UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO~ AGENCY

WASHINGTON DC. 20460

C "FICE OfCHEMtCAl. SAFETY

,A/4D POUUTK>N PREVENTION

PC Code: 099050

01' Barcode: 0390070

MEMORANDUM

DATE: July 2 1, 20 11

SUBJECT: Tier I Drinking Water Exposure Assessment for the Secti on -, New Use of

Acetamiprid on Soybeans to Control a Variety oflnsect Pests

T O: Michael Doheny, Chemist

Christina Swartz, Branch Chief

Risk Assessment Branch 2

Health Effects Division (HED)

FROM:

Jennifer Urbanski, Risk Manager Reviewer

Venus Eagle, Product Manager

Registration Division (7505P)

Katrina White, Ph.D. Biologist v'or~~ L.,\:..k ?!.;J6/' c, \

Environmental Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

REVIEWED rv " BY: Cheryl Sutton, Ph.D. , Environmental Scientist t. '"'-v

Environmenta l Risk Branch IV

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

APPROVED

BY: Marietta Echeverria, Branch Chief fM. Environmental Risk Branch IV \

Environmental Fate and Effects Division (7507P)

Executive Summa ry

This memo summarizes the Tier I estimated drinking water concentrations· EDWC) of

acetamiprid (PC Code 099050, (E)-Nl -[(6-chloro-3-pyridyl)methylj-N2-cy mo-Nlmethylacetamidine) in surface water and in ground water in support ofthe I-roposed Section 3

new use of acetamiprid for control of chewing, sucking, and piercing insect s on soybeans.

28
Nippon Soda Co LTr>is seeking registration for a liquid formulation (Justice® Insecticide, EPA

Registration Number S033-XXX I

) that contains 13% acetamiprid and 10% bifenthrin and the

technical formulatior (Acetamiprid Technical; EPA Registration Number 8033·20) that contains

99.5% acetamiprid. This assessment focuses only on the active ingredient acetamiprid;

bifenthrin is not assessed. Ground, aerial, and chemigation applications are proposed. This

assessment cons idered a maximum seasonal rate of 0.08 Ibs a.i.lA for the proposed new use on

soybeans.

The EDWCs for bod 1 surface and ground water recommended for use in HED's human health

dietary risk assessmett are summarized in Table 1. The EDWCs resulting from the proposed

application rate are lover than the EDWCs for surface and ground water in the previous drinking

water assessments fa " acetamiprid (D364248). Previous drinking water assessments used input

values based on various kinetic models and truncated data sets. The degradation kinetics for this

assessment were rect..culated using all data and the single first-order mode l. Kirnetics were also

estimated assuming t-e t unextracted residue s were the parent compound for some studies.

Therefore, EDWCs '" ere estimated using the new input parameters and the previously evaluated

use scenarios. Additionally, a percent cropped area was not applied to the modeled values

because acetamiprid is registered for use in residential areas, domestic dwellings, rights of way,

and on ornamentals. vlany of these use panerns have not been previously assessed and it is not

known if this risk as-cssment evaluated the highest use rates on all acetami prid labels; however,

the reponed values a-e the highest values based on previously evaluated uses. The resulting

EDWCs are very similar to the maximum concentrations previously estimated?

No monitoring data ere currently available to further characterize potential drinking water

expo sure.

I These are the highest L )WCs for the proposed and previously eva luated use scenanos.

..

Source or Drinking \\' II ter

Acet amiprid concent ration in

drin king water (ug/L)

Surface water drinking v arer sources

acute: 24.70

chronic: 7.09 .

Groundwater drink ing ".ater sources 0.004

..

Table I. Tier I ED\VCs for drinking wa ter risk assessment based on acetamiprid use on

citrus and tree nuts 1

Proposed Use

Nippon Soda Co. L1 D is seeking registration for a Section 3 new use of acetamiprid (PC Code

099050) on soybeans for control of chewing, sucking, and piercing insects. The new uses

evaluated in this assessment are for the liquid end-use product, Justice® Insecticide (EPA

I The proposed registrations will not get a full registration number until the product is registered. The XXX reflects

the numbers that will be completed with registration.

2 Previously estimated acute and annual average surface water concentrations were 20.1 and 4.9 ppb, respectively.

Previously estimated gro cndweter concentrations were 1.6 parts per trillion.

28
registration Num ber 8033 -XXXl

, 13% acetamiprid and 10% bifenthrin) an , Acetamiprid

Technical (EPA Registration Number 8033-20, 99.5% acetamiprid). Uses i-ivolving aerial,

chemigation, ground, and airblast applications onto soybeans are proposed. This ass essment

focuses only on the ac tive ingredient acetamiprid; bifenthrin is not assessed The table on

page I0 ofthe label for Justice® Insecticide indicates that 0.014-0.07 Ibs a.i.'A may be applied

with a single application ; however, the table does not specify whether the re- te is for bifenthrin or

acetam iprid. Based on the maximum ounces of product that may be appliec, the maximum

single application rate is 0.04 Ibs acetamiprid per acre with a maximum of two applications

allowed per season and a minimum applicat ion interval ofseven days. The max imum seasonal

application rate specified on the label is 0.078 Ibs acetamiprid per acre per ! rowing season. The

maximum single application rate and maximum number of applications sug jest a maximum

seasonal app licati on rate (0.04 x 2 = 0.08 Ibs acetamipridJacre) that is highc r than the maximum

seasonal rate on the label (0.78 Ibs acetamiprid/acre). Tier I modeling does 110t allow multiple

single application rates as an input and based on the maximum number of applications and single

rate 0.08 lbs acetamiprid/acre may be applied; therefore, the calculated 0.08 lb a.i.lA rate was

assumed for mod eling. The label should clarify the max imum application rates for bifenthrin

and acetamiprid.

Environmental Fate and Transport Summary

Acetamiprid is classified as moderately mobil e using the FAO classificatior system (Kocs =

157-298 Ukg OC). The primary route of degradation is aerobic soil metalx .lism. Unextracted

residues made up a significant amount of rad ioactivity and the identity ofthe residues is

unknown in metabolism studies. Therefore, degradation rates were estimated for the parent

alone and assuming that unextracted residues were the parent. Aerobi c soil metabolism rates for

the parent ranged from < I day to six days for the pare nt and two to 99 days for the parent and

unex tracted residues in nine soils (Appendix A). Aero bic aquatic metaboli-m rates were slower

at 25 days for the parent only and 74 days for parent and unextracted resid u es in one sed iment

(MRID 44988513). Anaerobic aquatic metabolism was much slower and tl- e half-life was 325

days in a loamy sand sediment (MRID 44988512). Acetaminprid is stable 10 hydrolysis at 25°C

and aqueous photolysis is not an important degradation pathway (half-life = 34 days).

