 

under alkaline conditions (t1⁄2 = 1.85 days at pH 9), but negligible otherwise. Major degradates 

include 5-OH (hydroxyl diclosulam), 8-Cl (chlorohydroxy diclosulam) and ASTP 

(aminosulfonyltriazolopyrimidine), which reached maxima of 16.6%, 15% and 15.8% of applied 

radioactivity (AR) respectively, in the aerobic soil study. The 5-OH degradate was also formed 

in the anaerobic aquatic study, at a maximum of 34% AR, as was the additional degradate TAAA 

(diclosulam triazoloacetic acid), which was present at a maximum of 34% AR in the aqueous 

phase. Based on its low organic carbon sorption coefficient (KOC = 33 to 144; MRID 43471901),

diclosulam is classified as moderately mobile to mobile under the FAO system of classification

(FAO, 2000), and particularly in its anionic form the compound is expected to move readily 

through the environment. 

In supplemental terrestrial field dissipation studies (MRID 44630601) conducted in Georgia and 

Illinois, diclosulam dissipated with reviewer-calculated half-lives (non-linear regression-based)

of 33.2 and 23.9 days, respectively. Dissipation at both sites was observed to be biphasic

(therefore linear-regression-based half-lives were substantially longer, at 120 and 70 days, 

respectively). Diclosulam was quantifiable at a maximum depth of 6 to 12 inches during each of 

the one-year studies. The study was found not to meet Subdivision N Guidelines because,

although several degradates had been identified in the aerobic soil metabolism study, only 

degradate ASTP was monitored. ASTP was detected only in the 0-6 inch depth interval.

In another supplemental dissipation study (MRID 44103531), two 150-day lysimeter tests were 

performed: one each in North Carolina and Mississippi. Registrant-calculated mean dissipation 

half-lives of diclosulam were 12.5 and 14.8 days for the NC and MS sites, respectively. 

Dissipation at both sites was also observed to be biphasic. Degradate ASTP was detected at both 

sites in the 0-15 cm (approximately 0-6 inch) depth, at up to 39% of applied radioactivity (MS 

site, day 7). Degradate 5-OH was also detected in the 0-15 cm depth, at maxima of 9% and 4% 

of applied at the NC and MS sites, respectively. Degradate 8-Cl was detected in the 0-15 cm 

depth at up to 4-5% and 2-3% of applied at the NC and MS sites, respectively. Degradate TAAA 

was detected in the 0-15 cm depth at a maximum of 5% of applied radioactivity at both sites. 

The study was found not to meet Subdivision N Guidelines, in part because complete data were 

not provided for soil samples below the 15 cm depth, thus data were insufficient to determine the 

extent of leaching for parent and degradates. 

 

12 Based on the Toxic Release Inventory classification system where half-lives greater than 60 days in water, soil, 

and sediment are considered persistent and half-life greater than 6 months are considered very persistent (USEPA, 

2012a)
9

Table 3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Diclosulam

Parameter Value Source/comment

Molecular mass (molecular 

formula)

406 g/mole (C14H10Cl2FN2O3S) MRID 45441001

Vapor pressure (20°C) 5 x 10-15 mm Hg MRID 43441004

Aqueous solubility (25C) 117 mg/L at pH 5

124 mg/L at pH7

4290 mg/L at pH 9

USEPA, 2000

Henry’s Law Constant (20°C)

Log octanol-to-water partition 

coefficient

(log KOW)

1.42 at pH 5

-0.047 at pH 7

-0.448 at pH 9

USEPA, 2000

Hydrolysis half-lives (days, 25C) stable at pH 5 & 7, labile at pH 9 (1.85 d 

t1/2)

MRID 43441043

Aqueous photolysis half-life (days, 

25C) 101

MRID 43441044; mean of 

pyrimidine and aniline ring 

label results; natural 

sunlight, Richmond, CA, 

Aug-Sept, 1993

Soil photolysis half-life

(days, 25C) 48

MRID 44192603; Norfolk 

loamy sand, mean of 

pyrimidine and aniline ring 

label results; natural 

sunlight

Aerobic soil metabolism half-lives, 

parent (days, 25C)

49.1 (Norfolk sandy loam), 29.8 

(Commerce silty clay), 57.6 (Tama silt 

loam)

MRID 43441045

Aerobic soil metabolism half-lives, 

parent+unextracted residues (days, 

25)

312 (Norfolk sandy loam), 2520 

(Commerce silty clay), 177 (Tama silt 

loam)

MRID 43441045

Aerobic aquatic metabolism halflives (days, 25C) 151 MRID 44103530

Anaerobic aquatic metabolism halflives, parent (days, 25C) 61 (silt loam)

MRID 44192604; wholesystem half-life, combined 

labels 

Soil-water sorption coefficients (Kd, 

mL/g) 0.59, 1.4, 3.79, 0.62 MRID 43471901

Organic-carbon normalized sorption 

coefficients (Koc) (mL/gOC)

81, 144, 55, 33 MRID 43471901

Terrestrial field dissipation halflives (days)

33.2 (Georgia, soybean application 

pattern)

23.9 (Illinois, soybean application 

pattern)

MRID 44630601
10

Parameter Value Source/comment

12.5 (North Carolina, soybean application 

pattern)

14.8 (Mississippi, soybean application 

pattern)

MRID 44103531

a. Transformation Products

Major degradates of diclosulam include 5-OH, 8-Cl, and ASTP, which reached maxima of 

16.6%, 15%, and 15.8% of applied radioactivity (AR) respectively, in the aerobic soil 

metabolism study. Degradate 5-OH was also formed in the anaerobic aquatic study, at a 

maximum of 34% AR, as was TAAA, which was present at a maximum of 34% AR in the 

aqueous phase. The additional degradate TPSA (triazolopyrimidinesulfonic acid) was detected 

at 0.5 and 8.8% in the aquatic and soil photolysis studies, respectively. Although not reported as 

detected in any fate studies, 2,6-dichloroaniline is also expected to be formed as a consequence 

of the conversion of diclosulam to TPSA. A positional isomer of 2,6-dichloroaniline is 3,5-

dichloroaniline, which is an identified degradate of other pesticides, and as such has been named 

a residue of concern. 
11

Table 4. Diclosulam and Its Major Environmental Degradates

Code Name/ 

Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.

(MRID)

Maximum 

%AR (day)A

Final %AR 

(study 

length)

PARENT

Diclosulam

SMILES:

ClC1=C(C(=CC=C1)Cl)N

[S](=O)(=O)C3=N[N]2C(

=NC(=CC2=N3)F)OCC

N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-

5-ethoxy-7-

fluoro[l,2,4]triazolo-

[l,5-c] pyrimidinesulfonamide

MAJOR TRANSFORMATION PRODUCTS

5-OH

hydroxy diclosulam

SMILES: 

ClC1=C(C(=CC=C1)Cl)N

([S](=O)(=O)C3=N[N]2C(

=NC(=CC2=N3)F)OCC)[

H]

N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-

5-hydroxy-7-fluoro-

[l,2,4]triazolo[l,5-c]-

pyrimidine-2-

sulfonamide

Hydrolysis 43441043 59.8 (4), pH 9 

only 59.8 (4)

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 -- --

Soil photolysis 44192603 1.6 (26) 1.5 (30)

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 16.6 (140) 13.2 (182)

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 2.9 (32) 2.9 (32)

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604

38.7 water (365)

4.1 sediment 

(365)

38.7 (365)

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531

--

9 (8)

--

 n.d. (148)

8-Cl

chlorohydroxy diclosulam

SMILES:

ClC1=C(C(=CC=C1)Cl)N

([S](=O)(=O)C3=N[N]2C(

=NC(=C(C2=N3)Cl)F)O[

H])[H]

N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-

8-chloro-7-fluoro5(6H)-

oxo[l,2,4]triazolo[l,5-c]-

pyrimidine-2-

sulfonamide

Hydrolysis 43441043 -- --

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 -- --

Soil photolysis 44192603 -- --

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 15 (182) 15 (182)

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 -- --

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604 -- --
12

Code Name/ 

Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.

