Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2004-0162-0030
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2005-12-23T05:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code:
103001
DP
Barcodes:
D305594,
D305593,
D303452
MEMORANDUM
August
15,
2005
Subject:
EFED
risk
assessment
for
the
Napropamide
Reregistration
Eligibility
Document
To:
Susan
Lewis,
Branch
Chief,/
Demson
Fuller,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Reregistration
Branch
I
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C)

From:
James
Breithaupt,
Agronomist
Shannon
Borges,
Biologist
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Through:
Tom
Bailey,
Ph.
D,
Chief,
ERB
II,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Attached
to
this
memorandum
is
the
revised
risk
assessment
for
napropamide.
Response
to
comments
may
be
seen
in
the
memorandum
"
103001
D305591
Response
to
comments
on
RED."
1
of
82
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
SCIENCE
CHAPTER
For
NAPROPAMIDE
(
CAS#:
15299­
99­
7)
Diethyl­
2­(
1­
naphthyloxy)
propanamide
USEPA
PC
Code:
103001
Re­
registration
Existing
Uses:
Nuts
(
almond,
pistachio,
pecan,
filbert,
walnut)
Berries/
small
fruit
(
blackberry,
boysenberry,
loganberry,
raspberry,
blueberry,
strawberry,
cranberry,
currant,
grape)
Brassica
and
leafy
vegetables
(
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
asparagus)
Citrus
(
grapefruit,
lemon,
nectarine,
orange,
tangerine,
tangelo)
Stone
fruit
(
apricot,
cherry,
peach,
plum,
prune)
Pome
fruit
(
apple,
pear)
Fruiting
vegetables
(
eggplant,
pepper,
tomato)
Tropical
fruit
(
fig,
kiwi
fruit,
persimmon,
avocado,
pomegranate)
Additional
crops
(
artichoke,
rhubarb,
tobacco,
sweet
potato)
Oil
seed
crops
(
mint,
olive)
Trees/
ornamentals
(
conifer,
shade
tree,
ornamental
tree,
ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs,
vines,
lawns,
turf,
potting
soil)

End
Use
Products:
Devrinol
®
50­
DF,
2­
G,
10­
G,
4­
F
ERB
II
Team:
James
Breithaupt,
Agronomist
Shannon
Borges,
Biologist
Donna
Randall,
Senior
Aquatic
Biologist
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Secondary
Review:
Dana
Spatz,
Risk
Assessment
Process
Leader
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

Branch
Chief
Approval:
Tom
Bailey,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)
2
of
82
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Non­
endangered
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Listed
and
Endangered
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
C.
Major
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
1.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
2.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
3.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
15
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
B.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
17
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
2.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
for
Nonlisted
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
3.
Listed
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
19
C.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
1.
Flowable
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
b.
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
2.
Granular
Applications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
b.
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
E.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
1.
Specific
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
2.
Planned
Analyses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
a.
Initial
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
30
b.
Exposure
in
Terrestrial
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
c.
Exposure
in
Aquatic
Systems
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
31
III.
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
A.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
34
b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
36
3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
44
a.
Granular
Applications
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
b.
Spray
Applications
and
Residues
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
45
4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
46
B.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
1.
Evaluation
of
Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
49
2.
Use
of
Probit
Slope
Response
Relationship
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
3
of
82
3.
Incident
Data
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
52
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
53
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
64
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
66
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
70
2.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
72
C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
74
2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
3.
Critical
Habitats
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
75
4.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
76
D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
.
.
.
.
.
77
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
b.
Routes
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
77
c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
78
d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Difference
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
.
.
78
e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
for
Non­
Target
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
f.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
79
2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
a.
Uncertainties
in
PRZM­
EXAMS
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
b.
Uncertainties
in
the
Cranberry
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
80
3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
81
b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
c.
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
82
4
of
82
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Napropamide,
also
known
by
the
trade
name
Devrinol
®
,
is
a
systemic,
preemergent,
surfaceapplied
substituted
amide
herbicide
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
flowable
(
emulsifiable
liquid,
flowable
concentrate,
dry
flowable),
and
granular
formulations.
This
compound
must
be
watered
in
to
be
effective.

