UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENT AL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

August 11. 20 15 

OFFICE OF CHEMICAL SAFETY 

AND POLLUTION PREVENTION 

MEMORANDUM 

PC Codes: 00070 I 

DP Barcode: D427577 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

REVIEWED 

BY: 

T HROUGH: 

TO: 

Registration Review: Preliminary Problem Formulation for Environmental Fate, 

Ecological Risk, Endangered Species, and Human Health Drinking Water Exposure 

Assessments for Acrolein 

Chuck Peck Environmental Engineer ,,-)") ,,, /?.... 2o is.08.

11 08:15:55 · L-b':-JL ~ ·04"00' 

Thomas Steeger. Ph.D., Senior Science Advisor rnoMAssmGeR ::-;:-:_-::":=-

Environmental Risk Branch IV - · - --

Environmental Fate and Effects Di vision (7507P) 

James Breithaupt. Agronomist 

Bill Erickson. Biologist 

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RAS B) 

Antimicrobials Division (751 OP) 

CA THERINE AUBEE 

Catherine Aubee Senior Scientist 2015·

08·

11 ~ • ..i.. ·A- ' '00'04·09:44:07 '-"!{"""--

James N. Carleton. Ph.D .. Senior Fate Scientist JAMES 

Katrina White. Ph.D CARLETON .. Risk Assessment Process Leader 

Environmental Risk Branch IV Katrina White 

0'9(..t)~t.-,J.U4.\0.lilHOfrt 

ow ta4h~l ~-... 

-w•"'--~1"1,tl' .. lof.,,..s CNUION ~1#~1.Ct 

Orf"~H0.11100:• Oot'OC' 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 2015.08. 11 09:32:09 -04'00' 

Jean 

Enviro

Holm

nmenta

es, D

l Risk 

.V.M 

Bran

.. M.P.H

ch IV 

. Branch Chief 

/"""---

0,,,,,,,, -~ ~ 

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P) 

Laura Parsons. Associate Branch Chief 

Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch (RASSB) 

Antimicrobials Division (75 JOP) 

Kelly Ballard. Chemical Review Manager 

Tom Moriarty. Team Leader 

Neil Anderson. Branch Chief 

Risk Management and Implementation Branch I 

Pesticide Re-evaluation Di vision (7508P) 

Page I of 43 

t://11 It 
Page 2 of 43

1. Executive summary

The Environmental Fate and Effects Division (EFED) and Antimicrobial Division (AD) have completed the 

preliminary problem formulation for the ecological risk, environmental fate, endangered species, and 

drinking water assessments to be conducted as part of the Registration Review of acrolein (2-propenal; CAS 

No. 107-02-8; PC Code 000701). The Registration Review considers existing uses for acrolein, which

include use via direct application to water for aquatic plant control, applications to control bacteria and fungi 

in oilfield water injection systems, and applications to remove hydrogen sulfide in oilfield operations. The 

environmental fate properties and use patterns of acrolein indicate that direct application of acrolein to 

waterways and application of treated water to land represent potential routes of acrolein exposure to nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms

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

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

environmental fate, ecological effects, and potential risks associated with the use of acrolein as well as 

uncertainties unique to the risk assessment of acrolein. This document also identifies additional studies that 

would address uncertainties in assessing ecological risk associated with current uses of acrolein. 

The fate database is incomplete based on the environmental fate data requirements outlined in the Code of 

Federal Regulations Title 40 Part 158 (40CFR158) Subpart N1 and data are needed to complete and reduce 

uncertainty in risk assessments. Additional data on the following fate parameters are recommended. 

o Aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism data (OCSPP2 Guideline 835.4300 and 835.4400). 

The sampling intervals in the submitted studies were insufficient to estimate the degradation rate and 

half-life of acrolein and 3-hydroxpropanal in water. Draft reports for these studies are expected in 

December 2015. In the absence of acceptable studies, EFED will use the second sampling period 

from the available data as conservative estimates for half-lives.

o Leaching Study (OCSPP Guideline 835.1240). As irrigation water treated with acrolein is applied 

to crop-bearing or fallow fields to be held for a period of 6 days prior to release, it is important to 

understand if the acrolein or its degradates will leach into groundwater underlying the fields. A 

previous sorption/desorption study was classified as unacceptable and a new study was required as 

part of the RED. A footnote for this study in the Data Call-In Response indicated the following: 

Adsorption and desorption using a batch equilibrium method is preferred. However in some cases, 

for example, where the pesticide degrades rapidly, soil column leaching with unaged or aged columns 

may be more appropriate to fully characterize the potential mobility of the parent compound and 

major transformation products. Subsequently, the registrant submitted a protocol for a soil leaching 

study (OCSPP 835.1240), which was reviewed by EFED in 2011 but the required data have not been 

submitted to date. A draft report for this study is expected in December 2015. In the absence of data, 

EFED will estimate Koc using EPISuite.

o Aerobic soil metabolism data (OSCPP Guideline 835.4100). No acceptable aerobic soil 

metabolism data are available. In 2011, EFED granted the registrant a waiver for these data (DP 

Barcode 386809, February 2011), indicating the following:

In March 2007 EFED reviewed the submission of four studies pertaining to soil and aquatic 

metabolism (DP Barcode D334823). In the cover memorandum, EFED stated “Note that the two 

soil metabolism studies {an aerobic soil metabolism study (MRID 43037301) and anaerobic soil 

metabolism study (MRID 43035701)} are not required to support the current use patterns, aquatic 

non-food and indoor, for acrolein, but would provide useful information if available as irrigation 

 1 CFR. 2013. Title 40 (Protection of the Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency), Subchapter E (Pesticide 

Programs), Part 158 (Data Requirements for Pesticides), Subpart N (Environmental Fate) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=ff5c7fef3645e7cd5abceca0b597bccb&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title40/40cfr158_main_02.tpl

2 The Series 835 Fate Guidelines were completed when the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) was 

known as the Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic Substances (OPPTS).
Page 3 of 43

water containing acrolein is routinely applied to agricultural fields.” According to 40 CFR 

158.1300, aerobic soil metabolism (835.4100) and anaerobic soil metabolism studies (835.4200) are 

not required for applications to aquatic environments and indoor uses. As such, EFED recommends 

that the requested waiver for the aerobic soil metabolism and anaerobic soil metabolism studies 

requirement be granted.

However, given that the irrigation water can be applied to agricultural fields, there is the potential 

for terrestrial exposure. Additionally, impacts on groundwater will also be evaluated and the data 

would provide useful information on the degradation rate of acrolein prior to entering the 

groundwater. In the absence of an acceptable study, EFED will assume acrolein is stable to aerobic 

soil metabolism.

The ecological database is also incomplete based on the ecological effects data requirements outlined in the 

40CFR158 Subpart G3

. Additional toxicity data on the following taxa are recommended for the irrigation 

water use of acrolein. No additional data are needed for the oilfield use. 

Avian dietary toxicity test (OCSPP 850.22004

). Birds (e.g., water fowl) may forage on plants in 

treated water and a broader range of birds may forage in agricultural fields/rangeland where acroleintreated waters may be applied with the intent of dissipating the compound; therefore, residue 

ingestion is a potential route of exposure to birds. Currently, no subacute dietary toxicity data are 

available for birds. 

Tier 2 Seedling emergence and seedling growth (OCSPP Guidelines 850.41005

) and vegetative 

vigor (850.41506

) studies were provided subsequent to publication of the RED on acrolein (USEPA 

2008a7

); however, these data do not adequately address the uncertainty regarding the potential 

effects of applying the maximum estimated rate of acrolein-treated irrigation water to terrestrial 

plants as both studies did not establish a definitive no adverse effect concentration (NOAEC) for 

some of the plant species tested nor did the test establish an effect concentration at which 25% of 

the tested plants exhibit effect, i.e., EC25. The maximum application rate tested in the earlier studies 

was less than the estimated rate (0.54 lbs a.i./A) applied to agricultural fields and rangeland in order 

to dissipate the compound. 

Pollinator toxicity data consisting of an acute contact test with adult honey bees (850.3020; OECD 

214), acute oral test with adult honey bees (OECD 213), acute honey bee larvae test (OECD 237), 

10-day adult honey bee test (draft OECD guideline) and the 21-day larval honey bee toxicity test 

(draft OECD guidance) are needed since the current label allows for application to rangeland or to 

crops that may be in bloom, in which case bees may be exposed. Pending the outcome of the lowertier laboratory-based acute and chronic toxicity studies of individual adult and larval honey bees, 

higher-tier studies, i.e., semi-field (OECD 75; 850.3030) and full-field (850.3040) may be required

Appendix C provides rationales for the pollinator-related data.

 3 CFR. 2013. Title 40 (Protection of the Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency), Subchapter E (Pesticide 

Programs), Part 158 (Data Requirements for Pesticides), Subpart G (Ecological Effects) http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/textidx?c=ecfr&SID=ff5c7fef3645e7cd5abceca0b597bccb&rgn=div6&view=text&node=40:25.0.1.1.9.7&idno=40

4 USEPA. 2012. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.2200: Avian Dietary Toxicity Test. . Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (7101) EPA 712-C-024. January 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0011 5 USEPA. 2012. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.4100: Seedling Emergence and Seedling Growth. Office of Chemical Safety 

and Pollution Prevention (7101) EPA 712-C-012. January 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-

0023

6 USEPA. 2012. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.4150. Vegetative Vigor. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention 

(7101). EPA 712-C-011. January 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0024 7 Ibid USEPA 2008a.
Page 4 of 43

2. Introduction

Acrolein is a reactive aldehyde and is considered a contact herbicide that is phytotoxic to most submerged

aquatic vegetation. According to the product data fact sheet for MAGNACIDE® H Herbicide, acrolein is a 

general cell toxicant which reacts with sulfhydryl groups in proteins. In a review of acrolein toxicity, 

Beauchamp et al.

8 attributed the toxicity of acrolein to the chemical’s reaction with critical sulfhydryl groups 

present in proteins and peptides that play important roles in chemical reactions of living cells. Submerged

aquatic plants treated with MAGNACIDE® H Herbicide are intended to gradually disintegrate into small 

fragments and float downstream.

EFED evaluated the most recent ecological risk assessments for acrolein in association with any available 

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

updates are needed to support Registration Review. Recent risk assessments include the 2008 EFED 

ecological risk assessment of acrolein in support of the reregistration eligibility decision (RED; USEPA 

20079

) and the 2011 assessment of the potential risks to the Federally threatened Alameda whipsnake

(Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) in California (USEPA 201110). AD has not previously evaluated 

ecological risks from antimicrobial use of acrolein in oilfield wells, but the exposure is expected to be 

minimal and therefore ecological risks are not anticipated for this use (see Section 7b for further discussion). 

No new uses have been assessed since that time. EFED and AD have also considered the latest Agency 

science policies and risk assessment methodologies in compiling this problem formulation. 

3. Use Characterization

Acrolein is marketed by Baker Petrolite Corporation (BPC) and is the active ingredient in MAGNACIDE®

H Herbicide (EPA Registration Number 10707-9), a restricted use pesticide for control of submerged and 

floating aquatic weeds and algae in irrigation canals and irrigation reservoirs in some states.11 The chemical 

was first registered as an herbicide in 1975 by BPC, but was previously registered in 1959 by Shell as 

Aqualin (92% active); however, this formulation is no longer supported.

When used as a herbicide, acrolein is applied directly under the water’s surface through a closed delivery 

system (i.e., steel cylinders designed to prevent applicator exposure). Products are supplied in pressurized 

containers where nitrogen is used to force the liquid chemical out of the container through a metering device. 

It is then injected directly below the surface of moving water in the canal where it is carried along by the 

flow. Applications are made to a treatment area at a desired treatment concentration for specific periods of 

time depending on the extent of aquatic plant growth conditions. Use of acrolein is typically limited to arid 

western states where crops are irrigated. The label stipulates the following: “Do not use where waters will 

flow into potential sources of drinking water. Water treated with [acrolein] must be used for irrigation of 

fields, either crop bearing, fallow, or pasture, where the treated water remains on the field OR held for 6 

days before being released into fish bearing waters or where it will drain into them”. The current label 

indicates that the product can be applied a maximum of eight (8) times annually, with a minimum two (2) 

week retreatment interval per application. The amount of acrolein required to treat the irrigation system is 

primarily determined by the volume of water and weed density, although water velocity, temperature and 

quality must also be considered. Effective treatment concentrations in irrigation systems are as high as 15 

mg/L, with application times (exposure periods) ranging from 30 minutes to 8 hours (see label for more 

details).

 8 Beauchamp, R. O. Jr., D. A. Andjelkovich, A. D. Kligerman, K. T. Morgan, and H. d’A. Heck 1985. A Critical Review of the Literature on 

Acrolein Toxicity. CRC Critical Reviews in Toxicology 14: 309 – 380. 9 USEPA 2008. Environmental Fate and Ecological Risk Assessment Chapter (DP Barcode D354775) n Support of Phase VI of the Reregistration 

Eligibility Decision on Acrolein (PC Code 000701). 