(MRID)

Maximum 

%AR (day)A

Final %AR 

(study 

length)

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531

--

5 (42)

--

 n.d. (148)

TAAA

diclosulam triazoloacetic 

acid or XDE-564 

triazoloacetic acid

SMILES:

ClC1=C(C(=CC=C1)Cl)N

([S](=O)(=O)C2=N[N](C(

=N2)CC(=O)O[H])[H])[H

]

N-(2,6-dichloropheny1)-

3-[1,2,4]triazoloacetic 

acid-5-sulfonamide

Hydrolysis 43441043 -- --

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 -- --

Soil photolysis 44192603 -- --

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 -- --

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 2.1 (32) 2.1 (32)

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604

34.2 water (365)

4.3 sediment 

(365)

34.2 (365)

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531

--

5 (61)

--

n.d. (148)

ASTP

aminosulfonyltriaozlopyri

midine

SMILES:

N([S](=O)(=O)C2=N[N]1

C(=NC(=CC1=N2)F)OCC

)([H])[H]

5-ethoxy-7-

fluoro[l,2,4]triazolo[l,5-

c]pyrimidine-2-

sulfonamide

Hydrolysis 43441043 -- --

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 -- --

Soil photolysis 44192603 0.5 (26) 0.0 (30)

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 15.8 (56) 8.1 (182)

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 -- --

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604 -- --

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531

10 (119)

39 (7)

n.d. (364)

4 (150)

TPSA

triazolopyrimidinesulfonic 

acid

SMILES:

[S](=O)(=O)(C2=N[N]1C(

=NC(=CC1=N2)F)OCC)O

[H]

5-ethoxy-7-

fluoro[l,2,4]triazolo[l,5-

c]pyrimidine-2-sulfonic 

acid

Hydrolysis 43441043 -- --

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 8.8 (30) 8.8 (30)

Soil photolysis 44192603 0.5 (30) 0.5 (30)

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 -- --

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 -- --

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604 -- --
13

Code Name/ 

Synonym Chemical Name Chemical Structure Study Type Ref.

(MRID)

Maximum 

%AR (day)A

Final %AR 

(study 

length)

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531

--

7 (14)

--

n.d. (148)

CO2 Carbon dioxide Hydrolysis 43441043 -- --

Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 -- --

Soil photolysis 44192603 7 (30) 7 (30)

Aerobic soil 43441045 

44045201 45.4 (365) 45.4 (365)

Aerobic aquatic 44103530 0.9 (32) 0.9 (32)

Anaerobic 

aquatic 44192604 -- --

TFDA,B 44630601

44103531 -- --

A n.d. means “not detected”.

B Terrestrial field study percentages represent the ratio of degradate concentration to the maximum parent concentration, both in the top layer of soil.
14

6. Receptors

Tables 5 and 6 provide a summary of the acute and chronic toxicity data for the aquatic and 

terrestrial organisms that serve as surrogates for broader taxonomic groups used to assess the 

potential acute and chronic ecological effects of diclosulam. 

Diclosulam is particularly toxic to aquatic and terrestrial plants, which is expected for an 

herbicide. Available data for mallard ducks suggest that diclosulam causes eggshell thinning on a 

chronic exposure basis. 

a. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

Based on the available ecotoxicity data, diclosulam is slightly toxic to freshwater invertebrates 

and practically non-toxic to freshwater fish (and to aquatic-phase amphibians for which 

freshwater fish serve as surrogates), estuarine/marine fish and estuarine/marine invertebrates on 

an acute exposure basis (Table 5). The only chronic toxicity data, i.e., no observed adverse effect 

concentrations (NOAEC), available for diclosulam for aquatic animals are for freshwater 

invertebrates (Daphnia magna) and resulted in a reduction in the number of young per adult). 

Although acute toxicity tests with many of the aquatic animals resulted in non-definitive 

endpoints, i.e., lethal concentrations for 50% of the organism tested (LC50) and effect 

concentration for 50% of the organism tested (EC50) values greater than the highest concentration 

tested vascular aquatic plants have an EC50 value (EC50 =0.001 mg/L) which is orders of 

magnitude more sensitive than the aquatic animals tested (Table 5). However, the most sensitive 

of the nonvascular aquatic plants tested failed to establish a definitive endpoint (Skeletenoma 

costatum EC50>113 mg a.i./L) and was several orders of magnitude less sensitive than the

vascular aquatic plant Lemna gibba. 

Data with which to evaluate the toxicity of degradates relative to the parent compound are not 

available for aquatic animals. However, aquatic plant toxicity studies for three diclosulam 

degradates (i.e., 5-OH, 8-Cl and ASTP) indicate that the parent diclosulam is more toxic to 

vascular aquatic plants than are the three degradates (Table 6). However, while toxicity tests of 

nonvascular aquatic plants with parent diclosulam resulted in a non-definitive endpoint (i.e, 

EC50>113 mg/L), toxicity tests with the three degradates resulted in definitive EC50 values 

ranging from 19 to 39.6 mg a.i./L).
15

Table 5. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Diclosulam

Taxonomic Group Study 

Type Surrogate Species

Toxicity 

Value

(all units in 

terms of 

measured

active 

ingredient)

Acute Toxicity 

Classification MRID, Classification

Freshwater fish1 Acute

Rainbow Trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

LC50 > 110 mg

a.i./L

Practically nontoxic 43441013, Acceptable

Freshwater 

invertebrates

Acute Water Flea 

(Daphnia magna)

EC50 = 72 mg

a.i./L Slightly toxic 43441014, Acceptable

Chronic Water Flea 

(Daphnia magna)

NOAEC = 

2.05 mg a.i./L

LOAEC = 

3.16 mg a.i./L

Endpoint: 

reproduction

N/A 43441018, Acceptable

Estuarine/marine 

fish Acute Inland Silverside(Menidia beryllina)

LC50 >120 mg 

a.i./L

Practically nontoxic 43441015, Acceptable

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrates Acute

Eastern Oyster 

(Crassostrea 

virginica)

EC50 >117 mg

a.i/L 

Practically 

Non-Toxic 43441016, Acceptable

Aquatic plants and 

algae

Vascular Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba)

EC50 = 0.0011

mg a.i./L;

NOAEC = 

0.0006 mg

a.i./L

-- 44413538, Acceptable

Nonvascular

Marine diatom 

(Skeletenoma 

costatum)

EC50 >113; 

NOAEC = 113 

mg a.i./L -- 44103539, Acceptable

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

Table 6. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Plant Toxicity Studies for 5-OH, 

8-Cl and TAAA [Degradates of Diclosulam]

Taxonomic 

Group Study Type Surrogate Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms of 

measured active 

ingredient)

MRID, Classification

5-OH

Aquatic plants 

and algae Vascular Duckweed (Lemna gibba)

EC50=49.5 mg a.i./L

NOAEC=12 mg a.i./L 44587808, Acceptable
16

Taxonomic 

Group Study Type Surrogate Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms of 

measured active 

ingredient)

MRID, Classification

Nonvascular

Green Algae 

(Pseudokirchneria 

subcapitata)

EC50 = 39.6 mg a.i./L

NOAEC= 23.7 mg a.i./L 44587809, Acceptable

8-Cl

Aquatic plants 

and algae

NonVascular

Green Algae

(Pseudokirchneria 

subcapitata)

EC50=19 mg a.i./L

NOAEC= ND 44103543, Acceptable

TAAA

Aquatic plants 

and algae

NonVascular

Green Algae

(Pseudokirchneria 

subcapitata)

EC50=36 mg a.i./L

NOAEC=10 mg a.i./L 44103544, Acceptable

b. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

Available toxicity data indicate that diclosulam is practically nontoxic to birds (and to terrestrialphase amphibians and reptiles for which birds serve as surrogates) and mammals on an acute oral 

exposure basis and is slightly toxic to birds on a subacute dietary exposure basis (Table 7). 