Ground
spray
(
including
some
forms
of
chemigation)
of
napropamide
will
result
in
spray
drift
onto
plants,
soil,
and
water
adjacent
to
a
treated
field.
Based
on
fate
properties,
as
demonstrated
in
laboratory
studies,
and
application
methods
(
i.
e.,
soil
incorporation),
it
is
expected
that
napropamide
applied
either
as
a
flowable
or
granular
formulation
will
be
persistent
in
the
terrestrial
environment
resulting
in
the
potential
for
napropamide
to
reach
the
aquatic
environment
by
runoff.
Additionally,
because
laboratory
dissipation
studies
demonstrate
a
halflife
of
approximately
446
days
there
is
a
potential
for
napropamide
to
accumulate
in
the
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
field
dissipation
studies,
where
napropamide
was
soil
incorporated)
indicate
much
faster
dissipation
rates
on
the
order
of
17
to
24
days
(
US),
46
to
131
days
(
W.
Germany),
15
to
51
days
(
Canada).
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
is
evident.
Although
napropamide
can
photodegrade
in
water,
this
route
of
dissipation
is
expected
to
be
impeded
when
soil
incorporation
occurs
at
time
of
application.
In
addition,
any
napropamide
that
reaches
surface
water
will
tend
to
partition
to
suspended
soils
and
sediment,
thereby
reducing
the
amount
available
to
undergo
photolysis.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
be
a
bioaccumulative
compound
of
concern
based
on
submitted
data.
The
major
terminal
degradate
in
terrestrial
environments
is
carbon
dioxide,
but
photodegradation
in
aquatic
systems
creates
isomers
of
the
parent
compound.

A
screening­
level
assessment
of
risks
to
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
from
labeled
uses
of
napropamide
was
performed
on
geographical
areas
where
the
highest
use
rates
and
expected
exposures
are
likely
to
occur.
Because
the
label
does
not
specifically
require
soil
incorporation
at
the
time
of
application,
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
the
aquatic
environment
and
for
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plants
were
determined
assuming
both
soil
incorporation
and
no
soil
incorporation
at
the
time
of
application.

A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Non­
endangered
Organisms
For
most
crops
the
maximum
label
rate
is
either
two
applications
of
4
pounds
of
active
ingredient
per
acre
(
lbs
ai/
A),
one
application
of
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
one
application
of
2
lbs.
ai/
A.
Risks
to
nontarget
plants
and
mammals
were
determined
for
these
rates
in
addition
to
risks
to
the
aquatic
environment
from
a
15
lb
ai/
A
application
for
cranberries.
Risks
to
terrestrial
and
wetland/
riparian
plants
were
determined
from
a
rate
1
lb
ai/
A,
which
represents
the
lowest
average
rate
for
a
row
crop
such
as
tobacco.
These
estimates
of
risk
included
both
the
parent
compound
and
the
isomers
that
were
formed
by
photodegradation
in
water.
5
of
82
Aquatic
organism
risks
No
acute
risk
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
were
exceeded
for
freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
freshwater
invertebrates.
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
The
acute
restricted
use
LOCs
for
marine/
estuarine
mollusks
were
exceeded
under
several
scenarios
including
FL
citrus
and
GA
pecan
based
on
these
surrogate
data.
Most
of
these
exceedences
were
based
on
application
of
the
maximum
broadcast
rates
(
4
and
6
lbs
ai/
A)
or
two
applications/
year.
Based
on
these
data,
there
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
due
to
the
use
of
napropamide
under
these
scenarios.
The
registrant
states
that
most
applied
napropamide
is
used
as
a
banded
treatment
where
only
1/
3
of
the
field
is
treated.
Under
most
of
the
banded
uses,
there
was
no
predicted
risk
to
freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
mollusks.

