Ecological Risk Assessment for the Proposed IR-4 Uses of

Acequinocyl (PC 006329)

on

Succulent Soybean Vegetable (i.e., edamame), Low Growing Berry

Subgroup 13-07G, Small Fruit Vine Climbing (except fuzzy

kiwifruit) Subgroup 13-07F, Bean (succulent shelled), Cowpea

Forage, Caneberry Subgroup 13-07A, Melon Subgroup 9A,

Cucumber, and Cherry (DP 390259)

October 25, 2011

5

111••••111

2087873

TEXT SEARCHABLE DOCUMENT 2011
Tables of Contents

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 10

1.1. Nature of Stressor 10

1.2. Potential Risk 10

1.2.1. Aquatic Organisms 10

1.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms 11

1.3. Endangered Species Assessment 11

2. PROBLEM FORMlTLATION 13

2.1. Overview ofRegulatory Action 13

2.2. Stressor Description 13

2.3. Mode of Action 15

2.4. Use Characterization 15

2.4.1. Targeted Pests 15

2.4.2. Proposed Uses 16

2.4.3. Registered Uses 17

2.4.4. Use Restrictions ]8

2.5. Assessment Endpoints 18

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk 19

2.7. Analysis Plan 20

2.7.1. Measures ofExposure 21

2.7.2. Measures of Effect 23

2.7.3. Integration ofExposure and Effects 25

2.8. Risk Hypotheses 26

2.9. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps 27

3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 28

3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals 28

3.2. Monitoring Data 28

3.3. Aquatic Exposure Estimates 28

3.3.1. Aquatic Modeling Approaches 1 and 2 28

3.3.2. PRZM/EXAMS Modeling 29

3.3.3. Tier 1 Riee Model and Provisional Cranberry Model 31

3.3.4. PRZM-EXAMS, Rice, and Provisional Cranberry Modeling Outputs 32

3.4. Terrestrial Exposure Estimates 35

3.4.1. Birds and Mammals 35

3.4.2. Plants 36

4. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 37

4.1. Aquatic Effects Summary 37

4.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish 37

4.1.2. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish 39

4.1.3. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 39

4.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 40

6
4.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 41

4.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary 42

4.2.1. Toxicity to Birds 42

4.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals 43

4.2.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 44

4.2.4. Toxicity to Non-target Insects 45

4.2.5. Toxicity to Earthworms 45

4.3. Incident Database Review 46

5. RISK ESTIMATION 46

5.1. Aquatic RQs 46

5.1.1. Aquatic Acute RQs 46

5.1.2. Aquatic Chronic RQs 48

5.2. Terrestrial RQs 50

5.2.1. Avian RQs 50

5.2.2. Mammalian RQs 51

5.2.3. Plant RQs 52

5.2.4. Invertebrate RQs 52

6. RISK CHARACTERIZATION 52

6.1. Aquatic Risk 53

6.1.1. Aquatic Animals 53

6.1.2. Plants 56

6.2. Terrestrial Risk 56

6.2.1. Animals (Birds, Mammals, and Insects) 56

6.3. Endangered Species 57

6.3.1. Aquatic Endangered Species 58

6.3.2. Terrestrial Endangered Species 58

6.3.3. Direct and Indirect Effects 58

REFERENCES 60

7
List of Tables

Table 1-1. Number of Endangered Species That May Be Directly Affected by the Proposed Uses

ofAcequinocyl 11

Table 1-2. Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa 12

Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Acequinocyl 13

Table 2-2. Proposed Use Rates for Acequinocy1. 16

Table 2-3: Previous Actions and Assessed Uses for Acequinocyl 17

Table 2-4. Measures of Exposure and Effect Used in Assessing Potential Risks Associated with

the Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl 25

Table 2-5. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels ofConcern (LOC) per Risk Class .. 26

Table 3-1. Acequinocyl Use Patterns for the Proposed New Uses 28

Table 3-2. PRZM/EXAMS Input Parameters for Approaches 1 and 2 29

Table 3-3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters 32

Table 3-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic

Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZM/EXAMS and Provisional Cranberry

Model 33

Table 3-5. Benthic Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total

Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZM/EXAMS 34

Table 3-6. Avian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses 36

Table 3-7. Mammalian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses 36

Table 3-8. Terrestrial Plant Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl 37

Table 4-1. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Fish 37

Table 4-2. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Fish 39

Table 4-3. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Estuarine/Marine Fish 39

Table 4-4. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates 40

Table 4-5. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates 40

Table 4-6. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 41

Table 4-7. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Aquatic Plants 41

Table 4-8. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Birds 42

Table 4-9. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Birds 43

Table 4-10. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Mammals 43

Table 4-11. Developmental and Reproductive Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Mammals 44

Table 4-12. Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Terrestrial Plants 45

Table 4-13. Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Non-target Insects 45

Table 4-14. Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Earthworms 46

Table 5-1. Summary of Aquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No

Acequinocyl Degradation) 47

Table 5-2. Summary of Aquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined

Acequinocyl and Rl) 47

Table 5-3. Summary of Aquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes No

Acequinocyl Degradation) 49

Table 5-4. Summary of Aquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined

Acequinocyl and Rl) 50

8
Table 5-5. Summary of Avian Chronic RQs 51

Table 5-6. Summary of Mammalian Chronic RQs 52

Table 5-7. Summary of RQs for Plants in Dry and Semi-aquatic Areas 52

Table 6-1. Chance ofIndividual Effects for Freshwater Invertebrates Based on Acute RQs and

Exposure Modeling Approaches 1 and 2 55

Table 6-2. Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa 58

List of Figures

Figure 2-1. Chemical Structures of Acequinocyl (left) and Major Degradate of Acequinocyl-OH

(R1) (right) 13

Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model for Acequinocyl.. 20

9
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Interregional Research Project Number 4 (IR-4) has submitted an application to the

Environmental Protection Agency, with support from the manufacturer of acequinocyl (PC

006329), Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation, to amend the registration (EPA Reg. #

66330-38) for Kanemite 15 SC containing the active ingredient acequinocyl (15.8% a.i.). The

application includes the addition of uses ofthe pesticide on succulent soybean vegetable (i. e.,

edamame), low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy

kiwifruit), subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13-07

A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry (DP 390259). The maximum application rates for

the proposed uses are not to exceed 0.3 lb a.i./A for a single application rate (0.6Ib a.i./A for a

seasonal application rate), with a minimum re-application interval of 21 days (14 days for bean

(succulent shelled), cowpea forage, and cherry). The IR-4 petition also includes additional

submission of residue field trial data and supporting product labels under DP 389520.

1.1. Nature of Stressor

Acequinocyl, the active ingredient ofthe miticide Kanemite 15 SC, is used for the control of a

variety of mites.

Both the parent acequinocyl (3-dodecyl-l ,4-dihydro-l ,4-dioxo-2-naphthyl acetate) and its

primary degradate, 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-l,4-napthoquinone (also referred to as Rl, deacetylated

acequinocyl, hydroxylated acequinocyl, acequinocyl-OH, OH-AKD 2023, or AKM-05) appear

to mediate the chemical's mode of action through the inhibition of electron transfer in

mitochondria. Acequinocyl is classified as very highly toxic to freshwater and estuarine/marine

invertebrates, slightly to moderately toxic to freshwater fish, highly toxic to estuarine/marine

fish, practically non-toxic to moderately toxic to birds, practically non-toxic to mammals, and

practically non-toxic to honeybees.

1.2. Potential Risk

The screening-level risk assessment for acequinocyl identified potential concerns for direct

effects on aquatic invertebrates, birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. Details on

potential risk to individual organisms in aquatic and terrestrial environments are discussed

below.

1.2.1. Aquatic Organisms

Among the aquatic organisms, invertebrates (both in freshwater and estuarine/marine media) are

highly sensitive to acequinocyl. Analysis suggests that the proposed uses of acequinocyl pose

risk to both endangered and non-endangered freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates from

acute and chronic exposures. In contrast, no risk concerns exist for acute or chronic exposures of

either endangered or non-endangered fish in freshwater or estuarine/marine environments.

10
Only one freshwater non-vascular plant, Selenastrum capricornutum, has been tested to evaluate

the acute effects of acequinocyl. Calculated risk quotients (RQs) for this species do not exceed

the agency-established acute endangered species risk LOC for aquatic plants.

1.2.2. Terrestrial Organisms

Acute RQs were not calculated for birds (oral and dietary) and mammals (oral and dietary)

because acute toxicity tests have yielded only non-definitive endpoints. Since no mortality was

observed at the highest acequinocyl concentrations tested and estimated exposure concentrations

(EECs) are below these levels, no acute effects are expected.

Dietary-based chronic RQs for birds and mammals consuming short grass exclusively exceed the

chronic risk LOC of 1.0. Dose-based chronic RQs for mammals foraging on short grass, tall

grass, broadleafplants, and small insects also exceed the chronic risk LOC. Therefore the

proposed uses of acequinocyl pose a risk to terrestrial vertebrates. Since acequinocyl is a

miticide and the highest dose tested in the acute contact study with honey bees is below the

exposure level to preclude risk to federally listed species, risk to listed terrestrial invertebrates is

assumed.

Acequinocyl does not appear to pose non-endangered or endangered species risk concerns for

plants in both dry and semi-aquatic habitats.

1.3. Endangered Species Assessment

A search ofthe LOCATES database (version 2.2) was used to determine which endangered

species are present in the states where proposed uses of acequinocyl will occur. The numbers of

endangered species in various taxa that may be directly affected by the proposed uses of

acequinocyl are presented in Table 1-1.

Table 1-1. Number of Endangered Species That May Be Directly Affected by the Proposed

Uses of Acequinocyl

Mammals

Birds

Am hibians

Re tiles

Fish

Crustaceans

Bivalves

Gastro ods

Coral

70

82

18

25

o

20

71

70

2

Based on LOC exceedances, endangered species of aquatic invertebrates and terrestrial

mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates will experience direct effects from the

proposed uses of acequinocyl (Table 1-2).

11
Table 1-2. Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa

Specific indirect effects were not identified as refined analysis was not conducted.

I Organism Direct Effects Indirect Effectsl

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic monocots and dicots No No

Terrestrial invertebrates Yes Yes

Birds Yes Yes

Terrestrial-phase amphibians Yes Yes

Reptiles Yes Yes

Mammals Yes Yes

rt;quatic vascular plants No Yes

Freshwater fish No Yes

I I Aquatic-phase amphibians No Yes

I Estuarine/marine fish No Yes

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Yes

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Yes Yes I

12
2. PROBLEM FORMULATION

The purpose of this problem formulation is to provide the foundation for the ecological risk

assessment being conducted for acequinocyl. As such, it articulates the purpose and objectives

ofthe risk assessment, evaluates the nature ofthe problem, and provides a plan for analyzing the

data and characterizing the risk (USEPA, 1998).

2.1. Overview ofRegulatory Action

The Interregional Research Project-4 (IR-4) has submitted an application to the Agency, with

support from the manufacturer Arysta LifeScience North America Corporation, to amend the

Kanemite 15 SC label (EPA Reg. # 66330-38) containing the miticide acequinocyl (15.8% a.i.).

The proposed label amendments to Kanemite 15 SC are for succulent soybean vegetable (i.e.,

edamame), low growing berry subgroup 12-070, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy

kiwifruit) subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13-

07A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry.

2.2. Stressor Description

Acequinocyl (2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-l,4-naphthalenedione) belongs to the quinone class of

chemicals. One ofthe major metabolites ofacequinocyl is 2-dodecyl-3-hydroxy-l,4-

naphthoquinone (also referred to as Rl, hydroxylated, deacetylated acequinocyl, acequinocylOH, OH-AKD 2023, or AKM-05). Figure 2-1 shows the molecular structure of acequinocyl and

its major degradate Rl.

OH

o o

o 0

Figure 2-1. Chemical Structures of Acequinocyl (left) and Major Degradate of

Acequinocyl-OH (R1) (right)

Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference. provides a summary of physical and chemical

properties of acequinocyl.

Table 2-1. Physical and Chemical Properties of Acequinocyl

Common Name: Acequinocyl

CAS Chemical Name: 2-(acetyloxy)-3-dodecyl-I,4-naphthalenedione

Empirical Formula: C24H320 4

Chemical Family: Quinoline

Vapor Pressure: 1.27 x 10"'mm Hg at 25 C (technical, product chemistry)

Water Solubility: 6.69 ug/L at 20 C (technical, product chemistry)

OctanollWater Partition Coefficient (Log Kow): ~6.2 (technical)

13
Molecular Weight: 384.5 g/mol (technical, product chemistry)

Melting Point: 59.6°C (technical, product chemistry)

Henry's Lay Constant: 9.59x 10'7 atm-rrr'zmol (technical, calculated)

Acequinocyl appears to undergo fairly rapid transformation in most aquatic and terrestrial

environments based on environmental fate data of uncertain quality. The half-lives for aerobic

biotransformation for the [phenyl-U- 14C] and [dodecyl-14C] labels were less than 2 days under

laboratory conditions for United Kingdom sandy loam and silt loam soils (MRID 45434911).

The major transformation product was identified as Rl for both labels and soils. At the [phenylU_14C] label, Rl was detected at a maximum 28.3% at 7 days in United Kingdom sandy loam

and 33.8% at 2 days in United Kingdom silt loam. At the [dodecyl-i''C] label, Rl was detected

at a maximum 23.5% at 7 days in United Kingdom sandy loam and 22.1% at 10 days in United

Kingdom silt loam. A summary of acequinocyl major degradates and maximum percent

formation observed in laboratory and field studies is presented in Appendix A.

The persistence of the degradate Rl was determined using the submitted fate studies for

acequinocyl. Among fate studies submitted for parent, the soil metabolism study was found

useful to estimate the persistence ofRl. Based on the aerobic soil metabolism study submitted

for parent (MRID 45434911), the half-lives calculated for the degradate Rl in Malham silt loam

soil, ranged from 48.8 days for phenyl labeled acequinocyl to 54.2 days for dodecyllabeled

acequinocyl in the laboratory conditions.

The soil adsorption Kd for acequinocyl ranged from 678 mUg in sandy loam soil to 1,620 mUg

in silty clay loam soil (MRID 45531902) suggesting very low mobility in soil based on a study

with one test concentration instead of four test concentrations as required by Subdivision N

guidelines. In the field studies, the parent was not detected below 0-15 em soil depth (MRID

45651601). The major route of dissipation of acequinocyl under terrestrial field conditions at the

New York, Georgia, and California test sites was transformation. The major transformation

product detected in the field study was Rl. At the New York, Georgia and California sites Rl

was detected at maximum concentration of37.8%, 37.8% and 26%, respectively in 0-15 ern soil

depth.

Acequinocyl hydrolyzed at pH dependent rates. The hydrolysis rate at 25° C increased in the

order pH 4 (t1/2 = 75.3 days< pH 7 (t1/2 = 39.8 hours) < pH 9 (tl/2 = 1.3 hours).

In the pH 4, pH 7 and pH 9 buffers the major transformation product from hydrolyses was Rl. At

pH 4 Rl comprised a maximum average of23.2% of the applied at 30 days post-treatment; pH 7

comprised a maximum average of 54.7% ofthe applied at 96 hours post-treatment; and pH 9 RI

comprised a maximum average of 48.7% ofthe applied at 1.5 hours post-treatment (MRID

45434908).

Photodegradation in water appeared to be the main route of degradation in aquatic environments,

with half-lives ofless than 15 minutes in sterile lab and river water. The major transformation

product Rl was a maximum 13.83% ofthe applied at 14 days post-treatment.

Acequinocyl has a vapor pressure of 1.69 x 10-6 torr (at 25°C) and very low water solubility of

14
6.69 I!g/L.

Based on acequinocyl's high octanol/water partition coefficient (Log Kow 6.2), acequinocyl

would be expected to bioconcentrate in fish. However, the depuration half-lives were quite rapid

(0.7 days in the low exposure experiment and 1.3 days in the high exposure experiment),

resulting in much lower bioconcentration factors (BCF ranged from 307X to 387X, MRID

45434923).

Although the fate and transport database is complete, most ofthe environmental fate studies

submitted prior to the initial registration were classified "supplemental" due to numerous

identified deficiencies such as poor chromatographic separation of acequinocyl and hydroxylated

acequinocyl, use of a chloroform: methanol solvent system, lack of LOD and LOQ data, uneluted radioactive residues in the solid phase extraction process, and lack ofstorage stability

data. These issues need to be addressed by the registrant to upgrade the fate studies.

The registrant submitted an amended analytical method for determination ofresidues of

acequinocyl and its major metabolite R1 (hydroxy-acequinocyl) in drinking water, ground water

and surface water (MRID 48016602), and an amended analytical method for the determination of

acequinocyl, hydroxy-acequinocyl, and AKM-18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in

the process ofreviewing the submitted studies.

2.3. Mode of Action

Acequinocyl, the active ingredient ofthe Kanemite 15 SC, is used for the control ofmites.

Acequinocyl's mode of action is through mitochondrial electron transport inhibition. Upon

application, acequinocyl hydrolyzes to hydroxy-acequinocyl (R1) in the mite body and binds to

the Qo center at complex III in mitochondria. The net result is the blockage of cellular

respiration and other adverse metabolic effects in mites. Both the parent acequinocyl and its

major metabolite (R1) are thought to be capable ofinhibiting the electron transfer in the

mitochondria. It is not clear at this point what portion ofthe miticidal action is contributed by

the parent, metabolite R1, or both.

Acequinocyl has no systemic activity but provides contact control of all life stages of mites.

Therefore, thorough plant coverage is necessary for effective mite control. To a lesser extent,

acequinocyl is also effective through ingestion. The label states that KANEMITE 15 SC is not

expected to have cross-resistance to existing miticides and is reportedly very effective against

various species of mites.

2.4. Use Characterization

2.4.1. Targeted Pests

KANEMITE 15 SC is a miticide primarily applied as a foliar ground spray for control of Citrus

red mite (Panonychus citri), European red mite (Panonychus ulmi), Pacific spider mite

15
(Tetranychus pacificus), Texas citrus mite (Eutetranychus banski), Spruce spider mite

(Oligonychus ununquis), Strawberry spider mite (Tetranychus turkestam), Willamette spider

mite (Eotetranychus willamette), Two spotted spider mite (Tetranychus urticae and Tetranychus

cinnabarinusi, and Broad mite (Polyphagotarsonamus latus). According to the registrant, when

applied to foliage, KANEMITE 15 SC provides quick knockdown and long residual control.

The proposed label addition/amendment for acequinocyl includes its use as a miticide on

succulent soybean vegetable (i.e., edamame), low growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit

vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), subgroup 13-07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea

forage, caneberry subgroup 13-07A, melon subgroup 9A, cucumber, and cherry.

2.4.2. Proposed Uses

The proposed uses for acequinocyl are succulent soybean vegetable (i.e., edamame), low

growing berry subgroup 13-07G, small fruit vine climbing (except fuzzy kiwifruit), subgroup 13-

07F, bean (succulent shelled), cowpea forage, caneberry subgroup 13-07A, melon subgroup 9A,

cucumber, and cherry. The maximum application rates for the proposed uses are not to exceed

0.3 lb a.i./A for a single application rate and 0.6 lb a.i./A for a seasonal application rate, with a

minimum re-application interval of 21 days (14 days for bean (succulent shelled), cowpea

forage, and cherry). Table 2-2 summarizes the application rates and application methods for the

proposed uses. This information is obtained from the label and is used in the exposure

assessment.

Table 2-2. Proposed Use Rates for Acequinocyl

Maximum Annual Minimum Maximum

I

Application !

Proposed Individual Maximum Application Seasonal Method I

Use Application Number of Interval (days) Rate(lb

Rate (Ib a.i.fA) Applications a.i.lA) 1

Succulent soybean 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray vegetable (edamame)

Low growing berry 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray (subgroup 13-07G)

Small fruit (vine

climbing, except fuzzy 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray kiwifruit, subgroup 13-

07F)

Bean, succulent 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray shelled

Cowpea forage 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray

Caneberry (subgroup 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray ~13-07A)

Melon (subgroup 9A) 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray

Cucumber 0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground spray

Cherry 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground spray

The proposed label states the maximum application rate on a seasonal basis, ThIS rate IS mferred to be an annual

maximum given the restriction of two applications per year not to exceed 0.3 lb a.i.lA in a single application.

16
2.4.3. Registered Uses

Acequinocyl initial registration was for greenhouse and shadehouse use on ornamentals and

nursery crops (USEPA, 2003). Acequinocyl initial food use registration was for pome fruits,

citrus, almonds, pistachios, and strawberries (USEPA, 2004). Previous actions and assessed uses

for acequinocyl are presented in

Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Previous Actions and Assessed Uses for Acequinocyl

Crop ,

Applicatiol;lRate Number,()f

'"."

Aetipn, Risk Conclusions '", ".' " ,(lb a.i./A.) , ~~plica!io?s " ,~~Ba"code'l

,Single Seasoriall (~ppl~~~~i9n· Date ",

:I

'": Annual IDtel"ValinrDays) ,"

" "

Greenhouse, N/A N/A N/A Section 3 · Uses may pose potential risk

Shadehouse: New Uses to aquatic invertebrates.

Ornamental, Floral, 0291707 · Uses are not expected to

Foliage, and Nursery 8/7/03 adversely affect fish.

Crops · Assuming 1000 gallons of

formulated mix containing

0.125 lbs a.i./acre, uses may

I I

pose a potential risk to

endangered birds and

mammals.

Pome Fruits 0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 · Uses pose risk to: freshwater

Citrus New Uses invertebrates from acute and

Almonds 0285811 chronic exposures and

Pistachios 0286428 estuarine/marine

Strawberries 0289153 invertebrates from acute

Outdoor Ornamentals 0.125 0.250 2 (14) 0290010 exposure.

0287269 · Food uses pose risk to shortI

0290009 grass consuming birds and

I

I

D291174 mammals from chronic

2/3/04 exposure.