Chronic exposure resulted in a decrease in eggshell thickness in birds at each of the dietary 

concentrations tested and therefore resulted in a non-definitive endpoint, i.e., NOAEC<50 mg/kg 

diet, in mallard ducks (Anas platyrhynchus) while higher dietary levels resulted in decreased

embryo viability, hatchling survival, egg production, and female (parental) body weight. Chronic 

exposure of rabbits (Oryctolagus cuniculus) to diclosulam resulted in an increased number of 

abortions (NOAEL=65 mg a.i./kg bw/day).

Diclosulam is practically non-toxic to honey bees (Apis mellifera) on an acute contact exposure 

basis. There are no data on oral exposure to adult or larval honey bees, or to adult or larval bees 

on a chronic basis. Exposure of earthworms (Eisenia foetida) to the compound resulted in a nondefinitive endpoint (LD50>991 mg a.i./kg) (Table 7). 

Toxicity testing with terrestrial plants resulted in toxicity estimates for monocotyledenous and 

dicotyledenous plants of 0.00024 lb a.i./acre 0.00006 lb a.i./acre (cotton) to 0.01 lb a.i./acre 

(soybeans).

Three diclosulam degradates (5-OH, 8-Cl and ASTP) for which toxicity data are available, have 

been shown to be much less toxic to terrestrial plants relative to the parent compound. In the 

study (MRID 44656201), eleven species of plants13 were exposed to the 5-OH, 8-CL and ASTP 

degradates at concentrations much higher than would be expected to result during the course of 

 

13 Beet, cabbage, cucumber, radish, soybean, sunflower, tomato, corn, onion, ryegrass and wheat.
17

normal use of diclosulam (degradate application rate: 0.0468 lb degradate/acre). Toxicity data for 

the most sensitive terrestrial organisms are presented in Table 7 below. 

Table 7. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Terrestrial Toxicity Studies for Diclosulam

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

MRID, Classification

Birds1

Acute

Bobwhite quail

(Colinus 

virginianus)

LD50 >2250 mg

a.i./kg-bw

Practically 

non-toxic 43441008, Acceptable

Sub-acute 

dietary

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

Platyrhynchos)

LC50 >4496 mg 

a.i./kg diet Slightly Toxic 43441011, Acceptable

Northern 

Bobwhite

(Colinus 

virginianus)

LC50 >4496 mg 

a.i./kg diet Slightly Toxic 43441010, Acceptable

Chronic

Northern 

Bobwhite

(Colinus 

virginianus)

NOAEC = 1000 mg 

a.i./kg diet

LOAEC = 2000 mg 

a.i./kg diet

N/A 44103536, Acceptable

Mallard Duck 

(Anas 

Platyrhynchos)

NOAEC <50 

mg/kg-diet N/A 44192605, Supplemental

Mammals

Acute Oral

Laboratory rat 

(Rattus 

norvegicus)

LD50 >5,000 mg

a.i./kg-bw

Practically 

non-toxic 43441021, Acceptable

Chronic

New Zealand 

White Rabbit

(Oryctolagus 

cuniculus)

NOAEL = 65 mg

a.i./kg/day

LOAEL = 10 mg

a.i./kg/day

Endpoint: increased 

number of abortions

N/A 44103524, Acceptable

Terrestrial 

Invertebrates

Acute 

contact

Honey bee 

(Apis mellifera 

L.)

LD50 >25 μg

a.i./bee

Practically 

non-toxic

43441019, Acceptable

Acute 

contact

Earthworm 

(Eisenia foetida)

LD50>991 mg a.i./kg -- 43441020, Acceptable

Terrestrial 

plants

Seedling 

Emergence

Dicot-Carrot

NOAEC = 0.0005 

lbs a.i./A

EC25 = 0.0026 lbs

a.i./A

Endpoint: Biomass 

-- 44103537, Acceptable

Monocot-Onion 

NOAEC = 0.0001 

lbsa.i./A

EC25 = 0.00024 lbs

a.i./A

Endpoint: Biomass

-- 44103537, Acceptable
18

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type

Surrogate 

Species

Toxicity Value

(all units in terms 

of measured active 

ingredient)

Acute 

Toxicity 

Classification

MRID, Classification

Vegetative 

Vigor

Dicot-Cotton

NOAEC=0.00002 

lbs a.i./A

EC25=0.00006 lbs

a.i./A

Endpoint: Biomass

-- 44103537, Acceptable

Monocot-Onion

NOAEC=0.0002 lbs

a.i./A

EC25=0.0003 lbs

a.i./A

Endpoint: Biomass

-- 44103537, Acceptable

1 Birds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

c. Ecological Incidents

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

incidents that have been reported to EPA. The EIIS includes the date and location of an incident, 

type and magnitude of effects observed in various species, use(s) of pesticides known or 

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

analyses conducted during incident investigation; however, depending of the incident, not all of 

these data may be available. EIIS incidents are categorized according to the certainty that the 

incident resulted from pesticide exposure. The Avian Monitoring System (AIMS) is a database 

administered by the American Bird Conservancy that contains publicly available data on reported 

avian incidents involving pesticides. Many of the incidents listed in this database are also in the 

EIIS. 

Based on a review of the EIIS database in February 2015, there are 37 incidents, all involving 

terrestrial plants across four states (Texas, Georgia, Oklahoma and New Mexico); these incidents 

were associated with diclosulam use on peanuts primarily during the spring of 2000. Most of 

these were listed with “probable” certainty (see Appendix D for a recent printout of diclosulam 

incidents).

As of 5 February, 2015, AIMS identified no avian incidents involving diclosulam. 

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of diclosulam indicate that direct spray, spray 

drift, leaching to ground water, atmospheric deposition, and runoff represent potential transport 

mechanisms to aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Drinking water and inhalation exposure

pathways were screened using the SIP (Screening Imbibition Program) and STIR (Screening Tool 

for Inhalation Risk) screening methods. While inhalation exposure was found to be an exposure 

pathway of low concern (no LOC exceedances are expected) for both birds and mammals, 

drinking water exposure was found to be an exposure pathway of concern (LOC exceedances are 

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

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm.
19

8. Analysis Plan

a. Stressors of Concern

i. Ecological Risk Assessment

The stressor of ecological concern for terrestrial and aquatic organisms is the parent chemical 

diclosulam. Degradates are generally expected to be more mobile than the parent compound, and 

limited data (MRID 43471901) tend to confirm that this is the case, at least for the 5-OH

degradate. Ecotoxicity data on aquatic and terrestrial plants are available for the major degradates 

of diclosulam. ECOSAR (v 1.11) results indicate that the 5-OH and 8-Cl degradates may exhibit

toxicity to daphnids that is similar to that of parent diclosulam. For human health concerns a 

1999 meeting of the Health Effects Division’s (HED) Metabolism Assessment Review 

Committee (MARC) concluded that only the parent compound needed to be included in the 

tolerance expression. However, high levels (up to 51%) of residues in the aerobic soil metabolism 

study were unextracted and uncharacterized, and the possibility that some of these could have 

consisted of parent diclosulam cannot be ruled out. Therefore, in accordance with EFED’s 

interim guidance for addressing unextracted residues (USEPA, 2013) EFED plans on including

unextracted residues together with the parent compound in the ecological aquatic exposure

modeling unless data is provided which identifies the unextracted residues or demonstrates that 

adequate measures were used to try to extract the residues.