No
chronic
risks
to
freshwater
aquatic
animals
were
identified,
based
on
the
studies
that
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
However,
the
freshwater
fish
study
that
was
submitted
was
classified
as
supplemental,
and
contains
uncertainties
that
prevent
the
full
assessment
of
chronic
risks
to
freshwater
aquatic
animals.
No
marine/
estuarine
chronic
fish
or
invertebrate
studies
were
submitted.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2
>
51
days).

RQs
calculated
for
algae
and
non­
listed
aquatic
vascular
plants
did
not
exceed
the
acute
risk
LOC
for
any
uses
of
napropamide.
For
listed
vascular
aquatic
plants,
the
acute
risk
LOC
was
exceeded
for
several
scenarios.
Most
of
these
exceedences
were
based
on
application
of
the
maximum
broadcast
rates
(
4
and
6
lbs
ai/
A)
or
two
applications/
year.
However,
the
acute
risk
LOC
was
also
exceeded
for
FL
citrus,
GA
pecan,
FL
tomato,
FL
pepper,
and
FL
turf
at
lower
application
rates.

Avian
Risks
No
acute
or
chronic
LOCs
were
calculated
for
birds.
Acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC
50
and
LD
50
were
greater
than
the
highest
dose
tested,
which
results
in
a
RQ
<
0.001
when
compared
against
the
highest
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
1428
ppb.
Chronic
RQs
were
not
calculated
because
effects
observed
in
the
core
chronic
avian
study
were
deemed
to
be
unrelated
to
napropamide
and
were
not
significant.
As
a
result
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
and
EFED
concluded
that
the
NOAEC
would
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
6
of
82
Mammalian
Risks
No
acute
LOCs
were
calculated
for
mammals.
Acute
toxicity
values
for
mammals
were
greater
than
the
greatest
dose
tested,
which
results
in
a
RQ
of
<
0.001
when
compared
to
the
maximum
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration.
Chronic
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
mammals
on
all
food
types
(
i.
e.,
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
large
insects)
at
all
modeled
application
rates,
with
the
exception
of
the
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1,
1.33
lbs
ai/
A
x
2,
and
the
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
application
rates
for
mammals
that
consume
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects.
However,
this
risk
is
likely
limited
to
mammals
that
consume
tall
or
short
grass
immediately
adjacent
to
treated
bare
ground
areas.

Terrestrial
and
Wetland/
Riparian
Plants
The
LOCs
for
seedling
emergence
for
non­
listed
terrestrial
and
wetland
plants
(
monocots
and
dicots)
are
exceeded
from
all
modeled
application
rates
of
napropamide.

Non­
Target
Beneficial
Insects
The
Agency
did
not
state
in
previous
risk
assessments
that
toxicity
data
for
non­
target
insects
was
required.
However,
the
registrant
submitted
two
acute
contact
toxicity
tests
for
honey
bees
(
Apis
mellifera),
which
were
determined
to
be
invalid,
and
another
study
on
oral
toxicity
data
for
honey
bees,
which
was
determined
to
be
supplemental.
The
oral
toxicity
LD
50
was
>
113.5
ug
ai/
bee,
so
napropamide
has
been
determined
to
be
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees
on
an
acute
oral
basis.

B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Listed
and
Endangered
Organisms
A
screening
level
risk
assessment
was
performed
to
determine,
if
any
of
the
Agency's
threatened
and
endangered
(
i.
e.,
"
listed")
species
LOC
criteria
were
exceeded
for
either
direct
or
indirect
effects
indicating
the
need
for
further
biological
assessment
to
be
undertaken.
The
following
lists
the
results
for
potential
direct
effects.
The
Endangered
Species
section
discusses
these
direct
effects
in
addition
to
the
indirect
effects
listed
species
LOC
screening,
a
preliminary
cooccurrence
analysis,
and
a
discussion
of
what
further
biological
assessment
needs
to
be
undertaken
to
address
listed
species
concerns.