Acetamiprid may be transported to surface water and gro und water via runoff, leaching, and

spray drift. An updated summary of all envirorunental fate data is avai lable in Appendix A.

Modeling Approach and Input Parameters

The Metabolism Assessment Review Committee (MARC) reported that the residue of concern

for acetamiprid is the parent only (USEPA. 200 1). The 2009 "Tier I Drinking Water Assessment

fo r Acetamiprid Proposed Uses on Red Clover (Grown f or Seed Only), Gra-ie and Tomato

(Greenhouse)" was conducted for acetamiprid only. Therefore, this assessment will also be

conducted on acetamiprid only. Unextracted residues were observed in aerobic soil and aerobi c

aquatic metabolism studies and in some studies it was uncertain whether the-unextracted residues

1 Proposed registrations are not assigned a full registration number. The XXX's represent lumbers that will be

determined if the product is registered.

28
were parent compound.' Therefore. when it was uncertain. half-lives were estimated assuming

the unextracted residues were the parent compound. When the parent was shown to degrade at

the beginning of the study and unextracted residues did not appear until the end ofthe study. it

v.'3S assumed that the unextracted residues were not the parent compound.

EDWCs were generated using EFED's standard suite of models. The FQPA Index Reservoir

Screening Tool (FIRST version 1.1.1. March 25, 2008) is a surface water model that is used to

estimate both acute and chronic pesticide concentrations in untreated drinking water. EDWCs

from FIRST repre sent concentrations which might occur from a single l-in-l O-year storm event

following the last application of pesticide at a location more vulnerable than most locations in

the United States to runoff, regardless of the crop being produced. The model considers

reductions in dissolved concentration due to the percentage ofthe watershed which is cropped

(percent cropped are a . PCA). due to sorption of pesticide to field soil and to reservoir bonom

sediment. due to incorporation of the pesticide at the time of application, due to degradation in

soil before runoffto the reservoir, and due to degradation ofthe pesticide within the water body.

Reservoir water concentrations may be increased due to deposition of spray drift into the feeding

stream or directly into the reservoir itself. FIRST is designed to mimic a more complex

simulation using the linked PRZM3 (Carsel et al., 1997) and EXAMS 2.97.7 (Burns, 2000)

models, but requires less time and effort to complete. A more detailed description ofthe index

reservoir watershed can be found in USEPA, 2010 (USEPA, 1998, 20 IOc). The FIRST model

and users manuals may be downloaded from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

Water Models web-page (hnp:/lwv.w .epa.Qov/oppefed l zmodels/water/sfi rsn . Percent Cropped

Areas (PCA) that account for the maximum area within a watershed that may be planted with the

modeled crop are applied to concentrations predicted by FIRST according to "Guidance on

Development and Use ofPercent Cropped Area Adjustment Factors in Drinking Water Exposure

Assessments" (USEPA, 2010b). Drinking water assessments have been completed for use of

acetamiprid on clover, grapes and other climbing vines, greenhouse grown tomatoes, citrus

fruits, tree nuts. bulb vegetables, succulent legumes, strawberries, other berries, and potatoes

(D3642 48, D331596. D30 1859, D263686, D279762). All ofthese crops are agricultural crops;

therefore. a PCA of 0.87 was used in the past in estimating surface water concentrations. OPPIN

was searched (July 1;1, 2011) and there are currently registered uses in ornamentals (8033-22,

8033-107), domestic dwellings (8033-26, 8033109), rights of ways (8033-96), and residential

areas (WA060011). If a chemical has uses in a variety of land cover classes that include

residential areas, it is current policy not to use a PCA (USEPA. 20 lOb).

Screening Concentration in Ground Water (SCI-GROW v2.3, Jul. 29, 2003) is a regression

model used as a screening tool to estimate pesticide concentrations found in ground water used

as drinking water. SCI-GROW was developed by fitting a linear model to ground water

concentrations with the Relative Index of Leaching Potential (RlLP) as the independent variable.

The RlLP is a function of aerobic soil metabolism and the soil-water partition coefficient. The

output ofSCI-GRO\V represents the concentrations that might be expected in shallow

unconfined aquifers un der sandy soils, which is representative of the ground water most

vulnerable to pesticide contamination and likely to serve as a drinking water source. The SCI4 lf unextracted residues -ormed along with loss ofthe parent compo und it is possible that the unextracted residues

are the parent compound . however. if the parent degraded significantly in the beginning ofthe study and unextracted

residues did not form until the end of the study. the unextracted residues are unlikely to be the parent compound.

28
GROW model and user's manual may also be downloaded from the EPA Water Models webpage (http://wv'''\v.epa.gov/oppefed llmodelsJwater/#scigrow). PCAs are not used with the SCIGROW model.

A summary ofthe model input parameter values used in FIRST is presented in Table 2. A

summary ofthe model input parameter values used in SCI-GROW is presented in Ta ble 3.

Input parameters were selected in accordance with EFED's "Guidance for Selecting Input

Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport ofPesticides;" Version 2.1

(USEPA,2009b).

Coefficients of variation (CV) were lower for organic-carbon normalized solid water distribution

coefficients (Koc; CV=28%) as compared to solid-water distribution coeffi cients (K!;

CV 66%) ( ID 446 51884). Therefore , the mean Koc (227 Llkg DC) was used to estimate

acetamiprid concentrations in surface water in FIRST and the median Kcc Llkg-OC) was

used for SCI-GROW. The aerobic soil metabolism input value in FIRST W l':S calculated as the

90

th percentile upper confidence bound on the mean (7 days) of five half-life values and some of

the values were estimated for the parent and unextracted residues (MRIDs 44651879, 44651881,

and 44699 101). The aerobic soil metabolism input value for SCI-GROW was the median ofthe

same five half-life values. Aerobic soil metabolism values from MRIDs 44651880 and

46255603 were not used in mode ling due to the poor data quality . The proposed label allows for

ground and aerial spray applications. Therefore, EDWC for broadcast aeria l and ground spray

applications were both estimated in order to be repr esentative of all application scenarios. One

aerobic aquatic metabolism value was available (74 days in a loamy sand; !\,rRID 4498851 3) that

was estimated assuming unextracted residue s were the parent compound. The value was

multiplied by three to obtain the model input value of 222 days for FIRST. The aqueous

photolysis half-life input value is adjusted for continuous illumination as well as for

latitude/season to reflect photolysis in summer sunlight at 400 N latitude.