10 USEPA 2011. Risks of Acrolein Use to Federally Threatened Alameda Whipsnake (Masticophis lateralis euryxanthus) Pesticide Effects 

Determinations, Environmental Fate and Effects Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, Washington D.C. 20460. September 16, 2011.

11 Baker Petrolite. 2000. MAGNACIDE® 

H Herbicide Product Data. 
Page 5 of 43

Acrolein is also the active ingredient in restricted use broad-spectrum microbiocides used to control bacteria 

and fungi in oilfield water injection systems and to remove hydrogen sulfide in oilfield operations 

(MAGNACIDE® B; EPA Registration Number 10707-10; and, AcroCideTM; EPA Registration Number 

71173-1). In addition to its use as a pesticide, acrolein is primarily used as an intermediate in the manufacture 

of plastics; it is also used in manufacturing perfumes, pharmaceuticals, and animal feed additives (USEPA 

2008a). Other sources of acrolein in the environment include its formation from the breakdown of certain 

pollutants in outdoor air or from burning tobacco or gasoline. The most recent version of the Toxic Release 

Inventory report indicates that since 2007, most of the releases of acrolein have been to on-site underground 

injection wells (maximum of 1,602,000 lbs in 2008), with releases to surface water in the United States being 

less than 141 lbs/year, except for in 2012 when 390 lbs were released.

Currently, there are 3 active Section 3 registrations for acrolein and 6 Special Local Needs (SLN; Section 

24c) registrations. There are no registered pesticide products that contain acrolein and other active 

ingredients.

The chemical profile, located in the docket, produced by the Biological and Economic Analysis Division 

(BEAD) lists the use patterns associated with active registrations of acrolein. EFED will rely on the BEAD 

chemical profile when estimating environmental exposures that result from these registered uses. 

Additionally, in order to be protective, EFED will utilize the use information that results in maximum 

exposure (e.g., concentration) estimates for a given use pattern for the drinking water and ecological risk 

assessments. If the labels (and consequently the BEAD chemical profile) do not include all information 

needed to enable estimation of maximal exposures, such as the maximum single treatment concentration, 

minimum retreatment interval, and annual maximum treatment concentration allowed (lbs a.i./year), EFED 

will make conservative assumptions regarding these use parameters. 

4. Conclusions from Previous Risk Assessments

a. Ecological Risk Assessment 

Two previous ecological risk assessments have been completed for acrolein, specifically MAGNACIDE®

H: an ecological risk assessment (USEPA 2008b12) in support of the reregistration eligibility decision (RED)

and an endangered species assessment for the Alameda whipsnake in California (USEPA 201113). The uses 

evaluated in the risk assessments include direct application to irrigation canals and irrigation reservoirs to 

control aquatic weeds and algae. Both risk assessments found potential for direct effects to listed and nonlisted aquatic and terrestrial animals and plants. Exposure pathways for aquatic organisms and plants 

included surface waters contaminated with acrolein through direct application and from treated irrigation 

water that flowed into receiving rivers, streams, or lakes. Exposure pathways for terrestrial plants and

animals included application of acrolein-treated irrigation water to agricultural fields and ingestion of 

contaminated water and inhalation of volatilized acrolein.

The major environmental fate and ecological risk conclusions identified in previous assessments are 

summarized in Table 1 and 2.

Table 1. Potential for direct effects identified in previous assessments for acrolein (MAGNACIDE® H)1

Listed/or 

non-listed Birds2 Mammals TerrestrialInvertebrates

Aquatic 

Vertebrates3

Aquatic 

Invertebrates

Terrestrial

Plants

Aquatic 

Plants

Non-listed Yes* Yes Presumed4 Yes Yes Presumed Yes

Listed Yes* Yes Not evaluated Yes Yes Presumed Yes

-- = Risk below LOC; * indicates a full data set is not available 1 Risk concerns were identified when the RQ exceeded the corresponding level of concern in a previous risk assessment or were identified 

as a potential concern based on weight of evidence.

 12 Ibid USEPA 2008a. 13 Ibid USEPA 2011.
Page 6 of 43

2 Birds serve as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. 3 Fish serve as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians. 4 Toxicity data not available, risk presumed.

Table 2. Potential fate concerns identified in previous assessments for acrolein (MAGNACIDE® H)

Bioconcentration/ 

Bioaccumulation1

Groundwater 

Contamination2 Sediment Persistence2 Residues of Concern Volatilization

No,

log Kow<3 No No No Acrolein and 3-hydroxypropanal Yes

1 Based on whether previous assessments indicated this was a risk concern or if previous assessments ran Kow Based Aquatic Bioaccumulation 

Model (KABAM) for chemicals with a log Kow >3. 2 Based on data for acrolein and 3-hydroxpronanl, which exists in equilibrium with acrolein. 

b. Drinking Water Exposure Assessments

The most recent drinking water assessment was a qualitative assessment completed in 2007 (USEPA 2007b). 

The residues of concern for acrolein in terms of human health were acrolein and its hydration product 3-

hydroxypropanal. It was based on the limited available laboratory fate data, and the available field study 

and monitoring study data. While it appeared that acrolein dissipated from irrigation canals with a half-life 

of less than one day, monitoring data indicated acrolein was sufficiently persistent and mobile such that it 

could reach the drainage points of irrigations systems in concentrations frequently between 0.1 and 1 mg/L 

(part per million; ppm) and at distances up to 70 miles from the application point. This indicated that if water 

containing acrolein reached the terminus of an irrigation system, and could not be held back by containment 

or diversion structures, acrolein would enter natural waters. The concentrations at a drinking water facility 

downstream from a discharging irrigation system would depend upon the dilution due to the relative flow 

rates of the irrigation system (or volumes in the case of reservoirs) and of the receiving water body, and the 

travel time between the two points.

c. Clean Water Act Programs 

Acrolein is not identified as a cause of impairment for any water bodies listed as impaired under section 

303(d) of the Clean Water Act.14 No Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDL) or section 304(a) ambient water 

quality criteria have been developed for acrolein.

15 Aquatic life benchmarks16 have been established for 

acrolein; however, any data submitted or otherwise located as part of the Registration Review process that 

indicate greater sensitivity than data currently available may be used to revise aquatic life benchmarks if 

applicable. 

5. Environmental Fate and Transport

Acrolein is a highly reactive molecule with other chemicals because both the double bond and aldehydic 

moieties participate in many reactions (Etzkorn, 2009). It must be stabilized with hydroquinone, or it will 

exothermically self-polymerize in the presence of air and ultra-violet light, or temperatures higher than 

150oC (Ghilarducci and Tjeerdema, 1985). Acrolein is a liquid at 25 oC but has a vapor pressure of 0.354 

atm at the same temperature (Smith 1962), and will rapidly volatilize if not kept in a closed container 

(Ghilarducci and Tjeerdema, 1985). Acrolein is also very soluble in water, at 237.6 g/L at 25°C (MRID 

40840602). This high solubility tends to offset the compound’s tendency to volatilize somewhat, as indicated 

 14 Specific state causes of impairment that make up the national pesticides cause of impairment group are listed at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation_cy.cause_detail_303d?p_cause_group_id=885. 15 Specific state pollutants that make up the National Pesticides Pollutant Group and have TMDLs are listed at 

http://iaspub.epa.gov/tmdl_waters10/attains_nation.tmdl_pollutant_detail?p_pollutant_group_id=885&p_pollutant_gr

oup_name=PESTICIDES. 16 Aquatic Life Benchmarks are available at 

(http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/ecorisk_ders/aquatic_life_benchmark.htm.
Page 7 of 43

by the measured Henry’s constant of 1.9 x 10-4 atm·m3/mol (MRID 47008401; Salma, 2001; Smith, 1962). 

Acceptable aquatic field dissipation studies are not available for acrolein. A selection of environmental fate 

and transport properties of acrolein is summarized in Table 3.

Table 3. Chemical Properties and Environmental Fate Parameters of Acrolein

Parameter Value Description/Comments Source

Selected Physical/Chemical Parameters

PC Code 000701 -- --

Molecular Mass 56.06 g/mol -- --

Molecular Formula C3H4O -- --

Vapor pressure

(25oC) 269 torr Intermediate to high volatility under field conditions Smith 1962

Aqueous solubility 

(25oC) 237.6 g/L MRID 408406-02

Henry’s Law 

Constant 1.95 x 10-4 atm-m3

/mol Expected to volatilize from water or 

moist/wet soil surfaces. MRID 470084-01

Log octanol-to-water 

partition coefficient

(Log KOW)

0.98-1.10 MRID 408406-04

Persistence3

Hydrolysis half-life

(25°C)

3.8 days (pH 5.28)

1.5 days (pH 7.19)

0.8 days (pH 8.92)

Does not hydrolyze, equilibrates with 

3-hydroxypropanal. MRID 409454-01

Aqueous photolysis 

half-life (20°C)

0.1-0.3 days(pH 4 and 7)

0.06-0.2 days(pH 9)

May photolyze in clear, shallow 

waters. Adjusted for sunlight 

intensity at 40°N latitude.

MRID 493730-01

Soil photolysis halflife No Data -- --

Aerobic soil 

metabolism half-life No Data -- --

Anaerobic soil 

metabolism half-life No Data -- --

Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life 

(20°C)

<1 day

< 14 days

Data insufficient to estimate half-life. 

For MRID 49373002, the percent of 

acrolein was well below 50% by the 

second sampling interval at 14 days.

MRID 428376-01

MRID 493730-02

Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism half-life 

(20-26°C)

<1 day

< 14 days

Data insufficient to estimate half-life. 

For MRID 49373002, the percent of 

acrolein was well below 50% by the 

second sampling interval at 14 days.

MRID 429492-01

MRID 493730-02

Mobility

Solid-water 

distribution 

coefficient (Kd) in 

L/kg-soil

No Data -- --

Fish Bioconcentration

Fish bioconcentration 

factors (steady-state); 

depuration rate

Under review -- MRID 432252-01
Page 8 of 43

Abiotic Degradation

Acrolein does not follow ideal liquid behavior, as the measured partial pressures are about twice what would 

be predicted from Raoult’s Law. The Henry’s Law constant (KHen) varies according to temperature according 

to Equation 1 where t is temperature in degrees Celsius. This suggests that acrolein may be undergoing a 

reversible dimerization reaction in aqueous solution. Acrolein does form a dimer through the addition of one 

acrolein molecule across the double bond of a second forming 3,4-dihydro-2H-pyran-2-carboxaldehyde.

KKHHHHHH = 55. 555555 − 7777 ( − tt) Equation 1

Acrolein does not undergo hydrolytic degradation in aqueous solution, but rather goes into equilibrium with 

a hydration product, 3-hydroxypropanal, in which water has added to the double bond (MRID 40945401). 

The observed rate of reaction varies with pH, with half-lives of 92, 37, and 19 hours at pH values of 5.28, 

7.19 and 8.92, respectively. Aqueous photolysis data suggest that acrolein breaks down rapidly in water, 

with a half-life ranging from 1.5 to 7.5 hours. Data on the formation of degradates was not provided, as the 

study authors assumed that after 24 hours there was complete conversion of the acrolein to the hydrolysis 

product 3-hydroxypropanal.

Biotic Degradation

Submitted data (MRIDs 42837601 and 42949201) indicate that acrolein degrades by both aerobic and 

anaerobic metabolism, with an observed 50% degradation time (DT50) of about day; however, the available 

studies were not sufficient (e.g., insufficient sampling intervals) to quantify degradation rates. An additional 

aquatic study was submitted to quantify the degradation rate (MRID 49373002), but the sampling intervals 

were insufficient. Acceptable aerobic and anaerobic soil studies have not been submitted.

Sorption/Desorption

No acceptable data are available for estimating sorption coefficient (e.g., Kd) values for acrolein. Qualitative 

information can be used from the metabolism studies and chemical properties of acrolein to identify the 

potential adsorption/desorption of acrolein. In the aerobic and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies cited 

above, acrolein was not identified in the sediment of the test vessels. This suggests that acrolein does not 

partition into sediment to any significant extent. In addition, the very high solubility (237 g/L at 25°C) would 

suggest a very low tendency to sorb to sediment.

Monitoring data

Studies conducted in Washington and Nebraska, discussed in the paragraphs below, indicate that, while 

acrolein dissipated with half-lives of less than 1 day, it was sufficiently persistent to move long distances in 

surface water, up to 60 miles at concentrations up to 0.05 mg/L. These studies were conducted in the 1980s 

and were used to adjust label language to include required holding time for treated water or to use as 

irrigation water whereby the compound can dissipate without entering natural waters. Data collected from 

the early to mid-2000s in California (USEPA 2008b) do not necessarily substantiate such a persistence trend 

at downstream sites, as the downstream sampling sites registered both non-detects (detection limits around 

5-20 μg/L) as well as concentrations in the milligrams per liter range. EFED will search for more recent 

data to support or refute these conclusions.