Aquatic
Listed
Species
There
were
no
exceedances
of
listed
acute
LOC
criteria
for
freshwater
or
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
freshwater
crustaceans,
which
is
assumed
to
represent
all
freshwater
invertebrates
except
mollusks.
No
direct
mortality
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
these
species.
The
acute
listed
species'
LOCs
for
marine/
estuarine
mollusks
were
exceeded
under
several
scenarios
including
FL
citrus,
OR
filbert,
PA
apple,
NC
apple,
GA
pecan,
FL
tomato,
and
FL
pepper
based
on
these
surrogate
data.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
there
are
no
Federally­
listed
estuarine/
marine
mollusks
but
there
are
listed
freshwater
mollusks
in
southeastern
states
that
overlap
napropamide
use.
Since
there
are
uncertainties
with
the
use
of
freshwater
crustacean
toxicity
data
as
surrogates
for
freshwater
mollusks,
EFED
uses
data
for
marine/
estuarine
7
of
82
mollusk
species
instead.
Based
on
the
risk
estimates
for
marine/
estuarine
mollusks,
EFED
recognizes
the
potential
for
effects
to
listed
freshwater
mollusks.

Listed
species
LOCs
for
aquatic
invertebrates
were
exceeded
in
only
one
scenario
for
marine/
estuarine
crustaceans
(
Florida
citrus,
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice).
No
other
RQs
calculated
for
this
taxa
exceeded
the
listed
species
LOC.

Chronic
risks
to
aquatic
animals
were
not
identified
based
on
the
studies
submitted.
However,
uncertainties
associated
with
the
freshwater
fish
study
prevent
the
full
assessment
of
chronic
risks
to
this
taxon.
No
marine/
estuarine
chronic
studies
have
been
submitted,
so
chronic
risks
to
listed
marine/
estuarine
species
cannot
be
determined
at
this
time.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
half­
lives
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2
>
51
days).

Avian
Listed
Species
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
birds
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC50
and
LD50
were
greater
than
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1428
ppb)
(
See
T­
REX
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

No
chronic
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
birds
because
Chronic
RQ
values
for
birds
were
not
calculated
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure
(
See
Appendix
F,
Table
2).
No
direct
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
any
listed
bird
species.

Mammalian
Listed
Species
In
mammalian
laboratory
studies,
the
highest
residues
expected
on
food
items
in
the
field
are
not
expected
to
pose
an
significant
acute
risk
to
mammals(
i.
e.,
acute
listed
species
LOCs
are
not
exceeded).
No
acute
direct
effects
from
napropamide
are
expected
to
listed
mammalian
species.

Chronic
LOCs,
based
on
reduced
parental
and
offspring
body
weight
were
exceeded
for
mammals
on
all
food
types
(
i.
e.,
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
fruits/
pods/
large
insects)
for
all
the
modeled
use
rates.
However,
this
risk
is
likely
limited
to
mammals
that
consume
food
items
such
as
tall
and
short
grass
immediately
adjacent
to
treated
bare
ground
areas.
8
of
82
Terrestrial
and
Wetland/
Riparian
Listed
Plants
Listed
wetland
plant
risks
were
identified
at
all
application
rates
and
application
methods
modeled,
with
one
exception
(
1
lb
ai/
A
liquid
application,
incorporated
to
4
inches).
Listed
terrestrial
plant
risks
were
identified
under
all
scenarios
for
the
highest
application
rates
modeled
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
and
4
lbs
ai/
A),
with
the
exception
of
monocots
exposed
to
granular
applications
incorporated
to
4
inches.
At
lower
application
rates
(
2,
1.33,
and
1
lb
ai/
A),
exceedances
occurred
for
listed
terrestrial
plants
under
most
scenarios.

C.
Major
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
°
The
studies
submitted
since
the
previous
risk
assessment
have
improved
the
assessment
of
risk
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae,
but
data
have
not
been
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba
(
a
study
was
submitted
for
Lemna
minor,
a
non­
guideline
species),
Skeletonema
costatum,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.