The FIRST output file is located in Appendix B. The SCI-GROW output fie is located in

Appendix C.

Table 2. FIRST (vI.I 0) . Input Parameter Values for Acetamiprid usc un Sovbeans .

Pa rameter Value Source Comment

Application Rate (lbs See Table 4 Proposed Label See Section titled "Proposed Use" for

a.i.lA)l full explanation.

Number of Applications See Table 4 Proposed Label

Interval between 7 Proposed Label Aooltcations (days)

Organic carbon Mean of five Koc values. See text.

partitioning coefficient 227 MRID 446 51884

(Koc;ml./s OC)

MRIDs 465188 1, Is the 90' p(;;'centile upper confidence

Aerobic Soil bound on the mean offive values, The

Metabolism Half-life 7 4465 1882, mean value was 4 days. Some ofthe

(days) 4469910 1, values were estimated for residues of 44651879

parent and unextracted residues.

28
Parameter Value Source Co mment

Wetted in? No Proposed labe l. None

Depth of Incorporation 0 Proposed label. None

(inches)

Method ofAnnlicat ion eround and aerial snrav Prooosed labe l. None

Percent Cropped Area 1.0 PCA Gu idance There are currently registered

(PeA) (USEPA. 20 10b) residential and rishts-of-wav uses.

So:~ ity in Water 4250 MRID4465 1811 Measured at 25°C

(mo L)

Aerob ic Aquatic Measured value times three to account

Metabolism Ha lf-life 222 MR ID4498851 3 for uncertainty associated with using a

(davs) sinate value.

Hydrolysis Half-life at Stable (0) MRID 44651876 No ne

nin (d.,,)

Aquatic Photolysis 34 MRID 44988509 None

Ha lf-life at pH 7 (days)

Table 3. SCI-GROW ("'2.3) Input Parameter Values for Acetamiprid Use on Soybeans

Parameter I Va lue Sou rce Comments

Applicat ion Rate (Ibs Se e Tab le 4 Proposed labe l See Section titled "Proposed Use" for

a.i.lacre) full explanation.

Number of Se e Table 4 Proposed label aoclications

Median o f five values. There is not a

K"" (mU g) 25 1 MRI D 44651884 three fold difference in observe d values.

See text.

Aerobic so il MRID 4623 5729. Value is the media n offive values.

metabolism t 'IS (days) 5.6 4792580 1. Som e val ues were calc ulated assuming

that unextracted residues were the 479 11201

parent compound.

Modeling Results

Estimated acetamiprid concentrations in surface water and ground water used for drinking water

are summarized in

28
Table 4. Use scenarios evaluated in previous drinking water assessments and the proposed uses

were evaluated. Acute estimated acetamiprid concentrati ons in surface water used for drinking

water ranged from 3.80 to 24.7 pg/L. Estimated annua l average concentrations ranged from 1.07

to 7.09 ug/L. Simulated concentrations in ground water ranged from 0.0004 to 0.004 gIL

7
Table 4. Estimated Concentrations of Acetami prid in Surface Water and Groundwater Used as a Drinking Water Source.

Bolded values are the maximum values.

Use Site/

Source

Product

Name

EIJA

Reg. No.

Single

App. Rate

(Ibs.

a.i./A)

Number

of Apps.

Seasonal

App. Rat e

(Ibs.

a.i.lA)

Interval

Bet ween

Apps.

(days)

App.

Method

Surface Water

,... .. un. I Chronic

JI~ L.. (1lJ,t/ L..)

- '-----1 --1

Soybean!

Proposed

Labe l

Soybean/

Proposed

Label

Justice

Insecticide

Justice

Insectic ide

8033-

XXX i

8033-

XXX i

0.04

0.04

2

2

Pronosert'.!! het

0.08

0.08

7

7

Aerial

Ground

3.95

3.80

1.14

1.07

0.000 4

Previous Dri nkin g Wat er Assessment Uses with Updated Modeling Numbers

Clover (for

use in !D,

OR, and WA

only)/

D364248

Grapes and

other

Climb ing

Vine Sma ll

Fruits/

0364248

Greenhousegrown

Tomatoes!

0364248

Citrus fruits!

0364248

Tree Nuts/

0364248

Assail 70

WP

Assail 30

SO

Assa il 70

WP

Assail 30

SO

TriStaI'30

SO

Assail 70

WP

Assa il 30

SO

Assa il 70

WP

Assai l 30

SO

8033-23

8033-36

8033-23

8033-36

8033 -94

8033-23

8033-36

8033-23

8033-36

0.075

0.07 5

0. 1

0.1

0.075

0.25

0.25

0. 18

0.18

2

2

2

2

2

4

4

0.075

0.075

0.2

0.2

0.15

0.55*

0.55*

0.72

0.72

None

None

14

14

3

assumed

7

7

14

14

Aerial

Aerial

Aerial s

Aeria l

Chemigation/

soil

dre nching

Aerial

Aerial

Aerial

Ae rial

4.79

4.55

8.42

7.60

8.23

24.7 0

22.7 8

17.95

14.53

1.37

1.27

2.43

2. 12

2.32

7.09

6.35

5.29

4.05

0.0004

0.00 1

0.0008

0.003

0.004

8
Potato,

Tobacco/ 3 Aerial

0 30 1859 NS NS 0.07 5 4 0.3 assumed assumed 13.54 4.00 0.002

Dome stic

Outdoor Use

Sites/

0 301859 NS NS NS NS NS NS NS NO NO NO "" v'at,ons: N~ " Ol C1 " " Nu~no{ """""" ,,; pp- PI' 't. "On

I The proposed registrations will not get a full registration number until the product is registered. The XXX reflects the numbers that will be completed with

registrat ion.

9
Monitoring Data

The following databases and sources were searc hed for monitoring information on acetamiprid :

• The United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) STORET Database

(http \\ \\'\'.I t!dbtop.htmI)

• The United States Geo logical Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality Assessment

(NAWQA) Program Data Warehouse

(http://infotre,k.er.usgs.gov/traverse/f?p- NAWQA:HOME: 140551 7206(44567)

• The USGS National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program

(http;//water. :ls!.!s.gov/nasganl)

No monitoring information was found.