Citrus,

I

0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 · Uses pose direct risk to:

Tree Nuts New Uses aquatic invertebrates (listed

Grapes D337381 and non-listed) from acute

Pome Fruits 0330467 and chronic exposures and

Strawberries D330471 birds and mammals from

Outdoor Ornamentals 0.125 0.25 2 (14) 8115/07 chronic exposure.

· Uses are not expected to

pose direct risk to: fish from

acute or chronic exposures;

plants (aquatic and

\

terrestrial; listed and nonlisted); and birds and

mammals from acute

exposure.

17
Crop AppU~~tion~.ate Number of action Risk Conclusions

(lb a.i.tAY .... Applications DPBarcode

Sillgle SeasonaV ~~PR·*~~t~on Date

Annual IntervaJ inDays)

Fruiting Vegetables 0.3 0.6 2 (21) Section 3 • Uses pose direct risk to:

(except Cucurbits): 1R-4 aquatic invertebrates (listed

Eggplant, Ground New Uses and non-listed) from acute

Cherry, Pepino, 0368579 and chronic exposures and

Peppers (Bell, Chili, 0368426 birds and mammals from

Cooking, Pimento, D417967 chronic exposure.

Sweet), Tomatillo, D417966 • Uses are not expected to

and Tomato 4/29110 pose direct risk to: fish

Okra (listed and non-listed) from

Edible podded beans acute or chronic exposures; Hops plants (terrestrial vascular

and aquatic non-vascular;

listed and non-listed); and

birds and mammals from

acute exposure.

N/A = not applIcable

2.4.4. Use Restrictions

The product label use restrictions specify that the product is not to be applied via irrigation, via

aerial application, or within 75 feet of aquatic areas. A level, well-maintained vegetative buffer

strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface water features such as ponds,

streams, and springs will reduce the potential loading of acequinocyl and its dcgradates from

runoff water and sediment. By avoiding applications when rainfall is forecasted to occur within

48 hours, runoff ofthis product will be reduced.

Currently, the label includes the following surface water statement:

"This product may contaminate water through drift ofspray in wind. This product has a

potential for runoff for several days after application. Poorly draining soils and soils with

shallow water tables are more prone to produce runoffthat contains this product. A level, well

maintained vegetative buffer strip between areas to which this product is applied and surface

water features such as ponds, streams, and springs will reduce the potential for contamination of

water from rainfall-runoff. Runoff ofthis product will be reduced by avoiding applications when

rainfall is forecasted to occur within 48 hours. Sound erosion control practices will reduce this

product's contribution to surface water contamination."

2.5. Assessment Endpoints

Assessment endpoints aid in evaluating potential risk to an ecosystem from pesticide

applications. Endpoints for a particular pesticide are determined based on toxicity information

from guideline tests and open literature data. Endpoints are measured at the individual level to

provide insight about risks at higher levels of biological organization such as populations and

18
communities.

In a screening-level risk assessment, endpoints for both aquatic and terrestrial animal species are

survival, growth, and reproductive impairment. For terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants, the

screening assessment endpoint is plant perpetuation (measured as seedling emergence and

vegetative vigor). For aquatic plants, the assessment endpoint is growth rate and/or biomass

production.

2.6. Ecosystems Potentially at Risk

The ecosystem primarily at risk from acequinocyl applications is the crop field and outdoor area

to which it is applied. Biota, fauna more than flora, in crop fields, outdoor areas, and areas

adjoining the sprayed environment may be affected by acequinocyl application and

accumulation. Terrestrial species of potential concern in the treated areas include non-target

insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. The adjacent aquatic and terrestrial

environments may also be affected due to runoff or spray drift or both. Aquatic species at risk

from acequinocyl runoff and drift include freshwater fish and invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish

and invertebrates, and amphibians.

As an insecticide, acequinocyl may not adversely impact plants in the terrestrial or aquatic

ecosystems. However, based on the potential to bind to soil with Kd's ranging from 678 to 1,620

mUg, acequinocyl may cause adverse effects to sediment-dwelling organisms. The

bioaccumulation factor (BCF of 307-387) for acequinocyl further indicates its tendency (though

moderate) to accumulate in fish.

The conceptual model, presented in Figure 2-2, generically depicts the potential source of

acequinocyl, release mechanisms, abiotic receiving media, biological receptor types, and

possible direct and indirect effects due to exposure to acequinocyl. Acequinocyl is expected to

exhibit low mobility in soil and low potential to leach to ground water due to its high Koc values.

Therefore, exposure estimates from leaching to groundwater were not evaluated in this risk

assessment. Potential emission of volatile compounds is not considered as a viable release

mechanism for acequinocyl because ofa low Henry's Constant (9.59x 10-7 atm-rrr'zmol),

19
Stressor Acequinocyl Applied as Foliar Spray I

____t _ I I

'Ground I -1- I

I water I

I I

, I

1_- 1

Aquatic Plant

Population

Reduced

Growth Rates

and Biomass

Leaching

(lnfiltration/

Percolation)

Aquatic Invertebrates

Aquatic Vertebrates

Aquatic Plants

Surface

Water,

Sediment

Habitat Alteration: impacting nesting

ability, ability to seek cover, etc.

!ndividual Aquatic

Vertebrates and

Invertebrates

Reduced Survival

Reduced Growth

Reduced Reproduction

Riparian/

Wetland

Foliage/Soil

Upland

Foliage/

Soil

Perturbing Forage

or Prey Availability

Individual Terrestrial

Plants

Seedling Emergence

Vegetative Vigor

Terrestrial

Food Residues

(foliage, fruit,

insects)/ Soil

Terrestrial Animals

Birds, Mammals,

Reptiles, Terrestrialphase Amphibians, Bees

Individual Terrestrial

Animals

Reduced Surv ivai

Reduced Growth

Reduced Reproduction

'f .------------

I Volatilization :

: I

I I

, I

I -----~

Exposure

Method

Receptors

Indirect

Effects

Source!

Exposure

Media

Direct

Effects

Source!

Transport

Pathway

Figure 2-2. Conceptual Model for Acequinocyl

IExposure pathways in dashed/red are not evaluated in view of acequinocyl's low vapor pressure (1.69 x 10-6 atmm3!mol, 25°C) and low soil mobility (Koc = 77,400 mUg)

2.7. Analysis Plan

Two approaches were used in performing this risk assessment for the proposed uses of

acequinocyl. In Approach l, acequinocyl is conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of

degradation because ofthe uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, particularly

the lack of validation of analytical methods and the lack ofstorage stability data. In Approach 2,

it is assumed that the half-lives ofacequinocyl and the hydroxylated degradate (Rl) are valid,

and the total toxic residues (acequinocyl + Rl) are modeled to address toxicity concerns with Rl.

According to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC), the residues of

concern in the dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated

degradate (USEPA, 2007b).

20
2.7.1. Measures of Exposure

Measures of exposure are based on terrestrial and aquatic models that estimate environmental

concentrations ofthe chemical being assessed using labeled application rates and methods. The

measure of exposure for aquatic species in water bodies receiving runoff and/or spray drift is the

estimated environmental concentration (EEC) expected once every ten years based on 30 years

ofsimulations. The l-in-lO year peak concentration is used for estimating acute effects to

aquatic vertebrate and invertebrate species; the l-in-lO year 2l-day mean concentration is used

for assessing chronic exposure of aquatic invertebrates; and the l-in-lO year 60-day mean

concentration is used for assessing chronic exposure offish (and aquatic-phase amphibians).

Aquatic EECs are calculated with the Tier II aquatic exposure model PRZMIEXAMS for all

proposed uses except for cranberry. For cranberry, aquatic EECs are calculated with the Tier I

Rice Model and with the Provisional Cranberry Model. EECs from exposure to Kanemite 15 SC

via spray drift were calculated using the spray drift model AgDRIFT.

Terrestrial EECs for animals are estimated with T-REX (vl.4.!) and based on upper bound

exposure concentrations for various dietary items. Exposure of naturally-occurring terrestrial

and semi-aquatic (wetland) plant species is typically estimated using OPP's TerrPlant (vl.2.2)

model to provide estimates of exposure to terrestrial plants from single pesticide applications and

is assumed to encompass areas outside the immediate use site.

2.7.1.1. PRZMIEXAMS

The Tier II model Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM v3.12.2; May 12, 2005; Carousel et al.,

undated) linked with EXposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS v2.98.4.6; Apr. 25, 2005;

Burns, 2004) via the model shell PRZM/EXAMS (PE v5.0, Nov. 15,2006) is used to estimate

baseline-level exposure of aquatic environments to acequinocyl. The PRZM model simulates

pesticide movement and transformation on and across the agricultural field resulting from crop

applications. The EXAMS model simulates pesticide loading via runoff, erosion, and spray drift

assuming a "standard" l-ha pond, 2-m deep (20,000 rrr') with no outlet that borders a 10-ha

treated field. Simulations are run for multiple (usually 30) years, and the Agency estimates peak

and running mean values that are expected once every ten years based on the daily values

generated during the simulation. The PE, PRZM, and EXAMS models and users manuals are

available from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Water Models web-page (USEPA,

20lla).

Exposure estimates generated using the "standard" pond are intended to represent those that

might occur in a wide variety of vulnerable water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds

including prairie pot holes, playa lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and

intermittent and first-order streams. As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies

more or less vulnerable than the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger

ratios of pesticide-treated drainage area to water body volume would be expected to have higher

peak EECs than the standard pond. These water bodies will be either smaller in size or have

21
large drainage areas. Smaller water bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow

and carry pesticide in the discharge, whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As watershed

size increases, it becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a nonmajor single crop that is all treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can

also have peak concentrations higher than the standard pond, but they likely to persist for only

short periods oftime and are then carried and dissipated downstream.

2.7.1.2. Rice Model

The Tier I Rice Model (vl.O, May 8, 2007) is used to characterize screening-level exposure to

acequinocyl that may occur in water bodies receiving released bog water following use on

cranberry. The Tier I Rice model is used to assess the proposed use on cranberry because the

Provisional Tier I Cranberry Model, which is specific to cranberry use, is not vetted and

approved for use in risk assessment.

The Tier I Rice Model relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide conservative

exposure estimates 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. The model does not account for pesticide degradation, mass

transfer between the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipation

processes. The Tier I Rice Model is calibrated to generate estimates that are consistent with or

conservative for dissolved concentrations measured within rice paddies and in discharged paddy

water.

The model is not evaluated or calibrated for concentrations measured in sediment and does not

account for residues bound to suspended sediment. Furthermore, the model is not calibrated to

evaluate exposure in cranberry bogs. A description of and guidance for using the Tier I Rice

Model may be found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Models webpage (USEPA, 201Ia).

2.7.1.3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model

In order to further characterize exposure from the proposed use on cranberry, the Provisional

Tier I Cranberry Model is used to estimate screening-level peak and mean concentrations of

acequinocyl that may occur in water bodies receiving released bog water following use on

cranberry. This model is produced by making two provisional refinements to the Tier I Rice

Model, including the addition ofsimple degradation processes in dry and flooded conditions and

a water depth oftwelve inches, rather than the water depth offour inches used in the rice model.

The cranberry bog water depth of twelve inches is a maximum depth recommended by the Cape

Cod Cranberry Growers Association (200 I). A more detailed description ofthe Tier I Cranberry

Model and the equations used in the provisional Tier I Cranberry Model are presented in

Appendix B.

Cranberry bogs are almost exclusively oriented in a series as water from one bog is used to flood

22
subsequent bogs. Without substantial time for degradation and assuming similar acequinocyl

application regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may increase in concentration beyond

what is modeled in this assessment.

2.7.1.4. AgDRIFT

AgDRIFT (v2.01; May 24, 2001) is used to estimate aquatic exposure resulting from spray drift

of Kanemite 15 SC into the "standard" 1-ha pond. Details concerning the specifics and

uncertainties associated with the AgDRIFT model are available online at www.agdrift.com.

2.7.1.5. T-REX (v1.4.1)

T-REX is a spreadsheet-based model that calculates the residues on avian and mammalian food

items along with the dissipation rate of a chemical applied to foliar surfaces (for single or

multiple applications) in order to estimate exposure and risk quotients. The results are presented

by weight class for various sized birds and mammals for each type of application. The T-REX

model and user's manual are available from the EPA Terrestrial Models web-page (USEPA,

2011b).

2.7.1.6. TerrPlant (v1.2.2)

TerrPlant is a Tier 1 model for screening-level assessments of pesticides that provides estimates

of exposure to plants in dry and semi-aquatic areas from single pesticide applications. The

TerrPlant model is based on 2 scenarios, a runoff scenario and a drift scenario. The runoff

scenario, characterized as "sheet runoff' (one treated acre to an adjacent acre for dry areas) and

"channel runoff' (l0 acres to a distant low-lying acre for semi-aquatic or wetland areas), is based

on a pesticide's water solubility and the amount of pesticide present on the soil surface and in its

top one centimeter. Spray drift is assumed to be 1% for ground applications; 5% for aerial,

airblast, forced air, and spray chemigation applications; and 0% for granular applications. Plant

exposure concentrations are derived from a single, maximum application rate only and do not

allow for degradation ofthe pesticide for multiple application scenarios.

2.7.2. Measures of Effect

Effects that a pesticide may produce in an animal or plant (terrestrial or aquatic) are evaluated

using registrant-submitted studies conducted with a limited number of surrogate test species and

based on OCSPP guidelines. Toxicity studies have been submitted for freshwater fish and

invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish and invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds, mammals, bees, and

other terrestrial invertebrates and are presented in Appendix C. New studies submitted since the

conditional registration can be identified by their 850 guideline series.

Bobwhite quail and/or mallard duck serve as representative/test species for birds and also as

surrogate species for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Fish serve as surrogate species

for aquatic-phase amphibians. Studies conducted on laboratory rats, mice, or rabbits serve as the

23
basis for mammal data. Toxicity endpoints for terrestrial plants are based on a range of

broadleaf and grass species. Lemna serves as the test species for vascular aquatic plants. Where

data are available, separate endpoints are used for freshwater and estuarine/marine animals.

Effects of a pesticide on flora and fauna may also be evaluated using studies located via a query

ofthe open literature in the ECOTOX database. A quick query of ECOTOX database on

October 19, 2011 did not yield any results for acequinocyl.

The most sensitive endpoints used for risk characterization are derived from studies that have

undergone review and have been classified as "acceptable" (conducted under guideline

conditions and considered to be scientifically valid) or "supplemental" (conditions deviated from

guidelines but the results are considered to be scientifically valid).

Table 2-4 lists the measures of environmental exposure and ecological effects used to assess the

potential risks of acequinocyl to non-target organisms. The methods used to assess risk are

consistent with those outlined in the document "Overview ofthe Ecological Risk Assessment

Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs" (USEP A, 2004b).

24
Table 2-4. Measures of Exposure and Effect Used in Assessing Potential Risks Associated

with the Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl

The most sensitive species tested within taxonomic groups IS used for basel me-level risk assessments.

2Freshwater fish represent surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians.

3Aquatic EECs are based on the modeling described in Section 3.3.

"Spray drift EECs are based on the modeling described in Section 3.3.

sBirds represent surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.

"Residues on food items are based on modeling using TREX as described in Section 3.3.

7EECs are based on modeling using TerrPlant as described in Section 3.3.

AssessmentEndpoint Measures ofEc~logic~JJtffeeF Measqr~o.fJtxIJ9~ur~ •.

Survival Lowest tested LCso orECso Peak EECs3

II

Aquatic animals (acute toxicity test)

Lowest tested LCso or ECso Spray drift EECs4

(Freshwater fish and Survival (acute toxicity test using formulations) invertebrates and estuarine! 21-day EECs for I marine invertebrates)' Reproduction Lowest NOAEC invertebrates and 60-day and Growth (early life-stage or full life-cycle tests) EECs for fisrr'

Aquatic plants Survival and Lowest ECso(for non-listed plants) and

Peak EECs 3

(vascular and non-vascular) growth corresponding NOAEC or ECos

(for listed plants)

I

Survival Lowest acute LDso(single oral dose test)

Birds' and LCso(subacute dietary test)

Reproduction Lowest NOAEC Upper-bound residues on and Growth (2l-week reproduction test) food items"

Survival Lowest acute LDso(single oral dose test)

Mammals Reproduction Lowest NOAEC

and Growth (2-generation reproduction test)

Terrestrial and semi- Survival and Lowest EC2S (for non-listed plants) and

EECs 7

aquatic plants growth corresponding NOAEC or ECos

(for listed plants)

Terrestrial invertebrates Survival Lowest LDso or LCso Upper-bound residues on

insects

\. . .

2.7.3. Integration of Exposure and Effects

The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological

effects to non-target species. For the acequinocyl risk assessment, the risk quotient (RQ) method

is used to compare estimated exposure and measured toxicity values. The RQ method involves

dividing EECs by acute and chronic toxicity values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the

Agency's Levels of Concern (LOC) (USEPA, 2004b) (Table 2-4). These criteria are used to

indicate when applications of acequinocyl, as directed on the label, have the potential to cause

adverse effects to listed and non-listed non-target organisms.

25
Table 2-5. Agency Risk Quotient (RQ) Metrics and Levels of Concern (LOC) per Risk

Class

EEC - (ppm or ppb) In water

2LDso/sq ft = (mg/sq ft) / (LDso * wt of animal)

LDso/day = (mg oftoxicant consumed/day) / (LDso * wt of animal)

I AquaticADi.ma)sl

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed animals EEC/LCso or tc., 0.5

from acute exposures

Acute Restricted Potential for effects to animals from acute EEC/LCso or ECso 0.1

Use exposures. Risks may be mitigated through I restricted use classification.

Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed species from EEC/LCso or sc., 0.05

Species acute exposures

Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I

animals from chronic exposures

Aquatic Plants'

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed plants EEC/ECso I

from acute exposures I

I

Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed plants from EEC/ECos or NOAEC I

Species acute exposures

Birds"

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed birds from EEC/LCso or LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.5

acute exposures

Acute Restricted Potential for effects to birds from acute EEC/LCSD or LDso/sq ft or LDso/day

I

0.2

Use exposures. Risks may be mitigated through (or LDso < 50 mg/kg)

restricted use classification.

Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed birds from EEC/LCso or LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.1

Species acute exposures

Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I I

birds from chronic exposures

WildMammals'

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed mammals EEC/LCso or LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.5

from acute exposures

Acute Restricted Potential for effects to mammals from acute EEC/LCsoor LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.2

Use I exposures. Risks may be mitigated through (or LDso < 50mg/kg)

restricted use classification

I

Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed mammals from . EEC/LCso or LDso/sq ft or LDso/day 0.1

Species acute exposures

Chronic Risk Potential for effects to non-listed and listed EECINOAEC I

mammals from chronic exposures

Terrestrial andSemi";AQuati~P)ants

Acute Risk Potential for effects to non-listed plants EEClEC2s I

I from acute exposures

Acute Endangered Potential for effects to listed plants from EEC/ECDS or NOAEC I

Species acute exposures

Terrestrial Invertebrates

Acute Risk Potential for effects to listed terrestrial EEC/LDso or LCso I 0.05 I

invertebrates from acute exposures I I

-

I RiskPreSUPlRtiQll< I RiskDescri.ptioll I R~ I LOC I

2.8. Risk Hypotheses

26
The following ecological risk hypotheses are being employed for this acequinocyl baseline risk

assessment:

• Terrestrial vertebrates (birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians) and non-target

invertebrates are subject to adverse direct effects such as reduced survival, growth, and

reproduction when exposed to acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl.

• Aquatic vertebrates (fish and amphibians) and invertebrates in surface waters (freshwater

or saltwater) are subject to adverse effects such as reduced survival, growth, and

reproduction when exposed to acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl residues via spray

drift or runoff from treated fields following acequinocyl application.

• Aquatic plants are subject to adverse direct affects when exposed to

acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl either through contact, sorption, or root uptake.

• Terrestrial plants are subject to adverse direct effects such as reduction in vegetative

vigor and seedling emergence when exposed to acequinocyl/hydroxylated acequinocyl.

2.9. Key Uncertainties and Information Gaps

A major source of uncertainty, both in the initial and the current aquatic risk assessment, is due

to two common issues identified in most ofthe submitted fate studies. First, the analytical

methods used in the fate studies were inappropriate to assess the rate of degradation of

acequinocyl and to identify its major transformation products. The registrant submitted an

amended analytical method for determination ofresidues of acequinocyl and its major metabolite

hydroxylated acequinocyl in drinking water, ground water and surface water (MRID 48016602),

and an amended analytical method for the determination of acequinocyl, hydroxylated

acequinocyl, and AKM-18 in soil (MRID 48016601). The Agency is in the process ofreviewing

the submitted studies. The second common deficiency is the lack ofstorage stability data to

determine ifthe degradation of [14C] acequinocyl and its transformation products occurs during

storage and before sample analysis.

Due to a range of environmental variables and other factors, the Tier 1 Rice Model and

Provisional Cranberry Model are expected to generate conservative EECs for characterization

that are likely to exceed peak measured concentrations of pesticides in water bodies downstream

of a single cranberry bog. However, cranberry bogs are almost exclusively oriented in a series as

water from one bog is used to flood subsequent bogs. Without substantial time for degradation

and assuming similar acequinocyl application regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may

increase in concentration beyond what is modeled in this assessment.

Uncertainty also stems from the selection of toxicity endpoints from the studies that used

formulated product instead ofthe technical grade active ingredient as suggested by the guidelines

(e.g., acute effects of acequinocyl on estuarine/marine fish; chronic effects of acequinocyl on

freshwater fish). Risk may have been under/overestimated in these situations when the endpoint

is derived from studies that used formulated product. Furthermore, none ofthe fish and bird

studies reported a definitive acute endpoint resulting in increased uncertainty in this risk

assessment.

27
3. EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT

3.1. Label Application Rates and Intervals

Acequinocyl maximum individual application rate, application frequency, minimum interval

between applications, and maximum yearly application rate are detailed below in Table 3-1.

This information is obtained from the label and used in the exposure assessment. All

applications are assumed to occur via foliar spray without the use of irrigation equipment and

farther than 75 feet from surface waters.