°
The
studies
submitted
by
the
registrant
have
improved
EFED's
ability
to
determine
the
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
animals.
However,
there
are
uncertainties
associated
with
the
chronic
freshwater
fish
study.
In
addition,
no
chronic
studies
have
been
submitted
for
marine/
estuarine
fish
and
invertebrates.
As
a
result,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2
>
51
days).

°
No
acceptable
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
aqueous
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant.
Photodegrdation
in
soil
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
is
soil
incorporated.
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.
9
of
82
O
N
O
Napropamide
structure
(
molecular
formula
C17H21NO2)
°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
EFED
must
use
the
default
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
to
determine
foliar
residues.

II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
Napropamide,
also
known
by
the
trade
name
Devrinol
®
,
is
a
preemergent,
surface­
applied
substituted
amide
herbicide
(
Figure
1)
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
flowable
(
emulsifiable
liquid
(
Devrinol
®
2­
EC),
flowable
concentrate
(
Devrinol
®
F),
dry
flowable
(
Devrinol
®
50­
DF)),
and
granular
(
Devrinol
®
G)
formulations.
Commercial
products
are
available
in
several
different
napropamide
active
ingredient
concentrations,
ranging
from
2
to
50
percent.

1.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
Napropamide
acts
as
a
preemergent,
systemic
herbicide
and
is
mobile
in
plant
tissues.
Napropamide
is
a
substituted
amide
herbicides
and
this
class
of
herbicides
have
no
consistent
pattern
in
their
mechanisms
of
action.
For
napropamide,
it
is
absorbed
by
developing
weed
plant
roots,
inhibiting
their
development
and
growth.
Additionally,
napropamide
may
inhibit
shoot
growth,
by
blocking
the
progression
of
dividing
cells
through
the
cell
cycle
into
mitosis.
Napropamide
can
be
applied
either
in
the
spring
for
control
of
summer
annuals
or
in
the
fall
for
winter
annuals.

2.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Non­
granular
forms
of
napropamide
are
applied
via
several
methods,
including
broadcast
spray,
band
treatment,
directed
spray,
strip
treatment,
soil
broadcast,
and
chemigation.
For
napropamide
to
be
effective
in
controlling
target
weeds,
soil
incorporation
to
a
depth
of
2
to
4
10
of
82
inches
by
mechanical
tillage
(
e.
g.,
hand
cultivator),
irrigation,
or
rainfall
must
follow
napropamide
application
within
a
few
days
for
it
to
be
present
at
the
developing
root
depth.
Watering­
in
or
chemigation
may
be
the
only
choices
for
soil
incorporation
of
napropamide
in
orchard
and
vineyard
crops,
cranberries
and
other
permanent
berry
bush
crops,
shade
and
ornamental
trees,
shrubs,
ground
cover,
and
turf
because
root
damage
to
these
crops
could
occur
from
mechanical
tillage.
However,
vegetable
crops
may
allow
for
tillage,
irrigation,
chemigation,
or
rainfall
incorporation
methods
into
soil.

Approximately
448,000
pounds
of
napropamide
were
applied
in
1997
according
to
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agriculture,
and
the
majority
was
applied
to
tomatoes
(
23.5%),
tobacco
(
20.7%),
cranberries
(
11.8%),
hot
peppers
(
10.2%),
and
strawberries
(
8.9%).
Together,
these
crops
account
for
75%
of
napropamide
applied
to
food
crops
nationwide.
Additionally,
nonfood
crop
uses
of
napropamide
include
turf,
trees,
and
ornamentals.
According
to
the
National
Agriculture
Statistics
Service
(
NASS),
napropamide
is
used
at
the
highest
rates
in
North
Carolina,
Pennsylvania,
Georgia,
Florida,
Kentucky,
California,
and
Oregon.