Drinking Water Treatment

There is no avai lable information on the drinking water treatment effects on acetamiprid. The

EDWCs in this assessment are representative of concentrations in drinking water source water

(pre-treatment). For surface water. the conceptual model assumes that a pesticide reaches

surface water via spray drift or surface runoff and it is instantaneously mixed and concentrations

are observed in the h ater body. Acetamiprid is stable to hydrolysis. Therefore, acetamiprid will

not degrade by hydrolysis during the time that elapses from drinking water intake through

distribution to the first tap. Photolysis is not an important degradation pathway. Therefore, if

ultraviolet light were used as a means of disinfection, degradation of acetamiprid wou ld not be

expected to be significant. Acetamiprid does degrade via aerobic metabolism and some may

degrade with aerobic dige stio n. The most successful drinking water treatment process for

removal of pesticides from drinking water is thought to be treatment with granular activated

carbon (GAC) which is only used in larger drinking water treatment facilities. The ability of

GAC to remove pesticides will vary with the properties ofthe chemical, the viability ofthe

biofilm on the GAL and whether the sorption sites on GAC have reached capacity (Badriyha et

aI., 2003; Zhao et ai.. 1999). Data on the sorption of acetamiprid to GAC are not available.

Conclusions

The estimated concentrations provided in this assessment were generated from Tier 1 models and

are conservative estimates of acetamiprid concentrations in untreated drink ing water. The re

were a number of urcertainties associated with this drinking water exposure assessment. The

majo r uncertainty is whether the highest use patte rn for acetamiprid was evaluated. Another

assumption that was factored into the assessment was the additio n of the unidentified,

unextracted resid ues into the calculation ofthe aerobic soil metabolism half-li ves; however, this

had little impact on the final EDWC as recalc ulated EDWC from previously registered uses were

similar to those previously estimated. There is also uncertainty associated with the modeling

with FIRST and SCI·,GROW. They are both Tier I models and therefore could potentially overestimate the chemica l concentrations. Ifdietary risks require refinement, higher tiered models

10
and modeling scenarios can be utilized upon request. Finally, the maximum annual rate model ed

for soybeans was based on the statements on the labe l indicating that two aj.plications of five

ounces were allowed (e.g., 0.08 Ibs a LIA) and not on the maximum seasonal rate stated on the

label (0.078 Ibs a.iJA).

Literature Cited

AERU. 2009. The FOOTPRINT Pesticide Properties Database . Agriculture & Environment

Research Unit (AERU). Available at http://sitem.herts.ac.uk/aerultl ,otprintl (Accessed

July 9, 2009).

Badriyha, B. N., Ravindran, V., Den, W., & Pirbazari, M. 2003 . Bioadsorber efficiency, design,

and performance forecasting for alachlor removal. Water Research. 37.

Burns, L. A. 2000. Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMS): User Manual and System

Documentation. Revision G. EPA/6001R-00/81-023 . September 20{10. Ecosystems

Research Division. National Exposure Research Laboratory. Unite '! States

Environmental Protection Agency.

Carsel, R. F., Imhoff, J. c., Hummel , P, R., Cheplick, J. M., & Donigian Jr., J. S. 1997. PRZM-3.

A Modelf or Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root a td Unsaturated Soil

Zones: Users Manualf or Release 3.O. Memorandum From to Environmental Research

Laboratory. Office of Research and Development. United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

USEPA. 1998. An Index Reservoirf or Use in Assessing Drinking Water Exposure. Proposed

Methodsfor Basin-scale Estimation of Pesticide Concentrations in Fl owing Water and

Reservoirsfor Tolerance Reassessment. J.-. Presentation to FIFRA Science Advisory

Panel, 1998., .

USEPA. 2001. Acetamiprid Results ofthe HED Metabolism Assessment Rtview Committee.

0 278652. Memorandum From H. Bietlct, M. Doherty & P. Hurley to Y. Donovan.

Office of Prevention, Pesticides, ans Toxic Substances. United States Environmental

Protection Agency.

CFR. Part 2002 . Acetamiprid Pesticide Fact Sheet. Government Printing Office. Washington,

D.C.

USEPA. 2009a. Estimation Program Interface (EPI) Suite : United States Environmental

Protection Agenc y. Available at http://v."\\ow .epa.gov/opptlexposurc.:pubs/cpisuite.htm

(Accessed July 9, 2009).

USEPA. 2009b. Guidance f or Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the on Fate

and Transport ofPesticides, Version 2.1. Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available

at http://v.ww.epa.gov/oppefed l/models/water/input parametergu:.:lance.htm (Accessed

November 12, 2010).

USEPA. 20 1Oa. Guidancefor Reporting on the Environmental Fate and Transport of the

Stressors of Concern in the Problem Formulation for Registration Keview, Registration

Review Risk Assessments, Listed Species Litigation Assessments. New Chemical Risk

Assessments, and Other Relevant Risk Assessments. January 25, 20 ID. Environmental

Fate and Effects Division, .

II
USEPA. 20 1Ob. Guidance on Development and Use of Percent Cropped Area Adjustment

Factors in Drinking Water Exposure Assessments. Environmental Fate and Effects

Division, Office of Pesticide Programs, United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Available at !t.np:/Iv.v.w .epa.Q:ov/oppefed llmodelslwater/pca adjustment d\va.pdf

(Acce ssed N..vember 29, 2010).

USEPA. 201Oc. Guidance on Development and Use ofthe Index Reservoir in Drinking Water

Exposure Assessments. September 14, 2010. Environmental Fate and Effects Division.

Office of Pesticide Programs. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Available

at hnp:llw\vv._epa.Qov/oppefed l /models/waterlindex reser\'oir dwa.txlf (Accessed

December 9, cOlO).

USNLM. 2009 . TOX \JET Toxicology Data Network. United States National Library of

Medic ine (USNLM). Available at hn p:l/toxnet.nlm.nih.Qovl (Accessed July 9, 2009).

Zhao. X.• Hickey. R. F.• & Voice, T. C. 1999. Long-term evaluatio of adsorption capacity in a

biological activated carbon fluidized bed reactor system. Water Research. 33(13).

12
Appendix A. En vironm ental Fate Sum ma ry

Table A 1. Su mmary of ph ysical-chemical properties of acetamiprid

PAR AM ET ER VA LUE SOURCI<: Com ments

PC Code 099050 None None

CAS Number 135 10 -20 (USNLM, 2009) None

Structu re -0- / H,

None

el e-N j H, "e-eH

N I'

N-eN

Chemical Name N1~[(6-chtoro-3-pyridyl)methyI]-N2

-cyano-NI MRID 4465 1803 None

methylacetam idine

Molecular Weight 222.68 MRID 4465 1803 None

Water Solubility 4250 mglL (25°C) MRID 4465 181 1 None

Vapor Pressure < I x 10.