Table 3-1. Acequinocyl Use Patterns for the Proposed New Uses

Maximum Minimum Maximum

Individual Number of Application Annual Application

Crop Application Applications Interval Application Method

Rate (days) Rate I

(Jbs a.i.lA) (lbs a.i.lA!year)

Succulent soybean vegetable,

low growing berry subgroup 13-

07G, small fruit vine climbing

I

0.3 2 21 0.6 Ground

(except fuzzy kiwifruit),

I

I

spray

subgroup 13-07F, caneberry

subgroup 13-07A , cucumber

Bean (succulent shelled), cowpea 0.3 2 14 0.6 Ground

forage, cherry spray

3.2. Monitoring Data

There are no available monitoring data for acequinocyl at the time ofthis assessment (September

2011).

3.3. Aquatic Exposure Estimates

Two modeling approaches are used for the aquatic exposure assessment due to uncertainties

associated with the analytical methods used in the fate studies. Aquatic EECs are calculated with

the Tier II PRZM/EXAMS aquatic exposure model for all proposed uses except for cranberry.

The Tier I Rice Model and Provisional Cranberry Model are used to calculate water column

EECs for cranberry for characterization purposes.

3.3.1. Aquatic Modeling Approaches 1 and 2

Two approaches are used in performing this risk assessment for the proposed acequinocyl uses.

In Approach 1, acequinocyl is conservatively assumed to be stable to all routes of degradation

because ofthe uncertainties associated with the environmental fate data, mainly the lack of

validation ofthe analytical methods and the lack ofstorage stability data. In Approach 2, it is

assumed that the half-lives ofacequinocyl and the degradation product Rl are valid and the total

28
toxic residues (acequinocyl + R1) are modeled to address toxicity concerns with Rl. According

to the HED Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC), the residues of concern in the

dietary exposure and risk assessment are acequinocyl and the hydroxylated degradate, that is, Rl

(US EPA, 2007b).

3.3.2. PRZMIEXAMS Modeling

PRZM/EXAMS is used to estimate acequinocyl + R1 concentrations in both the water column

and benthic pore water for all proposed uses (except cranberry). Water column EECs are used

for comparison with toxicity endpoints for fish and invertebrates that live in the water column

and are considered to be exposed to the active ingredient and major degradate through spray

drift, runoff, and erosion. Pore water EECs are used for comparison with toxicity endpoints for

invertebrates that live in or on the sediment.

PRZM/EXAMS spray drift fraction is calculated using AgORIFT_v.2.01 to estimate reduction of

spray drift deposition as a function of distance from the treated field. Using the high boom, low

ground setting for a Tier 1 aquatic assessment, AgORIFT estimates drift deposition from

applications 75 feet from the edge ofthe field to be 0.0155 ofthe fraction of applied (AgDRIFT

output file is located in Appendix D). The AgDRIFT calculated spray drift fraction of 1.55%

(l00 x 0.0155 ofthe fraction of applied) for a 75 foot buffer is greater than the PRZM/EXAMS

edge of field default of 1% value.

The assumptions of Approaches 1 and 2 and PRZM/EXAMS input parameter values modeling

are provided in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2. PRZMIEXAMS Input Parameters for Approaches 1 and 2

Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 I Approach 2~

Maximum 0.336 kg a.i./acre (all uses) Proposed label

Application Rate

Maximum Number 2 (all uses) Proposed label

of Applications

Minimum 21 days (succulent soybean vegetable, low growing berry, Proposed label

Reapplications small fruit, caneberry, melon, cucumber)

Interval

14 days (succulent shelled bean, cowpea forage, cherry)

29
Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 I Approach 2~

Modeling Scenarios Succulent soybean vegetable (edamarne): EFED standard PRZM/EXAMS

MS soybean scenarios

Low growing berry (\3-07G):

FL strawberry (not applicable for cranberry)

Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13-07F):

CA grape

NY grape

Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea forage:

MI bean

OR bean

Caneberry (\3-07A): In the absence of a standard

CA grape caneberry scenario, grape

NY grape scenarios are used as surrogate

Melon (9A): scenarios

MI melon

MO melon

NJ melon

Cucumber:

FL cucumber

~:

MI cherry

Initial Application Succulent soybean vegetable (edamame): The date of initial application was

Dates (dd-mm) MS soybean (12-09) calculated from the Pre-Harvest

Low growing berry (\3-07G): Interval (PHI) and application

FL strawberry (24-0 I) interval as written on the proposed

Small fruit (vine climbing, except fuzzy kiwifruit, 13-07F): labels.

CA grape (03-08)

NY grape (17-09)

Bean, succulent shelled and cowpea forage:

MI bean (14-08)

OR bean (12-08)

Caneberry (13-07 A):

CA grape (09-08)

NY grape (23-09)

Melon (9A):

MI melon (24-07)

MO melon (09-07)

NJ melon (29-06)

Cucumber:

FL cucumber (18-11)

Cherry:

MI cherry (30-06)

Application Method Ground, Foliar (CAM = 2) Acequinocyl is a foliar application

Application 0.99 EFED standard default for ground

Efficiency Fraction applications

Spray Drift Fraction 0.016 Based on AgDRIFT calculation for

a 75 foot buffer strip.

Incorporation depth 0 Default for foliar applications

ICcm)

30
Parameter (Units) Input Value and Unit Source/Comments Approach 11 Approach 2z

Molecular Weight 384.5 Product Chemistry

(g/mole)

IPSCND Input I (succulent soybean vegetable) 1 = remaining pesticide on foliage

is converted to surface application

3 (low growing berry, small fruit, succulent shelled bean, to the top soil layer

cowpea forage, caneberry, melon, cucumber, cherry)

2 = remaining pesticide on foliage

is completely removed after

harvest

3 = remaining pesticide nn foliage

is retained as surface residue and

continues to undergo decay.

Water Solubility 0.0067 MRID 45434906

(mg/L)

Vapor Pressure 1.268 x 10·M MRID 45434905

(torr)

Henry's Law 9.59x \0' Calculated

Constant

(atm-rrr'fmol)

K, (ml/g) 10273 9704 MRID 45531902; 45434907

Hydrolysis Half-life stable 9.6 MRID 45434908

(days)

Aqueous Photolysis stable 0.19 MRID 45434909

Half-life (days)

Aerobic Soil stable 48.5 MRID 45434911

Metabolism (days) 90th percentile confidence interval

on the mean (EFED guidance)'

Aerobic Aquatic stable 97 Twice the aerobic soil metabolism

Metabolism (days) t1/2 (EFED guidance)'

Anaerobic Aquatic stable 649.8 MRID 45434913

Metabolism (days) Three times the aquatic

metabolism tt/2(EFED guidance)"

1 Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable m the environment

2Combined half-life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH (Rl) degradate

3 Mean Kd offour values was used because the study was conducted on only one test concentration

4 Mean Kd offour values was used because binding was not correlated with organic carbon content.

S Input Parameter Guidance Manual, Pesticides (Version 2.1; Oct. 22, 2009)

3.3.3. Tier 1 Rice Model and Provisional Cranberry Model

The Tier I Rice Model is used to characterize screening-level exposure of water bodies receiving

released bog water following acequinocyl + Rl on cranberry. This model is used to assess the

proposed use on cranberry because exposure models specific to cranberry uses are not vetted and

approved for use in risk assessment (see Section 2.7.1).

The Tier I Rice Model has two inputs: the application rate and the organic carbon partition

coefficient (Koc). The maximum annual application rate on cranberry (0.6 lbs a.i.lA) is

31
modeled. The mean KFOC values for Approaches 1 (l027) and 2 (970) are input as well. The

exposure estimates from the Tier I Rice Model for Approaches Tier 1 and 2 are both 5 ug/L for

annual use.

The Provisional Cranberry Model is an unvetted refinement to the approved Tier I Rice Model to

address fate and transport of pesticide residues in cranberry bogs (see Section 2.7.1.4 for an

overview). The Provisional Cranberry output file and equations used in the model are briefly

described in Appendices Band F.

Table 3-3 lists the input parameters used for the Provisional Cranberry Model.

Due to the uncertainty in using the Tier 1 Rice model on cranberry and the unvetted Provisional

Cranberry model, the calculated EECs from both models are calculated for the low growing

berry scenario for characterization purposes only and are not used to calculate risk in this

assessment.

Table 3-3. Provisional Tier 1 Cranberry Model Input Parameters

1 Acequinocyl was assumed to be stable In the environment.

2 Combined half-life values for acequinocyl and acequinocyl-OH (Rl) degradate

3 Since Provisional Cranberry model requires a half-life value, 1000 days was used to represent stable conditions.

IInputl'S'''''''''' , Value Source/Comments

'", Approa.ebl , Approacb21

Application Rate (lbs a.i./A) 0.3 Proposed label

Applications per Year 2 Proposed label

Kd (ml/g) 1027 970 MRlD 45531902; 45434907

Aerobic Soil Metabolism Half-life stable' 48.5 MRID 45434911

(days) I 90th percentile confidence interval on the

i mean (EFED guidance) I

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism stable.' 97 ITwice the aerobic soil metabolism t l12 I

IHalf-life (days) I I (EFED guidance) I

3.3.4. PRZM-EXAMS, Rice, and Provisional Cranberry Modeling Outputs

Table 3-4 presents PRZM/EXAMS EECs in surface water for acequinocyl and Rl for the

proposed uses. PRZM/EXAMS allows estimated concentrations above the limit ofsolubility.

The predicted aquatic acequinocyl concentrations are lower with Approach #2 when compared to

Approach # 1. Since the parent is assumed to be stable in Approach # 1, it is to be expected that

the concentrations predicted in Approach 1 are higher than Approach 2 which estimated both

acequinocyl and Rl using combined half-lives. The modeled surface water concentrations are

more conservative in the first approach than the second due to the use ofstable half-lives in

Approach 1. The EECs derived via Approach #1 represent upper bound values whereas those

derived via Approach #2 represent lower bound values.

32
The l-in-l O-year mean EECs for acequinocyl modeled scenarios range from 1.56 ug/L to the

6.69 ug/L (limit ofsolubility) for Approach #1 and from 0.27 to 2.64 ug/L for Approach #2.

The 21-day average concentrations for acequinocyl range from 1.06 to 6.69 ug/L (limit of

solubility) and 0.07 to 0.53 ug/L for Approaches 1 and 2, respectively. The 60-day average

concentrations for acequinocyl range from 0.80 to 6.69 ug/L (limit ofsolubility) and 0.03 to 0.34

ug/L for Approaches 1 and 2, respectively. The PRZM/EXAMS output files for selected

modeled scenarios are provided in the Appendix F.

Table 3-4. Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total Toxic

Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZMIEXAMS and Provisional Cranberry

Model

~i$Cs••.rrom.•~.atersourees .... .... .

i\pproachl· ... .····A:pproaeh 2

I

Proposed Use Seen.ario Tottll Toxic Resid~es. .. . . Total TQxieResidues

. (no ace auinocvl' detiralhltionl (combined acequinociTl and Rt)

I

.. Ope!,k.. ..3t ;odllf 60:d~Y·· LP~llk 21;'(hiy 60~ay

I ..' .. : ····Averaue '<\verage ': .. A:verage A:vera2e

Soybean MS soybean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 1.16 0.27 0.18 (13.61) (11.29) (11.22)

FL strawberry 6.69* 6.69* 6.69*

I (not applicable (12.64) (10.34) (10.03) 0.29 0.07 0.05

to cranberry)

Rice model

(surrogate 5.00 <5.00 <5.00 5.00 <5.00 <5.00 Low-growing berry model for

(13-070) cranberry')

Provisional

cranberry

I

model 4.8i 4.31 1 4.38 1 1.563

I (applicable to

cranberry')

Small fruit CA grape" 1.56 1.06 1.04 0.27 0.04 0.03

(vine climbing except

kiwi fruit) NY grape" 4.65 1.10 0.81 1.99 0.51 0.33

MI bean 6.69* 6.69*

Succulent shelled 6.68 0.55 0.16 0.11 (8.61) (6.83) bean and cowpea 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* forage OR bean (12.14) (10.52) (10.20) 0.29 0.07 0.06

Caneberry CA grape" 1.57 1.06 1.05 0.27 0.04 0.03

6.69* 6.69* 6.69* (13-07A) NY grape" (11.49) (8.69) (8.63) 2.15 0.53 0.34

MI melon 2.73 1.94 1.76 0.28 0.06 0.04

Melon MO melon 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 1.23 0.19 0.12 (9A) (11.58) (8.78) (8.42)

NJ melon 5.06 4.13 3.92 0.55 0.12 0.09 I 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 'I Cucumber FL cucumber (12.47) (9.96) (9.81) 0.38 0.09 0.06

33
EECs from Surface Water Sou.rees

Proposed Use

Cherry

Scen.ario

MI cherry

Approach.1

Total ic ResIdues

no ace I de rallation

Peak. '. 21...day 60,:,day'

Avera e Avera e

6.69* 6.69*

(11.92) (9.04) (8.92) 2.64 0.48 0.32

The rice model is an approved EFED model that was employed to represent flooding of the cranberry bog. EECs

generated by the rice model are not for used quantitatively in the risk analysis.

2The provisional cranberry model is employed for characterization purposes only. EECs generated by the

provisional cranberry model are not used quantitatively in the risk analysis.

3S ased on a one-year simulation; 1-10 year calculation is not applicable.

"Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application

dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and pre-harvest intervals specific to each crop.

*Value exceeds solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 ug/L at 20°C).

PRZMlEXAMS pore water EECs are presented in Table 3-5. Benthic pore water EECs are used

for comparison with toxicity endpoints for invertebrates that live in or on the sediment. The rice

and cranberry models are unable to calculate benthic pore water concentrations.

Table 3-5. Benthic Estimated Environmental Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl Total

Toxic Residues Based on Approaches 1 and 2 Using PRZMIEXAMS

Benthic EECsfrom Sqrl.ceWater S()urces (u!zlt) .

Approacb1 ...... Approach 2

Proposed Use Scenario Total Toxic ,Residues T()talTox,ic Residues

(no ace 'uinocylde2radation) . (combined aeequinee I and an

Peak 21-day 60-day Peak 21-day 60-day

Averaee Average Averase Average

Soybean MS soybean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.18 0.18 0.17 I (ll.18) (11.15) (11.12)

Low-growing berry

I

FL strawberry 6.69* I

6.69* 6.69*

(l3-07G) I

(not applicable (9.81) (9.81) (9.79) 0.04 0.04 0.04

to cranberry)

Small fruit CA grape/ 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

(vine climbing except NY grape/ 0.84 kiwi fruit) 0.82 0.80 0.29 0.29 0.28

Succulent shelled MI bean 9.63 6.62 6.61 0.09 0.09 0.08

bean and cowpea OR bean 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.04 0.04 0.04 forage (10.12) (10.10) (10.04)

Caneberry CA grape" 1.03 1.03 1.03 0.02 0.02 0.02

(13-07A) NY grape/ 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.29 0.29 0.28 (8.64) (8.64) (8.63)

I MI melon 1.84 1.84 1.84 0.03 0.03 0.02

I

Melon MO melon 6.69* 6.69* 6.69* 0.11 0.11 0.11 (9A) (8.29) (8.24) (8.15)

I NJ melon 3.68 3.67 3.67 0.07 0.07 0.07

34
Proposed Use

Cucumber

Cherry

Scenario

FL cucumber

MI cherry

Approach'l ...

Total TOlic~

no ae .uinoc 1de

Pe«k .··21.day

. AVera e

6.69* 6.69*

(9.78) (9.78

6.69* 6.69*

(8.75) (8.75 (8.74)

0.06

0.31

0.06

0.31

0.05

0.29

The rice and provisional cranberry models are unable to calculate benthic pore water concentrations.

2 Grape scenarios were used to represent the proposed small fruit and caneberry uses; different initial application

dates were used that reflect labeled treatment and pre-harvest intervals specific to each crop.

* Value exceeds solubility limit of acequinocyl (6.69 ug/L at 20°C).

3.4. Terrestrial Exposure Estimates

Acequinocyl exposure concentrations for terrestrial fauna are determined using the screeninglevel exposure model, TREX (Version 1.4.1) (US EPA, 2006). The TREX simulation-model

incorporates the nomogram (Fletcher et al., 1994; Hoerger and Kenaga, 1972; Pfleeger et al.,

1996) relationship between the amount of pesticide applied and the amount of pesticide residue

present on a given food item. TREX calculates pesticide residues on each food item on a daily

interval for one year using a first order decay function based on concentrations present from both

the initial and additional applications.

EECs are simulated using an application rate of 0.3 lbs a.i./A, application intervals of 14 days

and 21 days, a maximum of 2 applications per year, and the default foliar dissipation half-life of

35 days as well as the specific half-life of acequinocyl as determined from Magnitude ofResidue

Studies (OPPTS 860.1500). In the initial risk assessment for food uses in 2004 (D285811,

D286428, D289153, D290010, D287269, D290009, D291174), a first-order foliar dissipation

half-life was estimated for apples (tl/2 = 20.5 days), pears (ti» = 7.63 days), oranges (tl/2 = 16.1

days) and almonds (tl/2 = 17.9 days) using the acceptable Magnitude of Residue Studies for

acequinocyI. Based on the half-lives determined for these four food items, the upper 90%

confidence bound on the upper confidence limit ofthe mean half-life of 20 days was derived and

used in calculating the residue concentrations in addition to the default half-life of 35 days.

TREX input parameters are presented in Appendix G. Outputs generated by TREX are

presented in Appendix H.

3.4.1. Birds and Mammals

EECs for birds and mammals are presented in

Table 3-6 and Table 3-7, respectively. These estimates are based on the upper Kenaga bound

dose and the assumption that the species in question eats one type of food item and forages only

in treated and/or overspray areas.

35
Table 3-6. Avian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses

Dietary-based Dose-basedEECs (mgllcg-bw) EECs

Feeding Category (mg/kg-CoOd i~em) Sm.QU<~Q I} Me~Uum(1002:) ... Larse 1000 I)

l4-day ~l..day 14':day 21..day 14~day 2l..day 14-day 21-day

interval interval interval interval interval interval interval interval

Acequinocyl half-life 35 da s; application twice at 0.30 Ib aj.lA

Short grass 126.57 119.50 144.15 136.10 82.20 77.61 36.60 34.75

Tall grass 58.0] 54.77 66.07 62.38 37.67 35.57 16.87 15.93

Broadleaf plants/small 71.19 67.22 81.08 76.56 46.24 43.66 20.70 19.55

I insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/large 7.9] 7.47 9.01 8.51 5.14 2.17 2.30 2.17 insects I

Granivores (seeds) -- -- 2.00 1.89 1.14 1.08 0.51 0.48

Acequinocyl half-life 20 da s; application twice at 0.30 lb a.i.!A

Short grass 116.32 106.77 132.48 121.60 75.54 69.34 33.82 31.05

Tall grass 53.31 48.94 60.72 55.74 34.62 31.78 15.50 14.23

Broadleafplants/small 65.43 60.06 74.52 68.40 42.49 39.01 19.03 17.46 insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/large 7.27 6.67 8.28 7.60 4.72 4.33 2.11 1.94 insects

Granivores (seeds) -- -- 1.84 1.69 1.05 0.96 0.47 0.43

Table 3-7. Mammalian Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Proposed Uses

Dietary-based Dose-based EECs (mg/kg-bw) EECs

Feeding Category (mg/kg-food item) Small (l52) Medium (35 2) Larze (lOOO 2)

I

14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day 14-day 21-day

interval interval interval interval interval interval interval interval

Acequinocyl half-life 35 days; application twice at 0.30 Ib a.i.!A

Short grass 126.57 119.50 120.67 113.94 83.40 78.75 19.34 18.26

Tall grass 58.01 54.77 55.31 52.22 38.22 36.09 8.86 8.37 I

I ~roadleaf plants/small 71.19 67.22 67.88 64.09 46.91 44.29 10.88 10.27 Insects

I :ruits/pods/seeds/large 7.91 7.47 7.54 7.12 5.21 4.92 1.21 1.14 Insects

Granivores (seeds) -- -- 1.68 1.58 1.16 1.09 0.27 0.23

Acequinocyl half-life 20 days; application twice at 0.30 Ib a.i./A

Short grass 116.32 106.77 110.90 101.80 76.65 70.36 17.77 16.31

Tall grass 53.31 48.94 50.83 46.66 35.13 32.25 8.15 7.48

Broadleaf plants/small 65.43 60.06 62.38 57.26 I

43.12 39.58 10.00 9.18 insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/large I

insects 7.27 6.67 6.93 6.36 4.79 4.40 1.11 1.02

Granivores (seeds) -- -- 1.54 1.41 1.06 0.98 0.25 0.23

3.4.2. Plants

EECs for terrestrial! semi-aquatic plants from a single application of acequinocyl at the

36
maximum label rate (i.e., 0.3 lb a.i./A) are presented in Table 3-8. Since the solubility of

acequinocyl is below 10 ppm, the default runoff value of 1% is used as the input value in

terrestrial plant modeling (Appendix I). For terrestrial modeling, spray drift is assumed to be

1% for ground applications.

Acequinocyl application for the proposed uses yields total loading EECs from runoff plus drift of

0.006 and 0.033 lb a.i./A for dry areas and semi-aquatic areas, respectively. The EEC due to

drift is 0.003 lb a.i./A.

Table 3-8. Terrestrial Plant Estimated Exposure Concentrations (EECs) for Acequinocyl

Total Loading EEC (Runoff +Drift) Drift EEC

Application Rate (Jb a.i.tA) (Jb a.i.tA)

Dry Areas I Semi-aquatic Areas All Areas

OJ lb a.i.IA (all proposed uses) 0.006 I 0.033 0.003

4. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS ASSESSMENT

4.1. Aquatic Effects Summary

4.1.1. Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

Table 4-1 and Table 4-2 summarize the available acute and chronic toxicity endpoints for

freshwater fish.