Table
1
presents
a
detailed
napropamide
use
characterization
based
on
maximum
labeled
use
rates.
A
number
of
labels
do
not
explicitly
limit
the
number
of
times
napropamide
can
be
applied
per
year
(
Table
1).
The
highest
labeled
application
rate
is
on
cranberries
(
15
lbs
ai/
A),
assuming
a
single
application
per
year.
Ornamental
and
shade
trees,
conifers,
herbaceous
vines
and
shrubs,
and
ground
cover
application
rates
are
potentially
at
least
12
lbs
ai/
A
total
(
6
lbs
ai/
A
with
a
90
day
interval
between
applications
implying
at
least
two
applications
per
year).
Maximum
label
rates
for
the
remaining
crops
range
from
2
lbs
ai/
A
to
8
lbs
ai/
A.
Maximum
label
rates
for
those
crops
where
a
majority
of
napropamide
is
used
(
tomatoes,
tobacco,
cranberries,
hot
peppers,
and
strawberries)
are
two
applications
per
year
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
(
total
8
lbs
ai/
A)
or
one
application
per
year
at
6
lbs
ai/
A.
Average
napropamide
use
rates
for
eleven
crops
(
almonds,
apples,
blueberries,
cranberries,
grapes,
oranges,
pecans,
peppers,
strawberries,
tobacco,
tomatoes)
were
provided
by
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs'
(
OPP's)
Biological
and
Economic
Analysis
Division
(
BEAD)
and
are
presented
in
Table
2.
Average
application
rates
for
these
eleven
crops
range
from
1.0
lb
ai/
A
for
tobacco
to
5.3
lbs
ai/
A
for
cranberries.
11
of
82
Table
1.
Use
information
for
napropamide
­
maximum
labeled
use
rates
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

Nuts
Almond,
Pistachio
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Pecan
Filbert
Walnut
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Berries
and
Small
Fruit
Blackberry
Boysenberry
Loganberry
Raspberry
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Blueberry
DF
4
NS
NS
NS
B,
C,
SB
G
4
NS
NS
NS
B,
C,
SB
Strawberries
G
4
1
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
1
NS
unknown
B,
C
Cranberries
G
9
1
NA
9
B
15
NS
NS
unknown
B
Currants
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Grapes
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Brassica
and
Leafy
Vegetables
Broccoli,
Brussels
Sprouts
Cabbage,
Cauliflower
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB,
SI,
SPR
Asparagus
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB,
SI,
SPR
Citrus
Grapefruit
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Lemon
Nectarine
Orange
Tangerine
Tangelo
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Stone
Fruit
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

12
of
82
Apricot
Cherry
Peach
Plum
Prune
G
4
4
NS
2
NS
NS
unknown
unknown
B,
C
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

13
of
82
Pome
Fruit
Apple
Pear
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Fruiting
Vegetables
Eggplant
F1C
2
1
NA
unknown
SI
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Pepper
Tomato
EC
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
Other
Vegetables
Artichoke
Rhubarb
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C,
SB
Tropical
Fruits
Fig
F1C
4
1
NA
4
B
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Kiwi
Fruit
Persimmon
Avocado
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Pomegranate
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Additional
Crops
Tobacco
F1C
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
DF
2
1
NA
2
B
EC
2
1
NA
2
BT,
B,
SI,
ST
Sweet
Potato
DF
2
NS
NS
unknown
S,
B
Crop
Formulation
Max
App
(
a)
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
No.
(
b)

App/
yr
App
interval
(
days)(
c)(
d)
Max
load/
yr
(
lbs
ai/
A)
App
method
(
e)