ii. Drinking Water 

The drinking water assessment (DWA) for Registration Review was conducted prior to the 

finalization of this Problem Formulation in response to specific needs of HED14. The Pesticide 

Root Zone Model (PRZM) and the Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS), as 

implemented in EFED’s Surface Water Concentration Calculator (SWCC, version 1.106; 

5/22/2014), were used to generate surface water estimated drinking water concentrations 

(EDWCs) for use in the human health dietary risk assessment, while the PRZM-Groundwater 

(PRZM-GW) and Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW, version 2.3; 

10/23/2010) models were used to generate groundwater EDWCs. The maximum acute, chronic 

and cancer surface water EDWCs were associated with the soybean use. The maximum EDWC 

values recommended for use in the human health dietary risk assessment were 15.8 μg/L for acute 

EDWC and 11.0 μg/L for chronic and cancer EDWCs. These values were generated for 

groundwater sources of drinking water using PRZM-GW, and were significantly higher than the 

values determined for surface water sources of drinking water. The EDWCs included unextracted 

residues and identified parent diclosulam. High levels (up to 51%) of residues in the aerobic soil 

metabolism study were unextracted and uncharacterized, and the possibility that some of these 

could have consisted of parent diclosulam cannot be ruled out. In modeling diclosulam in 

drinking water, the mean soil sorption coefficient (KOC = 78 mL/goc) for parent diclosulam was 

employed as an input parameter. 

 

14 US EPA, 2015
20

b. Measures of Exposure 

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

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

Screening level calculations have suggested that the drinking water exposure pathway may be 

significant. This exposure pathway may be further considered at the time of the risk assessment 

(Appendix C). 

i. Available Monitoring Data

The Agency is not aware of monitoring conducted by federal and state agencies for diclosulam. If 

information on monitoring becomes available, it will be considered in the assessment to the extent 

that data on diclosulam are available.

c. Measures of Effect 

Toxicity data presented in Section 3 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate risk 

quotients (RQs). Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the open 

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

studies are identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2007c), 

which employs a literature search engine for locating chemical toxicity data for aquatic life, 

terrestrial plants, and wildlife. The evaluation of both sources of data can also provide insight 

into the direct and indirect effects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of species that 

are sensitive to the chemicals and from changes in structure and functional characteristics of the 

affected communities.

9. Endangered Species Assessments

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

Agency will evaluate risks to listed species from registered uses of pesticides in Registration 

Review. The process for evaluating potential risks to listed species is further described at 

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

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

Diclosulam was not included in the first group of 67 chemicals issued an order to conduct Tier 1 

EDSP testing. For additional information the EDSP program, visit http://www.epa.gov/endo/.
21

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

a. Environmental Fate

Tables 8 and 9 identify environmental fate studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline 

requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to 

support risk assessment. Rationales for the additional data requested are presented below the 

tables.

Table 8. Submitted Environmental Fate Data for Diclosulam

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Data 

Gap?

Are data needed 

to conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA will Make 

in Absence of Data 

835.2120 Hydrolysis 43441043 Acceptable No No

835.2240 Aqueous 

photolysis 43441044 Acceptable No No

835.2410 Soil photolysis 44192603 Supplemental Yes No

835.4100 Aerobic soil 

metabolism 43441045 Supplemental Yes Yes

Data available on three soils. 

Data are needed on at least one 

additional soil, and should 

include additional 

characterization of unextracted 

residues.

835.4200 Anaerobic soil 

metabolism NA NA No No

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism

44103530 Supplemental Yes No

If data are only available on 

one sediment, the estimated 

half-life will be multiplied by 

three.

835.4400

Anaerobic 

aquatic 

metabolism

44192604 Acceptable No No

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching

43471901 Acceptable No No

835.6100

Terrestrial field 

dissipation

44103531 Supplemental Yes No

44630601 Supplemental Yes No

850.7100

Environmental 

Chemistry and 

Independent 

Laboratory 

Validation 

Method: Water

44587803 

44587804 -- No No

Existing methods used in TFD 

study 44630601 have limit of 

quantitation (LOQ) for the 

parent below 0.6 μg/L (i.e., the 

NOAEC for most sensitive 

species) that may be used in 

monitoring.

165-4 

(850.1730)

Fish 

bioconcentration NA NA No No

Not required because KOW is < 

1000 (40 CFR Part 158.630)
22

Rationale for Requesting Fate Studies

Aerobic Soil Metabolism (OPPTS Guideline 835.4100), test substance diclosulam. Data are 

routinely required for four soils. Data on diclosulam are currently available for only three soils, 

and the soil extraction methods, which employed only acetone:HCl, may have been inadequate. 

Unextracted residues constituted 36.3-51.2% of applied radioactivity. This creates significant 

uncertainty for the risk assessment. Due to the uncertainty in the identity of these residues, in the 

absence of additional data, it will be assumed that the unidentified residues are residues of 

concern in estimating half-lives. It will be assumed that unextracted residues have similar toxicity 

to the parent compound. Additional studies that make an effort to ensure that all residues that can 

be extracted from soil and sediment are extracted15, and that those residues are identified, could 

significantly reduce the uncertainty resulting from having significant amounts of unextracted and 

unidentified residues in metabolism studies. 

b. Effects

Tables 9-11 identify ecological effects studies by MRID that provide data for each guideline 

requirement, as well as study classifications and whether or not further data are needed in order to 

support risk assessment. Rationales for the additional data requested are presented below the 

tables.

Table 9. Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Diclosulam

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct 

risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions 

EPA will Make in Absence of 

Data

850.1010

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity

43441014 Acceptable No

850.1025

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055

Saltwater 

invertebrate 

acute toxicity 

43441016 Acceptable No

850.1075

Freshwater 

fish acute 

toxicity 

43441013 Acceptable

No

43441012 Acceptable

850.1075 Saltwater fish 

acute toxicity 43441015 Acceptable No

850.1300

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

life cycle 

43441018 Acceptable No

 

15 A reasonable effort to extract all residues would include employing a variety of extraction solvents and testing 

extraction efficiencies for known analytes. Use of acids and bases if they do not alter the chemical of interest may 

also be used. 
23

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct 

risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions 

EPA will Make in Absence of 

Data

850.1350

Saltwater 

invertebrates 

life cycle 

No Data -- Yes

Presumption of risk for these taxa.

850.1400

Freshwater 

fish 

early-life stage

No Data -- Yes

Presumption of risk for these taxa.

850.1400 Saltwater fish 

early-life stage No Data -- Yes Presumption of risk for these taxa.

850.1500 Fish life cycle No Data -- No

850.4400

Aquatic plant 

Toxicity Test 

using Lemna

spp.

44103538 Acceptable No

850.4500 Algal toxicity

44103539 Acceptable No

44103540 Acceptable No

850.4550 Cyanobacteria 44103541 Acceptable No

Rationale for Requesting Aquatic Organism Studies

No chronic toxicity data for freshwater fish have been submitted. Because diclosulam (a) is 

expected to be transported to water from the intended use site and (b) is persistent in water, a 

study is recommended on the Early Life Stage test (Guideline 850.1400) with freshwater fish 

species.

No chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine fish have been submitted. Because diclosulam (a) is

expected to be transported to water from the intended use site and (b) is persistent in water, a 

study is recommended on the Early Life Stage study (Guideline 850.1400) with an 

estuarine/marine fish species.