Table 4-1. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Fish

Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification

Bluegill Sunfish Technical 96-hr LCso: > 1.1 mg a.i./L >I< Moderately Supplemental 45434918

(Lepomis grade NOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i.IL toxic

macrochirus) LOAEC: > 1.1 mg a.i.IL

Endpoints affected: None

Zebrafish Technical 96-hr t.c.; > 1.1 mg a.i.lL Moderately Supplemental 45434919

(Danio rerio) grade NOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i./L toxic

LOAEC: > 1.1 rng a.i.lL

Endpoints affected: None

Common Carp Technical 96-hr LCso: >2.3 mg a.i./L Moderately Supplemental 46370502

(Cyprinus grade NOAEC: 2.3 mg a.i./L toxic

carpio) LOAEC: >2.3 mg a.i.IL

Endpoints affected: None

Rainbow Trout Technical 96-hr LCso: >33 mg a.i.IL Slightly toxic Invalid 45434920

(Oncorhynchus grade NOAEC: 33 mg a.i.IL (previously and

mykiss) LOAEC: >33 mg a.i.IL supplemental) 45868502

Endpoints affected: None

37
Species Product

Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification

Rainbow Trout Formulated 96-hr LC50: 67 mg a.i.lL Slightly toxic Invalid 45530601

(Oncorhynchus NOAEC: <II mg a.i./L (previously

mykiss) LOAEC: II mg a.i./L acceptabIe)

Endpoints affected:

Mortality

Bluegill Sunfish Formulated 96-hr LC50: >90 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Invalid 45428605

(Lepomis NOAEC: 90 mg a.i./L (previously

macrochirus) LOAEC: >90 mg a.i./L acceptabIe)

Endpoints affected: None

"'denotes value used for risk characterization

The reported LCso values for freshwater fish, which ranged from> 1.1 ppm to >90 ppm, indicate

that acequinocyl is slightly to moderately toxic. Acequinocyl (technical grade) is classified as

moderately toxic to bluegill sunfish (MRID 45434918) and zebra fish (MRID 45434919). All of

these values exceed the solubility ofthe chemical in water without the presence of carriers or

emulsifiers. Previously accepted studies with formulated product in both warm water (MRID

45428605) and cold water (MRID 45530601) fish species have been judged for this risk

assessment to be invalid because ofthe presence of precipitate and the lack of concentration

measurements with centrifuged aliquots of aquarium water. The previously supplemental study

oftechnical grade material with rainbow trout (MRIDs 45434920, 45868502) has also been

judged for this risk assessment to be invalid because ofthe presence of precipitate as well as high

variability in measured test concentrations over the course ofthe exposure. These studies will

receive revised DERs. The non-definitive toxicity endpoint derived from the bluegill sunfish

study involving technical ingredient was selected for consideration in the freshwater fish risk

assessment. However, this study does not yield a definitive endpoint so no risk quotients are

calculated and risks to freshwater fish are discussed in a semi-quantitative manner in the risk

characterization section ofthis document.

One fish study with common carp (MRID 46370502) has been classified as supplemental due to

problems associated with the measurement oftest chemical concentrations when technical grade

product was used. The concentration ofthe hydroxylated degradate was quantified, but the study

was unsuccessful in establishing a definitive endpoint.

Effects of chronic acequinocyl exposure on freshwater fish (rainbow trout) were also determined

using the formulated product (MRID 45428607; Table 4-2). The results from this study are

useful in assessing risk as the experiment included a formulation blank and the NOAEC/LOAEC

values were expressed after correcting for the amount of active ingredient. It should be noted

that the uncentrifuged measured concentrations in this study were proposed in the DER as

material to the endpoint. However, the study exhibited significant precipitate, and so the

centrifuged sample measures were relied upon for endpoint selection in this study.

38
Table 4-2. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Fish

Species Product Study MRID# Tested Toxlelty Endpoint Classification

Rainbow Trout Formulated NOAEC: 0.52 mg a.i./L Supplemental 45428607

(Oncorhynchus (0.07 mg/L centrifuged measured)*

mykiss) LOAEC: 1.1 mg a.i./L

Endpoints Affected: Larvae survival

*The freshwater fish endpoint was for uncentnfuged measured concentrations. Centnfuged samples yielded measured active

ingredient concentrations 13 to 19%ofthe uncentrifuged. For the purposes ofthis risk assessment the NOAEC will be 0.52

mglL a.i. X 0.13 = 0.07 mglL, and this adjusted value is used to calculate RQs

4.1.2. Toxicity to EstuarinelMarine Fish

Acequinocyl has been tested on sheepshead minnow using both technical grade and formulated

products (Table 4-3). Both studies were unable to establish a definitive endpoint (MRID

45434921 and MRID 45428606). For this risk assessment, the study using formulated product

(MRID 45428606) has been judged invalid because ofthe presence of precipitate and the lack of

concentration measurements with centrifuged aliquots of aquarium water.

No tests have been submitted for effects of chronic acequinocyl exposure on estuarine/marine

fish. For this risk assessment, a chronic endpoint is conservatively assumed to be equivalent to

the endpoint observed for freshwater fish (NOAEC: 0.07 mg/L). An acute to chronic ratio

approach cannot be used as there are no definitive acute endpoints for estuarine/marine fish or

freshwater fish.

Table 4-3. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on EstuarinelMarine Fish

Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification

Sheep shead Technical 96-hr LCso: >0.19 mg a.i./L* Highly toxic Supplemental 45434921

Minnow Grade NOAEC: 0.19 mg a.i./L

(Cyprinodon LOAEC: >0.19 mg a.i./L

variegatus) Endpoints Affected: None

Sheepshead Formulated 96-hr LCso: >68 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Invalid 45428606

Minnow NOAEC: 68 mg a.i./L (previously

tCyprinodon LOAEC: >68 mg a.i./L acceptable)

variegatus) Endpoints Affected: None

*denotes value used for nsk characterization

4.1.3. Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

Based on the most recent daphnid study (MRID 46372101) submitted by the registrant to address

data gaps for the conditional registration, both the parent and the Rl degradate are toxic, and Rl

may be slightly more toxic than the parent with LCsos of 2.4 and 2.7 ug a.i.lL, respectively (

Table 4-4). However, in view ofthe uncertainty associated with the individual contributions of

acequinocyl and RI to overall toxicity, the most conservative LCso. 2.4 ug a.i./L, is used in this

39
risk assessment The summation of parent and the hydroxylated degradate would effectively

increase the toxicity endpoint by a factor of 1.92. The effects of including the hydroxylated

degradate in the endpoint on risk conclusions will be discussed in the risk characterization

section of this document.

Table 4-4. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates

Species Product Toxicity Endpoint Toxicity Study MRID# Tested Classification Classification

Daphnia Technical Parent acequinocyl Very highly Acceptable 46372101

magna Grade 48-hr LC50 : 2.7 ug a.i.!L toxic

NOEAC: 0.66 ug a.i.!L

LOEAC: 1.9 ug a.i./L

R1 degradate

48-hr LC50 : 2.4 ug a.i./L'"

NOEAC: 0.86 ug a.i./L

LOAEC: 1.7 ug a.i.!L

Parent acequinocyl +

R1 degradate

48-hr LC50 : 5.2 ug a.i.!L

NOEAC: 1.5 ug a.i./L

I

LOEAC: 3.6 /lg a.i.!L

I

Endpoints affected: mortality

and sublethal effects

Chironomus Formulated 96-hr LC50: >86 mg a.i./L Slightly toxic Supplemental 45782303

riparius NOAEC: 86 mg a.i.!L

LOAEC: >86 mg a.i.!L

I Endpoints affected: None

'" denotes value used to calculate RQs

Table 4-5 below describes the effects of chronic exposure of acequinocyl on daphnids. The

sensitive endpoints were number of young and dry weight and length and dry weight of parents

at termination, and the NOAEC and LOAEC were reported as 0.98 and 1.8 ppb, respectively

(MRID 45434922).

Table 4-5. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Freshwater Invertebrates

Daphnia

magna

Technical

Grade

NOAEC: 0.98 ug a.i.!L'"

LOAEC: 1.8 ug a.i.!L

Endpoints affected:

Number of young, length and dry weight of

arents at termination

Supplemental 45434922

'" denotes value used to calculate RQs

4.1.4. Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Acequinocyl is very highly toxic to estuarine/marine invertebrates (LCso of 0.94 ppb for mysid

40
shrimp and ECso of 0.59 ppb for shell deposition in eastern oysters) (Table 4-6). No chronic

study has been submitted for estuarine/marine invertebrates. An EFED memo dated 8 August

2010 concluded that given the instability of acequinocyl in seawater (MRID 47814901), the

conduct of a mysid reproduction study will yield uncertain endpoint results and will not likely

alter risk assessment conclusions. Thus the conduct ofsuch a study will have limited risk

assessment utility. Therefore, for the purposes ofthis risk assessment, an estimated value for a

chronic effects endpoint is assumed by taking the acute to chronic ratio (ACR) observed in

freshwater invertebrates (i.e., 2.4 !J,g/L / 0.98 !J,g/L = 2.45) and applying it to the most sensitive

estuarine/marine invertebrate acute endpoint to yield a chronic effects endpoint of 0.24 !J,g/L

(0.59 I-lg/L/2.45 = 0.24 ug/L) for estuarine/marine invertebrates. An alternative to this ACR

application is to use the same value applied to the mysid shrimp acute endpoint (i.e., 0.94 !J,g/L)

which would yield a chronic endpoint of 0.38. The effects ofthis alternative endpoint on risk

conclusions will be discussed in the risk characterization section.

Table 4-6. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates

Eastern Oyster

(Crassostrea

virginica)

Mollusk Shell

Deposition

Mysid Shrimp

(Americamysis

bahia)

Technical

Grade

Technical

Grade

96-hr ECso: 0.59 fig a.i./L* Very highly toxic

NOAEC: <0.11 fig a.i./L

LOAEC: 0.11 fig a.i./L

Endpoints affected:

Shell deposition

96-hr LCso: 0.94 fig a.i./L Very highly toxic

NOAEC: 0.27 fig a.i./L

LOAEC: 0.50 fig a.i./L

Endpoints affected:

Sublethal effects

Supplemental

Supplemental

45434916

45434917

* denotes value used to calculate RQs

4.1.5. Toxicity to Aquatic Plants

Two studies with freshwater green algae have been submitted for acequinocyl (MRID 45435008

using technical grade product and MRID 45428611 using a formulated product) (Table 4-7).

Both studies have been classified as Supplemental.

Table 4-7. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Aquatic Plants

Freshwater Algae Technical

(Selenastrum Grade

capricornutum)

Freshwater Algae Formulated

(Selenastrum

capricornutum)

* denotes value used to calculate RQs

72-hr sc., >78.0 mg a.i.lL

NOAEC: ~78.0 mg a.i.IL

Endpoints affected: none

72-hr ECso: 0.96 mg a.i./L* NOAEC/LOAEC: 0.0017/0.0055 mg a.i.lL

Endpoints affected: cell density

41

Supplemental

Supplemental

45435008

45428611
4.2. Terrestrial Effects Summary

4.2.1. Toxicity to Birds

Avian oral and dietary toxicity data, presented in Table 4-8, indicate that none of the acute

studies generated a definitive endpoint. Toxicity values or LDsos from the acute oral gavage

studies using the technical grade acequinocyl range from >2000 to >2250 mglkg-bw. Studies

using dietary-based exposures generated LCsos ranging from >4952 to >5970 mg/kg-diet. Based

on this data, acequinocyl is classified as practically non-toxic to upland game bird species.

Table 4-8. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Birds

Japanese Technical 14-day LD50 : >2,000 mg a.i./kg-bw Practically Supplemental 45435002

Quail Grade NOAEC: 2,000 mg a.i.lkg-bw non-toxic

(Coturnix Endpoints affected: None

coturnix

japonica)

Bobwhite Technical 14-day LD50: >2250mg a.i/.kg-bw* Practically Acceptable 46615501

Quail Grade NOAEL: 2250mg a.i./kg-bw non-toxic

(Colinus Endpoints affected: None

vir inianus)

Japanese Technical 8-day LC50: >4,952 mg/kg-diet Slightly toxic Supplemental 45435004

Quail Grade NOAEC: 926 mg/kg-diet

(Coturnix Endpoints affected:

coturnix Body weight gain

japonica)

Mallard Technical 8-day LCso: >5000 mg/kg-diet* Practically Acceptable 45435003

Duck Grade NOAEC: 488 mg/kg-diet non-toxic

(Anas Endpoints affected:

platyr- Body weight gain

hynchos)

Bobwhite Technical 8-day LC50: >5970 mg a.i./kg-diet Practically Acceptable 46622701

Quail Grade NOAEC: 5970 mg a.i./kg-diet non-toxic

(Colinus LOAEC: >5970 mg a.i./kg-diet

vir inianus) End oints affected: None

Bobwhite Formulated 14-day LD50 : >300 mg a.i./kg-bw Moderately Acceptable 45530603

Quail NOAEC: 300 mg a.i./kg bw toxic

(Colinus Endpoints affected: None

virginianus)

"denotes value used for risk characterization

Chronic avian toxicity studies with acequinocyl indicate no parental, reproductive, or offspring

effects up to 2515 ppm (the highest dose tested) in bobwhite quail (MRID 45435006) (Table

4-9). Mallard ducks appear to be more sensitive than the bobwhite quail with a NOAEC value of

100 ppm (MRID 45435005).

42
Table 4-9. Chronic Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Birds

Mallard Duck

(Anas

platyrhynchos)

Technical

Grade

NOAEC: 100 mg a.i./kg-diet'"

LOAEC: 500 mg a.i./kg-diet

Endpoints affected:

females bodyweight gain

Acceptable 45435005

Bobwhite Quail Technical

(Colin us Grade

virginianusy

'" denotes value used to calculate RQs

NOAEC: ~2515 mg a.i./kg-diet

LOAEC: >2515 mg a.i./kg-diet

Endpoints affected: None

Acceptable 45435006

4.2.2. Toxicity to Mammals

EFED uses toxicity data for laboratory rodents and non-rodents from the Health Effects Division

as surrogate data for wild mammal toxicity and risks. Acute oral gavage toxicity studies in rats

and mice yielded LDsos greater than 5000 mg/kg-bw/day. Therefore acute toxicity of

acequinocyl to mammals is expected to be very low and RQs are not calculated (Table 4-10).

Table 4-10. Acute Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Mammals

Rat

(Rattus

norvegicus)

Mouse

(Mus

musculus)

Technical

Grade

Technical

Grade

LD50: >5000 mg/kg-bw"

(males and females)

LD50: >5000 mg/kg-bw

(males and females)

Practically

non-toxic

Practically

non-toxic

Acceptable

Acceptable

45435011

45435010

'" denotes value used for risk characterization

Sub-acute (developmental) studies with rats (MRID 45531908 and MRID 45651706) and rabbits

(MRID 45531907 and 45651705) and a two-generation study with rats have been classified as

acceptable. Results are presented in Table 4-11. The NOAEC for the two-generation

reproduction study is used for deriving chronic mammalian risk quotients (MRID 45531909).

The parental and offspring NOAEC of 100 ppm is more sensitive than the reproductive NOAEC

of>1500 ppm.

43
Table 4-11. Developmental and Reproductive Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Mammals

Rabbit

(Leporidae)

Rat

(Rattus

norvegicus)

Rat

(Rattus

norvegicus)

Technical

Grade

Technical

Grade

Technical

Grade

Maternal

NOAEL: 60 mg a.i.Ikg-bw/day

LOAEL: 120 mg a.i.Ikg-bw/day

Developmental

NOAEL: 60 mg a.i./kg-bw/day

LOAEL: 120 mg a.i./kg-bw/day

Parental

NOAEC(m): 100 rug/kg-diet"

LOAEC(m): 800 mg/kg-diet

NOAEC(t): >1500 mg/kg-diet

Offspring

NOAEC(m/t): 100 mg/kg-diet

LOAEC(m/t): 800 mg/kg-diet

Reproduction

NOAEC(m/t): >1500 mg/kg-diet

Maternal

NOAEL: 150 mg a.i./kg-bw/day

LOAEL: 500 mg a.i.zkg-bw/day

Developmental

NOAEL: 500 mg a.i./kg-bw/day

LOAEL: 750 mg a.i.lkg-bw/day

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

45531907

and

45651705

45531909

45531908

and

45651706

* denotes value used to calculate RQs

4.2.3. Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants

In a 21-day Tier I seedling emergence test, four mono cots and six dicots were exposed to 0

(control), 0.3, and 0.91b a.i./acre formulated acequinocyl (MRID 45428609) (Table 4-12).

Shoot height was affected by acequinocyl treatment for carrot only, and the EC2s was estimated

to be 0.7 lb a.i./acre. Percent emergence, phytotoxicity, shoot height, and dry weight in

acequinocyl- treated groups were not significantly different from controls for monocots.

In a 21-day Tier I vegetative vigor test, monocots and dicots were exposed to 0 (control), 0.3,

and 0.9 lb a.i./acre formulated acequinocyl applied post emergence (MRID 45428610) (Table 4-

12). Shoot height for only beet and cabbage were significantly different from controls (less than

10% for each) at 0.9 lb a.i./acre. Other parameters such as phytotoxicity and plant dry weight

were not affected. The EC2s was estimated to be >0.9 lb a.i/acre for both mono cots and dicots.

44
Table 4-12. Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Terrestrial Plants

Seedling Formulated

Emergence

Tier I

(Monocots and

Dicots)

Vegetative Vigor Formulated

Tier I

(Monocots and

Dicots)

2I-day EC25

Monocots: >0.9 Ib a.i.lA

Dicots: 0.7 lb a.i.lA

2I-dayNOEC

Monocots: 0.9 lb a.i.IA

Dicots: OJ lb a.i.lA

21-day EC25

Monocots and Dicots: >0.9 lb a.i.lA

2 I-day NOEC

Monocots: 0.9 lb a.i.lA

Dicots: 0.3 lb a.i.IA

Acceptable

Acceptable

45428609

45428610

4.2.4. Toxicity to Non-target Insects

Two studies, one using the technical ingredient (MRID 454350047) and the other using the

formulated product (MRID 45428608), have been submitted by the registrant for determining

acute effects of acequinocyl exposure on honey bees. Toxicity endpoints are presented in Table

4-13. Acequinocyl is classified as practically non-toxic to honey bees.

Table 4-13. Toxic Effects of Acequinocyl on Non-target Insects

Honey bees Technical Contact Practically Acceptable 45435007

(Apis Grade 48-hr LDso: > 100 ug a.i./bee* nontoxic

mellifera) NOAEL: 100 ug a.i./bee

(mortality)

Honey bees Formulated Contact Practically non- Acceptable 45428608

(Apis 72-hr LDso: >350 !J.g a.i./bee toxic

mellifera) NOAEL: 175 ug a.i./bee

LOAEL: 350!J.g a.i./bee

(mortality)

Oral

Honey bees Formulated 72-hr LDso: >315 ug a.i./bee Practically non- Supplemental

(Apis NOAEL: 43.8 ug a.i./bee toxic

melli era) LOAEL: 87.5 a.i./bee

*denotes value used in risk characterization

4.2.5. Toxicity to Earthworms

Currently, Of'P does not require earthworm toxicity testing for pesticide registration. However,

registrant-submitted earthworm studies have been evaluated and classified as supplemental (

Table 4-14) using guideline OPPTS 850.6200. In these studies, no earthworm mortality

occurred at levels up to 1000 mg/kg-soil, although body weight gain was reduced at 1000 mglkgbw.

45
Table 4-14. Toxic Effects of Acequinocylon Earthworms

Species Product Tested TQxicityEndpoint Study , MRID# Classification

Earthworm Technical Grade 14-day LCso: > 1000 mg a.i./kg Supplemental 45435009

(Eisenia NOAEC/LOAEC: 50011000 mg a.i.lkg

foetida) (reductions in body weight gain)

Earthworm Formulated 14-day LCso: >156 mg a.i./kg Supplemental 45782304

(Eisenia NOAEC/LOAEC: ~156/>156 mg a.i.lkg

foetida)

4.3. Incident Database Review

A review of the Ecological Incident Information System (EllS, version 2.1.1), which is

maintained by the Agency's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), the Avian Monitoring

Information System (AIMS), which is maintained by the American Bird Conservancy, and the

Aggregate Summary Module (ASM) (v. 1.0) of OPP's incident database, which is maintained by

the Information Technology and Resource Management Division, was completed on October 16,

2011 and did not yield any ecological incidents involving acequinocyl.

5. RISK ESTIMATION

Data on acequinocyl's exposure and toxicity effects are used to determine the risk quotients for

various species. Risk quotient, an indicator ofthe likelihood of adverse ecological effects on

non-target species, is calculated by dividing the estimated environmental concentrations (EECs)

by acute or chronic toxicity values. The highest EECs and the most sensitive endpoints were

used to determine a conservative estimate of risk. The resulting RQs are compared to the

Agency's pre-established levels of concern (LOCs) to determine the regulatory action. In

general, higher the RQ, greater is the potential risk. Details on the RQ method and LOCs are

presented in Table 2-4.

5.1. Aquatic RQs

5.1.1. Aquatic Acute RQs

A summary of aquatic acute RQs is presented in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2 for the two exposure

modeling approaches. No acute RQs for freshwater or estuarine/marine fish could be calculated

because of the lack of a definitive acute toxicity endpoint for either taxon. However the ratio of

peak EECs (i.e., 0.27 to 6.69Ilg/L) to non-definitive acute toxicity endpoints for fish (i.e., 1100

j..Lg a.i./L for freshwater fish; 190 ug a.i./L for estuarine marine fish) would be appreciably less

than any acute LOC established by the Agency. No acute LOCs are exceeded for aquatic plants

with any ofthe crop scenarios using either model approach.

Acute RQs exceed the acute endangered species (0.05) risk LOC for freshwater and

estuarine/marine invertebrates for all crop scenarios regardless ofthe model used to calculate

46
EECs. Acute restricted use (0.1) and acute (0.5) risk LOCs are exceeded for all crop scenarios

for exposure model approach 1 which assumes no acequinocyl degradation and some crop

scenarios for exposure model approach 2 which considers combined exposure to acequinocyl and

the Rl degradate.