In five of the eight canals evaluated by the State of Nebraska, acrolein was found in measurable 

concentrations (34 - 1,150 μg/L) just upstream from the discharge of the irrigation system. Dissipation halflives were estimated for seven of the eight canals and ranged from 2 to 9.8 h.
Page 9 of 43

In a companion study reported with the Nebraska monitoring data, acrolein dissipated below the detection 

limit of 10 μg/L during transit across a 0.15-mi long irrigation ditch in a bean field. As a result of this study, 

the registrant recommended diversion of irrigation water into holding ponds or onto irrigated crops to avoid 

discharge of irrigation water containing acrolein. Note that while the current labels recommend 6-day or 2-

day holding times (SLN labels), depending on the State, the label states that water treated must be used for 

irrigation of fields or held, although it does not indicate how the water is to be held.

In the second study in Washington State (MRID 47008404), the primary purpose of which was “to provide 

data to substantiate the viability of a lower, more realistic holding restriction for treated water in the state of 

Washington.”. Treatment rates ranged from 1 to 3 mg/L. When dissipation half-lives could be estimated they 

were, in general, somewhat longer than in Nebraska and ranged from 12 to 19 h. In all cases measurable 

concentrations of acrolein (20-410 μg/L) were found in the discharge from the canals.

Baker Performance Chemicals concluded in their report that “if irrigation districts are unable to pond treated 

water for the required holding time, then diverting the wave of treated water onto irrigated crops near the 

wasteways can be viewed as a reasonable alternative. If no weed or algae control is desired near the 

wasteway, the districts can also move their applications further upstream in the canals.”

An air monitoring study (MRID 47008407) was conducted by the registrant in 2005 associated with an 

application to the Kern Island Canal in the Kern Delta Water District in California in August, 2005. These 

data can be used to estimate exposure via inhalation. The application of 3.9 ppm was started at 7:30 in the 

morning and continued for 4 hours. Six air monitoring stations were set up on both banks, four on the 

windward side and two on the downwind side of the canal, within 150 ft of the injection point. A control air 

monitoring site was placed upstream and upwind of the application site. Analytical methods for the air 

samples were not reported. Air samples were also collected concurrently by the California Air Resources 

Board; the results from these samples are not available. The upwind samples on the upwind bank ranged 

from 28 to 36 μg/m3 with the values increasing with distance downstream from the application point. The 

downwind samples were 92 and 120 μg/m3 with the lower value parallel to the application point and the 

higher value 52 feet downstream. Because concentrations were still rising with distance downstream, it is 

conceivable that higher air concentration could have been seen further downstream. This would be supported 

by concurrent measurements of the concentration in the treated canal where concentrations increased from 

the application point to at least 867 feet downstream, the farthest downstream measurements were made in 

water. This apparent increase is likely due to incomplete mixing of acrolein in the canal.

a. Transformation Products

Both aerobic aquatic (MRIDs 42837601) and anaerobic aquatic metabolism studies (MRID 42949201) had 

evidence of both oxidation and reduction processes occurring in the test systems as both oxidative and 

reductive degradates of the pesticide were produced. Degradates formed include acrylic acid, propionic 

acid, oxalic acid, allyl alcohol, and carbon dioxide. Both reduction and oxidation products could occur in 

these test systems as there was a redox gradient between the water column and the bottom sediment, with 

the water column generally being relatively more oxidized than the bottom sediment. As discussed above, 

acrolein does not undergo hydrolytic degradation in aqueous solution, but rather goes into equilibrium with 

a hydration product, 3-hydroxypropanal, in which water has added to the double bond. As such, the 3-

hydroxypropanal is not expected to be persistent, just like acrolein. The abiotic degradate 3-

hydroxypropanal was identified as a minor degradate, as well as 3-hydroxypropionic acid, which probably 

formed by oxidation of the aldehyde. Based on EPISuite analyses, 3-hydroxpropanal is considered mobile, 
Page 10 of 43

with a Koc of 1 L/kgoc. Table 4 lists the degradates and the maximum percentage of the nominal parent 

concentrations by study type. The structures of degradates are provided in Table 5.

Table 4. Maximum percentage of the nominal concentration of degradates formed from acrolein by metabolic 

degradation processes. The time after experiment initiation that maximum occurred is in parentheses.

Degradate

Hydrolysis Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism

MRID 

42837601

MRID 

42837601

MRID 

49373002

MRID 

42949201

MRID 

49373002

Acrylic acid ND 19% (2 d) 3.1% (0 d) 38% (1 d) 6.7% (14 d)

Allyl alcohol ND 8% (0 d) <1.7% 17% (1 d) <1.7%

Propionic acid ND 20% (2 d) <0.7% 64% (8 d) 2.2% (14 d)

Oxalic acid ND 2% (2 d) 6.2% (28d) 49% (30 d) 22.7% (42 d)

Bicarbonate ND 39% (5 d) NA 89% (30 d) NA

3-hydroxypropanal 90.9%* (all pHs) ND Detected 7% (1 d) Detected

3-hydroxypropionic acid ND 9% (2 d) NS 4% (1 d) NA

Propanol ND 21% (1 d) <1.7% 9% (1 d) <1.7%

Glyceric acid ND 1% (5 d) NA NA NA

Malonic acid ND NA 0.9% (0 d) NA <1.7%

NA – not analyzed, ND – not detected

*estimated equilibrium concentration

Table 5. Structures of Acrolein and Its Environmental Transformation Products

Code Name/ Formula/MW/ SMILES Chemical Structure

Acrolein

IUPAC: Prop-2-enal

CAS: 2-Propenal

CAS Number: 107-02-8

SMILES: O=CC=C

PC Code: 000701

H

H

C

H

H

O

3-Hydroxypropanal

CAS Number: 2134-29-4

SMILES: C(=O)CCO

O

H O H

Acrylic acid

CAS Number: 79-10-7

SMILES: O=C(O)C=C O H

O

Allyl alcohol

CAS Number: 107-18-6

SMILES: OCC=C

CH C

H 2

H C O H 2

Propionic acid

CAS number: 79-09-4

SMILES: O=C(O)CC O

O

H

Oxalic acid

CAS Number: 144-62-7

SMILES: O=C(O)C(=O)O

O

O

O H

H O

Malonic acid

CAS Number: 141-82-2

SMILES: O=C(O)CC(=O)O

O O

H O O H
Page 11 of 43

Code Name/ Formula/MW/ SMILES Chemical Structure

Bicarbonate

CAS Number: 71-52-3

SMILES: O=C(O)O

3-Hydroxypropionic acid

CAS Number: 503-66-2

SMILES: OCCC(O)=O

Propanol

CAS Number: 71-23-8

SMILES:OCCC

C

H 2

C O H

H 2

H C3

Glyceric acid

CAS Number: 473-81-4

SMILES: OCC(O)C(O)=O

6. Receptors

Tables 6 and 7 provide a summary of the most sensitive acute and chronic toxicity values for acrolein across 

aquatic and terrestrial taxonomic groups, respectively. Based on the available ecotoxicity information,

acrolein is very highly toxic to freshwater fish (which serve as surrogates for aquatic-phase amphibians) and

invertebrates, estuarine/marine invertebrates, and to birds and it is highly toxic to mammals and 

estuarine/marine fish on an acute exposure basis. Chronic exposure to acrolein resulted in reduced growth 

and survival in fish and reduced survival in aquatic invertebrates. Chronic exposure in mammals resulted in 

decreased growth in both parents and offspring. No chronic toxicity data are available for birds, which serve 

as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles. Median effect concentrations for vascular and 

nonvascular aquatic plants are 36 and 72 μg/L, respectively. There are no guideline data available with 

which to evaluate the toxicity of acrolein to terrestrial plants. No toxicity data are available on 3-

hydroxypropanal.

a. Effects to Aquatic Organisms

Table 6. Summary of the Most Sensitive Endpoints from Aquatic Toxicity Studies for Technical 

Acrolein

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value

Acute Toxicity 

Classification Source

(MRID)

Freshwater 

Amphibian Acute African clawed frog 

Xenopus laevis LC50 = 7 μg/L Very highly 

toxic

Holcombe et 

al. 1987*

Freshwater Fish

Acute

Fathead minnow 

(Pimphales promelas) 96-hr LC50=14 μg 

a.i./L

Very highly 

toxic

Holcombe et 

al. 1987*

Chronic 

Fathead minnow 

(Pimphales promelas)

NOAEC = 11.4 μg 

a.i./L

LOAEC = 20.8 μg 

a.i./L

NA Acc. No.

05008271

Freshwater 

invertebrates Acute Waterflea

Daphna magna EC50 <31 μg a.i./L Very highly 

toxic 415132-02
Page 12 of 43

Taxonomic 

Group

Study 

Type Surrogate Species Toxicity Value

Acute Toxicity 

Classification Source

(MRID)

Chronic Waterflea (Daphnia 

magna)

NOAEC = 7.1 μg 

a.i./L

LOAEC =16.9 μg 

a.i./L

NA Accession No.

05008271

Estuarine/marine 

fish

Acute Longnose killifish 48- hr LC50 = 240 

μg a.i./L Highly toxic 402284-01

Chronic No data

Estuarine/marine 

shrimp Acute Brown shrimp

(Penaeus aztecus)

48-h EC50 of 100 

μg a.i./L Highly toxic 402284-01

Estuarine/marine 

mollusk Acute

Eastern oyster shell 

deposition (Crassostrea 

virginica)

96-hr EC50=55 μg 

a.i./L

Very highly 

toxic 402284-01

Estuarine/marine 

invertebrate Chronic No data

Aquatic plants 

Vascular Duckweed (Lemna 

gibba)

EC50= 72 μg a.i./L

NOAEC = 25 μg 

a.i./L

NA 426209-04

NonvascularMarine Diatom 

(Skeletonema costatum)

EC50=28 μg/L

NOAEC = 25

μg/L

NA 426209-03

NA=not applicable

b. Effects to Terrestrial Organisms

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

Acrolein

Taxonomic 

Group

Acute/ 

Chronic Surrogate Species Toxicity Value 

Acute Toxicity 

Classification Source

(MRID)

Birds 

(surrogate for 

terrestrialphase 

amphibians 

and reptiles)

Acute Mallard duck

Anas platyrhynchos

LD50 = 9.11 mg 

a.i./kg bw Very highly toxic 00117668

Chronic No Data

Mammals

Acute Laboratory rat

Rattus norvegicus

LD50 =

Males: 10.3

Females: 11.8 mg/kg

Highly toxic 412570-01

Chronic Laboratory rat

Rattus norvegicus

NOAEL= 3 mg/kg/day

LOAEL=6 mg/kg/day NA 418691-01

Terrestrial 

invertebrates Acute HoneybeeApis mellifera No data

Terrestrial 

Plants

N/A Seedling Emergence

Monocots

NOAEL =0.074 lbs 

ai/A NA 486438-01a

N/A Seedling Emergence

Dicots NOAEC=0.074 lbs ai/A NA 486438-01a

N/A Vegetative Vigor

Monocots NOAEC=0.081 lbs ai/A NA 486438-02a

N/A Vegetative Vigor

Dicots

NOAEC=0.081 lbs 

ai/A NA 486438-02a

NA=not applicable

a studies have not completed final review.
Page 13 of 43

c. Ecological Incidents

A review on June 8, 2015 of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS, version 2.1.1), which is 

maintained by the Agency’s Office of Pesticide Programs, identified 14 reported incidents that may have 

involved exposures of acrolein between 1971 and 2011. Of the 14 reported incidents, 1 involved terrestrial 

plants, 12 involved effects to fish, amphibians and/or aquatic invertebrates and 1 involved effects to aquatic 

birds. Residue analysis was conducted to confirm the presence of acrolein in only one (B0000-500-87) of 

the reported incidents. Half of all the reported incidents occurred in California, 2 occurred in Nevada, and a 

single incident each in Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Oregon, and Nebraska. It is important to note that these 

incidents only reflect those reported to the Agency and may not reflect the total number of incidents that 

may be associated with exposure to acrolein through the use of this chemical as an herbicide. 

Incidents included in EIIS are defined by a certainty index17 associated with the likelihood that the pesticide 

application described resulted in the observed incident. The certainty index defines incidents as unrelated, 

unlikely, possible, probable and highly probable. Of the 14 reported incidents, 2 was classified as possible, 

8 were classified as probable, and 4 as highly probable. Five of the incidents were attributed to misuse, 4 

were undetermined, and 5 were the result of a registered used. One note of uncertainty associated with this 

data base is the nature of reporting of incidents. Many more incidents may have occurred due to acrolein 

exposures but may not have been reported due to various factors, such as a lack of reporting, or an absence

of witnesses. Thus the number and certainty of incident reports is not necessarily an accurate indication of 

the true prevalence of incidents.