14
of
82
Oil
Seed
Crops
Mint
G
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
DF
4
NS
NS
unknown
B,
C
Olives
DF
4
2
NS
8
B,
C
Trees/
Ornamentals
Conifer
release
Shade
Trees/
Ornamental
Trees
G
6
NS
90
unknown
B
EC
6
1
NA
6
G,
BT,
SI,
DS
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
Ground
cover
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
EC
6
1
NA
6
B,
SI,
SPR
Herbaceous
plants/
woody
shrubs
/
vines
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
DS,
SI
G
6
NS
90
unknown
BT,
B,
SI,
IR
lawns
&
turf
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
DS,
SI,
SPR
G
6
NS
NS
unknown
BT,
B,
IR
potting
soil
EC
6
1
NA
6
BT,
B,
SI,
SPR
(
a)
App
=
Application
(
b)
No.
=
Number
(
c)
NA
=
not
applicable
(
d)
NS
=
not
specified
on
label
(
e)
Application
method
codes:
B
=
broadcast
C
=
chemigation
SB
=
soil
broadcast
ST
=
strip
treatment
BT
=
band
treatment
G
=
ground
SI
=
soil
incorporation
DS
=
directed
spray
IR
=
irrigation
incorporation
SPR
=
spray
15
of
82
Table
2.
Napropamide
average
use
rates
Crop
Average
use
rate
(
lbs
ai/
A
per
application)
Average
annual
number
of
applications
Almonds
3.2
1.0
Apples
3.0
2.0
Blueberries
2.0
1.0
Strawberries
2.6
1.0
Citrus
(
orange)
3.0
1.0
Cranberries
5.3
NA
Grapes
3.0
1.0
Pecans
4.0
3.0
Peppers
1.3
1.0
Tobacco
1.0
1.0
Tomatoes
1.6
1.0
Sources:
USDA
NASS,
EPA
proprietary
data,
NCFAP
Years:
1998­
2003
3.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
A
summary
of
fate
properties
for
napropamide
from
laboratory
studies
is
listed
in
Table
3.
Based
on
fate
properties,
as
demonstrated
in
laboratory
studies,
and
application
methods
(
i.
e.,
soil
incorporation),
it
is
expected
that
napropamide
applied
either
as
a
flowable
or
granular
formulation
will
be
persistent
in
the
terrestrial
environment
resulting
in
the
potential
for
napropamide
to
reach
the
aquatic
environment
by
runoff.
Additionally,
because
laboratory
dissipation
studies
demonstrate
a
half­
life
of
approximately
446
days
there
is
a
potential
for
napropamide
to
accumulate
in
the
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
field
dissipation
studies,
where
napropamide
was
soil
incorporated)
indicate
much
faster
dissipation
rates
on
the
order
of
15
to
131
days.
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
is
evident.
Although
napropamide
can
photodegrade
in
water,
this
route
of
dissipation
is
expected
to
be
impeded
when
soil
incorporation
occurs
at
time
of
application.
In
addition,
any
napropamide
that
reaches
surface
water
will
tend
to
partition
to
suspended
soils
and
sediment,
thereby
reducing
the
amount
available
to
undergo
photolysis.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
be
a
bioaccumulative
compound
of
concern
based
on
submitted
data.
The
major
terminal
degradate
in
terrestrial
environments
is
carbon
dioxide,
but
photodegradation
in
aquatic
systems
creates
isomers
of
the
parent
compound.
The
status
of
environmental
fate
data
requirements
may
be
seen
in
Appendix
A.
16
of
82
Table
3.
Summary
of
Fate
Properties
of
Napropamide
Property
Napropamide
Data
Physical
state
at
room
temperature
solid
Molecular
weight
271.36
Vapor
Pressure
at
20
°
C
(
millimeters
mercury;
mm
Hg)
1.7
x
10­
7
Henry's
Law
Constant
at
20
°
C
(
atm­
m3/
mol)
8.1
x
10­
10
Water
solubility
at
20
°
C
(
milligrams
per
liter;
mg/
l)
74
Hydrolysis
Stable
(
MRID
41863201)

Direct
Aqueous
Photolysis
(
half­
life,
minutes)
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide,
26
minutes
for
napropamide
plus
Isomers
I
and
II
(
MRIDs
41575301,
43175301)

Soil
Photolysis
(
half
life,
days)
Stable
(
MRID
41863202)

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
446
(
MRID
41105901)

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
51
(
a)

(
MRIDs
00163271,
92125017)

Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
Essentially
stable
(
MRID
42699701)

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Kd­
ads
/
Kd­
des
(
milliliters/
gram)
8.6/
480
(
loam)
5.1/
465
(
loamy
sand)
3.4/
1170
(
sandy
loam)
14.8/
674
(
silt
loam)
(
MRID
41575302)