Table 5-1. Summary of Aquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes

No Acequinocyl Degradation)

See Table 3-4

***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LOCs.

Proposed Use Scenario PilaR I.:···'rr~~~.eter ls~~arin~{Marine Aquatic

.~.~:el .• InvefttlJmteS '"

Invel1tebrl:ltes, ,. ;~Iants

.(Plr/L) R<f .. RQ RQ

't~ ;

I

T· ......' "1" ..... y, TQI!~ity To~icity

¢ijdp!iiitt: .emlpoint:

O.!:91!2iL 960 I!I!IL

Soybean MS soybean 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05

FL strawberry

I

(not applicable to 6.69 2.79*** I 1.34*** «0.05

cranberry)

Low-growing berry Rice model

I I (surrogate model for 5.00 2.08*** 8.47*** «0.05 (l3-07G) cranberry)

I

Provisional cranberry

I

model (applicable to 4.87 2.03*** 8.25*** «0.05 II

cranberry)

Small fruit CA grape 1.56 0.65*** 2.64*** «0.05

(vine climbing except kiwi fruit) NY grape 4.65 1.94*** 7.88*** «0.05

Succulent shelled bean and MI bean 6.69 2.79*** t 1.34*** «0.05

cowpea forage OR bean 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05

Caneberry CA grape 1.57 0.65*** 2.66*** «0.05

(13-07A) NY grape 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05

MI melon 2.73 1.14*** 4.63*** «0.05

Melon MOmelon 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 (9A) NJ melon 5.06 2.11*** 8.58*** «0.05

Cucumber FL cucumber 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05

Cherry MI cherry 6.69 2.79*** 11.34*** «0.05 I

Table 5-2. Summary of Aquatic Acute RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2 (Combined

Acequinocyl and Rl)

Proposed Use

So bean

Scenario

MS so bean

Peak

EECI

.(Ilg/L)

1.16

Freshwater

Invertebrates

RQ

Toxicity'

endpoint:

2.4 /L

0.48**

EstuarinelMatine

·Invettebtates .

RQ

ToxicitY

endpoint:

0.$9

1.97***

Aquatic

.Plants

RQ

47
See Table 3-4

*RQ exceeds acute endangered species risk LaC (0.05).

**RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05) and acute restricted use (0.1) risk LaCs.

***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LaCs.

Proposed Use Scella.rio Peak .Fr~sbwlt~l'. Es.u8rinelMlrine Aquatic

EEC1 .. .. ..... ll~~rt~~rlt• lpyeJ1~~..ates Plants

(JigIL)... L. J.tQ.

".

RQ RQ

Toxicity Toxicity Toxicity

endpoin.t; endpoin~: endpoint:

2.4 ....l!IL O.59Jtszffi 960uwL

FL strawberry I (not applicable to 0.29 0.12** 0.49*** «0.05

cranberry)

Low-growing berry Rice model

I

(surrogate model for 5.00 2.08*** 8.47*** «0.05 (l3-07G) cranberry')

Provisional cranberry

I I

model (applicable to 4.38 1.83*** 7.43*** «0.05

cranberry')

Small fruit CA grape 0.27 0.11 ** 0.46* * «0.05

(vine climbing except kiwi fruit) NY grape 1.99 0.83*** 3.37*** «0.05

Succulent shelled bean and MI bean 0.55 0.23** 0.93*** «0.05

cowpea forage OR bean 0.29 0.12** 0.49** «0.05

Caneberry CA grape 0.27 0.11 ** 0.46** «0.05

( 13-07A) NY grape 2.15 0.90*** 3.64*** «0.05

Melon MI melon 0.28 0.12** 0.47** «0.05

Mamelon 1.23 0.51 *** 2.08*** «0.05 (9A) NJ melon 0.55 0.23** 0.93*** «0.05

Cucumber FL cucumber 0.38 0.16** 0.64*** «0.05

Cherry MI cherry 2.64 1.10*** 4.47*** «0.05 1,

5.1.2. Aquatic Chronic RQs

Calculated chronic RQs for fish and invertebrates are presented in Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 for

the two exposure modeling approaches. No chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk LaC (1.0) for

freshwater or estuarine/marine fish using either approach. Chronic RQs exceed the chronic risk

LaC of 1.0 for all invertebrates for all uses under exposure model approach 1. In contrast,

chronic RQs did not exceed the chronic risk LaC for invertebrates under exposure model

approach 2 with the exception ofthe model for NY grape which was used for small fruit and

caneberry (estuarine/marine invertebrates only).

48
Table 5-3. Summary of Aquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 1 (Assumes

No Acequinocyl Degradation)

Proposed Use ," Sc¢nario 21~day.t ~94dar 't\" .. ,FW vE/M:.·'· ElM

ImC1 EEC y' 'Fish v .Invert :. Fish Invert

. (p,gtL) (p,~) RQ RQ RQ RQ .

T city Toxicity To~icity Toxicity . e~d<t: ,end~()int: y eq~pohlt:. endp~~nt:

."",,':: .." >/ . " . 70!1&gfL .O.9.JlgtL 70j1glL~ 0.24 J'g/L3

Soybean MS soybean 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

FL strawberry

(not applicable to 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

cranberry)

I

Rice model

I

Low-growing berry (surrogate model 5.00 5.00 0.07 5.10* 0.07 20.83*

(13-07G) for cranberry')

Provisional

cranberry model 4.31 4.40* 17.96* (applicable to

cranberry)

Small fruit CA grape 1.06 1.04 0.01 1.08* 0.01 4.42*

(vine climbing except NY grape 1.10 0.81 0.01 1.12* 0.01 4.58* kiwi fruit)

Succulent shelled MI bean 6.69 6.68 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

bean and cowpea

forage OR bean 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

Caneberry CA grape 1.06 1.05 0.02 1.08* 0.02 4.42*

(13-07A) NY grape 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

Melon MI melon 1.94 1.76 0.03 1.98* 0.Q3 8.08*

MOmelon 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88* (9A) NJ melon 4.13 3.92 0.06 4.21 * 0.06 17.21*

Cucumber FL cucumber 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

Cherry MI cherry 6.69 6.69 0.10 6.83* 0.10 27.88*

Abbreviations: Invert = invertebrate; FW = freshwater; E/M = estuarine/marine

ISee Table 3-4

2Assumed endpoint value is equivalent to freshwater fish chronic endpoint. No definitive acute value is available

for estuarine/marine fish. Acute data available suggest a less sensitive estuarine/marine fish so assumption used for

chronic effects is conservative.

3Assumed endpoint value is based on an acute to chronic ratio of 2.45 for the freshwater invertebrate endpoints as

applied to the most sensitive acute estuarine marine invertebrate endpoint of 0.59 ug/L (0.59 ug/L /2.45 = 0.24

).lg/L).

*exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0)

49
Table 5-4. Summary of Aquatic Chronic RQs Using Exposure Model Approach 2

(Combined Acequinocyl and Rl)

Propesed tJse> Scenario Y~~-~·f 601f(lar FW FW ElM ElM '.'C,.· 1··'EI¥C/ I··· ·Jl.h i Inv.~rt Fish Invert

'(,lgJL) (IlWD)·'· RQ RQ RQ RQ

Toxicity To~icjty Toxicity Toxicity

endpoint: ~ndp9int; endpoint: endpoint:

520,lgAL O.98,lglt 5~O !J.glL2 O.~4 ,lglL3

Soybean MS soybean 0.27 0.18 0.0026 0.28 0.0026 1.13*

FL strawberry

(not applicable to 0.07 0.05 0.0007 0.07 0.0007 0.29

cranberry)

Rice model

Low-growing berry (surrogate model 5.00 5.00 0.0714 5.10* 0.0714 20.83*

(l3-07G) for cranberry)

Provisional

cranberry model 1.56 1.59* 6.51 * (applicable to

cranberry)

Small fruit CA grape 0.04 0.03 0.0004 0.04 0.0004 0.17

(vine climbing except NY grape 0.51 0.33 0.0047 0.52 0.0047 2.13* kiwi fruit)

Succulent shelled MI bean 0.16 0.11 0.0016 0.16 0.0016 0.67

bean and cowpea OR bean 0.07 0.06 0.0009 0.07 0.0009 0.29 forage

Caneberry CA grape 0.04 0.03 0.0004 0.04 0.0004 0.17

(l3-07A) NY grape 0.53 0.34 0.0049 0.54 0.0049 2.21 *

Melon MI melon 0.06 0.04 0.0006 0.06 0.0006 0.25

MOmelon 0.19 0.12 0.0017 0.19 0.0017 0.79 (9A) NJ melon 0.12 0.09 0.0013 0.12 0.0013 0.50

Cucumber FL cucumber 0.09 0.06 0.0009 0.09 0.0009 0.38

Cherry MI cherry 0.48 0.32 0.0046 0.24 0.0046 0.39

Abbreviations: Invert = Invertebrate; FW = freshwater; E/M = estuanne/manne

ISee Table 3-4

2Assumed endpoint value is equivalent to freshwater fish chronic endpoint. No definitive acute value is available

for estuarine/marine fish. Acute data available suggest a less sensitive estuarine/marine fish so assumption used for

chronic effects is conservative.

3Assumed endpoint value is based on an acute to chronic ratio of2.45 for the freshwater invertebrate endpoints as

applied to the most sensitive acute estuarine marine invertebrate endpoint of 0.59 ~g/L (0.59 ug/L I 2.45 = 0.24

ug/L).

*exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0)

5.2. Terrestrial RQs

5.2.1. Avian RQs

Avian acute RQs could not be calculated as there was no mortality in birds at the highest

concentrations tested in both the acute and sub-acute toxicity tests resulting in non-definitive

50
endpoints. A discussion ofthe potential risks to birds from acute exposure is discussed in the

risk characterization section ofthis document.

Avian chronic RQs for two different acequinocyl application intervals (14 days and 21 days) and

two different acequinocyl foliar dissipation half-lives (20 days and 35 days) are presented in

Table 5-5. The chronic risk LOC (1.0) is exceeded for birds of all weight classes that consume

short grass exclusively regardless ofthe application interval or foliar dissipation half-life.

Table 5-5. Summary of Avian Chronic RQs

< i

Diet~ry!.b~~ed. Chrollic~qs

Food items for BiI·ds ttwo. 3Pplieati~ns at O.30Jba~i./A.. .y

. 14.;dav'iiterval·'·' .r; 21"dav interval

Modeled uslnz foliar dissipation half-life of 35 days

Short grass 1.27* 1.20*

Tall grass 0.58 0.55

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.71 0.67

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 0.08 0.07

Modeled using foliar dissipation half-life of20 days

Short grass 1.16* 1.07*

Tall grass 0.53 0.49

Broadleaf plants/small insects 0.65 0.60

Fruits/pods/seeds/large insects 0.07 0.07

Equals or exceeds chronic fisk LOC (1.0)

5.2.2. Mammalian RQs

Mammalian acute RQs could not be calculated due to the lack of definitive endpoints in

mammalian acute toxicity studies with acequinocyL A discussion ofthe potential risks to

mammals from acute exposures is presented in the risk characterization section ofthis document.

Mammalian chronic RQs are presented in Table 5-6. Dose-based chronic RQs exceed the

chronic risk LOC of 1.0 for all weight classes ofmammals that feed on short grass, tall grass,

broadleaf plants, and small insects regardless of application interval or foliar dissipation half-life.

On the other hand, dietary-based chronic RQs are above the chronic risk LOC (1.0) for mammals

consuming short grass exclusively regardless of application interval or foliar dissipation half-life

used in the modeling.

51
Table 5-6. Summary of Mammalian Chronic RQs

Ace uinoc I half-life 35 da s; two a lications each at 0.30 Ib a.i./A 14 da s a art

Short rass 1.27* 1.20* 10.98* 10.37* 9.38* 8.86* 5.03* 4.75*

Tall rass 0.58 0.55 5.03* 4.75* 4.30* 4.06* 2.30* 2.18*

Broadleaf plants/ 0.71 0.67 6.18* 5.83* 5.28* 4.98* 2.83* 2.67* I small insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/ 0.08 0.07 0.69 0.65 0.59 0.55 0.31 0.30 lar e insects

Seeds ( ranivores) 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.07 0.07

Ace uinoc I half-life 20 da s; two a lications each at 0.30 Ib a.i.IA 14 da sa art

Short rass 1.16* 1.07* 10.09* 9.26* 8.62* 7.91 * 4.62* 4.24*

Tall rass 0.53 0.49 4.63* 4.25* 3.95* 3.63* 2.12* 1.94*

Broadleaf plants/ 0.65 0.60 5.68* 5.21* 4.85* 4.45* 2.60* 2.39* small insects

Fruits/pods/seeds/ 0.07 0.07 0.63 0.58 0.54 0.49 0.29 0.27 lar e insects

Seeds ( ranivores) 0.13 0.13 0.12 0.11 0.06 0.06

"Equals or exceeds chronic risk LOC (1.0)

5.2.3. Plant RQs

The acute risk LOC of 1.0 for terrestrial and semi-aquatic plants was not exceeded for the

proposed maximum, single application rate of 0.3 lb a.i.lA for acequinocyl (Table 5-7).

Therefore, potential risk to plants from acute exposure is expected to be below levels of concern.

Table 5-7. Summary of RQs for Plants in Dry and Semi-aquatic Areas

Plant Type ,

Li$t~ Status .: ,; Habitat Sp,ray Drift "

Dry Semi-Aquatic

Monocot Non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Monocot Listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot Non-listed <0.1 <0.1 <0.1

Dicot Listed <0.1 0.11 <0.1

5.2.4. Invertebrate RQs

Currently, EFED does not routinely quantify the potential risk of pesticides to terrestrial

invertebrates. An examination ofthe potential for terrestrial invertebrates to be at risk from the

proposed used of acequinocy1is discussed in the risk characterization section ofthis document.

6. RISK CHARACTERIZATION

52
Risk characterization integrates exposure and effects data to determine the ecological risk

resulting from the use of acequinocyl and the likelihood of impacts on aquatic and terrestrial

biota. Risk characterization provides estimation and description ofthe risk; articulates risk

assessment assumptions, limitations, and uncertainties; synthesizes an overall conclusion; and

provides risk managers with information to support regulatory decision making.

Despite the same use rates, acequinocyl EECs and calculated RQs are different in this

assessment compared to the initial assessment completed in 2003. This is due to the use of new

scenarios as a result of expanded label uses in new crops, modifications to crop planting dates for

some existing scenarios, selection oftoxicity endpoints from new submitted studies in certain

cases, and use ofthe model TREX in the place of ELL-FATE.

6.1. Aquatic Risk

6.1.1. Aquatic Animals

No definitive acute RQs could be calculated for freshwater fish or estuarine/marine fish due to

the absence of a definitive acute toxicity endpoint for either taxa. However, aquatic EECs for all

use scenarios (i.e., 0.03 to 6.69 ug/L) fall 5 to 6 orders of magnitude below pesticide

concentrations demonstrated to produce no signs of acute toxicity in these taxa (i.e., 1100 ug

a.i./L for freshwater fish; 190 ug a.i./L for estuarine marine fish). This suggests that the potential

for adverse acute toxic effects to freshwater and estuarine/marine fish, regardless oftheir listed

status, is low.

Chronic RQs for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish are well below the chronic risk LOC (l.0).

However, the interpretation for chronic effects to estuarine/marine fish is limited by the taxon's

toxicity endpoint which is assumed to be equivalent to the chronic toxicity value for freshwater

fish. Calculated chronic RQs for estuarine/marine fish using the surrogate chronic effects

endpoint are at least one order of magnitude below the chronic risk LOC for exposure modeling

approach 1 and at least two orders ofmagnitude below the chronic risk LOC for exposure

modeling approach 2. This allows for a considerable margin of error in the available assumed

toxicity values without affecting risk conclusions.

All ofthe proposed uses for acequinocyl, regardless ofthe modeling approach, pose potential

risk from acute exposure for both listed and non-listed aquatic invertebrates. Approach 1 for

modeling exposure assumes stability ofthe parent compound (i.e., a functional assumption that

any degradates produced are essentially equivalent to the parent toxicologically). This is

important because RQs derived in this assessment for aquatic invertebrates use parent-only

toxicity endpoints. However, evaluation ofthe available toxicity data for invertebrates suggests

that degradates were present in the freshwater invertebrate study at concentrations that could

elevate the assumed toxicity endpoint (parent plus degradate) by a factor of 1.92. Therefore,

there is a potentially valid alternative course of analysis that would compare the exposure

concentrations yielded via approach 1 with the toxicity endpoint expressed as parent compound

plus degradate. In this case, because the exposure concentrations remain unchanged but the

53
toxicity endpoint rises by 1.92 times, the corresponding RQs would drop by the same factor. An

examination of all ofthe acute RQs generated by approach I for freshwater invertebrates

indicates that adjusting them downward by a factor of 1.92 would not alter the conclusions ofthe

risk assessment.

The lack of chronic effects data for estuarine/marine invertebrates increases uncertainty in the

conclusions for risk to this taxon from chronic exposure. The application ofthe acute to chronic

ratio from a freshwater cladoceran to the acute endpoint derived from a bivalve study contributes

to this uncertainty. There is the potential that the large taxonomic difference between

cladocerans and bivalves makes extrapolating the acute to chronic ratio from one taxon to the

other inappropriate. If the same acute to chronic ratio is applied to the available mysid acute

endpoint (a taxon more closely related to the cladocerans), the resulting chronic estimate would

be closer to that measured for freshwater invertebrates. However, given the conclusions reached

for freshwater invertebrate risks, such an alternative estimate of chronic estuarine/marine

sensitivity would have little effect on the risk assessment conclusions.

Aquatic invertebrates could be exposed to a wide range of acequinocyl concentrations in a

natural water setting depending on the type of water body. The water body modeled by EXAMS

is static with no downstream dilution effects. Therefore, specific effects exerted by acequinocyl

on aquatic invertebrates and the extent ofresulting risk are difficult to predict. However, based

on 21-day and 60-day average EECs derived from both modeling approaches, risks to

estuarine/marine invertebrates appear to exceed those for freshwater invertebrates.

Acequinocyl's potential for off-site movement is generally low as it strongly adsorbs to soils. If

acequinocyl moves from the target area to nearby aquatic areas, the potential exists for it to

adsorb to soil sediments resulting in adverse impacts to benthic-dwelling organisms. However,

considering that acequinocyl's half-life is less than 2 days in aerobic soils, adsorption to

sediments is not a major concern. To determine ifsediment-dwelling organisms could be

adversely affected from the proposed uses, concentrations of acequinocyl in benthic pore water

were calculated using PRZM/ EXAMS (Table 3-5). Benthic pore water concentrations for

various scenarios ranged from 0.8 to 6.69 ug/L using exposure modeling approach 1 and 0.02 to

0.31 ug/L using exposure modeling approach 2. Since the submitted toxicity endpoint (LCso:

>86,000 ug/L) for the sediment-dwelling Chironomus riparius is several orders ofmagnitude

higher than estimated pore water concentrations, risks to sediment-dwelling organisms from the

proposed uses of acequinocyl are expected to be low. It should be noted that the registrantsubmitted study on chironomids (MRID 45782303) was not conducted according to the sediment

toxicity guideline (850.1735) as it employed a water-only exposure method. Therefore the

results ofthe study may not account for any direct sediment/organism transfer ofthe pesticide.

However, given the relatively large margins between estimated pore water concentrations and

the toxic effects endpoint, it is unlikely that a repeat of a study involving sediment and water

exposure would markedly alter risk conclusions.

6.1.1.1 Risks Based on the Probit Slope Analysis

54
The probit dose-response slope is used to calculate the chance of an individual mortality event

corresponding to the acute endangered species risk LOC or RQs. When an estimate for the

probit slope generated for the associated toxicity study is unavailable, a default slope of 4.5 is

used. The analysis using the EFED Individual Effects Chance Model (lEC, version 1.1) can

estimate the probability of an individual mortality event down to 1 in 1 x 10-16.

Chance of individual effects was not calculated for fish because none ofthe toxicity studies

yielded a definitive measure of mortality (i.e., LCso). Chance of individual effects for

estuarine/marine invertebrates was not calculated because the most sensitive endpoint from

oysters is for a continual variable of growth and not a discrete measure of mortality. The

assumptions ofthe IEC model are not compatible for this type of endpoint.

A slope of6.2 with 95% confidence bounds (4.0,8.4) was used for the LCso ofthe most sensitive

acute freshwater invertebrate (Daphnia magna; LCso= 2.4 ug a.i./L; MRID 46372101). The

results ofthe probit slop analyses for freshwater invertebrates are presented in Table 6-1.

Chance of an individual mortality ranged from 1 in 1 to 1 in 8 for exposure modeling approach 1

and 1 in I to 1 in 1.76x108 for exposure modeling approach 2. The high probabilities of

individual effects for most ofthe scenarios provide support for the conclusion that aquatic

invertebrates are at risk from acute exposure to acequinocyl from the proposed uses.

Table 6-1. Chance of Individual Effects for Freshwater Invertebrates Based on Acute RQs

and Exposure Modeling Approaches 1 and 2

Proposed Scenario ,Slope! Freshwaterll)vertebrates

Use (95%Cn RQs «:b~P~jz;l[tiitesb,..~r Invert tes .

. ..•... ..··(95~o .'