8 Torr at 25°C MRID: 4623570 1 Nonvolatile from dry non-adsorbing

surfaces (USE PA, 20 10a)

7.50 x 10.10 Torr at 25°C (AERU, 2009)

I X 10.4 mPa at 25°C

5.2 x 10.14 atrn-m'zmol at 25°C

' (Lsnmated trom vapor ' Carcutereo wn n vapor pressure

pressure reported by AERU (2009). Henry' s Law constant

(estimated) and water solubility at

pH 7 and 20°C)

Dissociation Constant (pKa) 0.7 at 25°C (USEPA, 2002) None

Log Kow 0.8 at 25°C MRID 446 5 1883 Not likely to bioconccntrare (USEPA,

20 lOa)

13
<I, t e,

'" '" ::>

::> - - ·0 -

" • a

•-• ·0 ..

§ 0 0 0

0

§ 0

'" N N

.;;

'"

0

" > "0 § >

Z §

Z

-

'"

- - 0

.,- N 0

- - " n X

•< 8

'" '" N

" " B 0 0 - N 0 0

'" 0 - - - x

x X M

- '" 0 N - M

N
Table A 2. Summary of environmental fate and transport properties of acctamiprid

Parameter Value(s) Source Siudy Cc nnn ent

Classifica tion

Ilydrolysis Half-life, linear regression : MRID Acceptable MRID 4465 1817 is unacceptable.

Stable (pI! 5, 7, 9 at 25°C) 4465 1876

50.8 days (pH 9 at 35°C)

12.8 days (pfl9 at 45°C)

Atmospheric lIalf·life: (USEPA, NA Estimated Using EPIWeb Version 4.0

Degradation 0. 140 days (estimated) 2009a)

Aqueous Half-life, linear regression : MRID Acceptable NOlie

Photolysis Ilalf· 34 days2(pH 7, 25°C) 44988 509

life

Soil Photo lysis No acceptable data available NA NA MRID 44988508 is unacceptable.

Ilalf·life

Aerob ic Soil Half-life, nonlinear regression at 20°C: MRID Supplemental - Only one replicate. Uncxrracted residues made up 0.23 -

Metabolism Half- 46255603 Not for use in 3 1.3 1% of applied radioactivity.

life (day s) Parent Only: modeling

1.1, sandy loam

1.2, clay loam

1.0, clay loam

Parent- Unextracted Residues

76, sandy loam

75, clay loam

99, clay loam

Half-life, nonlinear regression at 20°C: MRID Supplemental Previous risk assessment showed results with various models.

4465188 1 f oreign soils. Unexrracted residues made up a significant

Parent Onlv : ,,,n ,,,, nl "r "nnli...,1 " I 11,......",1" r II... ~1"' t"n nr" " imM..lv ?n_

2JI, sandy loam

0.90, silty clay loam

6, clay loam

Parent+Unextracted Residues:

10, clay loam

40% at 182 days); however, unexrracted residues were not

observed until most of the parent had already degraded in the

silty clay loam and sandy loam. This indicates that the

unextracrcd residues were not the parent compound.

Unextracted residues in the clay loam appeared as the parent

was lost and it is 1I0t as easy to determine whether the

unextracted residues were the parent or not.

15
Parameter Valuc(s) Source Sludy Co mment

Classification

Half-life, nonlinear regression at 20°C: MRID Supplemental Foreign soils. Unextractcd residues ranged from 1.9-16.8%

4469910 1 of applied radioactivity. The identity of the unextractcd

Parent Only: residues is not known.

1.4, loamy sand

Parent-Unextracted Residues: , 2.0, loamy sand ,

Half-life, linear regression at 25°C: MRID Supplemental, Supplemental because of the usc ofa foreign soil (Collombey

OJ , loamy sand 44651880 Not for usc in Grand, YS/Switzerland) and was 11 0t conducted under GLP.

modeling Based on the USDA guide for textural classification, the soil

was characterized as a loamy sand and was similar to soils

found in the U.S. Uncxtractcd residues were a maximum of

14% in the final sampling interval and less than 10% in

previous sampling intervals.

Half-life, linear regression aI 25°C: MRID Acceptable Previous risk assessment was conducted using registrant

4465 1879 calculated half-life using a subset of data (0-3 1 days).

Parent Only: Biphasie degradat ion was observed with an initial 3.6 day

3.5, loamy sand half-life followed by a 75 day half-life.

Parent+Unextracted Residues:

6.4, loamv sand

Aerobic Aquat ic Half-life. nonlinear regression' at MRID Acceptable Maximum of 38% unextracrcd residues. It is not known

Metabolism lIalf- 25°C:Parent Only: 44988513 whether unextractcd residues were parent.

life (days) 25, loamy sand sediment

Parent-s Unextracted Residues:

7' loamy sand sediment

Anaerobic Aquatic Half-life, linear regression at 25°C: MRID Acceptable Previous risk assessment reported an observed half-life of365

Metabolism Half- 325, loamy sand sediment 449885 12 days because 51.5% was still present ill one replicate at the

life (days) end ofthe study (363 days).

16
Parameter Va lue(s) Source Study Co mment

Classificatio n

Solid-water Average Kd at 20"C MRID Coefficient of variation is 66%,

distribution 44651883

coefficient (Kd) in 0.39, loamy sand, pH 4.4

U kg 3.9, loam sand 11 , pH 6.2

1.1, silt loam, pH 6.6

3.5, clay, p1l 7.5

4.1, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6

Mean = 2.60 (standa rd deviation=I .72)

Freundlich solid- K d lin) at 20"C MRID Acceptable Freundlich exponents indicate that sorption was dependent on

water distribution 4465 1883 concentration in some soils.

coefficient (KF) in Parent:

Uk g 0.33 (0.85), loamy sand, p1l 4.4

3.0 (0.82), loam sand II, pH 6.2

1.0 (0.90), silt loam, pH 6.6

3.2 (0.9 1), clay, pH 7.5

3.2 (0.83), sandy loam sediment, oH 5.6

Organic-carbon Average Koc at 20"C MRID Acceptable Coefficient of variation is 28%. The coefficient of variation

normalized 4465 1883 is less than that for Kd values indicating that Koc values will

distribution 157, loamy sand, p1 14.4 be better at predict ing sorption across soils than Kd values.

coefficient (Koc) Moderately mobile according to FAD classificat ion.

in lA g-DC 266, loam sand II, pH 6.2

251, sill loam, pH 6.6

298, clay, pH 7.5

164, sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6

~Il .. ..... "" ." ., "n..l "r..l ..l ;,:, :t :! ';

Terrestrial Field Half-life, nonlinear regression : MRID Supplemental Dcgradatc IM-I-2 converted to IM-I -4 in storage stability

Dissipation Half- 2.8, CA, Gilman loamy fine, Vinca rosea 44988514 study and IM- J-4 was not stable. Residues in plants were not

life (days) 14.1, FL, Astatula fine, tree ferns reported. Broadcast lit 0.15 lbs a.i.zacre with four

4.2, NJ, Penn silt loam, garden mums appli cations. Parent was not detected below IS em.