7. Exposure Pathways of Concern

a. Irrigation Water Use

The environmental fate properties and use patterns of acrolein indicate that direct application of acrolein to 

waterways and application of treated water to land represent potential routes of acrolein exposure to nontarget aquatic and terrestrial organisms. Drinking water and inhalation exposure pathways for birds and 

mammals were previously evaluated in the Alameda whipsnake assessment (USEPA, 2011) based on 

maximum registered treatment rate (i.e., 15 mg/L) for the direct application of acrolein to water. Acute 

inhalation risk quotient (RQ) values exceeded the acute risk levels of concern (LOC) for small (20 g), 

medium (350 g) and large (1580 g) birds as well as for small (15 g), medium (35 g) and large (1000 g) 

mammals. Based on previous assessments, when treated water was applied to agricultural fields with the 

intent of dissipating the acrolein, the estimated application rate was 0.534 lbs a.i./A. The Screening Tool for 

Inhalation Risk (STIR) was also used to evaluate inhalation exposure to terrestrial organisms when acroleincontaminated irrigation water is applied to agricultural fields; STIR results (Appendix B) indicated that the 

inhalation pathway is a concern (LOC exceedances are expected) for birds and mammals. Potential exposure 

through drinking water was evaluated through the Screening Imbibition Program (SIP), which indicated that 

 17 The Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS) used by EPA to store incident data relies on the following certainty indices: 

• Highly Probable: (residues detected in affected organisms and other lines of evidence support cause)

• Probable: (residues were not measured or the measured residues were not sufficient to be considered toxic, but pesticide 

was used in close proximity and would be capable of exerting such an effect)

• Possible: multiple pesticides were used in close proximity and any of them are capable of causing such an effect.

• Unlikely: there are no measured residues and the observed effects are not consistent with those caused by pesticides 

used in the area or there was no pesticide use known in the area.

• Unrelated: effects observed in the incident are unrelated to pesticide use. 18 USEPA 2014. Conceptual Models for Environmental Exposure Pathways of Antimicrobial Pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Antimicrobial Division, Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch. August 4, 2014. EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0638. 

http://www.regulation.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0638-0002.
Page 14 of 43

exposure through drinking water alone is of potential concern for both birds and mammals (Appendix B). 

SIP and STIR are described in detail at http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/terrestrial/index.htm.

b. Antimicrobial Use in Oilfield Injection Water

The labels with antimicrobial uses for acrolein include MAGNACIDE® B (EPA Registration Number 

10707-10) and AcroCideTM (EPA Registration Number 71173-1), which are used in oilfield injection water. 

Based on the registered use of acrolein in oilfield injection water and the physical/chemical and 

environmental fate properties in Table 3, the Agency does not consider this use to represent a significant 

route of exposure to non-target organisms. First, antimicrobials are typically diluted before discharge into 

water, and acrolein is degraded by organic compounds and bacteria within the oilfield system. Second, 

terrestrial oil fields typically use berms and catch basins to prevent surface runoff of oil drilling muds and 

wastes from oil drilling areas. As a result, the Agency is not including any conceptual models18 regarding 

potential risks since exposure of non-target organisms from the oilfield use is not expected.

8. Analysis Plan

a. Stressors of Concern

i. Ecological Risk Assessment

The stressors of ecological concern for terrestrial organisms are residues of acrolein and 3-hydroxypropanal, 

which exists in equilibrium with acrolein. 

ii. Drinking Water 

Because acrolein is only applied to irrigation canals and irrigation reservoirs in some states, and because the 

label states “Do not use where waters will flow into potential sources of drinking water. Water treated with 

[acrolein] must be used for irrigation of fields, either crop bearing, fallow, or pasture, where the treated 

water remains on the field OR held for 6 days before being released into fish bearing waters or where it will 

drain into them”, a drinking water assessment that evaluates impacts to surface water will not be conducted. 

However, given the applications of treated water to fields for irrigation purposes and the potential for 

acrolein in irrigation water to leach into groundwater, EFED will consult with HED and the available 

monitoring data and may conduct a (human) drinking water exposure assessment if warranted.

b. Measures of Exposure 

EFED will use standard available models (identified in Table 8) to evaluate potential exposures to aquatic 

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

Since the previous exposure assessments were completed, four main changes in standard procedures have 

been made: 

1) The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Guidance for Evaluating and Calculating 

Degradation Kinetics in Environmental Media (NAFTA, 2012; USEPA, 2012b) was completed. 

Degradation kinetics may be recalculated consistent with the updated approach.

2) The Surface Water Concentration Calculator has replaced the older version of PRZM/EXAMS and will 

be used to evaluate runoff from fields treated with irrigation water. 

 18 USEPA 2014. Conceptual Models for Environmental Exposure Pathways of Antimicrobial Pesticides. Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Antimicrobial Division, Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch. August 4, 2014. EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0638. 

http://www.regulation.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0638-0002.
Page 15 of 43

3) The Pesticide Root Zone Model – Groundwater (PRZM-GW) will be used for estimating concentrations 

in groundwater from fields treated with irrigation water (USEPA, 2013a).

4) The Pesticide in Flooded Applications Model (PFAM) will be used for estimating concentrations in 

waterbodies that hold and release treated water.

The most up-to-date procedures and models will be used in the Registration Review exposure assessments. 

Nonstandard modeling procedures that may be used in the risk assessment are discussed below. In the 

absence of data to the contrary, the T-REX model will employ the default 35-day foliar dissipation half-life 

value.

Irrigation Water

EFED does not currently have a standardized methodology for determining risk to non-target plants from 

applications of irrigation water where surface or groundwater has been contaminated by a pesticide applied 

to crops. However, EFED anticipates that an irrigation water analysis will be conducted at the time of the 

risk assessment using exposure values generated from currently available models such as SWCC and PFAM 

for surface water or PRZM-GW for groundwater exposures. This approach will be used to determine a depth 

(in inches) of irrigation water on a one-acre field necessary to cause an LOC exceedance to terrestrial plants 

and compared with representative cultural practices to characterize the potential risk associated with this 

exposure scenario.

Drinking Water for Ecological Organisms

Screening-level calculations using SIP have suggested that drinking water exposure may be significant for 

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

(Appendix B). 

Table 8. List of the various models and the related taxa for which the models will be used.

Environment Taxa of 

Concern

Exposure 

Pathway

Model(s) or 

Pathway Link

Aquatic

Fish/ 

Invertebrates

/ Plants

Runoff and spray

drift to water SWCC http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

Direct application 

to water PFAM http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/water/

Terrestrial

Vertebrate Residues in/on 

dietary items T-REX (dietary item)

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/

terrestrial/trex/trex_v1_5_webversion.

xlsm

Invertebrate

Contact and 

ingestion of 

residues 

pollen/nectar

Screening-level 

exposure equations 

identified in 

Appendix B

http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/

files/2014-

06/documents/pollinator_risk_assessm

ent_guidance_06_19_14.pdf

Plant

Runoff to plants TerrPlant (Run-off) http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/

terrestrial/index.htm#terrplant

Residues in 

irrigation water

Results from Aquatic 

Models

http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/

water/

Human 

Health 

EDWC

Vertebrate

Surface Water SWCC

PFAM http://www.epa.gov/oppefed1/models/

water/ Groundwater PRZM-GW
Page 16 of 43

i. Available Monitoring Data

The Agency is aware of pesticide monitoring conducted by federal and state agencies. This information will 

be considered in the assessment, to the extent that data on acrolein are available.

c. Measures of Effect 

The most sensitive toxicity data presented in Section 6 of this problem formulation will be used to calculate 

risk quotients for the respective taxa. Any additional information submitted by the registrant or found in the 

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

are identified using EPA’s ECOTOXicology database (ECOTOX) (USEPA, 2009a), which employs a 

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

The evaluation of both sources of data that meet the Agency’s standard for inclusion in risk assessments can 

also provide insight into the direct and indirect effects of pesticides on biotic communities from loss of 

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

the affected communities.

9. Endangered Species Assessments

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

evaluate risks to listed species from registered uses of pesticides in Registration Review. The process for 

evaluating potential risks to listed species is further described at 

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

10. Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program

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

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

11. Preliminary Identification of Data Gaps 

a. Environmental Fate

Table 9 identifies environmental fate studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, as 

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

Table 9. Submitted Environmental Fate Data and Study Classifications for Acrolein 

OCSPP 

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions 

EPA will Make in Absence of 

Data

835.2120 Hydrolysis 409454-01 Acceptable No

835.2240 Aqueous photolysis 409454-02

493730-01

Unacceptable

Supplemental No --

835.2410 Soil photolysis 409454-02 Unacceptable No

Looked at soil photolysis of 

acrolein deposited from gas phase

Not needed for modeling purposes

835.2370 Photodegradation 

in Air 486813-01 Acceptable No
Page 17 of 43

OCSPP 

Guideline Data Requirement

Submitted 

Studies

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment?

Justification and Assumptions 

EPA will Make in Absence of 

Data

835.4100 Aerobic soil 

metabolism 430373-01 Supplemental, 

not upgradable Yes

The estimated material balances 

calculated from the study were 

incomplete.

Data requirement waived in 2011 

(DP Barcode 386809)

Requesting data based on use as 

irrigation water

835.4200 Anaerobic soil 

metabolism 43035701 Unacceptable No Not needed for modeling purposes

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic 

metabolism

428376-01

432271-01

Supplemental

Unacceptable

Supplemental

Yes Draft report for this study is 

expected in December 2015. 493730-02

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic 

metabolism

429492-01 Supplemental

Supplemental Yes Draft report for this study is 

493730 expected in December 2015. -02

835.1230

835.1240

Adsorption/ 

desorption and 

leaching

409454-03 Unacceptable Yes

Soils were autoclaved in study.

EFED requested a new study as part 

of the RED and a protocol for a 

leaching study (OCSPP 835.1240) 

was submitted and reviewed in 

2011. Draft report for this study is 

expected in December 2015. Given 

acrolein’s rapid degradation in 

aquatic environments, the soil 

leaching study appears more 

appropriate than a batch equilibrium 

study.

835.6100 Terrestrial field 

dissipation -- -- No

835.6200 Aquatic field 

dissipation

415132-04/

431769-01

418130-01/

429491-01

Unacceptable

Unacceptable

No

MRID 431769-01 is a rebuttal of 

DER for MRID 415132-04.

MRID 429491-01 is a rebuttal of 

DER for MRID 418130-01.

Both studies had poor method 

recoveries.

850.6100 ECM - Soil -- -- No

As irrigation water treated with 

acrolein is applied to a field and 

held for a period of 6 days prior to 

release, there is no anticipated need 

for a soil ECM.

850.6200 ECM – Water 415132-04 Acceptable No Limit of quantitation is 10 μg/L.

3 ILV=independent laboratory validation

4 ECM=environmental chemistry method

b. Effects

Table 10 and 11 identify ecological effect studies by MRID that offer data for each guideline requirement, 

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

The database for the acrolein TGAI is incomplete. 
Page 18 of 43

o The 40 CFR Part 158 (40 CFR 2015) identifies data requirements for conventional pesticides, 

including those pesticides applied directly to water and/or those known to be phytotoxicants 

such as acrolein. Of the studies required to support the aquatic use of acrolein, the following 

studies are not available in the existing database and are therefore necessary for conducting an 

ecological risk assessment. 

• Avian dietary toxicity test (OCSPP 850.220019). Birds (e.g., water fowl) may forage plants 

in treated water and a broader range of birds may forage in agricultural fields/rangeland where 

acrolein-treated waters may be applied with the intent of dissipating the compound; therefore, 

there is a potential route of exposure. Currently, no subacute dietary toxicity data are available 

for birds.

Tier II terrestrial plant vegetative vigor (OCSPP Guideline 850.4150) and seedling 

emergence (OCSPP 850.4250) have been submitted; however, the maximum rate tested in the 

seedling emergence study (0.088 lbs a.i./A) and in the vegetative vigor study (0.086 lbs a.i./A) 

is less than the maximum estimated rate (0.54 lbs a.i./A) applied to agricultural fields in order 

to dissipate the compound.

Pollinator toxicity data consisting of an acute contact test with adult honey bees (850.3020; 

OECD 214), acute oral test with adult honey bees (OECD 213), acute honey bee larvae test 

(OECD 237), 10-day adult honey bee test (draft OECD guideline) and the 21-day larval honey 

bee toxicity test (draft OECD guidance) are needed since the current label allows for application 

to rangeland or to crops that may be in bloom, in which case bees may be exposed. Pending the 

outcome of the lower-tier laboratory-based acute and chronic toxicity studies of individual adult 

and larval honey bees, higher-tier studies, i.e., semi-field (OECD 75; 850.3030) and full-field 

(850.3040) may be required. Appendix C provides rationales for each of the pollinator-related 

data.

Table 10. Submitted Aquatic Ecological Effects Data and Study Classifications for Acrolein.