Approach 1 Approaeh'.2 a)\ppf()ael1t~;· ApprO,ilcll 2

(no (combined i., !n~~~~~~jnocYI I' (combined

acequil10eyl acequinocyt . degradation) acequjnocynmd

deltradationl I"··"· and RI) RI)

Soybean MS soybean 6.2 2.79*** 0.48** I in 1 1 in 41

(4.0, 8.4) (l in 1 to I in 1) (I in 9 to I in 270)

FL strawberry 6.2 I 1

1 in 1.76xl0M

(not applicable to 2.79*** 0.12** In (1 in 8.69x103 to Low-growing cranberry) (4.0, 8.4) (l in 1 to 1 in 1) 1 in 1.93x 10 14) berry Rice model (13-070) (surrogate model 6.2 2.08*** 2.08*** I in 1 1 in 1

for cranberry) (4.0, 8.4) (1 in 1 to 1 in 1) (I in 1 to 1 in 1)

6.2 1 in 8

I

1 in 7.16x108

Small fruit CA grape (4.0, 8.4) 0.65*** 0.1 1** (l in 4 to (1 in 1.59xl04 to

(vine climbing 1 in 17) 1 in 2.46xl0 15)

except kiwi fruit)

NY 6.2 1.94*** 0.83*** 1 in I 1 in 3

grape (4.0, 8.4) (1 In 1 to 1 in I) (1 in 3 to I In 4)

I

Succulent 6.2 1 in 1 1 In 2.64xl04

shelled bean MI bean 2.79*** 0.23** (1 in 187 to

and cowpea (4.0, 8.4) (1 in 1 to I in 1) 1 in 2.42xl07

)

55
Proposed Scenario Slopel Freshwater Invertebrates Chance of Effects for Freshwater

Use (95%CI) RQs Invel1~brl:ltes

(95%Cb

Approach 1 Approach 2 Approach 1 Approach 2

(no (combined (no acequinocyl (combined

acequinocyl acequinocyl degradation) acequinocyl and

dearadatien) and Rl) Rl)

forage

I OR bean

6.2 I in I

I in 1.76xlOK

(4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.12** (I in 1 to 1 in 1) (I in 8.69x103 to

I in 1.93xI0 14)

6.2 I

I in 8 I in 7.16x IOK

CA grape 0.65*** 0.11 ** (1 in 4 to (I in 1.59xl04 to

I Caneberry (4.0, 8.4) I in 17) I in 2.46xI0 15)

(13-07A) 6.2 I in I I in 3

NY grape (4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.90*** (1 in I to I in 1) (I in 2 to I in 3)

6.2 I in 2

I in l.76x IOK

MI melon 1.14*** 0.12** (I in 8.69x I03 to

\

(4.0, 8.4) (I in 2 to 1 in 2) I in 1.93x10 14)

Melon 6.2 I in I I in 29

I (9A)

MOmelon (4.0, 8.4) 2.79*** 0.51*** (1 In I to I in I) (I in 8 to

I in 143)

I

I in I in 2.64x I04

NJ melon 6.2 2.11*** 0.23** (I in I to I in (I in 187 to (4.0, 8.4) I) I in 2.42x I07

)

6.2 I in I I in 2.49x I06

Cucumber I FL cucumber 2.79*** 0.16** (I in 1.37xl03 to (4.0, 8.4) (I in I to 1 in I) I in 8.68xI0 1O)

I

Cherry MI cherry 6.2 2.79*** 1.10*** I in I I in 2

(4.0,8.4) (I in I to 1 in I) (I in 2 to I in 2)

Abbreviation: CI = Confidence mterval

IMRlD 46372101

***RQ exceeds acute endangered species (0.05), acute restricted use (0.1), and acute (0.5) risk LOCs.

6.1.2. Plants

Aquatic non-vascular (algal) plants are not a concern for risk from acequinocyl uses because

acute RQs are well below the acute endangered species risk LOC for aquatic plants.

6.2. Terrestrial Risk

6.2.1. Animals (Birds, Mammals, and Insects)

Because avian (oral and dietary) and mammalian (oral) acute studies did not establish definitive

endpoints, RQs for acute exposure could not calculated in the risk estimation section ofthis

assessment. To gain a better understanding of how the EECs for the maximum proposed

acequinocyl application rate relate to the toxicity data currently available for birds and mammals,

TREX was used to calculate RQs with the highest concentration tested in the avian and

mammalian studies serving as inputs (i.e., acute: LDsos = of2250 mg/kg-bw and 5000 mg/kgdiet for birds; 5000 mg/kg-bw for mammals). In this exercise all ofthe acute RQs calculated

using upper bound Kenaga values (see Appendix H) were less than 0.1 except for dose-based

56
RQs ranging from 0.08 - 0.12 for small birds consuming short grass exclusively. Therefore,

direct risk to non-listed and listed birds and mammals from acute exposure to acequinocyl is

expected to be low.

The potential for adverse effects to mammals is based on chronic dose-based and dietary-based

RQs. Dose-based mammalian RQs exceed the chronic risk LOC (1.0) for three out offive food

categories for all weight classes assessed regardless of application interval or half-life assumed.

Chronic dietary-based exceedances occur only for mammals that feed on short grass exclusively.

Such mammals would include microtine voles. Similarly only chronic short grass dietary

exposures trigger concern for risk to birds. For most bird species, chronic consumption ofshort

grass is not an expected feeding guild. However, large birds such as waterfowl do feed on

grasses to a great extent. Even so, reliance on mean residue estimates in bird's diet might

obviate concern for chronic effects in birds.

RQs for terrestrial invertebrates (e.g., insects) are not routinely calculated for non-listed species.

The Agency has not established LaCs for these organisms other than for listed species (0.05).

The acute contact LDsois>100 ~g a.i.zbee (MRID 45435007). Assuming the weight of an

individual bee is 0.128 g, the acute contact LDso for these organisms is >781 mg a.i./kg-bw

(> 100 ug a.i./bee / 0.128 g-bw = >781 ug a.i./g-bw = >781 mg/kg-bw). Acequinocyl residues on

insects as estimated by dietary-based EECs (mg/kg-insect) generated via TREX range from 7.47

to 71.19 mg/kg-insect depending on insect size (small, large), application interval, and half life

(see

Table 3-6 and Table 3-7). Although a definitive LDso was not established in the acute contact

study, lethargy was observed as a sublethal effect. In order to gain a better understanding of how

the EECs for the maximum proposed acequinocyl application rate relate to the toxicity data

currently available for terrestrial invertebrates, the ratio ofthe highest EEC (i.e., 71.19 mg/kginsect) to the non-definitive toxicity endpoint (i.e., >781 mg/kg-bw) was calculated using the

conservative assumption that the highest concentration tested represents the toxicity endpoint. In

this exercise, the acute ratio is >0.05. Because the highest dose tested is below the exposure

level required to preclude risk to federally listed species, the specific risk to listed terrestrial

invertebrates from the proposed uses of acequinocyl is unknown. In the absence of additional

data, risk to listed terrestrial invertebrates is assumed.

6.2.2. Plants

As can be expected with an insecticide for a broad variety of agricultural crops, acequinocyl use

does not appear to pose any risk to terrestrial plants. The LOC of 1.0 for terrestrial and semiaquatic plants was not exceeded for the proposed uses due to either runoff or drift of

acequinocyl.

6.3. Endangered Species

Endangered species that could potentially be affected by the proposed uses of acequinocyl are

identified using the searchable LOCATES database. EFED's screening-level assessment

57
considers broadly described taxonomic groups and assumes that aquatic organisms in a surface

water body and terrestrial plants and wildlife are located on or adjacent to the treated site. The

assessment also assumes that this adjacent area has the highest potential for exposure to the

pesticide and that exposures are likely to decrease with increasing distance from the treatment

area.

The list ofthreatened and endangered species that could be directly affected by the proposed

acequinocyl uses is provided in Appendix J. A total of 433 organisms in taxa that include

amphibians (18), arachnids (12), birds (82), bivalves (71), coral (2), crustaceans (20), gastropods

(70), insects (63), mammals (70), and reptiles (25) are identified to be at direct risk from the

proposed uses of acequinocyl. It should be noted that endangered species at risk for indirect

effects from the proposed used of acequinocyl are not included in this analysis.

6.3.1. Aquatic Endangered Species

This screening-level risk assessment for acequinocyl identifies potential concerns for listed

freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrates.

6.3.2. Terrestrial Endangered Species

The current risk assessment suggests that acequinocyl has the potential to impact endangered

birds, mammals, terrestrial invertebrates, and organisms that may depend on them for survival or

reproduction. Since birds serve as surrogate species for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles,

it is expected that amphibians and reptiles are also at risk.

6.3.3. Direct and Indirect Effects

The summary of potential direct and indirect effects to endangered species is presented in Error!

Not a valid bookmark self-reference.. In view ofthe sensitivity of aquatic invertebrates and

terrestrial birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates to acequinocyl, direct impact

of proposed uses could result in loss ofthe above species due to mortality. The loss ofthese

species will also result in structural and functional changes of both the aquatic and terrestrial

ecosystems. Importantly, changes will be manifested in the form ofreduced biodiversity and

disruption ofthe food chain.

Table 6-2. Summary of Potential Direct and Indirect Effects to Federally-Listed Taxa

Or2atti$m ., ...... ;. DirectEffects Indirect·Effects!

Terrestrial and semi-aquatic monocots No No

and dicots

Terrestrial invertebrates Yes Yes

Birds Yes Yes

Terrestrial-phase amphibians Yes Yes

Reptiles Yes Yes

Mammals Yes Yes

I Aquatic vascular plants I No Yes

58
Orasnism ..... ... ... ..... . ·Dir~ct.Effects Indirect Effectsl • ... ...

Freshwater fish No Yes

Aquatic-phase amphibians No Yes

Estuarine/marine fish No Yes

Freshwater invertebrates Yes Yes

Estuarine/marine invertebrates Yes Yes

Specific indirect effects were not Identified as refined analysis was not conducted

59
REFERENCES

Dekeyser. M.A. 2005. Review: Acaricide mode of action. Pest. Manag. Sci. 61: 103-11O.

Fletcher, J.S., J.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation ofthe

EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, an instrument for estimating pesticide residues on plants.

Env. Toxicol. Chern. 13:1381-1391.

Hoerger, F. and E. E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: correlation ofrepresentative

data as a basis for estimation oftheir magnitude in the environment. in: F. Coulston and F. Korte

(editors), Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and Technology. Vol 1.

Georg Thieme Publishers, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.

Khambay, RP.S and P. Jewess. 2000. The potential of natural naphthoquinones as the basis for

a new class of pest control agents - an overview of research at IACR-Rothamsted. Crop

Protection 19: 597-601.

Pfleeger, T.G., A. Fong, R. Hayes, H. Ratsch and C. Wickliff. 1996. Field evaluation ofthe

EPA (Kenaga) nomogram, a method for estimating wildlife exposure to pesticide residues on

plants. Env. Toxicol. Chern. 15:535-543, 1996.

USEPA. 1998. Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. Published on May 14, 1998, Federal

Register 63(93):26846-26924. Risk Assessment Forum, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Washington, D.C. EPA/630/R-95/002F. 191 pp. April.

USEPA. 2003. Section 3 Request for Uses ofAcequinocyl (P.c. Code: 006329) on Greenhouse,

Shadehouse, Ornamental, Floral, Foliage and Nursery Crops (OP Barcode 0291707)

USEPA. 2004. Section 3 Request for Uses of Acequinocyl (P.c. Code: 006329) on Pome Fruits,

Citrus, Almonds, Pistachios, Strawberries and Outdoor Ornamentals submitted under OP

Barcodes: 0285811,0286428,0289153,0290010,0287269, 0290009, 0291174. February 3,

2004. (US EPA 2004, OP Barcodes: 0285811,0286428,02891.53,0290010,0287269,

0290009,0291174)

USEP A. 2004b. Overview ofthe 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(Accessed June 19,2009).

USEPA. 2007. Tier II Drinking Water Assessment for Acequinocyl. (P.C. Code: 006329) (OP

Barcode 0337221)

USEPA. 2011. Water Models. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Pesticides: Science

and Policy, Models and Databases. Last updated Aug. 8,2011. Online at:

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

60
Appendix A

Summary of Acequinocyl Major Degradates and Maximum Percent Formation Observed in Laboratory and Field Studies

Formed immediately after application,

Maximum Degradate Concentration (0/0 of applied) and Time to Max Concentration

Degradate

Hydrolysis Aqueous Soil Photolysis Aerobic Soil Anaerobic Aerobic TFD

Photolysis Metabolism Aquatic Aquatic

RI (2-dodecyl-3- pH 7:

I

River water: 33.8% (2 days) Water: 12.2% (0 days) NY: 37.8% (3 hr)

54.7% (96 hr) 11.6% (30 min) I 18% (0 days) GA: 37.8% I hydroxy-I,4- -- Sediment: CA: 26.4% I

naphthaledione) 41.5% (3 days)

AKM 18 [2-(1,2- pH7: 23.7% (6 days) 9.2% (2 days) Water: 19.5% (I day) NY: 16.5% (3 hr)

~ioxotetradeCYl)ben 7.1%(48 hr) -- 2.7% (7 days)

Sediment: zoic acid] 34.3% (269 days)

I AKM-08 [2-(2-oxo- Buffer solution:

dodecyl)-3- -- 12.9%(2 hr) -- -- -- -- -- hydroxy-I,4-

naphthoquinone]

Buffer solution:

O-Phthalic acid -- 12.7% (24 hr) -- -- -- -- -- River water:

II.9% (24 hr)

River water:

Phenol -- 10% (24 hr) -- -- -- -- --

CBAA (2-carboxyI I11.3% (2 days)

u-oxo-benzene -- -- -- -- --

I 1- -- acetic acid)

61
Appendix B

Description of the Provisional Tier I Cranberry Model

The Provisional Cranberry Model addresses fate and transport of pesticide residues in cranberry

bogs. The model is derived from the EFED approved Tier I Rice Model. This cranberry model

is currently used provisionally in EFED. Deviations from the approved Tier I Rice Model will

be explained in the following section. Aquatic exposure was estimated for acequinocyl using

PRZM/EXAMS and the Provisional Cranberry Model (discussed in Section 2.7.1.3).

The Provisional Cranberry Model relies on an equilibrium partitioning concept to provide highend screening estimates of EECs resulting from application of pesticides to cranberry bogs.

When soils with pesticide residue are flooded, the model assumes that partitioning of the residue

occurs instantaneously. The Provisional Cranberry Model relies on the Tier I Rice Model as a

proxy for model calibration. The Tier I Rice Model was calibrated to generate estimates that are

similar to or greater than dissolved concentrations measured within rice paddies and in

discharged paddy water. The model does not account for pesticide degradation, mass transfer

between the aqueous phase and the sediment, volatilization, dilution, or other dissipation

processes. The sediment interaction depth was determined by calibrating the model to maximum

residues measured in paddy water in dissipation studies. Pesticide degradation, mass transfer,

volatilization, dilution and other dissipation processes may have occurred in those datasets but

probably had little effect on the calibration because the model was calibrated to the maximum

measured residues. The model was not evaluated or calibrated for concentrations measured in

sediment and does not account for residues bound to suspended sediment. Guidance for using

the Tier I Rice Model may be found on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water

Models web-page (USEPA, 2007).

The Tier I Rice Model is adapted to a cranberry bog scenario by accounting for degradation of

the pesticide prior to flooding and increasing water column depth to reflect conditions in a

cranberry bog at harvest. Cranberry bog water column depth is not well characterized. Bogs on

the east coast are filled for harvest to approximately 24 inches while bogs in other growing

regions are shallower and are not likely filled to the same depth. East coast harvesters typically

flood the bog to 12 inches to shake the berries from the vine and flood another 12 inches to

collect the berries. Thus, the conservative assumption made in this assessment is that bog water

column depth is 12 inches. EECs will also be generated at 24 inches for comparison.

Assumptions ofthe Tier I Rice Model, other than these modifications, apply to this provisionally

modified model.

Due to a range of environmental variables and other factors, the Provisional Cranberry Model is

expected to generate conservative EECs that are likely to exceed peak measured concentrations

of pesticides in water bodies downstream of a single cranberry bog. However, cranberry bogs

are almost exclusively oriented in a series as water from one bog is used to flood subsequent

bogs. Without substantial time for degradation and assuming similar acequinocyl application

regimes in each cranberry field, bog water may increase in concentration beyond what is

modeled in this assessment.

62
Provisional Cranberry Model.

n

m .'= m .' xe -k4 /

n

at al n

I

where,

mai' = mass per unit area at flood [kglha]

mai'n = mass a~plied per unit area on the nth application [kglha]

k, = upper 90t percentile rate constant on dry bog [lid]

tn= interval from the nth application to harvest [d]

n = number of pre-harvest applications

followed by:

and, if appropriate:

where,

Cwo = initial water concentration [llg/L]

K, = water-sediment partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

Koc = organic carbon partitioning coefficient [L/kg]

d., = water column depth = 0.305 m

dsed = sediment depth = 0.01 m

9sed = porosity ofsediment = 0.509

Pb = bulk density ofsediment = 1300 kg/rn'

63
Appendix C

Ecological Studies Submitted for Acequinocyl

-

Birds

71-1a Avian acute oral LDso, Japanese quail 45435002 Supplemental'

71-1a Avian acute oral LDso, Mallard duck 45435001 Invalid

7I-Ib Avian acute oral LDso, Bobwhite quail (Formulation) 45530602 Acceptable

71-2a Avian subacute dietary LCso, Bobwhite quail (Formulation) 45530603 Invalid

71-2a Avian subacute dietary LCso, Japanese quail 45435004 Supplemental'

71-2b Avian subacute dietary LCso, Mallard Duck 45435003 Acceptable

71-4a Avian Reproduction, Bobwhite quail 45435006 Acceptable

71-4b Avian Reproduction, Mallard duck 45435005 Acceptable

850.2100 Avian acute oral LDso, Bobwhite quail 4661550 I Acceptable"

850.2200 Avian dietary LCso, Bobwhite Quail 46622701 Acceptable"

Fish and Invertebrates

72-1a Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECso, Bluegill sunfish 45434918 Supplemental72-lb Freshwater fish acute LCsolECso, Bluegill sunfish 45428605 Acceptable

(Formulation)

72-1c Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECso, Rainbow trout 45434920 Invalid

and (Both studies)

45868502

72-ld Freshwater fish acute LCsolECso, Rainbow trout 45530601 Acceptable

(Formulation)

72-1 Freshwater fish acute LCso/ECso, Zebrafish 45434919 Supplemental' "

850-1075 Freshwater fish acute LCsu, Common carp (Rl degradate) 46370502 Supplemental"

72-2a Freshwater invertebrate, Daphnia ECso 45434915 Invalid

72-2a Freshwater invertebrate, Chironomid LCso(Formulation) 45782303 Supplemental:'

72-3a Estuarine/marine fish acute LCso, Sheepshead minnow 45434921 Supplemental"

72-3d Estuarine/marine fish acute LCso, Sheepshead minnow 45428606 Acceptable

(Formulation)

72-3b Estuarine/marine acute invertebrate ECso, Eastern oyster 45434916 Supplemental'

72-3c Estuarine/marine acute invertebrate ECso , Mysid shrimp 45434917 Supplemental"

72-4a Freshwater early life stage chronic, Rainbow trout 45428607 Supplemental

(Formulation)

72-4b Freshwater invertebrate life cycle, Daphnia 45434922 Supplemental

72-4c Estuarine/marine fish early life-stage, Sheepshead minnow No study N/A

72-4b Estuarine/marine life cycle, Mysid No study N/A

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate LCso, Daphnia 46370502 Invalid

850.1010 Freshwater invertebrate LCso, Daphnia 46372101 Acceptable"

Mammals

81-1 Acute mammalian oral LDso, Rat 45435011 Acceptable

64
83-3a

83-3b

83-4

Plants

122-la

123-1b

122-2

123-2

123-2

Non-target Insects

141-1

141-1

Non-guideline

Non-guideline

(OPPTS 850.6200)

Acute mammalian oral LDso, Mouse

Mammalian Developmental, Rat

Mammalian Developmental, Rabbit

2-Generation Reproduction Study, Rat

Terrestrial plants (Tier I) - Seedling Emergence

(Formulation)

Terrestrial plants (Tier I) - Vegetative Vigor (Formulation)

Aquatic plants (Tier I), Freshwater algae

Aquatic plants (Tier I), Freshwater algae (Formulation)

Vascular Plant, Lemna gibba

Acute Contact, Honeybee (Technical)

Acute Contact, Honeybee (Formulation)

Acute Oral, Honeybee (Formulation)

Earthworm (Technical)

45435010

45531908

and

45651706

45531907

and

45651705

45531909

45428609

45428610

45435008

45428611

No study

45435007

45428608

45428608

45435009

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental

N/A

Acceptable

Acceptable

Supplemental

Supplemental

Non-guideline Earthworm (Formulation)

(OPPTS 850.6200)

N/A = not applicable

'Not recommended species

2Poor recovery of the test chemical in addition to other guideline deviations

3Test chemical was not measured in all test groups

4New studies submitted since the conditional registration

65

45782304 Supplemental
Appendix D

AgDrift Output File

AgDRIFHD:2 .01

AgDRIFT® Aquatic Assessment

Aquatic Body: EPA-Defined Pond

Downwind Water Body Width : 208.7 ft

Average Depth: 6.56 It

Active Rate:

Active Ratc: 0.3 I bac

Calculations:

Distance To Water Body From Edge of Field: 75 fl. (input)

Initial Average Deposition' 0.0155 Fraction of Applied

Initial Average Deposition: 5.22 g/ha

Initial Average Concentration: 0.0047 Iblac

lie!': I

RunlO'

,'\gDR IFT® :: .0 I

66
Appendix E

Example PRZMIEXAMS Output Files

Approach 1

stored as MSSoy2.out

Chemical: Acequinocyl

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:08

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06:14:14

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.157 0.5422 0.2128 0.1612 0.116 0.03019

1962 0.3193 0.1853 0.126 0.118 0.1125 0.08364

1963 1.05 0.4797 0.1864 0.1056 0.08804 0.05985

1964 1.164 0.5356 0.1944 0.144 0.1413 0.0979

1965 0.3557 0.184 0.1167 0.1139 0.1097 0.08118

1966 0.3063 0.1541 0.09023 0.08517 0.08048 0.06452

1967 0.5416 0.2818 0.1387 0.081 0.07698 0.05597

1968 0.3034 0.1522 0.09044 0.08053 0.07694 0.0636

1969 0.4845 0.237 0.1118 0.0814 0.07293 0.05393

1970 0.6445 0.3147 0.1585 0.1166 0.1066 0.07262

1971 0.9595 0.5489 0.2402 0.1332 0.112 0.07794

1972 0.4555 0.2462 0.1621 0.1151 0.1109 0.08968

1973 0.5026 0.3008 0.1343 0.1163 0.1029 0.08591

1974 0.6183 0.3066 0.1739 0.1129 0.1066 0.088

1975 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.11

1976 0,3306 0.212 0.1427 0.1357 0.135 0.1025

1977 0.7794 0.3869 0.2048 0.134 0.1118 0.07788

1978 0.7434 0.3645 0,178 0.111 0.0989 0.0838

1979 0.8939 0.5879 0.2676 0.1834 0.1536 0.1135

1980 0.3334 0.21 0.1666 0.1499 0.1453 0.1103

1981 0.8708 0.4062 0.1492 0.1037 0.09433 0.072

1982 0.8995 0.5569 0.2846 0.1674 0.1479 0.08581

1983 0.7217 0.4444 0.2236 0.1488 0.1318 0.1096

1984 1.71 0.801 0.2749 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103

1985 0.4902 0.3265 0.152 0.1387 0.1331 0.105

1986 0.4341 0.2485 0.1426 0.1199 0.1082 0.07652

1987 0.8002 0.3754 0.1448 0.09945 0.09273 0.07675

1988 0.3636 0.1928 0.1336 0.1084 0.09817 0,0731

1989 0.838 0.506 0.2001 0.1405 0.1171 0.08123

1990 0.403 0.2192 0,1454 0.13 0.1219 0.09278

Sorted results

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

0.032258064516129 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.1135

0.0645161290322581 1.71 0.801 0.2846 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103