17
Parameter Value(s) Source Study Comment

Classificat ion

Half-life, linear regression : MRID Supplemental Degradate IM- I-2 converted to IM-I-4 in storage stability

3, WA, Timerman coarse sandy loam, 449885 15 study and IM-1-4 was not stable. Residues in plants were not apples report ed. Broadcast at 0. 15 lbs a.l.zacre with four 6, FL, Candler sand soil, orange s applicatio ns. Parent was not detected below 15 em. 13, NY, Oakville loamy fine sand, Conditions not favorable to leaching. Subset of data used to cabbage estimate half-life for FL and WA site. '(} , L/\, i{uJIlUlld lu,iill sUli, cutten

Half-life, linear regression : MRJD Supplemental Pan evaporation data were not reported so water balances

10.1, Prince Edward Island, Alberry sandy 44988625 could not be dete rmined. Storage stability data were not

loam submitted for the test site soils. Acetamiprid was applied four

5.2, Ontario, London loam times at 168 g a.i./ha with a 7 day interval to bare plots in 17.8, Manitoba, Ryerson clay loam Canada. Parent not detected below 15 Clll depth.

Abbrev iations: ECM=Environmenlal Chem istry Method; ILVeindependent laboratory Validation

'Degradation kinetics were calculated using the single first order decay equat ion using either nonlinear regression of non-transformed data or linear regression of

natural log transfo rmed data.

2Value corrected to represe nt natural sunlight at 40'N latitude.

18
Table A 3. Summary of environmental fate and transport properties of 6-chloronicotinic acid, a degradate of acetamiprhl

Pa rameter Value(s) Source Study Co mment

Classification

Aerobic SoiI Half-life, linear regression : MRID Supplemental British soils and USDA classification could not be

Metabolism Half- 44651882 determined. Unextracted residues ranged from 3.1-

life 2.5 days (sandy loam soil at 20"C) 20.7% of applied radioactivity. Half-lives calculated

1.7 days (clay soil at 20"C) using a subset of data for clay and loam soils. 6.6 days (loam soil at 20"C)

Solid-water Average K, in U kg at 20"C: MRID Acceptable

distribution 4465 1884

coefficient (Kd) 0,44, loamy sand, pI! 4.4

0.83, loam sand II, pH 6.2

0.28, silt loam, pI! 6.6

0.28, clay, p1l 7.5

2.36 sandy loam sediment, 011 5.6

Freundlich solid- K F in IJ kg ( lIn) at 20"C: MRID Acceptable Freundlich exponents indicate that sorption was

water distribution 44651884 dependent on concentration in some soils.

coe fficient (KF) 0.40 (0.9 1), loamy sand. pi I 4,4

0.79 ( 1.0), loam sand II, pH 6.2

0.26 (0.94), silt loam, pH 6.6

0.19 (0.82), clay, pH 7.5

1.8 1 (0.86), sandy loam sediment, pH 5.6

Organic-carbon Average KO(' in IJ kg DC at 20"C: MRID Acceptable None

normalized 44651884

distribution 177, loamy sand, pH 4.4

coe fficient (KOC) 56, loam sand II, pH 6.2

64, silt loam, pl l 6.6

34, clay, p117.5

94 sandv loam sediment, oH 5.6 - -----

19
Appendix B. FlRSl Modeling Output file

RUN No . 1 FO ace t a pmi p rid ON s oyb e a n .. INPUT VALUES ..

RATE ( # / AC)

ONE (MULT)

No .APPS &

INTERVAL

SOIL

Ko c

SOLUB I L

( P PM )

APPL TYPE

( %DRI IT)

,"CROP PED INCORP

AREA ( I N)

0 .040 ( 0 .060) 2 7 22 7 . 04 250 . 0 AERIAL ( 1 6. 0) 1 0 0 . 0 0 . 0

F I ELD AND RES:':RVOIR HALFLI FE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLI C

( F I ELD )

~S UNT IL

RAI::t!RUNOFF

HYDROLYSI S

(RE S ERVOIR)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES .-EF F )

METABOLIC

(RES ER. )

COMBI NED

(RES ER . )

7 . 0 0 2 0 .00 34 . 0 0 - 4 2 1 6 . 0 0 222 . 00 21 0.9 0

UNTREATED WAT :R CONC (MI CROGRAMS / L I T ER ( P PB» Ver 1 . 1 . 1 MAR 26 , 2 0 0 8

PEAK DAY (ACUTE )

CO RAT IO

3 . '15 2

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATION

1.135

RUN No . 2 FllR acetamiprid ON s oybean .. INPUT VALUES ..

RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT )

NO .APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE

Koc ( P PM ) ( %DRI FT)

'"CROP PED INCORP

AREA ( I N)

0 .040( 0.06 0 ) 2 7 227.0 4 2 5 0 . 0 GROUND ( 6 . 4) 10 0.0 0 .0

FI ELD AND RES:;:RVOIR HALFLI FE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC

( F IELD)

7 . 0 0

~S UNTIL

RAnr/RUNOFF

2

HYDROLYS I S

(RES ERVOIR)

N/A

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES. - EFF)

34 . 0 0 - 42 16 . 0 0

METABOLIC

(RES ER. )

2 2 2. 00

COMBI NED

(RES ER. )

210 .90

UNTREAT ED WAT: :R CONC (MI CROGRAMS /LIT ER (P PB)) Ver 1 .1 .1 MAR 2 6, 200 B

PEAK DAY (ACUT E )

CONCEN" 'RAT ION

3 . :0 4

~~AL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRAT I ON

1. 0 7 4

RUN No . 3 Fl lR acetamip r id ON c l ove r .. INPUT VALUES ..