No chronic toxicity data for estuarine/marine invertebrates have been submitted. Because

diclosulam (a) is expected to be transported to water from the intended use site and (b) is

persistent in water, an aquatic invertebrate life-cycle study (Guideline 850.1350) using 

estuarine/marine invertebrate species, preferably a mysid (Americamysis bahia) is recommended.
24

Table 10. Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data for Diclosulam Degradates (5-OH, 8-Cl, 

TAAA)

OCSPP

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA 

will Make in 

Absence of Data 

5-OH Degradate

850.4500

5-OH: Algal Toxicity with 

Green Algae (Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

44103542 Acceptable No

850.4400

5-OH: Aquatic Plant 

Toxicity with Duckweed 

(Lemna gibba) 

44587808 Acceptable No

850.4500

5-OH: Algal Toxicity with 

Green Algae (Pseudo 

kirchneriella subcapitata

formerly Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

44587809 Acceptable No

850.4550

5-OH: Algal Toxicity with 

Blue-Green Algae 

(Anabaena flos-aquae)

44587810 Acceptable No

850.4500

5-OH: Algal Toxicity with 

Marine Diatom 

(Skeletonema costatum)

44587806 Acceptable No

850.4500

5-OH: Algal Toxicity with 

Freshwater Diatom 

(Navicula pelliculosa)

44587807 Acceptable No

8-Cl Degradate

850.4400

8-Cl: Algal Toxicity with

Green Algae (Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

44103543 Acceptable No

TAAA Degradate

850.4400

TAAA: Algal Toxicity 

with Green Algae 

(Selenastrum 

capricornutum)

44103544 Acceptable No
25

Table 11. Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Diclosulam

OCSPP 

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Current 

Additional Data 

Need

850.2100 Avian oral toxicity 43441008 Acceptable No

850.2200 Avian dietary toxicity 

43441010 Acceptable

No --

43441011 Acceptable

850.2300 Avian reproduction

44103536 Acceptable

Yes Presumption of 

44192605 Supplemental risk for these taxa.

Nonguideline Avian inhalation N/A N/A

850.3020 Honey bee acute contact 

toxicity 43441019 Acceptable No --

NonGuidelineHoney bee adult acute oral 

toxicitya N/A N/A Yes

An acute oral 

toxicity study

with the adult 

honey bee is

needed.

NonGuidelineHoney bee larvae acute 

oral toxicityb

N/A

N/A Yes

An acute oral 

toxicity study

with the larval 

honey bee is

needed.

NonGuidelineeHoney bee adult chronic 

oral toxicityc

N/A

N/A Yes

A chronic 10 day 

oral toxicity

study with the 

adult honey bee

is needed.

NonGuidelineeHoney bee larvae chronic 

oral toxicityc

N/A

N/A Yes

A repeat dose 

larval toxicity

study with the 

honey bee is

needed.

NonGuidelineeHoney bee semi-field 

(tunnel or colony-feeding) 

test – TEPd

N/A N/A Yes

May be triggered 

based on results 

of lower tier 

honey bee toxicity 

studies.

NonGuidelinee Field trial of residues in 

pollen and nectar – TEP N/A N/A Yes

May be triggered 

based on results 

of lower tier 

honey bee toxicity 

studies.
26

OCSPP 

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Current 

Additional Data 

Need

850.3030 Honey bee toxicity of 

residues on foliage—TEP N/A N/A No

Not triggered at 

this time based on 

ecotoxicity data, 

predicted EECs, 

fate properties, 

and use pattern 

criteria.

850.3040e Field testing for 

pollinators –TEP N/A N/A Yes

May be triggered 

based on results 

of lower tier 

honey bee toxicity 

studies.

850.4100 Seedling Emergence and 

Seedling Growth 44103537 Acceptable No --

850.4150 Vegetative Vigor 44103537 Acceptable No

(a) Honey bee acute oral toxicity test protocol available through OECD TG 213.16

(b) Honey bee acute larval toxicity test protocol available through OECD TG 237.17 In some cases, information pertaining to acute toxicity to honey 

bee larvae may be obtained with the chronic honey bee larval test thereby negating the need for separate acute and chronic larval toxicity tests.

(c) Draft test protocols are currently being finalized through the OECD.

(d) Semi-field tunnel study protocol available through OECD Guidance 75.18

(e) Study protocol should be submitted for review prior to conduct of the study.

Rationale for Requesting Terrestrial Organism Studies

The avian reproduction study with the Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) indicates that 

exposure to diclosulam was associated with a decrease in egg shell thickness (NOAEC = 1000 

ppm, LOAEC = 2000 ppm). The reproduction study with the mallard duck (MRID 44192605) 

shows that diclosulam was also associated with a decrease in eggshell thickness below the lowest 

concentration tested of 50 ppm (both LOAEC and NOAEC< 50 ppm). Since the mallard duck test

did not establish a NOAEC or a LOAEC, the study is classified as supplemental and the guideline 

requirements for waterfowl are not satisfied. Another reproduction study with the mallard duck is 

needed to determine a definitive NOAEC (guideline 850.2300).

For insect pollinator testing, EPA has recently implemented new guidance for insect pollinator risk 

assessment (USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR, 2014). Recommended studies relevant to diclosulam

include the acute and chronic oral toxicity studies with adult bees and acute and chronic toxicity 

studies with larval bees as well as higher tiered field studies. 

 

16OECD. 1998a. OECD Guidelines for the Testing of Chemicals. Honeybees, Acute Oral Toxicity Test. 213. 

http://lysander.sourceoecd.org/vl=5988235/cl=12/nw=1/rpsv/cgi-bin/fulltextew.pl?prpsv=/ij/oecdjournals/1607310x/v1n2/s14/p1.idx

17 OECD. 2013. OECD Guidelines for Testing Chemicals. Honey bee (Apis mellifera) larval toxicity test, single exposure. http://www.oecdilibrary.org/environment/test-no-237-honey-bee-apis-mellifera-larval-toxicity-test-single-exposure_9789264203723-en

18 OECD. 2007. Series on Testing and Assessment Number 75. Guidance document on the honey bee (Apis mellifera L.) brood test under semifield conditions. Environmental Directorate Joint Meeting of the Chemicals Committee and the Working Party on Chemicals, Pesticides and 

Biotechnology. ENV/JM/MONO(2007)22. 31-Aug-2007. 

http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono(2007)22&doclanguage=en
27

12. References 

FAO. 2000. Appendix 2. Parameters of pesticides that influence processes in the soil. In FAO 

Information Division Editorial Group (Ed.), Pesticide Disposal Series 8. Assessing Soil 

Contamination. A Reference Manual. Rome: Food & Agriculture Organization of the 

United Nations (FAO). Available at 

http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/X2570E/X2570E06.htm (Accessed March 24, 2015). 

US EPA. 2000. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment for the Registration of 

Diclosulam. United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Environmental 

Fate and Effects Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. 2/29/2000.

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

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

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

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

US EPA. 2014. BEAD Chemical Profile (BCP) for Registration Review: Diclosulam (129122). . 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Biological and Economic 

Analysis Division. Office of Pesticide Programs. 12/12/2014.

USEPA, PMRA, and CDPR, 2014. Guidance for Assessing Pesticide Risks to Bees. Office of 

Pesticide Programs, USEPA, Washington D.C. Health Canada Pest Management 

Regulatory Agency, Ottawa, ON, Canada. California Department of Pesticide Regulation, 

Sacramento, CA. June 23, 2014.

US EPA. 2015. Diclosulam Drinking Water Assessment for Registration Review. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). Environmental Fate and Effects Division. 

Office of Pesticide Programs. 3/19/2015.
28

Appendices

A1. OPPIN Bibliography for Ecological Effects Data 

A2. OPPIN Bibliography for Environmental Fate Data

B. STIR Model Output

C. SIP Model Output 

D. Table of Incidence Data from EIIS for Diclosulam
29

Appendix A1. OPPIN Bibliography for Ecological Effects Data 

PC Code 129122 Diclosulam Eco Effects Bibliography Folder- F002267 Revised 29 July 2014

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441008 2050446

2050445-

memo

Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. (1994) XDE-564 Herbicide: An Acute Oral Toxicity Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Amended 

Report: Lab Project Number: ES/DR/0313/5691/4: 103/370. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 26 

p. 