0.0967741935483871 1.164 0.5879 0.2749 0.1834 0.1536 0.1103

0.129032258064516 l.l57 0.5569 0.2676 0.1674 0.1479 0.11

0.161290322580645 1.05 0.5489 0.2402 0.1612 0.1453 0.1096

0.193548387096774 0.9595 0.5422 0.2236 0.1499 0.1413 0.105

0.225806451612903 0.8995 0.5356 0.2128 0.1488 0.135 0.1025

0.258064516129032 0.8939 0,506 0.2048 0.144 0.1331 0.0979

67
0.290322580645161 0.8708 0.4797 0.2001 0.1405 0.1318 0.09278

0.32258064516129 0.838 0.4444 0.1944 0.1387 0.1219 0.08968

0.354838709677419 0.8002 0.4062 0.1864 0.1357 0.1171 0.088

0.387096774193548 0.7794 0.3869 0.178 0.134 0.116 0.08591

0.419354838709677 0.7434 0.3754 0.1739 0.1332 0.1125 0.08581

0.451612903225806 0.7217 0.3645 0.1666 0.13 0.112 0.0838

0.483870967741936 0.6445 0.3265 0.1621 0.1199 0.1118 0.08364

0.516129032258065 0.6183 0.3147 0.1585 0.118 0.1109 0.08123

0.548387096774194 0.5416 0.3066 0.152 0.1166 0.1097 0.08118

0.580645161290323 0.5026 0.3008 0.1492 0.1163 0.1082 0.07794

0.612903225806452 0.4902 0.2818 0.1454 0.1151 0.1066 0.07788

0.645161290322581 0.4845 0.2485 0.1448 0.1139 0.1066 0.07675

0.67741935483871 0.4555 0.2462 0.1427 0.1129 0.1029 0.07652

0.709677419354839 0.4341 0.237 0.1426 0.111 0.0989 0.0731

0.741935483870968 0.403 0.2192 0.1387 0.1084 0.09817 0.07262

0.774193548387097 0.3636 0.212 0.1343 0.1056 0.09433 0.072

0.806451612903226 0.3557 0.21 0.1336 0.1037 0.09273 0.06452

0.838709677419355 0.3334 0.1928 0.126 0.09945 0.08804 0.0636

0.870967741935484 0.3306 0.1853 0.1167 0.08517 0.08048 0.05985

0.903225806451613 0.3193 0.184 0.1118 0.0814 0.07698 0.05597

0.935483870967742 0.3063 0.1541 0.09044 0.081 0.07694 0.05393

0.967741935483871 0.3034 0.1522 0.09023 0.08053 0.07293 0.03019

0.1 1.1633 0.5848 0.274170.1818 0.153030.11027

Average of yearly averages: 0.0828666666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl - Novemeber 2006

Units Comments

atm-rrr'B/mol

Value

g/rnol

9.5ge-7

torr

mg/L

Data used for this run:

Output File: MSSoy2

Metfile: w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Acequinocyl

Description Variable Name

Molecular weightmwt 384.5

Henry's Law Const. henry

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27e-8

Solubility sol 0.0067

Kd Kd 970 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0.19 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 em

Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kg/ha

Application Efficiency: APPEFFO.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.016 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 12-09 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-mm or dd-rnmm

Interval I interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

68
app. rate 1 apprate 0.336 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND3

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC 0.5

Flag for Index Res. Run IR EPA Pond

Flag for runoff calc. RUNOFF none none, monthly or to

Approach 2

stored as MSSoy2.out

Chemical: Acequinocyl

PRZM environment: MSsoybeanSTD.txt modified Tueday, 29 May 2007 at 13:58:06

EXAMS environment: pond298.exv modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:08

Metfile: w03940.dvf modified Tueday, 26 August 2008 at 06: 14:14

Water segment concentrations (ppb)

Year Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

1961 1.157 0.5422 0.2128 0.1612 0.116 0.03019

1962 0.3193 0.1853 0.126 0.118 0.1125 0.08364

1963 1.05 0.4797 0.1864 0.1056 0.08804 0.05985

1964 1.164 0.5356 0.1944 0.144 0.1413 0.0979

1965 0.3557 0.184 0.1167 0.1139 0.1097 0.08118

1966 0.3063 0.1541 0.09023 0.08517 0.08048 0.06452

1967 0.5416 0.2818 0.1387 0.081 0.07698 0.05597

1968 0.3034 0.1522 0.09044 0.08053 0.07694 0.0636

1969 0.4845 0.237 0.1118 0.0814 0.07293 0.05393

1970 0.6445 0.3147 0.1585 0.1166 0.1066 0.07262

1971 0.9595 0.5489 0.2402 0.1332 0.112 0.07794

1972 0.4555 0.2462 0.1621 0.1151 0.1109 0.08968

1973 0.5026 0.3008 0.1343 0.1163 0.1029 0.08591

1974 0.6183 0.3066 0.1739 0.1129 0.1066 0.088

1975 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.11

1976 0.3306 0.212 0.1427 0.1357 0.135 0.1025

1977 0.7794 0.3869 0.2048 0.134 0.1118 0.07788

1978 0.7434 0.3645 0.178 0.111 0.0989 0.0838

1979 0.8939 0.5879 0.2676 0.1834 0.1536 0.1135

1980 0.3334 0.21 0.1666 0.1499 0.1453 0.1103

1981 0.8708 0.4062 0.1492 0.1037 0.09433 0.072

1982 0.8995 0.5569 0.2846 0.1674 0.1479 0.08581

1983 0.7217 0.4444 0.2236 0.1488 0.1318 0.1096

1984 1.71 0.801 0.2749 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103

1985 0.4902 0.3265 0.152 0.1387 0.1331 0.105

1986 0.4341 0.2485 0.1426 0.1199 0.1082 0.07652

1987 0.8002 0.3754 0.1448 0.09945 0.09273 0.07675

1988 0.3636 0.1928 0.1336 0.1084 0.09817 0.0731

1989 0.838 0.506 0.2001 0.1405 0.1171 0.08123

1990 0.403 0.2192 0.1454 0.13 0.1219 0.09278

Sorted results

69
Prob. Peak 96 hr 21 Day 60 Day 90 Day Yearly

0.032258064516129 2.533 1.136 0.3715 0.2337 0.2004 0.1135

0.0645161290322581 1.71 0.801 0.2846 0.2117 0.1791 0.1103

0.0967741935483871 1.164 0.5879 0.2749 0.1834 0.1536 0.1103

0.129032258064516 1.157 0.5569 0.2676 0.1674 0.1479 0.11

0.161290322580645 1.05 0.5489 0.2402 0.1612 0.1453 0.1096

0.193548387096774 0.9595 0.5422 0.2236 0.1499 0.1413 0.105

0.225806451612903 0.8995 0.5356 0.2128 0.1488 0.135 0.1025

0.258064516129032 0.8939 0.506 0.2048 0.144 0.1331 0.0979

0.290322580645161 0.8708 0.4797 0.2001 0.1405 0.1318 0.09278

0.32258064516129 0.838 0.4444 0.1944 0.1387 0.1219 0.08968

0.354838709677419 0.8002 0.4062 0.1864 0.1357 0.1171 0.088

0.387096774193548 0.7794 0.3869 0.178 0.134 0.116 0.08591

0.419354838709677 0.7434 0.3754 0.1739 0.1332 0.1125 0.08581

0.451612903225806 0.7217 0.3645 0.1666 0.13 0.112 0.0838

0.483870967741936 0.6445 0.3265 0.1621 0.1199 0.1118 0.08364

0.516129032258065 0.6183 0.3147 0.1585 0.118 0.1109 0.08123

0.548387096774194 0.5416 0.3066 0.152 0.1166 0.1097 0.08118

0.580645161290323 0.5026 0.3008 0.1492 0.1163 0.1082 0.07794

0.612903225806452 0.4902 0.2818 0.1454 0.1151 0.1066 0.07788

0.645161290322581 0.4845 0.2485 0.1448 0.1139 0.1066 0.07675

0.67741935483871 0.4555 0.2462 0.1427 0.1129 0.1029 0.07652

0.709677419354839 0.4341 0.237 0.1426 0.111 0.0989 0.0731

0.741935483870968 0.403 0.2192 0.1387 0.1084 0.09817 0.07262

0.774193548387097 0.3636 0.212 0.1343 0.1056 0.09433 0.072

0.806451612903226 0.3557 0.21 0.1336 0.1037 0.09273 0.06452

0.838709677419355 0.3334 0.1928 0.126 0.09945 0.08804 0.0636

0.870967741935484 0.3306 0.1853 0.1167 0.08517 0.08048 0.05985

0.903225806451613 0.3193 0.184 0.1118 0.0814 0.07698 0.05597

0.935483870967742 0.3063 0.1541 0.09044 0.081 0.07694 0.05393

0.967741935483871 0.3034 0.1522 0.09023 0.08053 0.07293 0.03019

0.1 1.1633 0.5848 0.274170.1818 0.153030.11027

Average of yearly averages: 0.0828666666666667

Inputs generated by pe5.pl- Novemeber 2006

Data used for this run:

Output File: MSSoy2

Metfile: w03940.dvf

PRZM scenario: MSsoybeanSTD.txt

EXAMS environment file: pond298.exv

Chemical Name: Acequinocyl

Description Variable Name Value Units Comments

Molecular weightmwt 384.5 g/mol

Henry's Law Const. henry 9.5ge-7 atm-m-S/mol

Vapor Pressure vapr 1.27e-8 torr

Solubility sol 0.0067 mg/L

Kd Kd 970 mg/L

Koc Koc mg/L

Photolysis half-life kdp 0.19 days Half-life

Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacw 97 days Halfife

Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism kbacs 649.8 days Halfife

70
none, monthly or total(average of entire run)

0.5

IR EPA Pond

RUNOFF none

Aerobic Soil Metabolism asm 48.5 days Halfife

Hydrolysis: pH 7 9.6 days Half-life

Method: CAM 2 integer See PRZM manual

Incorporation Depth: DEPI 0 cm

Application Rate: TAPP 0.336 kglha

Application Efficiency: APPEFFO.99 fraction

Spray Drift DRFT 0.016 fraction of application rate applied to pond

Application Date Date 12-09 dd/mm or dd/mmm or dd-rnm or dd-rnmm

Interval 1 interval 21 days Set to 0 or delete line for single app.

app. rate I apprate 0.336 kg/ha

Record 17: FILTRA

IPSCND3

UPTKF

Record 18: PLVKRT

PLDKRT

FEXTRC

Flag for Index Res. Run

Flag for runoff calc.

71
Appendix F

Provisional Cranberry and Rice EECs

72
IProvisional Cranberry Model v2.0

Equation: EEC =(App rate· 100/ (dw + (dsed • (8 + (p. Kd / 1000»») • exp (-day· kAAM)

·Water column depth is 12 inches (0.305 m) to 18 inches (0.457 rn).

Days pre-flood App. rate at flood (lbslA)

--------=.;~:~;I 2~1 ~:~~I

Application Inputs

lApP. ra.. ('''''')

ITotal residues per area at flood (lbslA): 0.601

Approach 1

Inputs

Parameter Value

Koc (Ukg)

If no Koc, enter Kd (Ukg) 1!D~!lIJ.II.I:1 AAM tl/2 (d)

ASM t1/2 (d) 1000

Model Parameters

Parameter Value

Water column depth (m) 0.305

Sediment depth (m) 0.01

Organic fraction of sedim 0.01

Sediment bulk density (k 1300

Sediment porosity 0.509

Calculated Parameters

Parameter Value

Kd input (Ukg)

AAM rate constant

ASM rate constant

App. rate (kg/ha)

1027

0.000693147

0.00069

0.66727756

DWEECs

Approach 2

Inputs

Parameter Value

Koc (Ukg)

If no Koc, enter Kd (Ukg) l:ii~•••••~1 AAM t1/2 (d)

ASM t1/2 (d) 49

Model Parameters

Parameter Value

Water column depth (m) 0.305

Sediment depth (m) 0.01

Organic fraction of sedim 0.01

Sediment bulk density (k 1300

Sediment porosity 0.509

Calculated Parameters

Parameter Value

Kd input (Ukg)

AAM rate constant

ASM rate constant

App, rate (kg/ha)

970

0.007145847

0.01415

0.577936434

DWEECs
Tier 1. Rice Model File

Compound App, Rate Kd EEC

(kf/ha (p.tg/L)

Acequinocyl 0.67 1027 5

(Method 1)

Acequinocyi 0.67 970 5

(Method 2)

74
Appendix G

Inputs for the TREX Model (version 1.4.1, October 2008)

for Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl

a) Half-life =20 days; a plication interval = 14 da s

TREX MODEL INPUTS These valu.. will b. used In the calculation ofexposur...tim.ta, for foUat, granular, llquld and/or

seed applloatlons of p••tloidtl,

ChemiCilI Nama:

Us.:

Produot nama and form:

0/.A.I. (1••dlnCllero mUlt be entered

for formullUonl <1'•••1.):

ApptlCIIlfon Rate (Ibl/A):

Half·Ur. (days):

Appllotltlon IntBrval (days):

Number of AppUcationl:

""...Md Speole. Inpub (optional. u.. def.ulb lor Ra.lor nation.lle...1

......menta

What body welaht rang. il .......d

(grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

1000 1000

Note: SaUte.. of wildlife diet ar. assumed to ba availabla for leu than one .at for this model.

Endpoints

Avian

End nt

Mammalian

Size ~1iI) 01mammal used in toxicity study

OefllUIt rat body weight is no grams

End nI

I, .,tlm,tad dally do..(mgJkgbw) ,..port_d from In_ IVlllabl_

onronio "'Immll .tudy? (YI. or

n·1

E.l~m.t.d Cnronlo O.i1yDo••

Eql.llnlMI to "'pol'tN CnronlCl

01.1.", Endpoinl

mWltIJ·bW be.ed on

.tlndard FDAlab rat

conver510n

LD5011·2 8rt1.l1oc.nt

Application Type: Entin data below:

0.00%

Applloation rate, Ibl

a.UAcre, from 810

Do not Ule tnt, I"puti- -i

Do not u.e tni. inputf- -i

Do not use Chll Inputi-_-.:'=~_-i

% Inoorpor.t.d........_~=:.:..._-'

I, appllctltlon rate

aiven In Ibs 1.i.lAcr.?

TREX MODEL INPUTS p,.. , acequinocyi

b) Half-life = 20 days; application interval = 21 days

75
TREX MODEL INPUTS

These value. Will be us.d In the calculation of exposure estimates for foliar, granular, liquid andlor

seed applloatlons of ~.t1old.l.

Product name and

% A.I. (ludlng zero must bII en

for formulation, <1"1.

Application Rate (lb.,AI:

Helr.llteldays):

Application Interval (daysl:

Numbe, of Applloations:

_sed Speclea Inputs (optional, use defaults 'or RQa'or national level

aase ••mentsl

What body ,,"igtll range II ."."ed

I(grams)? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

Lat"'. 1000 1000

I Note: Source. of wildlife diet at. assumed to be avall_bte ror less than one vear fot this model.

Endpoints

Avian,

Indicate te., .pecl •• Opt~IT...t TOlloltyValue

EndDOlnt Toaleltu value below :~=:\BodY 0"'10"11 Tut s..*CtH IMIM Refe,eno. MRIO

LDIiO (mg/kg-trw) 2260.00 M.Nlrddll'Ck -;i -

lellO fmglkg-dlet) 8000.00 Bob......1te qua~

-

HOAEL (mglllg.bw) IMllII'rddU'k --;1

NOAEC (mglkg-dlet) , 100.00 ' 1~·~;ddUCk ~I Enter the Mln..u et a/. Scaling Factorl 1,15

Mammalian

Acute Studv Ch,on'. Stu.v

"<311I" Size (gJ 01mamm.1 used in toxioity study 'JiO ;: D.r.ult ret body weight is no grams

En....nt To.loltv value R."'..... /u.;M LDIO(mg/kg.bw) ,,&000.00 >I' :L>'

LelO (mglkCl-dlet) ",,:c','< :,

Reported Chronic. Endpoint '100,00 ,I' mgf).q·diet • "

''', -

I~ IStlmatad dally don Imglkgbw) ",portad 'rom tna anllab!a

·,U >"illh, onronlo memma/study? (ye. or

nol "

brlmated Cnronio Celly Do•• mgfkg-bw beud on

Eq...i....l.nt to r'port.d Cnronlo 5 stenderd FDA lab rat

DietaryEndpoint conversion

LOSO ft·2 Broldan • Applic.tlon Type:

UQuid • Enter data below:

"

Application

given

..".:;-- In Ibs

rate,

a.i.IAcre?

Ibs

". a.lJAcre, 'rom 910

Do n01 u.e this Input

Do not u•• tt1ls Input

Do ncr u.. thIs input

0/.Incorporat.d 0.00%

TREX MODEL INPUTS Page 2 acequinocyl

76
c) Half-life = 35 da s; a

TREX MODEL INPUTS

lication interval = 14 da s

The.e value' wm be used in the calculation ofexposu,. estimate' for ton.r. granular,lIquid anellor

seed applications 0' pulicide•.

Chern!!;.' HalM:

Use:

Product name and form:

% A.I. (1••dlnCl aere must be en

for formulations <1".

Appllc.~on Rlt. (Ibs/AI:

Half-llf. (days):

Application In"rvll (days):

Number of Applications:

As d Speol..lnpullllopUo""I, u.. default, 'or RQ, 'or ""Uo""llevel

a ments

What body welot'li renge I, l"lued

(or.msl? Birds Mammals

Small 20 15

Medium 100 35

1000 1000 La, •

Note: Souro•• of wildlife diet .r. assumed to b. IVlllabl. for leu than one .a, for this model.

Endpoints

Avian

End nt T

lD60 (mg/kg-bw}

LC60 (mglkg-dletl

NOAEL (mglku-bw)

NOAEC (mglkg-dletl

Todoity Va.,.

0Dl:~1 T..-&Dtcin Name R.,.,.". MRiD

Mammalian

Size (g) of mammal used in toxicity study

Default rat body weight is 350 Grams

End nt T xjol vllua

LD60 (mg/kg.bw) ~OG

LC60 (mglk"-dl.t)"",,_...-.~ ""'"'i

Repormd Chronic endPolnt""".....== _tII I.limlted dally do.. lmfl'll,lbW),..ported fromthe Ivalloble

ll"",nlo "'ul"'.lltloOdy? (y.. or

"'1

Elllmated Chronlo Daily 00100

SquiVIJenllo rwported Chronlo

Dietary Endpoint

m;lkv-bw beled on

.t.ndard FDAlab rat

conversion

lD5011-2 Broadent Application Type: .... Uquid ...

II appUc:.lltlon rate

given In lb. a.f.{Acte7

Application rate, Ibl

••I./Acre, from 910

Do not u.e this inputf- -\

Do not Ule thll Inputf- -\

Do not use thll Inputl_=""==="",,...-i

'I. Incorporated

TREX MODEL INPUTS Page 2 Icequinocyl

77
d) Half-life = 35 da s; a

TREX MODEL INPUTS

lication interval = 21 days

These values will be used In the caloulation of exposure estimates for 'oliar, granular, liquid and/or

seed applications 01pesticide•.

Chemical Namtl:

Use:

Product name and form'

'Ie A.1. (I••dlng lero mUI' be enter.

for formulatlonl <''10 ••1.).

Application Rllte (Ibs/A):

Half-life (dayl):

Application Interval (daYI):

Number of Applications:

As.....d Speolealnputalopllonal, use defaults for RQs for nattonall.vel

.....sments

What body weight range is an_sud

(grams)?

Small

Medium

La, •

Birds

20

100

1000

Mammals

15

35

1000

Nottl: Sauro... of wlldll,. diat are assumed to be available for lesl than one

Endpoints

Avian

., for this model.

T~c Rlue

LOrSO Im"'kg-bW)J-,,"",~=~~Mlnll"d dlld<

1.15

Mammalian

End nt

Reported Chronic Endpoint"

Is ••limlted dilly don (l'I'Ig/llgbw) report.d frOI'l'lthe evallable

ohronio mammal'tudy? (yM IH

"'I

Optlon.o:lTNt

::::,Body OnIIoMl Tut !kteel..HII'IMI

Toldolty Value

Re1erence IMRJD)

LD501\-2

TREX MODEL INPUTS

Estimated Chronlo Dally 00"

Equivalent to raportld Chronlo

O'atary Etldpoint

Application Type:

mglkg-bw based on

standard FDA lab rat

oonvarslon

I, application ,ata

given in Ibs a.I.IAcra7,

Applloation rata, lbs

a.I.IAcre, Prom810

Dc not use this Input'!- _

00 not use this input'f-- _

ne nct usa this Input,!-_-=-=,,-__

% Incorporat.d'L..._===,,"--J

aoequinooyl

78
Appendix H

Outputs (Upper Bound Kenaga) for the TREX Model (version 1.4.1, October 2008)

for Proposed Uses of Acequinocyl

a) Half-life = 20 days; application interval

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: acequinocyl

U.e crop

Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC

Application Rlite 0.3 Ibs a.iJ8Crw

H.I'~Ii'. 20 days

Application 'nterval 14 days

Mnimum # Apps.Near 2

Length of Simulation 1 year

14 days

Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound

Kenaga Residues.