20
RATE (# / AC)

ONE (MULT )

No .APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOIL SOLU81L APPL TYPE

Koc (P PM) (\DRI FT)

%I::ROPPED I NCORP

AREA (I N)

0.07 5( 0 . 07 5) 1 1 227 . 0 4 2 50 . 0 AERIAL (16 .0) 1. 0 0 .0 0.0

FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLI FE VALUES (DAYS )

METABOLI C

(FI ELD)

DAYS UNTIL

RAI N/ RUNOFF

HYDROLYSIS

(RESERVOI R)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METAB)LIC

(RESE L )

COMBI NED

(RESER. )

7 . 00 2 N/A 34 .00- 4 216 . 00 2 22 . 00 2 10 . 9 0

UNTREATED WATER CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI TER (PPB» Ve r 1 . 1 . t MAR 26 , 2 008

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATI ON

4 . 792

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATION

1.368

RUN No . 4 FOR a c e tamip r i d ON clover 9 • :NPUT VALUES •

RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT)

No . APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOI L

Roc

SOLUBI L

(P PM )

APPL TYPE

(%-DRI FT)

\ .:ROPPED I NCORP

AREA (I N)

0 . 075( 0 . 07 5) 1 1 227 . 0 4 2 50 . 0 GRANUL ( 0 .0) . 00 . 0 0 . 0

FIELD AND RES ERVOI R HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLI C

(FI ELD)

DAYS UNTI L

RAI N/ RUNOFF

HYDROLYSIS

(RESERVOI R)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METABOLI C

RES ~.)

COMBI NED

(RESER. )

--------------------------------------- ---------------._------------ 7.00 2 N/A 34 . 00 - 4216 . 00 222 . 0 0 2 1 0.9 0

UNrREATED WATER CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI TER (PPB» Ve r 1 . 1 . 1 MAR 26 , 2 008

------------------------------------------------------ ------------- PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATI ON

4 . 557

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATION

1. 271

RUN No . 5 FOR a cetami p rid ON g r a pes * :.NPUT VALUES •

------------------------------------------------------ ------------- RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT )

NO. APPS &

INTERVAL

SOIL

Roc

SOLUBIL

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

(%DRIFT)

\:l :ROPPED I NCORP

AREA (IN)

21
0 . 10 0 ( 0. 125 ) 2 1 4 227.0 42 50 . 0 AERI AL (1 6 .0 ) 10 0 . 0 0 .0

FI ELD AND RES3RVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLI C DA £S UNTIL HYDROLYSI S

( FI ELD) RAI tJ/ RUNOFF (RESERVOI R)

PHOTOLYSI S

(RES. -EFF)

METABOLI C

(RESER. )

COMBI NED

(RESER. )

7. 00 2 N!A 34. 00 - 42 16 . 00 222 . 0 0 2 1 0 .9 0

UNTREATED WA! 3R CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI TER (PPB» Ver 1 .1 . 1 MAR 26 , 2008

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCEKfRATIO N

8 . l22

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATI ON

2 .43 0

RUN No . 6 F)R a c etamip r id ON grapes * I NPUT VALUES *

RATE ( #/AC)

ONE(MULT)

No .APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOIL

Koc

SOLUBI L

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

(\ DRI FT)

,"CROPPED INCORP

AREA (I N)

0. 1 00 ( 0 . 125 ) 2 14 22 7 . 0 4 25 0 . 0 GRANUL ( 0 . 0 ) 1 00 . 0 0 . 0

FIELD AND RESERVOI R HALFLI FE VALUES (DAYS )

METABOLI C

(FI ELD)

Dll i s UNTIL

RAI N/RUNOFF

HYDROLYSI S

(RESERVOIR)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METABOLI C

(RESER. )

COMBI NED

(RESER. )

7.0 0 2 N! A 34 . 00 - 4 2 1 6 . 0 0 222 . 00 2 10.90

UNTREATED WA'I'13R CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LITER (PPB» Ve r 1 . 1 . 1 MAR 26, 20 08

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCEK:'RATI ON

7 . 594

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

CONCENTRATI ON

2 .118

RUN No . 6 FJ R a c e tamiprid ON gree nhous e '" I NPUT VALUES *

RATE (#!ACI

ONE(MULT)

No . APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOI L

Koc

SOLUBI L

(PPM I

APPL TYPE

(\ DRI FT)

\CROPPED INCORP

AREA (IN )

0. 07S( 0. 13 1 ) 2 3 22 7 . 0 42 50 . 0 GROUND ( 6 .4 ) 1 00 .0 0 .0

FI ELD AND RVOI HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

22
METABOLIC

(FIELD)

DAYS UNTIL

RAI N/ RUNOFF

HYDROLYSIS

(RESERVOIR)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METAb:)LIC

(RESER. )

COMBINED

(RESER . )

7.00 2 N/A 34.00 - 4216 . 0 0 22 :: .00 210 .90

UNTREATED WATER CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI TER (PPB» Ve r 1 . 1 1 MAR 26, 200 8

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATION

8 .232

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATI ON

2. 3 2 1

RUN No . 7 FOR acetamiprid ON citrus * I NPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT)

No . APPS &

INTERVAL

SOIL

Koc

SOLUBIL

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

('DRIFT )

-: P P E I NCORP

AREA (I N)

0. 2 50( 0.37 5 ) 2 7 22 7 . 0 4 25 0 . 0 AERIAL (1 6 . 0 ) 100.0 0.0

FIELD AND RESERVOI R HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC

(FIELD)

DAYS UNTIL

RAI N/RUNOFF

HYDROLYSI S

(RESE RVOIR)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METAE\lJLIC

(RESE :~ )

COMBI NED

(RESER . )

7 .00 2 N/ A 34 .00- 4 2 1 6 . 0 0 22 . 0 0 210 .90

UNTREATED WATER CONC (MI CROGRAMS / LITER (PPB» Ver 1 . 1 . 1 MAR 26 , 200 8

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATION

24 . 6 9 7

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

CONCENTRATION

7 .09 3

RUN No . 8 FOR acetamipr i d ON citrus g * INPUT VALUES *

---- -------- ------------ ---- ------ ------------------ ---------------- RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT)

No.APPS &

I NTERVAL

SOIL SOLUBIL APPL TYPE

Koc (PPM) (\-DRI FT)

%::;ROPPED I NCORP

AREA (IN)

-------------------------------------------------------------------- 0. 250 ( 0. 375) 2 7 22 7 . 0 4 2 5 0 . 0 GRANUL ( 0 .0 ) 100.0 0 .0

FIELD AND RESERVO I R HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

-------------- ----------- --------- ---- --- ----- ---------- ---- -------- METABOLIC

(FI ELD)

DAYS UNTIL

RAI N/RUNOF F

HYDROLYSIS

(RESERVO I R)

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EFF )

METAE J LIC

(RESE lL)