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Study 

Type

Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA will 

Make in Absence of Data -

Some Example texts are 

include

850.1010

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

toxicity

Acute

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

415132-02

Supplemental

No

Acute toxicity test with D. 

magna resulted in a 

nondefinitive LC50<31 μg 

ai/L

Waterflea

(Daphnia magna)

Acc. No. 05008271

Supplemental

850.1025

850.1035

850.1045

850.1055 

Saltwater 

invertebrate 

toxicity

Acute

Eastern oyster

Crassostrea virginica

402284-01

Acceptable

No --

Brown Shrimp

Penaeus aztecus

402284-01

Acceptable

 19 USEPA. 2012. Ecological Effects Test Guidelines. OCSPP 850.2200: Avian Dietary Toxicity Test. Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution 

Prevention (7101) EPA 712-C-024. January 2012. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0011
Page 19 of 43

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Study 

Type

Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA will 

Make in Absence of Data -

Some Example texts are 

include

Eastern oyster

Crassostrea virginica

431643-02

Supplemental

Mysid shrimp

Americamysis bahia

431643-01

Supplemental

850.1075 Freshwater fish Acute

African clawed frog 

(Xenopus laevis)

Holcombe et al. 1987

Supplemental

No

Although freshwater fish 

acute toxicity tests are 

classified as supplemental, 

there is a sufficient 

concordance of information 

to characterize hazard. 

Fathead minnow

(Pimephales 

promelas)

Holcombe et al. 1987

Supplemental

Bluegill sunfish

(Lepomis 

macrochirus)

415132-01

Supplemental

Rainbow trout

(Oncorhynchus 

mykiss)

415132-03

Supplemental

Coho salmon

(Oncorhynchus 

kisutch)

452051-07

Supplemental

850.1075 Saltwater fish Acute

Longnose killifish

Fundulus similis

402284-01

Acceptable

No --

Sheepshead minnow

Cyprinodon variegatus

432252-02

Supplemental

850.1300

Freshwater 

invertebrates 

life cycle

Chronic

Water Flea

Daphnia magna

05008271

Supplemental No

The high acute toxicity of 

acrolein is expected to result 

in near complete mortality 

of aquatic organisms; the 

compound is expected to 

rapidly dissipate following 

treatment. Therefore, the 

likelihood of chronic 

exposure is considered low.

850.1350

Saltwater 

invertebrates 

life cycle 

Chronic No data No
Page 20 of 43

OCSPP

Guideline

Data 

Requirement

Study 

Type

Submitted Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classification

Are data 

needed to 

conduct risk 

assessment

Justification and 

Assumptions EPA will 

Make in Absence of Data -

Some Example texts are 

include

850.1400 Freshwater fish 

early-life stage Chronic

Fathead minnow

Pimephales promelas

05008271

Supplemental No

The high acute toxicity of 

acrolein is expected to result 

in near complete mortality 

of aquatic organisms; the 

compound is expected to 

rapidly dissipate following 

treatment. Therefore, the 

likelihood of chronic 

exposure is considered low.

850.1400 Saltwater fish 

early-life stage Chronic No data No

Likelihood of chronic 

exposure for 

estuarine/marine organisms 

considered low.

850.1500 Freshwater fish 

full life cycle Chronic

Fathead minnow

Pimephales promelas

Sabourin 1986*

Supplemental No

Two different studies 

contained in the report by 

Sabourin, i.e., 96-hr LC50= 

29.7 μg/L and 32-day LC50

=17.4 μg/L. Raw data were 

not available to substantiate 

toxicity estimates. 

The high acute toxicity of 

acrolein is expected to result 

in near complete mortality 

of aquatic organisms; the 

compound is expected to 

rapidly dissipate following 

treatment. Therefore, the 

likelihood of chronic 

exposure is considered low

850.1735

850.1740

10-day 

Sediment 

Toxicity Test

Subacute No data

Acrolein is not expected to 

partition appreciably to 

sediment.

850.4400

Aquatic plant 

Toxicity Test 

using Lemna 

minor.

NA

Duckweed

Lemna gibba

426209-04

Supplemental No

Although the study is 

classified as supplemental 

due to rapid dissipation of 

test material, the DER 

indicates that the study does 

not have to be repeated.

850.5400 Algal toxicity

NA

Green Algae

Pseudokirchneriella 

subcapitata

426209-05

Acceptable

No

According to DER for S. 

costatum, the study was 

upgraded to acceptable on 

9/6/94

NA

Freshwater Diatom

Navicula pelliculosa

42609-02

Acceptable

NA

Marine Diatom

Skeletonema costatum

426209-03 Supplemental

850.4550 Cyanobacteria NA

Blue-green Algae

Anabaena flos-aquae

426209-01

Acceptable No
Page 21 of 43

Table 11. Submitted Terrestrial Ecological Effects Data for Acrolein.

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement Study Type

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment

Current Additional Data 

Need

850.2100

Avian oral 

toxicity Acute

Mallard

470214075 Acceptable

No

Bobwhite quail study 

(LD50=19 mg/kg) is classified 

as supplemental due to 

absence of information on 

sublethal effects and the 

nature of controls used in the 

study. Mallard duck LD50 of 

9 mg/kg is considered 

protective for bobwhite.

Bobwhite

Accession No. 

92001-003

Supplemental

Mallard

Anas 

platyrhynchus

421833-01

Acceptable

Passerine Acute No data No

850.2200 Avian dietary 

toxicity Subacute

Mallard

Anas 

platyrhnchus

No data

Yes

EPA waived the subacute 

dietary toxicity data 

requirement; Document No. 

2000782; dated 2/25/91. 

However, exposure of birds 

through diet treated with 

acrolein is a potential route of 

exposure.

Bobwhite

Colinus 

virginianus

No data

850.2300 Avian 

reproduction Chronic

Mallard

Anas 

platyrhnchus

No data

No EPA waived the avian 

Bobwhite reproduction data requirement

Colinus 

virginianus

No data

Nonguideline Avian inhalation Acute No

850.3020 Honey bee acute 

contact toxicity Acute No data Yes

Honey bee (Apis mellifera) 

acute contact toxicity data 

initially waived by EPA 

(Akerman memo dated 

5/30/89) for Magnacide® H 

use in irrigation canals 

(Document No. 2000784). In 

2014, EPA issued honey bee 

risk assessment guidance 

indication both laboratorybased studies of individual 

bees as well as field-based 

studies of bee colonies.

Special 

Study

Honey bee acute 

oral toxicity Acute No data Yes

In 2014, EPA issued honey 

bee risk assessment guidance 

indication both laboratorybased studies of individual 

bees as well as field-based 

studies of bee colonies.
Page 22 of 43

OCSPP 

Guideline

Data 

Requirement Study Type

Submitted 

Studies 

(MRID)

Study 

Classifications

Are data 

needed for 

risk 

assessment

Current Additional Data 

Need

Special 

Study

Honey bee 

larval toxicity 

test (OECD 

237)

Acute No data Yes

Special 

Study

Honey bee adult 

10-day toxicity 

test

Chronic No Data Yes

Special 

Staudy

Honey bee 21-

day larval 

toxicity test

Chronic No Data Yes

850.3030

Honey bee 

residue on 

foliage

NA No data Yes1 Pending outcome of Tier 1 

tests, studies held in reserve.

850.3040 Field testing for 

pollinators Chronic No data Yes1

Pending outcome of Tier 2 

(semi-field studies), full-field 

studies held in reserve.

850.4100

Seedling 

Emergence and 

Seedling 

Growth

-- 486438-01 Supplemental* Yes

Although EPA provided a 

review of the proposed 

protocol (DP Barcode 

D334821); the actual 

treatment rates were not 

indicated in the protocol. 

Seedling emergence study 

evaluated maximum rate of 

0.088 lbs ai/A and did not 

demonstrate any statistically 

significant effect that was 

considered treatment related. 

The treatment rate evaluated is 

less than the maximum rate 

estimated for acrolein, i.e., 

0.54 lbs ai/A. 

850.4250 Vegetative 

Vigor -- 486438-02 Supplemental* Yes

Although EPA provided a 

review of the proposed 

protocol (DP Barcode 

D334821); the actual 

treatment rates were not 

indicated in the protocol. 

Vegetative vigor study

evaluated maximum rate of 

0.086 lbs ai/A and did not 

demonstrate any statistically 

significant effect that was 

considered treatment related. 

The treatment rate evaluated is 

less than the maximum rate 

estimated for acrolein, i.e., 

0.54 lbs ai/A. * Review of study has not been finalized.
Page 23 of 43

12. References 

Baker Petrolite Corporation.2006. Magnacide H herbicide Application by State. Submitted by Baker 

Petrolite Corporation. (MRID 46976913)

Baker Performance Chemicals. 1986 Washington Magnacide H Monitoring Report. Submitted by Baker 

Petrolite, Bakersfield, CA. (MRID 47008404)

Bonnivier, Bonnie, and Joseph Penkala. 2000. Magnacide H Herbicide Irrigation Dissipation in Kern 

County Water Storage Districts. Study conducted and submitted by Baker Petrolite, Bakersfield, 

CA. (MRID 47008403)

David, R. 1989. Acute Oral Toxicity Study of Acrolein, Inhibited in Rats: Final Report: Study G-7230.220.

Unpublished study pre- pared by Microbiological Associates, Inc. 87 p. (MRID 41257001)

Etzkorn, W. G. 2009. Acrolein and Derivatives. Kirk-Othmer Encyclopedia of Chemical Technology. 1–

29.

Ghilarducci, D. P. and Tjeerdema, R. S. 1995. Fate and Effects of Acrolein. Reviews of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 144:95-146.

Hoberman, A. 1991. Reproductive Effects of Acrolein Administered Orally via Gavage to Crl:CD (SD)BR 

Rats for Two Generations, with one Litter per Generation: Lab Project Number: 603/003: RD/ 

0155/191. Unpublished study prepared by Argus Research Laboratories, Inc. 1298 p. (MRID 

41869101)

Holcombe, G. W., G. L Phipps, A. H. Sulaiman, and A.D. Hoffman. 1987. Simultaneous multiple species 

testing: Acute toxicity of 13 chemicals to 12 diverse freshwater amphibian, fish, and invertebrate 

families. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 16:697-710.

Hudson, R. H., R. K. Tucker, and M. A. Haegele. 1984. Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides to Wildlife. 

Second Edition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. MRID 

470214075.

Irwin, Katherine. 1988. Henry’s Law Constant for Acrolein (Magnacide H Herbicide and Magnacide B 

Microbiocide). Performed by SRI International, 333 Ravenswood Avenue, Menlo Park, CA. 

Submitted by Baker Performance Chemicals, 3920 Essex Lane Houston, TX. SRI Project PYU 

3562. (MRID 47008401)

Matherly, R. Hackerott, J. Nguyen, N. 1987 Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient of Acrolein: Study No. 

RD0008.287. Unpublished study prepared by Baker Performance Chemicals. 24 p. (MRID 

40840604)

Penkala, Joe. 2005. Acrolein Residual Analysis During Magnacide H Herbicide Application in Support of 

Air Quality Monitoring in Kern Delta Irrigation District, Bakersfield, CA. Submitted by Baker 

Petrolite Corporation, November 8, 2006. (MRID 47008407)

Preus, Martin W., and Charles L. Kissel. 1982. Controlling Plant Growth in Irrigation Systems: 1982 

Nebraska Summer Research with Magnacide H. 1982 Nebraska Irrigation Expo & Water 

Conference. Performed by Magna Corporation, Santa Fe Springs, NM, and submitted by Baker 

Petrolite, Bakersfield CA. (MRID 46976905)
Page 24 of 43

Robillard, Kenneth A. Water Solubility of Acrolein. Performed by Health and Environmental Laboratories, 

Eastman Kodak Co. Rochester, NY. Study No. EN 040-UKA001-1. Submitted by Baker 

Performance Chemicals.. Houston, TX. (MRID 40840602).

Salma, Tauseef. 2001. Henry’s Law Constant for Acrolein. Baker Petrolite Internal Memorandum to Miles 

Rhea, dated January 4, 2001.

Smith, A. M. 1993. (

14C-Acrolein) – Determination of the anaerobic aquatic metabolism. Unpublished study 

performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA; sponsored and submitted by Baker 

Performance Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX. SLI Report # 91-3-3680, SLI Study # 12167-1089-

6101-755. The experiment was initiated on November 9 and terminated on May 21, 1993 (p. 11). 

Final report issued September 22, 1993. (MRID 42949201)

Smith, A. 1993. (14C-Acrolein)--Determination of the Aerobic Aquatic Metabolism Final Report: Lab 

Project Number: 91-3-3747: 12167-0789-6100-750. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Laboratories, Inc. 125 p. (MRID 43227101)

Smith, Curtis W. 1962. Acrolein. John Wiley and Sons, London.

USEPA 2014. Conceptual Models for Environmental Exposure Pathways of Antimicrobial Pesticides. 

Office of Pesticide Programs, Antimicrobial Division, Risk Assessment and Science Support Branch. 

August 4, 2014. EPA-HQ-OPP-2014-0638. http://www.regulation.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-OPP-2014-0638-0002.
Page 25 of 43

Appendix A. Bibliography of Submitted Studies

Environmental Fate

63-8 Solubility

MRID: 40840602

Robillard, K. (1988) Water Solubility of Acrolein: Laboratory Project ID: HAEL No. 88-0300: 

Study No. EN-040-UKA001-1. Unpublished compilation prepared by Health and Environment 

Laboratories. 34 p. 