The maximum single day residue estimation is used for

both the acute and reproduction ROs.

RQ. reported IS "0.00" in the RQ tables below should be noted as

<0.01 in your asse••menl This is due to rounding and significant

figure is.ue. In Excel.

Endpoints

Bobwhite quail L050 (mglkg-bw) 2250.00

Avian Mallard duck) LC50 (mglkg-diet) 5000.00

Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEe (mglkg-dlet) 100.00

L050 (mglkg-bw) 5000.00

Mammals Le50 (mglkg-diet) 0.00

NOAEL (mglkg-bw) 5.00

NOAEe (;"glkg-diel 100.00

Dietary-based EEes (ppm) Kenalill_

Values

Short Grass 111.32

TaU Or8SS 53.31

Broadie.' plantslsm Insacts 55.43

Fruits/pods/s••ds/l; insects 7.27

79
Avian Results

Avian Body I ~:o. (.dryl '"'i~~iwet) % bodywg! FI

Class Welohtla' bwld8vl consumed Iko-dIeUdavl

Small 20 , 2' 114 2.28E-02

Mid 100 13 es es 8.49E-02

Large 1000 sa 29' 29 2.91E-01

20 5 5 25 5.06E-03

Granivores 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02

1000 sa 65 • 6.48E-02

Avian Body Adjusted LD50

WeI.htl.l Imllik.-bwl

20 ,.20.97

100 2063.57

1000 2914.87

Av.anCla..... Wei ht.

,_

Dose-based EECs .mall mid Iarll" GranlvOf.l{grams)

mg/k.-bwl 20 100 1000 20 100 1000

Short Grass 132.48 75.54 33.82 I I rail Gress 60.72 34.62 15.50

Broadleaf l.ntslam Inaeets 74.52 42.49 19.03

Frulta/Dods/'eedana Insects 8.28 4.72 2.11 1.e4 LOS 0.47

Avian Acute RQa

Dose-based RQs SIze Class (g,arnal

(Ooae-baaedEECladjuated LD60) 20 100 1000

Short Grass o.ue u.u4 u.u'

Tall Grass 0,04 0.02 0.01

Broadleaf plants/sm Insects 0.05 0.02 0.01

Frulhl/podsJseedsllg Insects 0,01 0.00 0.00

Seed. ( raolvore) 0.00 0.00 u.oo

Dietary-based RQs RQa

~~e:::!~a"d EECILC50 0' Acute Chronic

Short Grass 0.02 1.16

Tall Grass 0.01 0.53

Brcadleaf plants/sm Insects 0.01 0.6~

Fruits/pods/seeding meecte 0.00 0.07

Note- To provide risk management Wllh the maximum possible information

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQ!i be calculated wnen data are available

aceqllinocyl

Mammalian Results

crop Upper bound Kenaga Residues

Mammalian

~::ht Ing..uen (Fdry) In~~~~wet) % bodywgt FICia.. t. bwtIdavl . coMumed Ik.-dlaUdavl

15 3 14 95 1.43E-02

Herblvoresl J5 5 2' es 2.31E-02

Insectivores '000 31 153 15 1.SJE..Q1

15 a a 21 3.18E..o3

Gralnvores J5 5 5 15 5.13E-03

'000 J1 3' 3 J.40E-02

Mammalian Body Ad)...... Adjusted

CI.... Welahf LD50 NOAfL

15 10989.15 10.99

Herbivoresl J5 8891.40 8.89

msect'veree '000 3845.80 '.85

15 10989.15 10.99

Gralnvores J5 8691.40 8.89

'000 3845.80 J.65

Mammalian I..... and od weiht

Dose-Based EECs HerblvoresllnMCtlvor. (grams) Gramvores(gram.,

malka·bw 15 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grua 110.90 76.65 17.n

I Tall Grass SO.83 35.13 8.15

Broadleaf plants/sm Insecta 62.38 43.12 10.00

FrulbfpodsJaeeds/lg Inaects 6.93 4.79 1.11 1.54 1.06 0.25

Dose-based RQs sma! mam~1 Medium memfIMII LargemammaJ

15 r.rna 35 rams 1000 or'rn_ Dose-based EECIL050 0' NOAELl Acute Chronic Acute Chronic:A_ Ch,oillc

ShortG'8U 0.01 10.09 0.01 8.62 0.00 4.62

Tall GraBS 0,00 4JI3 0.00 3.95 0.00 2_12

BrcacHest plants/am Ineecte 0.01 5.68 0.00 4.85 0.00 2.60

Frulta/pod-'Ig insecta 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.29

Seeds (granlvore) 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.06

Dietary-based RQs MammaJRQs

~~~~~;b.sedEECILC60 0' Acute ChronIc

Short Grass .DIV/OI 1.16

Tall Grass .DlvlOl 0.53

Broadleaf plante/am Insecta 'OIVIOI 0.65

FrultllJDodslseedana insects 'DIVIOI 0.07

Note To provide risk management With the maximum possible Information

It ISrecommended thai both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be ceicnateo ~en dala are available
Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

RQs reported as "0.00" in the RQ tables below should be noted as

<0.01 in your assessment. This Is due to rounding and significant

figure issues In Excel.

acequlnocyl

crop

KanemiteTM 115 SC

0.3 Ibs a.Uaere

20 d8~S

21 days

2

1 year

Chamlcal Name:.I Use

Formulation

Application Rate I

Half-life

Application Interval

Maximum" ApPI.lYearll

Length ofSimulalionll-------''---------1

Half-life = 20 days; application interval = 21 days

Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound

Kenaga Residues.

The maximum single day residue estimation is used for

both the acute and reproduction ROs.

b)

Endpoints

I Mallird duck LD50 (mglkg-bw) 2250.00

I IAVian Bobwhite quail LC50 (mglkg-dlet) 5000.00

Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC (mglkg-diet 100.00

LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 5000.00

Mammals LC50 (mglkg-diet) 0.00

NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 5.00

NOAEC (mglkg-diet) 100.00

Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaga

Valu••

Short Grass 106.77

Tall Gr.81 4a.94

Broadleaf plantslsm Insects 60.06

Fruits/pods/seedsllg Insecta 6.67

81
Avian Results

Avian

W~C::;/, Ingutlon IFdry) lngoa.lon ( .....1 ... ooaywgt I

Cia.. I.bw/d_' 100daY' __umad ko-d_v'

Small 20 5 23 "4 2.28E.Q2

Mid 100 13 65 65 6.49E-02

Large 1000 56 291 29 2.91E.Ql

20 5 5 25 S.06E.o3

Granlvorel 100 13 14 14 1.44E-02

1000 56 65 6 6.46E-02

AvklnBody Adjusted LD50

Wel.hlla' molk.-bw

20 1168.28

100 1487.25

1000 2100.80

Avian CI..... and B We1 .hts larams Dose-basedEECs small mid latge Qranlvor_(grams)

maJkg.bw) 20 100 1000 20 100 1000

Short Grus 121.60 69.34 31.05

I I TaU Grall 55.14 31.78 14.23

Stoadleaf plants/am Insects 68.40 39.01 11.46

Frulta/pods/seedsna insects 7.60 4.33 1.94 1.69 0.96 0.43

Avian Acul8 RQa

Dose-based RQs Size Claaa (grama)

(Dose-baaed EECIadjual8d Lo60) 20 100 1000

Short Grass u.ju o.os 0.0

Tall Gran 0.05 0.02 0.01

Broadleaf planllJlm tneecte 0.08 0.03 0.01

Frulls/podalseedsna Insects 0.01 0.00 0.00

Seeds granlvore) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dietary-based RQs RQa

(Dietary-baaed EECILC60 or I.,n••~, Acute Chtonlc

Short Grus 0.02 1.07

rail Gran 0.01 0.49

Sroadlest plantBIam tneecte 0.01 0.60

FrUltlifpodSfaeedsng Insects 0.00 0.07

Note' To provide risk management 'Nilh the maximum possible information.

It is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available

acequlnocyl

Mammalian Results

crop Upper bound Kena'Ja Realduea

Mammalsn Body n~s=t:;V1 ngoatlon IF_I '" llOdywg Class Weight 100d";' consumed """,,:'.:uclaY) 15 3

" 95 1.43E-02

Herbiyorea' 35 5 23 .. 2.31E-02

Insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1,53E-01

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

Gralnvores 35 5 5 15 5.13E-OJ

1000 31 34 3 3.4OE-02

Mammalian =ht Ad)ua'" Adjusted

Clsae LD50 NOAEL

15 10989.15 10.99

Herblvoresl 35 8891.40 8.89

insectivores 1000 3845.80 3.85

15 10989.15 10.99

Gralnvores 35 8891.40 8.89

1000 3845.80 3.85

ammaUa" .......ndB we ht

Dose-Based EECs Herbivores/Insectivores (grama) t1ranlvores(gram&)

mn/kn-bw t5 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grass 101.80 70.36 16.31

I Tall Gra.. 46.66 32.25 7.46

Broadlellf plantIJsm Insects 51.26 39.58 9.16

Frults/pods/soedlng Insects 6.36 4.40 1.02 1.41 0.98 0.23

Dose-based RQs smal mammal Medium mammal large mamma

15 rams 35 rama 1000 ram.

ooae·baaed EEC/Lo60 or NoAELl Acute Chronic Acute Chronic Acut. Chronc

Short Grass 0.01 9.26 0.01 1.91 0.00 4.24

Tall Gra.. 0.00 4.25 0.00 3.63 0.00 1.94

Broadleaf plants/sm inaeets 0.01 5.21 0.00 4.45 0.00 2.39

Frults/podaJlg Inaacla 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.21

Seeds (granlvorel 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06

Dietary-based RQs MammalRQI

'~~~~6;t'..ed EEC/LC60 or Acu10 ChronIc

Short Grass ,OlVJOI 1.01

TaU Grasa 'DIVIOI 0.49

Broadleaf planta/llm rneeete fIIDIVlO1 0.60

FrultllJpodll/.eeds/l Insects IIlDIVIOI 0.01

Note: To provide risk management Withthe maximum possible mrormeuoo.

It is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available
Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: acequinocyl

Use crop

Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC

Application Rate 0.3 Ib, a.Uaere

Hatf-life 35 days

Application Interval 14 days

Maximum II Apps.Near 2

Lenllth of Simulation 1 year

c) Half-life = 35 days; application interval = 14 days

Acute and Chronic ROs are based on the Upper Bound

Kenaga Residues.

The maximum single day residue estimation is used for

both the acute and reproduction ROs.

RQs reported as "0.00" In the RQ tables below should be noted as

<0.01 in your assessment. This;s due to rounding and significant

figure issues In Excel.

Endpoints

Mal1ard duck L050 (mg/kg-bw) 2250,00

Avian Bobwhite quail LC50 Imgll<g-dlel) 5000.00

Mallard duck NOAEL(mglkg-bw) 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC (mgll<g-diet) 100.00

L050 (mg/kg-bwl 5000.00

Mammals LC50 (mgll<g-diet) 0.00

NOAEL Img/kg-bw) 5.00

NOAEC (mgll<g-diet) 100.00

Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenaoa

Values

Short Grass 126.57

Tall Gra .. 58.01

Broadlesf plantS/1m Insects 71.19

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 7.91

83
Avian Results

Avian Body ngesUon I dry) Ing,,:,:~~wetl ", bodY wilt FI

Class Wolohtlo' '0 bwfdav' cortlumed ko-dle!ldavl

Small 20 5 23 114 2.28E-Q2

Mid 100 13 85 8. 6.49E-02

Large 1000 .. 291 29 2.91E-Q1

20 5 5 25 5.06E.o3

Gfanlvaree 100 13 14 14 1.44E..Q2

1000 .. 65 6 6.46E-Q2

Avian Body Adjuate<lUJ50

Welohtlo' molka-bw

20 1188.26

100 1487.25

1000 2100.80

Avian Cia.... and od Wei hit r..... Dose-based EECs amall mid large Granlvorea(gr4ms)

mg/kg-bw) 20 100 \000 20 100 1000

Short Grass 144.15 82.20 38.80

I I Tall Grass 66.07 37.67 16.67

Broadleaf olanta/am Insects 81.08 46.24 20.70

Frults/pOds/seedsAg Insects 9.01 5.14 2.30 2.00 1.14 0.51

Avl.n Acute RQI

Dose-based RQs SIze CI... (graml)

(Ooll.baled EEC/.dJul18d L06D) 20 100 1000

Short Grass 0.12 0.00 U.U2

rail Grass 0.06 0.03 0.01

Broadleaf planllJsm Insects 0.07 0.03 0.01

Frulta/pods/seedang Insects 0.01 0.00 0.00

S • ( eemvere 0.00 0.00 0.00

Dietary-based RQs RDs

I~~"'':~:t'assd EECILC6D or Acut<l Chronic

Short Grass 0,03 1.27

rail GrallS 0.01 0.56

Broadleaf planWam Insects 0.01 0.71

FrultslpodsJseedsllg Insects 0.00 0.08

Note' To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended Ihat both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are a.....auable

acequlnocyl

Mammalian Results

crop Upper bound Kenaga Residues

Mammalian Bo~y Inr,.::.:::.'Y Inll""f::,.:'.Jwotj "body Wgl FI

C.... We'oht consumed Iko-d1.Vdavl

15 3 14 95 1.43E-02

Herblvores' 35 5 23 66 2.31E-02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E-01

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

GralnvOres 35 5 5 15 5.13E-03

1000 31 34 3 3.40E-02

Mammalian Body Adjusted A~Juste<l

Class W.laht LOSO NOAEL

15 10989.15 10.99

Herbi.....ores/ 35 8891.40 8.89

Insectlvores 1000 3845.80 3.85

15 10989.15 10.99

Grainvores 35 8891.40 8.89

1000 3845.80 3.85

ammallan 1......ndB we ht

Dose-Based EECs Herblvor." InsecUvor. (grama] GtanlvorM(gr.",s)

malk.a~bw 15 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grass 120.61 83.40 19.34

Tall Grass 55.31 38.22 8.86

Broadleaf plants/sm Inse-cts 87.88 46.91 10.88

Frults/pods/seedsng Insects 7.54 5.21 1.21 1.66 1.16 0.27

Dose-based RQs Small mammal Medium mammal Large mammal

15 ram. 35 ram. 1000 tam. Oose·based EEC/LD5D or NOAELl cut<l ChronIc AcUte Chronic

A_ Chronic

Short Grass 0.01 10.96 0.01 9.38 0.01 5.03

Tall Grass 0.01 5.03 0.00 4.30 0.00 2.3D

Broadloa' plants/sm Insects 0.01 6.18 0.01 5.28 0.00 2.83

Frults/pods/Ig Insects 0.00 0.69 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.31

Seeds ·(granivoreJ 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.07

Dietary-based RQs Mammal RQs

(Oletary-ba.ed EECILC50 or

INn"~,,, Acute Chronic

Short Grass lOIVlUl 1.27

Tall Grass MOIVIOI 0.58

Broadleaf plants/sm ineecte MOIVIOI 0.71

Frults/DodaJseedsna Insects liD/VIOl 0.08

Note To provOe fisk management With the maximum possible information.

it is -eccmmerceo that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available
d) Half-life = 35 days; application interval = 21 days

Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation

Chemical Name: ecequinccyl

use crop

Formulation KanemiteTM 15 SC

Application Rate 0.3 Ibs s.i.laere

Half-life 35 days

Application Interval 21 days

Maximum # AppsJYear 2

LengthorSimulation 1 year

Endpoints

Mallard duck LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 2250.00

Avian Bobwhite quail LC50 (mglkg-dletl 6000.00

Mallard duck NOAELlmglkg-bwl 0.00

Mallard duck NOAEC(mglkg-diet) 100.00

LD50 (mg/kg-bwl 5000.00

Mammals LC50 (mglkg-dlet) 0.00

NOAEL(mg/kg-bW) 5.00

NOAEC(mg/ka-diet) 100.00

Dietary-based EECs (ppm) Kenag_

Values

Short Grass 119.50

TaUGrass 64.77

Braadlnt plants/am Insects 67.22

Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects 7.47

85

Acute and Chronic RQs are based on the Upper Bound

Kenaga Residues.

The maximum single day residue estimation is used for

both the acute and reproduction RQs.

RQs reported as "0.00" In the RQ tables below should be noted as

<0.01 In your assessment. This is due to rounding and significant

figure Issues in Excel.
Avian Results

Avian Body In,\:":~:.~ry) '~~~\wet) % bodywgt I

Clas. Welaht/a! cor\tumed ka-dlolldov\

Small 20 5 23 \,. 2.28E-02

Mid '00 '3 65 65 6.49E-02

Large 1000 56 291 2. 2.91E-01

20 5 5 25 5.06E-03

cranlvcres 100 13 '4 14 1.44E-02

1000 56 65 6 6.46E-02

Avlon ~ody AdjusWd LDSO

Wei hllal Imal1<a-bw1

20 1168.26

100 1481.25

fOOO 2100.80

Avian CIaa...and B W. his rams Dos.e-based EECs .mall mkl large GranivOIa(gramal

malka-bwl 20 100 1000 20 '00 1000

Short Grass 136.10 17.61 34.75 I I Tall Grass 62.38 35.57 15.93

Broadleaf olanta/sm Insecta 76.56 43.66 '9.5~

FruitsJDodalseedslla Insects 8.51 4.85 2.17 1.89 1.08 0.48

Avian AcU\!l RQa

Dose-based RQs SI%8 Claaa Corama,

(Doae-baaed EEC/adJust&d LDSO) 20 100 1000

ShortOrs.. u.tz u.ve u.uz

Tall Gran 0.05 0.02 0.01

Braadleaf plantalsm Insects 0.01 0.03 0.01

FrultsJpOdsls-.dsJlg insects 0.01 0.00 0.00

Seeds (granlvore) 0.00 0.00 o.uu

Dietary-based RQs RQa

(Dlatary-baoed EEC/LCSOor I..~.~~, Acute Chrome

Short Grass 0.02 1.20

Tall Gran 0.01 0.55

BJoadleaf plantalsm Insecta 0.01 0.67

Fruitl/podslseedsflg Insects 0.00 0.07

Note. To provide risk management with the maxrmum possible information.

it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based

RQs be calculated when data are available

aC8gulnocyl

Mammalian Results

crop Upper bound Kenaaa Residues

Mammalian Bod)' nget;uon I~dry) nge~:~~wat} %bOd)'wgt

Class Welaht ia bwlIdov! consumed lko-dlotldev! " 15 3 14 95 1.43E..Q2

HerblvoresJ 35 5 23 86 2.31E-02

insectivores 1000 31 153 15 1.53E..Q1

15 3 3 21 3.18E-03

aratnvcres 35 5 5 '5 5.13E-03

'000 31 3. 3 3.40E-02

Mammatlan Body Adjuslsd AdjUll'od

Class Weicht L050 NOAEL

15 10989.15 10.99

Herblvoresl 3. 8891.40 8.89

Insectivores '000 3845.80 3.85

15 10989.15 10.99

Grainvores 35 8891.40 8.89

1000 38J15.80 3.85

ammallan C as... and Bod wei ht

Dose-Based EECs Herbivoreliinuctivores (vrama) Gtanlvorea(grams}

malka-bw 15 35 1000 15 35 1000

Short Grass 113.94 78.75 18.26

Tall Grass 52.22 36.09 8.37

BroadIeat' planwsm Insects 64,09 44.29 10.27

Fruits/podsiseedsJlg Insects 7.12 4.92 1.14 1.58 1.09 0.25

Dose-based RQs Smallmttmmal M8dlum mammal Large mammal

15 rams 35 tams 1000 rams

Oose-bosed EEC/LDSDor NOAELI Acute Chronic Acute ChrOl'llc Aeuls Chronic

Short Gr... 0.01 10.37 0.01 8.86 0.00 4.75

Tall Gran 0.00 4.75 0.00 4.06 0.00 2.18

Btoadleaf plants/am Insects 0.01 5.63 0.00 4.98 0.00 2.61

FrultsJpod8llg Insecta 0.00 0.85 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.30

Seeds ',aranlvorej 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.01

Dietary-based RQs MammalRQs

1~6~~~;bosedEEC/LC60 or Acute Chronle

Short Grass .OIVIO! 1.20

Tall Grass 'OIVIDI 0.55

Broadleaf plantalsm Insects 'OIVIDI 0.61

Frults/podaiseedlSng rnsecte NOIVIOI 0.01

Note. To prtvtde risk management with the maximum possible information,

it is recommended that both the cose-oaeec and concentration-based

RQs be catcutated When data are available
Appendix I

Inputs and Outputs for the TerrPlant Model (version 1.2.2) for Acequinocyl Uses

TerrPlant v. 1.2.2

Green values signify user inputs (Tables 1, 2 and 4).

Input and output gUidance is in popups indicated by red arrows.

T~;2;_~jl§;~;~tJy ;c, )j>, ,,:/; ,,:Oi"':ts? \' ,

Input Parameter Symbol Value (user inputs) Units

Application Rate A 0.3

Incorporation I 1 none

Runoff Fraction R 0.01 none

Drift Fraction D 0.01 none

n.,.'8i,; ;tl1~r,i ' I" ,;,,"~j,;jV;;:,.,',:;,; ',it,

Description ECluation EEC

Runoff to dry areas (NI)*R 0,003

Runoff to semi-aquatic areas (NI)*R*10 0.03

Spray drift A*D 0.003

Total for dry areas «(AlI)*R)+(A*D) 0.006

Total for semi-aauatic areas ((AlI)*R*10)+(A*D) 0.033

Plant e

Seedling Emergence

EC25 NOAEC

Vegetative Vigor

EC25 NOAEC

Monocot 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9

0.7 0.3 0.9 0.3

listed <0.1 <0.1

non-listed <0.1 <0.1

non-listed <0.1 <0.1

3!·<'~l'1~~tl.~~,~:'~;, ~~I;~roU~~ru~Q~ ah,~Qr

Listed Status Semi-A uatic S ra Drift

Dicot

Dicot listed <0.1 0.11 <0.1

1*lfRQ > 1.0, the LOC is exceeded, resulting in potential for risk to that plant group.

87