COMBINED

(RESER . )

---- --- -------------------------- ------ ------------ ---+ -------------

23
7.00 2 N/ A 34 . 00 - 4 2 1 6 . 0 0 222 . 00 2 1 0 .90

UNTREATED WAT~R CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI TER ( P P B» Ver 1.1 .1 MAR 26 , 2 0 08

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCEN': RATION

2 2 . -, 83

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C )

CONCENTRAT ION

6 . 354

RUN No . 9 FC·R acetamiprid ON tree n uts * INPUT VALUES *

RATE ( #/ AC)

ONE (MULT)

No . AP PS &

INTERVAL

SOIL

Koc

SOLUBIL

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

(\DRI FT)

\ CROP PED INCORP

AREA ( I N)

0 . 1 80( 0. 2 39 ) 4 14 22 7 . 0 4250 . 0 AERIAL (1 6 . 0 ) 100.0 0.0

FIELD AND RES I:RVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES ( DAYS)

METABOLIC

( F I ELD)

7 .00

DA~ UNTIL

RAn "!RUNOF F

2

HYDROLYSIS

(RESERVOIR)

N/ A

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES. - EFF)

3 4 . 00 - 4 2 1 6 . 0 0

METABOLIC

(RES ER.)

222 . 0 0

COMBI NED

(RES ER . )

21 0.9 0

UNTREAT ED WAT1:R CONC (MI CROGRAMS/LI T E R ( P PB») Ver 1. 1. 1 MAR 26, 2 008

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCEN: 'RAT ION

17 .S

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATION

5 .286

RUN No . 1 0 F: IR acetamip r i d ON t ree nuts * I NPUT VALUES *

RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT)

NO . APPS &

INTERVAL

SO IL

Koc

SOLUB I L

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

(\ DRI IT)

,"CROPPED I NCORP

AREA ( I N)

0. 1 80( 0. 2 3 9 ) 4 1 4 227. 0 4 2 5 0 . 0 GRANUL ( 0.0) 1 0 0 . 0 0 .0

F I ELD AND RESJ~VOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLIC

( F I ELD)

7.00

DA"S UNTIL

RAI Ii /RUNOFF

2

HYDROLYSIS

(RE S ERVOI R)

N/ A

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES. - E F F )

34 . 0 0 - 4 216 . 0 0

METABOLIC

(RES ER .)

222.00

COMBINED

(RES ER. )

210 .90

UNTREATED WATJ:R CONC (MI CROORAMS/L I T ER ( P PB» Ver 1 . 1.1 !of.AR 26 , 2 0 0 8

24
PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATI ON

14 . 524

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONIC)

CONCENTRATION

4.05 1

RUN No . 1 1 FOR acecami p rid ON p oCaCo '" I NPUT VALUES '"

RATE (#/AC)

ONE (MULT)

No.APPS &

INTERVAL

SOIL

Koc

SOLUBIL

(PPM )

APPL TYPE

( " DRI FT )

t CROP PED INCORP

AREA (IN)

0 .07 5 ( 0 . 20 3 ) 4 3 227 .0 4 2 5 0 . 0 AERIAL (l6. 0 ) 10 0 .0 0 .0

FIELD AND RESERVOIR HALFLIFE VALUES (DAYS)

METABOLI C

(FIELD)

7.0 0

DAYS UNTI L

RAIN/RUNOFF

2

HYDROLYSIS

(RES ERVOI R)

N/ A

PHOTOLYSIS

(RES . - EF F)

34 . 0 0- 4 2 1 6 . 0 0

METAHJLIC

ES :~ )

22~ .00

COMB INED

(RES ER.)

2 1 0 .90

UNTREATED WATER CONe (MI CROGRAMS / LI TER (PPB» Ve r 1 .1 . 1 MAR 26 , 2008

PEAK DAY (ACUTE)

CONCENTRATION

13 .536

ANNUAL AVERAGE (CHRONI C)

CONCENTRATION

3 . 8 9 8

25
Appendix C. SCIGI:OW Modeling Output File

SCI( ,ROW

VER::ION 2.3

ENVIRON MI :NTAL FATE AND EFFECTS DIVISION

OFFICE 0 ' PESTICIDE PROGRAMS

U.S. ENVIRONM ENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SCREENING MODEL

FOR AQUi ,T IC PESTICIDE EXPOSURE

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical.acetamiprid

time is 711 5/201I ' :25:13

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.040 2.0 0.080 2.5 IE+02 5.6

groundwater screenirg cond (ppb) = 4. 15£ -04

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

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical.acetamiprid

time is 7/15/201I ' .:25:28

Application Nun: ber of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.075 1.0 0.075 2.5IE+02 5.6

groundwater screenir g cond (ppb) = 3.89E-04

******* ****** *** ~* **** ********** ******************* *** * * * * * * * * *

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:acetamipric

time is 711 5/2011 , :25:45

Application Nurr ber of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/aere) applic itions (lb /acre/yr) (m l/g) metabolism (days)

0.100 2.0 0.200 2.5IE+02 5.6

groundwater screenir g cond (ppb) = 1.04E-03

********* ******* ~************ *** ******** ******* ****** * * * *

26
SciGrow version 2.3

chemi cakacetamiprid

time is 7/1512011 8:25:57

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (Ib/acreiyr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.G75 2.0 0.150 2.5IE+02 5.6

groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 7.78£·04

**** ****** ** **************** ***** *** *** ****** ********* * * * * * * ••*

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:acetamiprid

time is 7115/2011 8:26: 6

Application Nwnber of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acreiyr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.250 2.0 0.500 2.5IE+02 5.6

groundwater screening cond (Ppb) = 2.59£-03

********* ****** ********•••*.* • •••*••*.* •••• • ** •••••• ** •• *. •••••••• ••••

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:acetamiprid

time is 711512011 8:26:16

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applications (lb/acre/yr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.180 4.0 0.720 2.5 I E+02 5.6

groundwater screening cond (ppb) = 3.74£ -03

***** • • *••• *•••• *• • • • ••• • • • *• • • ••••• • ••• *•••••••••*** •••• *. "•••••••• • • *.

SciGrow version 2.3

chemical:acetamiprid

time is 711 512011 8:26:31

Application Number of Total Use Koc Soil Aerobic

rate (lb/acre) applicatio ns (Ibiacreiyr) (mllg) metabolism (days)

0.075 4.0 0.300 2.5I E+02 5.6

27
groundwater screenirg cond (ppb) = 1.56£-03

**********   ** *t* ********* ********* ********* ************** ************

28