63-9 Vapor Pressure

MRID: 40840603

Robillard, K. (1988) Vapor Pressure of Acrolein: Laboratory Project ID: HAEL No.: 88-0300: 

Study No. EN-030-UKA001-1. Unpublished compilation prepared by Health and Environment 

Laboratories. 31 p. 

63-11 Oct/Water partition Coefficient

MRID: 40840604

Matherly, R.; Hackerott, J.; Nguyen, N. (1987) Octanol/Water Partition Coefficient of Acrolein: 

Study No. RD0008.287. Unpublished study prepared by Baker Performance Chemicals. 24 p. 

161-1 Hydrolysis

MRID: 40945401

Haag, W.; Yao, D.; Pettit, T.; et al. (1988) Estimation of Hydrolysis Rate Constants for Acrolein

(Magnacide H Herbicide, Magnacide B Microbiocide) in the Environment: SRI Project No. 3562-

3. Unpublished study prepared by SRI International. 54 p.

835.2210 Direct photolysis rate in water by sunlight

MRID: 49373001

Roberts, G. (2014) Acrolein: Direct Photolysis Rate in Water by Simulated Sunlight. Project 

Number: 12/0055/B, BR0915/B. Unpublished study prepared by AstraZeneca UK, Ltd. 21p.

835.4300 Aerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID: 42837601

Smith A.M. 1993. (14C-Acrolein) – Determination of the aerobic aquatic metabolism. Unpublished 

study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA; sponsored and submitted by 

Baker Performance Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX. SLI Report: #91-3-3747; SLI Study #12167-

0789-6100-750. Experiment initiated December 4, 1992, and completed February 1, 1993 (p. 11). 

Final report issued June 3, 1993.

MRID: 49373002

Daniel, M. (2014) (Carbon 14) Acrolein: Aerobic and Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism, Preliminary 
Page 26 of 43

Study. Project Number: 120055I, BR0904/B. Unpublished study prepared by AstraZeneca UK, 

Ltd. 95p.

835.4400 Anaerobic aquatic metabolism

MRID: 42949201 

Smith A.M. 1993. (14C-Acrolein) – Determination of the anaerobic aquatic metabolism. 

Unpublished study performed by Springborn Laboratories, Inc., Wareham, MA; sponsored and 

submitted by Baker Performance Chemicals, Inc., Houston, TX. SLI Report # 91-3-3680, SLI 

Study # 12167-1089-6101-755. The experiment was initiated on November 9 and terminated on 

May 21, 1993 (p. 11). Final report issued September 22, 1993

MRID: 49373002

Daniel, M. (2014) (Carbon 14) Acrolein: Aerobic and Anaerobic Aquatic Metabolism, Preliminary 

Study. Project Number: 120055I, BR0904/B. Unpublished study prepared by AstraZeneca UK, 

Ltd. 95p.

Other

MRID: 46976905

Citation: Preus, M.; Kissel, C. (1982) Magnicide H Monitoring Program For the State of Nebraska. 

Project Number: RDSFS0018/188. Unpublished study prepared by Magna Corporation. 59 p.

MRID: 47008404

Citation: Rice, C. (2006) 1986 Washington Magnicide H Monitoring Report: Data Used to Support 

Special Local Needs SLN Registration Requested by the Washington State Water Resources 

Association: Acrolein. Unpublished study prepared by Baker Petrolite Corporation. 54 p.

Ecological Effects

71-1 Avian Single Dose Oral Toxicity

MRID Citation Reference

117668 2059323 Tucker, R.; Hudson, R. (1970) Acrolein: Acute Oral LD50 for Mallard 

Drakes. (Unpublished study received Mar 20, 1975 under 10707-9; 

prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver Wildlife Research 

Center, Unit of Physiological and Pharmacological Studies, submitted by 

Magna Corp., Sante Fe Springs, CA; CDL:165015-A) 

117672 2000882 Kresse, H. (1975) Laboratory Test Report: (Acrolein LD50 Bobwhite 

Quail): Laboratory Report No. K-1524. (Unpublished study received Sep 

24, 1975 under 10707-9; prepared by MBA Laboratories, Inc., submitted 

by Magna Corp., Santa Fe Springs, CA; CDL: 223298-A) 

42183301 2000858 Pedersen, C.; Helsten, B. (1991) Acrolein: 21-Day Acute Oral LD50 

Study in Mallard Ducks: Lab Project Number: 118-001-04. Unpublished 

study prepared by Bio-Life Associates, Ltd. 54 p. 
Page 27 of 43

92001003 2000882 Conn, R. (1990) Baker Performance Chemicals Inc. Phase 3 Summary 

of MRID 00117672. Determination of LD50 Acrolein - Bobwhite Quail: 

Project K-1524. Prepared by MBA Laboratories, Inc. 10 p. 

117675 Open lit- not 

a mortality 

study

Denine, E.; Robbins, S.; Kensler, C. (1971) The effects of acrolein 

inhalation on the tracheal mucosa of the chicken. Taken from: Tox. & 

App. Pharm. 19(2):416. (Abstract 144; also In unpublished submission 

received Jun 17, 1976 under 201-118; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., 

Washington, DC; CDL:224738-B) ton, DC; CDL:224738-B) 

0160000 2049115 or 

2059323 Hudson and Tucker

71-5 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

32957 DER not 

located

Bishop, J.L.; Penner, J.; McClelland, L. (1971) Aqualin^(R)I Herbicide 

in Irrigation Canal vs. Ducks. (Unpublished study received Oct 29, 1971 

under 201-118; prepared in cooperation with Magna Corp. and East 

Contra Costa County (California), Irrigation District, submitted by 

Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000772-D) 

67121 DER not 

located

Shell Chemical Company (1971) Toxicity of Aqualin to Ducks and 

Muskrats. (Compilation; unpublished study received Oct 29, 1971 

under 201-118; CDL:227781-B) 

72-1 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Fish

MRID Citation Reference

34210 or 69192 No DER 

locatedcited in 

reviews -

2000822

Bond, C.E.; Lewis, R.H.; Fryer, J.L. (1960) Toxicity of various 

herbicidal materials to fishes. Pages 96-101, In Transactions of the 1959 

Seminar of Biological Problems in Water Pollution. By Robert A. Taft 

Engineering Center. Cincinnati, Ohio: U.S. Public Health Service. 

(Technical report W60-3; published study; CDL:230691-H) 

95728 Open lit- No 

DER – cited 

in review 

2000849

Bond, C.E. (1959) Letter sent to E.F. Feichtmeir dated May 20, 1959 

Toxicity of F-98 to rainbow trout and chinook salmon. (Unpublished 

study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; prepared by Oregon State 

College, Experiment Station, Dept of Fish and Game Management, 

submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000755-H) 

95729 DER not 

located

Loeb, H.A. (1959) Letter sent to C. George Green dated Apr 7, 1959 

Toxicity of F-98 to fishes. (New York, Conservation Dept., Div. of Fish 

and Game, Bureau of Fish Laboratory; unpublished study; 

CDL:000755-I) 

117661 DER not 

located

New York, Conservation Dept. (1959) Preliminary Test: Lab Report 

No. 34. (Unpublished study received Oct 31, 1966 under unknown 

admin. no.; prepared by Div. of Fish and Game, Bureau of Fish 
Page 28 of 43

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

CDL:106770-D) 

117662 DER not 

located

Shell Chemical Co. (1954) Toxicity of Acrolein: Various Fish. 

(Unpublished study received Oct 31, 1966 under unknown admin. no.; 

CDL:106770-E) 

129075 or 

45205107

Check EFED 

library- EPA 

publications

Lorz, H.; Glenn, S.; Williams, R.; et al. (1979) Effects of Selected 

Herbicides on Smolting of Coho Salmon. By Oregon, Dept. of Fish and 

Wildlife, Research and Development Section and U.S. Forest Service, 

Pacific Northwest Forest and Range Experiment Station. Corvallis, OR: 

US EPA. (EPA-600/3-79-071; Grant #R- 804283; pages i,iv-x,1,6-

14,40-50,83-85,92 only; also In unpublished submission received Jun 

24, 1983 under 464-502; submitted by Dow Chemical U.S.A., Midland, 

MI; CDL:250605-N) 

41513201 2000871 Bowman, J. (1990) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus): Lab Project Number: 37669. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-chemistry Laboratories, 

Inc. 35 p. 

41513202 2000891

2000893

Bowman, J. (1990) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Lab Project Number: 37670. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-chemistry Laboratories, 

Inc. 285 p. 

41513203 2000872 Bowman, J. (1990) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss): Lab Project Number: 37670. 

Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-chemistry Laboratories, 

Inc. 285 p.

34217 DER not 

locatedsummary 

paper?

Shell Chemical Company (1965?) Acute Toxicity of Aqualin^(R)I Herbicide to Fish. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; 

CDL:000755-R) 

117653 DER not 

locatedFWS report 

?

Dewitt, J. (1962) Field and Laboratory Investigations on Acrolein as a 

Fish Poison. Progress rept., Jun 1-Dec 31, 1962. (Unpublished study 

received on unknown date under unknown admin. no.; submitted by 

Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; CDL:106752-A) 

5008271 2000892

2059325

Macek, K.J.; Lindberg, M.A.; Sauter, S.; Buxton, K.S.; Costa, P.A. 

(1976) Toxicity of Four Pesticides to Water Fleas and Fathead 

Minnows. Duluth, Minn.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Research Laboratory. (EPA report no. EPA-600/3-76-

099; available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-262 912) 

34209 DER not 

locatedreferenced in 

2000849 and 

2000880

Burdick, G.E.; Dean, H.J.; Harris, E.J. (1964) Toxicity of Aqualin to 

fingerling brown trout and bluegills. New York Fish and Game Journal 

11(2):106-114. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 5, 1968 

under 201-118; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:000755-C) 

34210 Referenced 

in 2000849

Bond, C.E.; Lewis, R.H.; Fryer, J.L. (1957) Toxicity of Various 

Herbicidal Materials to Fishes. Pages 96-101,In Effects of Pesticides on 

Aquatic Life. By N.P. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 5, 

1968 under 201-118; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, 

D.C.; CDL:000755-D) 
Page 29 of 43

34212 No DER 

located

Shell Chemical Company (1954) Herbicide Toxicity to Fish. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; CDL: 000755-J) 

ECOTOX 12665 2059322 Holcombe, GW. ECOTOX Article review Acute toxicity of 13 

chemicals to 12 FW species including fish, inverts, and amphibians

E014314 2059321 Sabourin, T.D. 96 Hour Acute and 32 Day Toxicity with Fathead 

Minnow at Battelle Institute- Review of open literature

72-2 Acute Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates

MRID Citation Reference

117660 Summary 

report- No 

DER located

Washington, Dept. of Fisheries (1959) Screening of Organic Herbicide 

Acrolein. (Unpublished study received Oct 31, 1966 under unknown 

admin. no.; prepared by Shellfish Laboratory--Point Whitney, Shellfish 

Management Unit, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:106770-B) 

41513202 2000891

2000893

Blakemore, G. (1990) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: 37671. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 269 p.

41513203 2000872 Blakemore, G. (1990) Acute Flow-through Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Daphnia magna: Lab Project Number: 37671. Unpublished study prepared by Analytical Bio-chemistry Laboratories, Inc. 269 p. 

5008271 2000892

2059325

Macek, K.J.; Lindberg, M.A.; Sauter, S.; Buxton, K.S.; Costa, P.A. 

(1976) Toxicity of Four Pesticides to Water Fleas and Fathead 

Minnows. Duluth, Minn.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Environmental Research Laboratory. (EPA report no. EPA-600/3-76-

099; available from: NTIS, Springfield, VA; PB-262 912) 

72-3 Acute Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Organisms

MRID Citation Reference

43164301 2000894 Bettencourt, M. (1994) Acrolein--Acute Toxicity to Mysid Shrimp 

(Americamysis bahia formerly Mysidopsis bahia) Under Flow-Through 

Conditions: Final Report: Lab Project Number: 94-1-5148: 

12167.0292.6106.515. Unpublished study prepared by Springborn 

Labs, Inc. 88 p. 

43164302 2000873 Bettencourt, M. (1994) Acrolein--Acute Toxicity to Eastern Oyster 

(Crassostrea virginica) Under Flow-Through Conditions: Final Report: 

Lab Project Number: 94-2-5151: 12167.0292.6107.504. Unpublished 

study prepared by Springborn Labs, Inc. 88 p. 

43225202 2000883 Bettencourt, M. (1994) Acrolein--Acute Toxicity to Sheepshead 

Minnow (Cyprinodon variegatus) Under Flow-Through Conditions: 

Final Report: Lab Project Number: 94-1-5150: 12167.0292.6105. 505. 

Unpublished study prepared by Springborn Labs., Inc. 91 p. 
Page 30 of 43

45205107 2080863

2060320

2065167

2065167

2065168

Lorz, H.; Glenn, S.; Williams, R. et al. (1979) Effects of Selected 

Herbicides on Smolting of Coho Salmon: Lab Project Number: R804283: EPA-600/3-79-071. Unpublished study prepared by Corvallis 

Environmental Research Laboratory. 103 p.