71-2 Avian Dietary Toxicity

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441009 Support data Rick, D.; Stahl, D. (1992) XDE-564 Herbicide: Stability in Game Bird Starter Ration: Lab Project Number: DECO/ES/2468: 

ES/DR/ 0313/5691/1. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 16 p. 

43441010 2050521

2050445-

memo

Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. (1994) XDE-564 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Northern Bobwhite: Amended Report: 

Lab Project Number: ES/ DR/0313/5691/2: 103/368. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 25 p. 

43441011 2050522

2050445-

memo

Campbell, S.; Beavers, J. (1994) XDE-564 Herbicide: A Dietary LC50 Study with the Mallard: Amended Report: Lab Project 

Number: ES/DR/0313/5691/3: 103/369. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 26 p. 

71-4 Avian Reproduction

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

44103536 2050447 Beavers, J.; Chafey, K.; Mitchell, L.; et al. (1995) XDE-564 Herbicide: A Reproduction Study with the Northern Bobwhite 

(Colinus virginianus): (Final Report): Lab Project Number: 103-395: DECO-ES-2628. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International Ltd. 138 p. 

44192605 2050448

2050519

Beavers, J.; Chafey, K.; Foster, J. et al. (1995) XDE-564 Herbicide: A Reproduction Study with the Mallard (Anas

platyrhynchos): Lab Project Number: 103-396: DECO-ES-2629. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 

195 p. 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441012 2050449 Gorzinski, S.; Richardson, C.; Stahl, D.; et al (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Static Acute 96-Hour Toxicity to the Bluegill, 

Lepomis macrochirus Rafinesque: Lab Project Number: DECO/ES/2504. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical 

Co. 25 p. 

43441013 2050450

2050478

Gorzinski, S.; Richardson, C.; Stahl, D.; et al (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Static Acute 96-Hour Toxicity to the Rainbow, Trout, 

Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum: Lab Project Number: DECO/ES/2503. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical 

Co. 25 p. 
30

44045203 Registrant

response

Mayes, M. (1995) Response to U.S. EPA Data Evaluation Record of the Report "XDE-564 Herbicide: Static Acute 96-Hour 

Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss Walbaum": MRID No. 434410-13: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES2981. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 5 p. 

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441014 2050451

2050476

Brown, R.; Milazzo, D.; Servinski, M. et al. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to the Daphnia magna Straus: Lab 

Project Number: DECO/ES/DR/0313/569: DECO/ES/2519. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 28 p. 

44045202 Registrant 

response

Mayes, M. (1995) Response to U.S. EPA Data Evaluation Record of the Report "XDE-564 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to the 

Daphnid, Daphnia magna Straus": MRID No. 434410-14: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-2982R. Unpublished study 

prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 5 p. 

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441015 2050452 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to the Silverside, Menidia beryllina: Lab Project 

Number: 192/DO: ES/2646. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 23 p. 

43441016 2050453 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Acute Flow-Through Mollusc Shell Deposition Test: Lab Project 

Number: 191/DO: ES/2642. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Lab., Inc. 23 p. 

43441017 2050454 Boeri, R.; Kowalski, P.; Ward, T. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: Acute Toxicity to the Grass Shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio: Lab 

Project Number: 190/DO: ES/2641. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 23 p. 

72-4 Fish Early Life Stage/Aquatic Invertebrate Life Cycle Study

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441018 2050455 Brown, R.; Kirk, H.; Servinski, J. (1994) XDE-564 Herbicide: Evaluation of the Chronic Toxicity (21-Day Flow-Through) to the 

Daphnid, Daphnia magna Straus: Lab Project Number: 0313/5691: DECO/ES/2696. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow 

Chemical Co. 51 p. 

122-1 Seed Germination/Seedline Emergence and Vegetable Vigor

MRID Citation Reference

PDF #

44656201 2050473

2050520

McCormick, R. (1998) Effect of Three Soil Metabolites of Diclosulam on the Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Non-Target 

Terrestrial Plants (Tier I): Lab Project Number: ENV98049. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC. 123 p. 

123-1 Seed germination/seedling emergence and vegetative vigor

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

44103537 2050457

2050458

Schwab, D. (1996) Evaluating the Effects of XDE-564 on the Seedling Emergence and Vegetative Vigor of Non-Target 

Terrestrial Plants: (Amended Final Report): Lab Project Number: 41705: RES94063: ABC 41705. Unpublished study prepared 

by ABC Labs, Inc. 155 p. 

123-2 Aquatic plant growth
31

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

44103538 2050459 Milazzo, D.; Kirk, H.; Humbert, L.; et al. (1995) The Toxicity of XDE-564 Herbicide to the Aquatic Plant, Duckweed, Lemna 

gibba L. G-3: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-2806. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 35 p. 

44103539 2050460 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the Marine Diatom (Skeletonema costatum): 

(Final Report): Lab Project Number: 103A-106: ES-2665. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 39 p. 

44103540 2050461 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Diatom (Navicula pelliculosa): 

(Final Report): Lab Project Number: 103A-107B: ES-2664. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 39 p. 

44103541 2050462 Thompson, S.; Swigert, J. (1993) XDE-564 Herbicide: A 5-Day Toxicity Test with the Freshwater Alga (Anabaena flos-aquae): 

(Final Report): Lab Project Number: 103A-108A: ES-2663. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International Ltd. 41 p. 

44103542 2050463 Kirk, H.; Miller, J. (1996) N-(2,6-Dichlorophenyl)-5-hydroxy-7- fluoro (1,2,4)Triazolo(1,5C)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide: The 

Toxicity to the Green Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-3093. Unpublished study 

prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 13 p. 

44103543 2050464 Kirk, H.; Miller, J. (1996) N-(2,6-Dichlorophenyl)-8-Chloro-7- Fluoro-5-(6H)-Oxo (1,2,4) Triazolo (1,5C) Pyrimidine-2-

Sulfonamide: The Toxicity to the Green Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-3094. 

Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 15 p. 

44103544 2050465 Kirk, H.; Miller, J. (1996) 5-Carboxymethyl-N- (2,6-Dichlorophenyl)-1,2,4-Triazole-3-sulfonamide: Acute Toxicity to the Green 

Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: DECO-ES-3095. Unpublished study prepared by Dow 

Chemical Co. 15 p. 

44210701 2050466 Milazzo, D.; Servinski, M.; Weinberg, J. et al. (1992) XR-564 Herbicide: The Toxicity to the Green Alga, Selenastrum 

capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: ES-2518: DECO-ES-2518. Unpublished study prepared by The Dow Chemical Co. 

30 p. 

44587805 2050467 Kirk, H.; Hugo, J.; Mcfadden, L. (1997) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of XDE-564 (BF-309 Formulation) with a Freshwater 

Green Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 971132. Unpublished study prepared by Dow 

Chemical Company. 44 p. 

44587806 2050468 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 5-Hydroxy-DE-564 Exposed Saltwater Diatom, 

Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: 980008. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Company. 35 p. 

44587807 2050469 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 5-Hydroxy-DE-564 Exposed Freshwater Diatom, 

Navicula pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: 980007. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Co. 35 p. 

44587808 2050470 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Rick, D. et al. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 5-Hydroxy-DE-564 Exposed Aquatic Plant, 

Duckweed Lemna gibba L. G-3: Lab Project Number: 980009. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Company. 38 p. 