53234 SummaryNo DER 

located

Shell Chemical Company (19??) Relative Toxicity of Herbicides to 

Estuarine Organisms. (Unpublished study received Jan 14, 1959 under 

unknown admin. no.; CDL:106744-B) 

40228401 2049116

2059324

USEPA Gulfbreeze Laboratory Studies- see Fed Lab Data folder in 

SAN 3 species tested -see 2000822 summary of data under Butler 1965

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

MRID Citation Reference

32930 Not specific 

to AcroleinDER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1962) Studies Related to the Use of 

Algicides and Aquatic Herbicides in Ontario. (Unpublished study 

received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; prepared by Ontario, Water 

Resources Commission, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000768-A) 

34208 DER not 

located

DeWitt, J.W.; Gooch, V.; Woodward, R. (1962) Field and Laboratory 

Investigations on Acrolein as a Fish Poison. (Unpublished study 

including letter dated Feb 11, 1963 from J.W. DeWitt to Eric 

Heuermann, received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; prepared in cooperation with Humboldt State College, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., 

Washington, D.C.; CDL:000755-B) 

34209 DER not 

located

Burdick, G.E.; Dean, H.J.; Harris, E.J. (1964) Toxicity of Aqualin to 

fingerling brown trout and bluegills. New York Fish and Game Journal 

11(2):106-114. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 5, 1968 

under 201-118; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; 

CDL:000755-C)

34210

69192

DER not 

located

Bond, C.E.; Lewis, R.H.; Fryer, J.L. (1957) Toxicity of Various 

Herbicidal Materials to Fishes. Pages 96-101, In Effects of Pesticides 

on Aquatic Life. By N.P. (Also In unpublished submission received Jan 

5, 1968 under 201-118; submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, 

D.C.; CDL:000755-D)

34212 DER not 

located

Shell Chemical Company (1954) Herbicide Toxicity to Fish|. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; CDL: 000755-J)

34214 DER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1963) Report on Algicides and Aquatic 

Herbicides. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201- 118; 

prepared by Ontario, Water Resources Commission, submitted by Shell 

Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000755-N)

138964 Open lit 

DER not 

located

Folmar, L. (1976) Overt avoidance reaction of rainbow trout fry to nine 

herbicides. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination & Toxicology 

15(5):509-514. (Also In unpublished submission received Feb 6, 1984 
Page 31 of 43

under 239-2424; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., Richmond, CA; 

CDL:252355-D) 

138965 Open lit 

DER not 

located 

Folmar, L. (1978) Avoidance chamber responses of mayfly nymphs 

exposed to eight herbicides. Bulletin of Environmental Contam- ination 

& Toxicology 17:312-318. (Also In unpublished submission received 

Feb 6, 1984 under 239-2424; submitted by Chevron Chemical Co., 

Richmond, CA; CDL:252355-E) 

46269 DER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1963) Report on Algicides and Aquatic 

Herbicides. (Ontario, Water Resources Commission, Laboratory 

Division, Biology Branch, unpublished study; CDL:107773-B)

E014314 2059321 Sabourin, T.D. 32 Day Toxicity with Fathead Minnow at Battelle 

Institute- Review of open literature

72-7 Simulated or Actual Field Testing

MRID Citation Reference

32930 DER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1962) Studies Related to the Use of 

Algicides and Aquatic Herbicides in Ontario. (Unpublished study 

received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; prepared by Ontario, Water 

Resources Commission, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000768-A)

32941 DER not 

located

Battelle Memorial Institute (1970) Degradation and Depletion of 

Herbicides in Drainage Waters and Accumulation of Residues in Crops 

Irrigated with Treated Water: Final Report--Acrolein. (Unpublished 

study received Aug 7, 1970 under 201-118; submit- ted by Shell 

Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000760-A) 

34211 DER not 

located

Shell Chemical Company (1959) Efficacy of Herbicides on Aquatic 

Species|: Project No. PR 59-1. (Unpublished study including project 

nos. P.R. 52-2 and 59-3, received Jan 5, 1968 under 201- 118; 

CDL:000755-E)

34214 DER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1963) Report on Algicides and Aquatic 

Herbicides. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201- 118; 

prepared by Ontario, Water Resources Commission, submitted by Shell 

Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000755-N)

95726 DER not 

located

Schoeneman, D. (1959) Letter sent to E.F. Feichtmeir dated Nov 16, 

1959 Herbicidal efficacy of acrolein and its effects on animals. 

(Washington, Dept. of Fisheries; unpublished study; CDL: 000755-F)

95727 DER not 

located

Lindsay, C.E. (1959) Letter sent to E.F. Feichtmeir dated Nov 9, 1959 

Toxicity of acrolein as an algacide. (Washington, Dept. of Fisheries, 

Shellfish Laboratory, Shellfish Management Unit; unpublished study; 

CDL:000755-G)
Page 32 of 43

123-2 Aquatic plant growth

MRID Citation Reference

42620901 2000875 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of Acrolein to

Anabaena flos-aquae: Lab Project Number: B962-01-2. Unpublished 

study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 36 p. 

42620902 2000884 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of Acrolein to Navicula 

pelliculosa: Lab Project Number: B962-01-3. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 36 p 

42620903 2000874 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Skeletonema costatum: Lab Project Number: B962-01-4. Unpublished 

study prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 36 p. 

42620904 2000885 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of Acrolein to Lemna

gibba G3: Lab Project Number: B962-01-5. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 34 p. 

42620905 2000895 Hughes, J.; Alexander, M. (1992) The Toxicity of Acrolein to 

Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata [formerly Selenastrum 

capricornutum]: Lab Project Number: B962-01-1. Unpublished study 

prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. 36 p. 

95727 letter Lindsay, C.E. (1959) Letter sent to E.F. Feichtmeir dated Nov 9, 1959 

Toxicity of acrolein as an algacide. (Washington, Dept. of Fisheries, 

Shellfish Laboratory, Shellfish Management Unit; unpublished study; 

CDL:000755-G) 

850.4225 Seedling emergence, Tier II

MRID Citation Reference

48643801 DER not 

located

Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2011) Magnacide H Herbicide 

(Acrolein): A Tier II Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test 

Substance on Seedling Emergence of Ten Species of Plants: Final 

Report. Project Number: 458/101. Unpublished study prepared by 

Wildlife International, Ltd. 108p.

850.4250 Vegetative vigor, Tier II

MRID Citation Reference

48643802 DER not

 located

Porch, J.; Krueger, H.; Martin, K. (2011) Magnacide H Herbicide 

(Acrolein): A Tier II Toxicity Test to Determine the Effects of the Test 
Page 33 of 43

Substance on Vegetative Vigor of Ten Species of Plants: Final Report. 

Project Number: 458/102. Unpublished study prepared by Wildlife 

International, Ltd. 138p

850.7100 Data reporting for environmental chemistry methods

MRID Citation Reference

49373003 DER not 

 located

Robinson, J. (2014) Acrolein and Potential Transformation Products: 

Validation of Analytical Methods. Project Number: 11/0089/D, 

BR0749/B. Unpublished study prepared by AstraZeneca UK, Ltd. 52p

Non-Guideline Studies

MRID Citation Reference

44359001 2059326 Schwab, D. (1997) The Effects of Magnacide H Plus in Irrigation Water 

on Lettuce Growth and Yield: Lab Project Number: 43776: ABC 

43776R: 43776R. Unpublished study prepared by ABC Labs., Inc. 103 

p. 

68234 DER not

located

Bruns, V.F.; Yeo, R.R.; Arle, H.F. (1964) Tolerance of Certain Crops to 

Several Aquatic Herbicides in Irrigation Water. By U.S. Agricultural 

Research Service, Crops Research Div. in cooperation with the 

Washington, Montana, and Arizona Agricultural Experiment Stations. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. (Technical bulletin 1229; 

available from U.S. Government Printing Office; published study; 

CDL:231431-T) 

117665 DER not 

located- field 

trials see 

2000822-

referenced

Ferguson, F.; Blondeau, R. (1962) Report on Aqualin Herbicide-molluscicide Trials in Sudan and Tanganyika: MHO/PA/102.62. (Unpublished study received Dec 6, 1965 under unknown admin. no.; 

prepared in cooperation with World Health Organization, CDC Puerto 

Rico Field Station, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, DC; 

CDL:121123-A) 

34214 

or 46269

Non specific 

DER not 

located

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1963) Report on Algicides and Aquatic 

Herbicides. (Unpublished study received Jan 5, 1968 under 201- 118; 

prepared by Ontario, Water Resources Commission, submitted by Shell 

Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000755-N) 

32930 DER not 

located –

field 

observations

Swabey, Y.H.; Schenk, C.F. (1962) Studies Related to the Use of 

Algicides and Aquatic Herbicides in Ontario. (Unpublished study 

received Jan 5, 1968 under 201-118; prepared by Ontario, Water 

Resources Commission, submitted by Shell Chemical Co., Washington, D.C.; CDL:000768-A) 
Page 34 of 43

Appendix B. Ecological Model Results

A. Screening Imbibition Model (SIP; version 1.0)

Table 1. Inputs

Parameter Value

Chemical name Acrolein

Solubility (in water at 25oC; mg/L) 273.6

Mammalian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 10.3

Mammalian test species laboratory rat

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Mammalian NOAEL (mg/kg-bw) 3

Mammalian test species

Body weight (g) of "other" mammalian species

Avian LD50 (mg/kg-bw) 9.1

Avian test species mallard duck

Body weight (g) of "other" avian species

Mineau scaling factor 1.15

Mallard NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 0

Bobwhite quail NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) 0

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for other bird species 0

Body weight (g) of other avian species 0

NOAEC (mg/kg-diet) for 2nd other bird species 0

Body weight (g) of 2nd other avian species 0

Table 2. Mammalian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 47.0592 47.0592

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 7.9224 0.0000

Ratio of exposure to toxicity 5.9401 0.0000

Conclusion*

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for mammals

Due to insufficient data, 

risk cannot be precluded

Table 3. Avian Results

Parameter Acute Chronic

Upper bound exposure (mg/kg-bw) 221.6160 221.6160

Adjusted toxicity value (mg/kg-bw) 4.7250 0.0000

Ratio of exposure to acute toxicity 46.9033 0.0000

Conclusion*

Exposure through drinking 

water alone is a potential 

concern for birds

Due to insufficient data, 

risk cannot be precluded

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

when aggregated with other routes (i.e., diet, inhalation, dermal), pesticide exposure through drinking water 

may contribute to a total exposure that has potential for effects to non-target animals.
Page 35 of 43

Welcome to the EFED 

Screening Tool for Inhalation Risk

This tool is designed to provide the risk assessor with a rapid method for determining the potential

significance of the inhalation exposure route to birds and mammals in a risk assessment.

Input

Application and Chemical Information

Enter Chemical Name Acrolein

Enter Chemical Use Aquatic

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

If Spray What Type (enter ground or air) air

Enter Chemical Molecular Weight (g/mole) 56.06

Enter Chemical Vapor Pressure (mmHg) 2.68E+02

Enter Application Rate (lb a.i./acre) 0.534

Toxicity Properties

Bird

Enter Lowest Bird Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 9.1

Enter Mineau Scaling Factor 1.15

Enter Tested Bird Weight (kg) 0.178

Mammal

Enter Lowest Rat Oral LD50 (mg/kg bw) 10.3

Enter Lowest Rat Inhalation LC50 (mg/L) 17

Duration of Rat Inhalation Study (hrs) 4

Enter Rat Weight (kg) 0.35

Output

Results Avian (0.020 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.09E+05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.02E+05

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 8.37E+01

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.21E+03 Proceed to Refinements

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) not applicable

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 not applicable not applicable

Results Mammalian (0.015 kg )

Maximum Vapor Concentration in Air at Saturation 

(mg/m3) 8.09E+05

Maximum 1-hour Vapor Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) 1.28E+05
Page 36 of 43

Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.01E+03

Ratio of Vapor Dose to Adjusted Inhalation LD50 1.26E+02 Proceed to Refinements

Maximum Post-treatment Spray Inhalation Dose (mg/kg) not applicable

Ratio of Droplet Inhalation Dose to Adjusted Inhalation 

LD50 not applicable not applicable

Summary of contact and exposure estimates used for foliar applications and soil treatments 

of pesticides for Tier 1 risk assessments for bees.
Page 37 of 43

Appendix C. Pollinator Data Requirements

Study Title: Honey bee Adult Acute Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. 

With eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants 

and subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential acute effects to adult honey bees 

and other insect pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available 

toxicity studies do not address possible effects of oral exposure on adult terrestrial insect survival. 

Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and 

subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute oral toxicity of this 

compound to adult honey bees and other insect pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for 

bees using the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier 1 laboratorybased acute oral toxicity studies of individual adult bees as a critical component of the screeninglevel risk assessment process for examining potential adverse effects from specific routes of 

exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-riskassessment-guidance. Additional guidance on the honey bee oral toxicity test design can be found 

in OECD Test Guideline 213 (http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9721301e.pdf?expires=1423074617&id=id&accname=guest&ch

ecksum=2F0764FCB4DCF01D32382952A2E995C3) 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 acute oral toxicity data on adult honey bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level 

assessment of potential risk non-target organisms such as federally listed threatened or endangered 

and non-listed terrestrial invertebrate insects, including pollinators, from acute oral exposures to 

pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for 

terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct and indirect 

effects on a broad range of taxa. This study will also provide information with which to compare 

whether oral toxicity estimates differ from contact toxicity estimates obtained from other Tier 1

studies. If acute oral effects data for adult honey bees are not available, risks to terrestrial insects 

from acute oral exposure will be assumed.

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or 

is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated 

critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk, which will limit the flexibility 

of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
Page 38 of 43

Study Title: Honey bee Larvae Acute Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. 

With eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants 

and subsequently brought back to the hive where developing larvae and pupae may be exposed. 

Therefore, potential adverse effects to developing bees could result from exposure to pesticide 

residues. Available toxicity studies do not address possible effects on brood (larvae and pupae) 

survival/development. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with 

pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the acute 

toxicity of this compound to bee brood. 

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for 

bees using the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier 1 laboratorybased acute toxicity studies of individual honey bee larvae as a critical component of the screeninglevel risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of exposure. The 

guidance be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessmentguidance. Additional guidance on larval honey bee toxicity test design can be found in OECD Test 

Guideline 237 (http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9713171e.pdf?expires=1422485600&id=id&accname=guest&ch

ecksum=D8E07C2B1DF77BF096C3B29F55BF86A7). In some cases, information pertaining to 

acute toxicity to honey bee larvae may be obtained with the chronic honey bee larval test thereby 

negating the need for separate acute and chronic larval toxicity tests.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 acute toxicity data on honey bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level 

assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or 

endangered and non-listed terrestrial invertebrates, including pollinators, and/or modify their 

designated critical habitat from acute exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce 

uncertainties associated with the risk assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve 

EPA’s understanding of the potential effects on terrestrial species and whether there is a differential 

sensitivity of larval bees relative to adult bees. If acute effects data for larvae are not available, risks 

to terrestrial insects from acute exposure will be assumed.

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or 

is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated 

critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility 

of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
Page 39 of 43

Study Title: Honey Bee Adult Chronic Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. 

With eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants 

and subsequently brought back to the hive. Therefore, potential chronic effects to adult honey bees 

and other pollinators from oral exposure to some pesticides could exist. Currently available toxicity 

studies do not address possible lethal and sublethal effects of chronic oral exposure on adult 

terrestrial invertebrates and will assist in determining whether the sensitivity of adult bees differs 

from that of earlier life stages. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated 

with pesticide residues, and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine the 

chronic oral toxicity of this compound to adult honey bees and other pollinators.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for 

bees using the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier 1 laboratorybased chronic oral toxicity studies of individual adult honey bees as a critical component of the 

screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of 

exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinatorrisk-assessment-guidance. Although study design elements for the chronic 10-day oral toxicity 

test with honey bees are similar to the OECD TG 213 acute oral toxicity test ( http://www.oecdilibrary.org/docserver/download/9721301e.pdf?expires=1422484908&id=id&accname=guest&ch

ecksum=C38495D2A570AC2216CFB1F223D24AA7), EPA requires that the proposed protocol 

for this study be submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 chronic toxicity data on adult bees serve as a foundation for the screening-level 

assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or 

endangered species and non-listed terrestrial invertebrates, including pollinators, from chronic oral 

exposures to pesticides. The data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk 

assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct 

and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect 

pollinators and to determine whether adult toxicity differs substantially from other life stages 

evaluated in other Tier 1 tests. If chronic oral effects data for adults are not available, risks to 

terrestrial insects from chronic exposure will be assumed.

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or 

is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or their designated critical 

habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of 

pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
Page 40 of 43

Study Title: Honey Bee Larvae Chronic Oral Toxicity

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. 

For eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive where larvae and pupae may be exposed. Therefore, 

potential effects to developing bees could result from chronic exposure to pesticide residues. 

Available toxicity studies do not address possible chronic effects on brood (larvae and pupae) 

survival. Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, 

and subsequently brought back to the hive, it is important to determine chronic larval/pupal toxicity 

and whether adult emergence is adversely affected. This study will provide information on whether 

honey bee larvae differ in sensitivity from adult bees following chronic exposure.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for 

bees using the honey bee as a surrogate test species. The guidances discusses Tier 1 laboratorybased chronic toxicity studies of individual honey bee larvae as a critical component of the 

screening-level risk assessment process for examining potential risks from specific routes of 

exposure. The guidance can be found at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-riskassessment-guidance. Additional information on larval honey bee toxicity repeat exposure test 

design can be found in the OECD draft guidance 

(http://www.oecd.org/env/ehs/testing/Draft_GD_honeybees_rep_exp_for_2nd_CR_25_November

_2013.pdf). Although study design elements for the chronic 21-day toxicity test with honey bee 

larvae have been drafted, EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study be submitted for 

review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test. 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

The Tier 1 chronic toxicity data on bee larvae serve as a foundation for the screening-level 

assessment of potential risk to non-target organisms including federally listed threatened or 

endangered and non-listed terrestrial invertebrates, including insect pollinators, from chronic 

exposures to pesticides. These data will be used to reduce uncertainties associated with the risk 

assessment for terrestrial invertebrates and will improve EPA’s understanding of the potential direct 

and indirect lethal and sublethal effects on a broad range of terrestrial species, particularly insect 

pollinators. These data will also assist in determining whether early life stages of the bee differ in 

their sensitivity to pesticides relative to adults. If chronic effects data for larvae are not available, 

risks to terrestrial insects from chronic exposure will be assumed.

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued 

registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or 

is likely to adversely affect listed threatened or endangered species and/or modify their designated 

critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility 

of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in use restrictions. 
Page 41 of 43

Study Title: Semi-field Testing for Pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies)

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Tier 2 studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment where acute and/or chronic 

risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates. Terrestrial invertebrates are likely to 

be impacted if exposed to pesticides in various use settings. For eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be 

transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and subsequently brought back to the hive and may 

adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) and adult bees. Screening-level (Tier 1) studies 

of individual bees do not address possible effects and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level. 

Because of the potential for pollen and nectar to be contaminated with pesticide residues, and subsequently 

brought back to the hive, it is important to determine whether bee colonies may be negatively affected under 

relatively controlled exposure conditions of a semi-field study. In addition to providing effects data, these 

studies can provide data on pesticide residues in pollen/nectar of treated plants.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using

the honey bee as a surrogate test species. This guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found 

at: http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance, Additional information on 

honey bee colony studies under semi-field conditions can be found in the OECD Guidance 75 

(http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=env/jm/mono%282007%2922&do

clanguage=en). Due to the complexities of this study, EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study 

be submitted for review EPA prior to initiating the test.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? 

Tier 2 colony-level data will be used to assess potential risk to non-target organisms including listed and 

non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to determine whether effects observed in the screeninglevel (Tier 1) laboratory-based studies of individual bees are evident in colony-level studies under semi-field 

conditions. The Tier2 semi-field test of whole colonies is a relatively controlled study, i.e., bees are confined 

to a specific area, that is designed to represent potential field-level exposure and account for hive dynamics, 

which are not achievable from other pollinator studies. This study will be used to determine whether adverse 

effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to 

refine risk estimates derived in the screening-level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. 

Measured residues in pollen/nectar can also be used to refine risk estimates derived from model-based or 

default values in the screening-level assessment.

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration 

of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these 

data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with 

FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions. 
Page 42 of 43

Study Title: Semi-field Testing for Pollinators (tunnel or colony feeding studies)

Rationale for Requiring the Data

For eusocial bees, pesticide residues may be transferred to pollen and/or nectar of treated plants and 

subsequently brought back to the hive and may adversely affect developing brood (egg, larvae, and pupae) 

and adult bees. Tier 2 feeding studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment where 

acute and/or chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates based on Tier 1

studies of individual bees. Feeding studies utilize free foraging bee colonies that are “dosed” with specific 

quantities of test material and represent a means of ensuring exposure to the test material through spiked 

pollen and/or sugar solutions fed to the colony while still allowing the bees to forage freely. Since bee 

colonies are not confined to enclosures, colonies can be exposed for longer duration periods without 

subjecting the bees to stress that typically results from Tier 2 tunnel studies. Available toxicity studies of 

individual bees (Tier 1) conducted to support screening-level assessments do not address possible effects 

and/or exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level. It is therefore important to determine whether bee 

colonies may be negatively affected where bees are free foraging and have the option to collect/consume 

alternative forage items beyond the spiked food. Since multiple dose levels can be more readily tested, 

feeding studies can help to define dose-response relationships at the whole colony level.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using

the honey bee as a surrogate. This guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional information on 

honey bee colony feeding studies can be found in the EPPO Guidance 170 

(www.nationalbeeunit.com/downloadDocument.cfm?id=191). Although study design elements for the feeding 

study are available through the EPPO Guidance 170, EPA requires that the proposed protocol for this study be 

submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test. 

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used?

Tier 2 colony feeding data will be used to assess potential risk to non-target organisms including listed and 

non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species. The colony feeding study is designed to represent potential 

field-level exposure and account for hive dynamics using longer duration exposure periods than are possible 

in Tier 2 tunnel studies. This study will be used to determine whether potential adverse effects to insect 

pollinators at the whole colony level when bees are able to forage naturally beyond the spiked food. Results 

from the feeding study will help to refine the screening-level risk assessment for beneficial terrestrial 

invertebrates that were based on Tier 1 studies on individual bees. Since feeding studies can help to define a 

dose-response relationship at the colony level, the studies can provide a means of determining exposure 

thresholds below which the likelihood of adverse effects on colonies may be low.

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

The Tier 2 colony-level data will be used to refine screening-level risk estimates derived using Tier 1 

laboratory-based data on individual bees. The Tier 2 data will help to inform the determination required 

under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable 

adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely affect federally listed threatened or endangered 

species or their designated critical habitat. Without these data, EPA may need to presume risk which will 

limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant 

use restrictions. 
Page 43 of 43

Study Title: Field Testing for Pollinators 

Rationale for Requiring the Data

Tier 3 studies are conditional on the outcome of the screening-level assessment (Tier 1) where acute and/or 

chronic risk levels of concern have been exceeded for terrestrial invertebrates and where Tier 2 studies either 

under semi-field tunnel conditions and/or feeding studies have indicated potential adverse effects at the 

colony level. Available toxicity studies from lower-tier studies do not address possible effects and/or 

exposure to pesticide residues at the colony-level under actual pesticide use conditions and where specific 

uncertainties regarding the likelihood of exposure and/or effects remain. Full-field studies also provide an 

opportunity to measure residues in pollen and nectar as well as various matrices (beebread, honey, wax) 

within the colony to obtain a more realistic understanding of exposure.

The Office of Pesticide Programs has made available a guidance regarding ecological testing for bees using 

the honey bee as a surrogate. This guidance describes the tiered testing process and can be found at 

http://www2.epa.gov/pollinator-protection/pollinator-risk-assessment-guidance. Additional information on 

honey bee colony studies under full-field conditions can be found in the OCSPP 850.3040 

(http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPA-HQ-OPPT-2009-0154-0018). Useful guidance is also 

available through OCSPP 850.2500 (Field Testing of Terrestrial Wildlife 

http://www.epa.gov/ocspp/pubs/frs/publications/Test_Guidelines/series850.htm) Although design element 

for the full-field colony-level study are available through the 850.3040 and 850.2500, EPA requires that the 

proposed protocol for this study be submitted for review and approval by EPA prior to initiating the test; the 

protocol should attempt to address specific uncertainties identified in lower-tier studies.

Practical Utility of the Data

How will the data be used? 

Tier 3 colony-level data will be used to further characterize potential risk to non-target organisms including 

listed and non-listed terrestrial social invertebrate species and to refine screening-level risk estimates that 

were based on individual bee responses. The semi-field test is a controlled study that is designed to represent 

potential field-level exposure under relatively controlled conditions and account for hive dynamics, which 

are not achievable from lower-tier pollinator studies. This study will be used to determine whether adverse 

effects to insect pollinators at the whole colony level, may result for the use of pesticides and will help to 

refine the screening-level risk estimates for beneficial terrestrial invertebrates. This study will also be used 

to determine whether more refined (Tier 3) studies are needed to characterize risk. 

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

The data will inform the determination required under FIFRA or the ESA as to whether continued registration 

of a pesticide is likely to result in unreasonable adverse effects to non-target species or is likely to adversely 

affect federally listed threatened or endangered species or their designated critical habitat. Without these 

data, EPA may need to presume risk which will limit the flexibility of pesticide products to comply with 

FIFRA and the ESA, and could result in significant use restrictions.