44587809 2050471 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 5-Hydroxy-DE-564 Exposed Freshwater Green 

Algae, Selenastrum capricornutum Printz: Lab Project Number: 980011. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical 

Company. 36 p. 

44587810 2050472 Kirk, H.; Gilles, M.; Hugo, J. et al. (1998) Phytotoxicological Evaluation of 5-Hydroxy-DE-564 Exposed Bluegreen Alga, 

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: 980010. Unpublished study prepared by Dow Chemical Company. 35 p. 

141-1 Honey bee acute contact

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441019 2050456 Hoxter, K.; Bernard, W.; Smith, G. et al. (1994) XDE-564 Herbicide: An Acute Contact Toxicity Study with the Honey Bee: 

Amended Report: Lab Project Number: 103/371B: 103/371: ES/2593. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife International 

Ltd. 24 p. 

Non-Guideline Studies

MRID PDF # Citation Reference
32

44103534 Registrant 

assessment

Mayes, M.; Wright, J. (1996) A Review of the Toxicity of Diclosulam (DE-564) Herbicide to Fish, Wildlife, and Plants: Lab 

Project Number: DECO-ES-3141. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco and Dow Chemical Co. 31 p. 

44103535 DER not located Wright, J. (1996) Phytotoxicological Effects of XDE-564 and Its Soil Degradates: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4139. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 35 p. 

44587811 Registrant 

Assessment Peterson, R.; Mayes, M.; Wesenbeeck, I. (1998) Aquatic and Terrestrial Risk Assessment for Diclosulam (DE-564) in the 

Southeastern United States: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4712. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences. 34 p. 

43441020 DER not located Ward, T.; Magazu, J.; Boeri, R. (1994) Acute Toxicity of XDE- 564 Herbicide to the Earthworm, Eisenia foetida: 

Amended Report: Lab Project Number: 84/DO: ES/2583. Unpublished study prepared by T.R. Wilbury Labs, Inc. 23 p.

N/A 2050481 Cover Memo for 29 Ecotoxicity Studies, March 2000
33

Appendix A2. OPPIN Bibliography for Environmental Fate Data

PC Code 129122 Diclosulam Fate/Chemistry Bibliography Fate Folder = F002422 Revised 29 July 2014

161-1 Hydrolysis

MRID PDF # Citation Reference

43441043 2052978

2052989 Batzer, F. (1994) Hydrolysis of XDE-564: Lab Project Number: ENV93082. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 76 p. 

161-2 Photodegradation-water

MRID Citation Reference

43441044 2052979

2052989

Concha, M.; Shepler, K.; Merritt, D. (1994) Photodegradation of (carbon 14) XDE-564 in Buffered Aqueous Solution at pH 5 by 

Natural Sunlight: Lab Project Number: 429W/1: 429W: ENV93099. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 89 p. 

161-3 Photodegradation-soil

MRID Citation Reference

44192603 2052986 Concha, M.; Shepler, K.; Merritt, D. (1995) Photodegradation of (carbon-14)XDE-564 on Soil by Natural Sunlight: Lab Project 

Number: ENV94058: 477W. Unpublished study prepared by PTRL West, Inc. 108 p. 

162-1 Aerobic soil metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

43441045 2052980

2082981

2052989

Yoder, R. (1994) Aerobic Soil Degradation of XDE-564 N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-5-ethoxy-7-fluoro(1,2,4,)triazolo(1,5-c) 

pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide: Lab Project Number: ENV93074R. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 124 p. 

44045201 2052980 Yoder, R. (1995) Aerobic Soil Degradation of XDE-564 of Norfolk Sandy Loam Soil: Supplemental to MRID 43441045 (Aerobic 

Soil Degradation of XDE-564: N-(2,6-dichlorophenyl)-5-ethoxy-7- fluoro(1,2,4)triazolo(1,5-c)pyrimidine-2-sulfonamide): Lab 

Project Number: ENV94103: ENV93074R. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco's North American Environmental 

Chemistry Lab. 66 p. 

44651201 2052988 Kennard, L.; Laskowski, D.; Schnelle, K. et al. (1996) Effect of Soil Temperature and Moisture on XDE-564 Degradation in Soil: 

Lab Project Number: GH-C 3972. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 188 p. 

162-3 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID Citation Reference

44192604 2052987 Batzer, F.; Ostrander, J. (1996) Anaerobic Aquatic Degradation of XDE-564: Lab Project Number: ENV93114. Unpublished 

study prepared by DowElanco. 162 p. 

162-4 Aerobic aquatic metabolism
34

MRID Citation Reference

44103530 2052983 Batzer, F.; Huskin, M. (1996) Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism of (carbon 14)-DE-564: Lab Project Number: ENV96011. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 90 p. 

163-1 Leach/adsorption/desorption

MRID Citation Reference

43471901 2052982

2052989

Cleveland, C.; Ostrander, J. (1994) Laboratory Mobility Assessment of XDE-564, 5-OH XDE-564 and Aged Soil Degradates: Lab 

Project Number: ENV94014. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. 124 

p. 

44103529 DER not located Cryer, S.; Schnelle, K. (1996) Diclosulam Tier II Ground Water Vulnerability Exposure Assessment in the USA Soybean 

Markets: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4142. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 110 p.

164-1 Terrestrial field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

44103531 2052984 Zabik, J.; Kennard, L.; Roberts, D.; et al. (1996) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of DE-564: Lab Project Number: ENV94021. 

Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 351 p. 

44630601 2052985 Peacock, A.; Bormett, G. (1998) Terrestrial Field Dissipation of DE-564 in the Southeastern and Midwestern U.S.: Lab Project 

Number: ENV96021: GH-C 4131: 1097. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC., and Alvey Agricultural 

Research. 524 p. 

49071902 DER not located Dyer, D.; Xu, T. (2014) Waiver of the Requirement for Terrestrial Field Dissipation on Turf - Fluopyram. Project Number: 

M/483769/01/2, US0417. Unpublished study prepared by Bayer CropScience LP. 10p.

164-2 Aquatic field dissipation

MRID Citation Reference

44587802 2052985 Eckert, J. 1998. Independent laboratory validation of method GRM 96.22.Rl - determination of residues of diclosulam and 

aminosulfonyl triazolopyrimidine (ASTP) degradate in soil by capillary gas chromatography with mass selective detection. 

Laboratory Study ID: DE-06-97. Unpublished study performed by Enviro-Bio-Tech, Ltd., Bernville, PA; and submitted by Dow 

AgroSciences LLC, Indianapolis, IN.

44587803 2052985 Duebelbeis, D. (1998) Method Validation Report for GRM 97. 10-Determination of Diclosulam in Water by Capillary Gas 

Chromatography with Mass Selective Detection: Lab Project Number: RES97118. Unpublished study prepared by Dow 

AgroSciences LLC. 38 p. 

44587804 2052985 Kaiser, F.; Duebelbeis, D. (1998) Independent Laboratory Validation of Method GRM 97.10--Determination of Diclosulam in 

Water by Capillary Gas Chromatography with Mass Selective Detection: Lab Project Number: 44441: RES97123. Unpublished 

study prepared by ABC Laboratories, Inc. 72 p. {850.7100} 

165-1 Confined rotational crop

MRID Citation Reference

44103501 Check with HED Stafford, L. (1996) Interpretive Summary of Diclosulam (DE-564) Soybean Residue Chemistry: Lab Project Number: 

GH-C 4127. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco North American Environmental Chemistry Lab. 17 p. 

44103532 Check with HED Lardie, T.; Stafford, L. (1996) A Confined Rotational Crop Study with (carbon 14)XDE-564 Using Wheat, Lettuce, and 

Potatoes: Lab Project Number: MET93004: 93.192. Unpublished study prepared by Plant Sciences, Inc. and 

DowElanco. 140 p. 
35

44103529 Registrant Assessment Cryer, S.; Schnelle, K. (1996) Diclosulam Tier II Ground Water Vulnerability Exposure Assessment in the USA Soybean 

Markets: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4142. Unpublished study prepared by DowElanco. 110 p. 

Non-Guideline Studies

MRID Citation Reference

44103528 DER not 

 located

Yoder, R. (1996) Summary of the Environmental Fate of DE-564: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4131. Unpublished 

study prepared by DowElanco. 52 p.

44587801 Jachetta, J. (1998) Supplemental Information for Establishment of Diclosulam Tolerances in Soybeans and Peanuts 

under the Requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996: Lab Project Number: JJJ061098. Unpublished 

study prepared by DOW AgroSciences LLC. 10 p. 

44587811 Peterson, R.; Mayes, M.; Wesenbeeck, I. (1998) Aquatic and Terrestrial Risk Assessment for Diclosulam (DE-564) in 

the Southeastern United States: Lab Project Number: GH-C 4712. Unpublished study prepared by Dow 

AgroSciences. 34 p. 

44593401 Jaschetta, J.; van Wesenbeeck, I.; Cordes, R. et al. (1998) Reduced Risk Rationale for Diclosulam Herbicide Used in 

the Control of Broadleaf Weeds in Peanuts: Lab Project Number: JJJ062698. Unpublished study prepared by Dow 

AgroSciences LLC. 175 p.

45173103 Richburg, J. (1997) The Crop Tolerance and Yield of Soybeans When Strongarm is Used Sequentially with Other ALS 

Herbicides in the Same Season or when Used Alone Over One or Two Seasons in Coastal U.S.--1996-1997: Lab 

Project Number: NA97I3A031: NA97I3A032: NA96I3A015. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences LLC. 

23 p. 

45606801 Herrera, R. (2002) A Summary of the Non-Destruct Experimental Use Program 62719-EUP-49 for Use on Peanuts: 

BF-309/XDE-564 (Diclosulam): Lab Project Number: RH013102. Unpublished study prepared by Dow AgroSciences 

LLC. 7 p.
36

Appendix B. STIR Model Output

Welcome to the EFED 

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Diclosulam

Enter Chemical Use Soybean

Is the Application a Spray? (enter y or n) y

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) ground

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 406

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 5.00E-15

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.0315

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 2250

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 5000

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 5.04

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 1.09E-10

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.37E-11

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.26E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.09E-12 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 3.33E-03

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 2.63E-04 Exposure not Likely Significant

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation (mg/m3) 1.09E-10

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.73E-11

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 3.00E+02

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 5.75E-14 Exposure not Likely Significant

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 4.18E-03

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.39E-05 Exposure not Likely Significant
37

Appendix C. SIP Model Output

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Diclosulam

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 4290

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 10

Mammalian test species other

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species 2500

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2250

Avian test species northern bobwhite quail

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 50

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 1000

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 737.8800 737.8800

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 3845.8028 12.5743

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 0.1919 58.6814

Conclusion*

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for mammals

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for mammals

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 3474.9000 3474.9000

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 1620.9664 2.4806

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 2.1437 1400.8146

Conclusion*

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for birds

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for birds

*Conclusion is for drinking water exposure alone. This does not combine all routes of exposure. Therefore, when aggregated with 

other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water may contribute to a total exposure that has 

potential for effects to non-target animals.
38

Appendix D. Table of Reported Incidents for Diclosulam from EIIS

PC 

Cod

e

Comm

on 

Name

Typ

e

Incid

ent 

ID

Use 

Site

Start 

Date Legality Certainty

Cou

ntry

Sta

te

Count

y

Ye

ar

Terr

est. 

Plan

t

To

tal 

No

.

Total 

Magni

tude

Appl. 

Rate

Appl. 

Method

Air/

Gnd

Formul

ation

Product

Com

pany 

#

Prod

uct 

#

Di

st. 

#

Wea

ther

Seas

on

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

927-

054

FIEL

D

5/10/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Possi

ble

USA TX COCH

RAN

20

00

Yes 29

0

0.45 

GALS/

ACRE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

015

PEA

NUT

5/6/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX 20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

018

PEA

NUT

5/1/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX DAWS

ON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

BAND N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

022

PEA

NUT

4/28/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Possi

ble

USA TX DAWS

ON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

BAND; 

AT 

PLANT

N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

023

PEA

NUT

5/2/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX DAWS

ON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

BAND, 

PREEME

RGENT

N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

024

PEA

NUT

5/11/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX YOAK

UM

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

025

PEA

NUT

5/12/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

026

PEA

NUT

4/27/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

027

PEA

NUT

5/9/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

028

PEA

NUT

5/10/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

029

PEA

NUT

5/3/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX TERRY 20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ.AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

030

PEA

NUT

5/1/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX DAWS

ON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

031

PEA

NUT

5/3/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

032

PEA

NUT

5/1/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX COCH

RAN

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

033

PEA

NUT

5/1/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes 210 

ACRES

0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

035

PEA

NUT

5/9/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX HOCKL

EY

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

036

PEA

NUT

5/15/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX YOAK

UM

20

00

Yes ALL 

120 

ACRES

0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

037

PEA

NUT

5/15/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA OK YOAK

UM

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

039

PEA

NUT

5/8/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA OK JOHNS

TON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g
39

PC 

Cod

e

Comm

on 

Name

Typ

e

Incid

ent 

ID

Use 

Site

Start 

Date Legality Certainty

Cou

ntry

Sta

te

Count

y

Ye

ar

Terr

est. 

Plan

t

To

tal 

No

.

Total 

Magni

tude

Appl. 

Rate

Appl. 

Method

Air/

Gnd

Formul

ation

Product

Com

pany 

#

Prod

uct 

#

Di

st. 

#

Wea

ther

Seas

on

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

040

PEA

NUT

5/11/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX YOAK

UM

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

041

PEA

NUT

4/28/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

042

PEA

NUT

5/1/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX HOCKL

EY

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

043

PEA

NUT

5/6/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX LUBB

OCK

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

044

PEA

NUT

5/2/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX HOCKL

EY

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

045

PEA

NUT

4/30/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX LUBB

OCK

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

048

PEA

NUT

5/8/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA OK JOHNS

TON

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

049

PEA

NUT

4/27/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA N

M

LEA 20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

050

PEA

NUT

4/26/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

051

PEA

NUT

4/28/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX CROSB

Y

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

053

PEA

NUT

4/22/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

055

PEA

NUT

5/11/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX TERRY 20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

GAL/A

CRE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

056

Pean

ut

5/8/2

000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX COCH

RAN

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I010

936-

057

Pean

ut

4/29/

2000

REGISTE

RED USE

Prob

able

USA TX GAINE

S

20

00

Yes ALL 0.45 

OZ/AC

RE

Broadcas

t

Gnd N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I011

838-

111

Pean

ut

6/2/2

001

Undeter

mined

Possi

ble

USA GA 20

01

Yes 26 

acres

Stronga

rm

Sum

mer

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I011

942-

002

Pean

ut

6/2/2

001

Undeter

mined

Possi

ble

USA GA 20

01

Yes ALL N/R N/R N/R STRON

GARM

N/R Sum

mer

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I012

366-

002

Pean

ut

5/5/2

000

Register

ed use

Prob

able

USA OK TILLM

AN

20

00

Yes 30 

acres

0.45 

oz/acr

e

Broadcas

t

Gnd Stronga

rm

6271

9

288 Sprin

g

129

122

Diclos

ulum

PLA

NTS

I016

828-

002

Pean

ut

9/27/

2005

Register

ed use

Possi

ble

USA N

M

Roose

velt

20

05

Yes Unkno

wn

Granul

ar

Stronga

rm

6271

9

288 Autu

mn