Log
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
Kow)
3.4
Soil
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
17
(
MS)
17­
24
(
CA)
(
MRIDs
43742401,
43742402)

Sediment
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Aquatic
Dissipation
(
half­
life,
days)
NO
DATA
Fish
Accumulation
(
BCF);
concentration
in
tissue
to
exposure
concentration
in
water
32­
35
in
edible
tissues
90
%
depuration
by
7
days
(
MRID
92125019)
(
a)
Half­
life
is
highly
uncertain
due
to
poor
material
balance
at
90
days
(
60­
days
of
anaerobic
conditions).
17
of
82
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
Napropamide
is
expected
to
have
moderate
to
low
mobility
in
soil
based
upon
batch
equilibrium
studies
showing
K
ads
values
averaging
3.38
for
a
sandy
loam,
5.12
for
a
loamy
sand,
8.63
for
a
loamy
sand,
and
14.8
ml/
g
for
a
silt
loam
soil.
The
soil
K
oc
values
for
adsorption
were
1170,
465,
480,
and
674
ml/
g,
respectively.
Adsorption
of
napropamide
to
soil
increases
with
increasing
clay
content,
organic
carbon
content,
and
pH.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
volatilize
from
dry
soil
surfaces
based
upon
its
vapor
pressure
of
1.7
x
10­
7
mm
Hg.

Napropamide
does
photodegrade
on
soil
with
a
half­
life
of
28
days.
The
major
degradate
is
carbon
dioxide.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
napropamide
must
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
within
days
of
application
in
order
to
be
efficacious,
therefore,
photodegradation
on
soil
is
not
expected
to
be
a
major
route
of
dissipation.
Microbial
degradation
of
napropamide
in
soil
under
aerobic
laboratory
conditions
is
very
slow
with
an
estimated
half­
life
of
446
days.
This
suggests
that
the
chemical
may
accumulate
in
soil
with
repeated
applications.
However,
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
ranged
from
15
to
131
days,
dependent
on
application
method,
product
formulation,
and
soil
type.

b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
In
water,
napropamide
is
expected
to
adsorb
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment.
Napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9,
but
undergoes
rapid
direct
photolysis
in
water
with
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide.
Identified
degradates
were
Isomer
I
and
Isomer
II
(
propionamide).
The
two
isomers
also
degrade
rapidly,
as
the
total
residue
(
napropamide
plus
Isomers
I
and
II)
half­
life
in
the
photodegradation
in
water
study
was
only
26
minutes.
Because
of
light
attenuation,
aqueous
photolysis
will
be
an
important
pathway
only
in
shallow
clear
water
bodies.
Binding
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
can
also
diminish
the
role
photolysis
plays
in
the
degradation
of
napropamide.
Neither
volatilization
from
water
nor
bioconcentration
are
expected
to
be
important
fate
processes
based
upon
this
compound's
estimated
Henry's
Law
constant
of
8.1
x10­
10
atm­
m3/
mole,
and
BCF
(
32
to
35
in
edible
fish
tissue).

B.
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected.
"
Two
criteria
are
used
to
select
the
appropriate
ecological
assessment
endpoints:
1)
identification
of
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
the
operational
definition
of
assessment
endpoints
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
the
selection
of
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.
18
of
82
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species.
A
set
of
surrogate
species
is
used
to
provide
an
estimation
of
ecological
risk.
Ecological
relevance
and
sensitivity
are
essential
for
selecting
test
species
and
assessment
endpoints
that
are
scientifically
defensible.
Surrogate
taxa
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
In
the
absence
of
toxicity
data
on
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
it
is
assumed
that
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
as
fish
to
the
potential
effects
of
a
pesticide.
Terrestrial
animals
used
as
test
species
include
birds
and
mammals.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
are
approximately
as
sensitive
to
pesticide­
induced
effects
as
are
birds.
Potential
effects
to
benthic
organisms
may
also
be
evaluated
if
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
the
assessed
chemical
may
partition
to
the
sediment
or
if
sediment
organisms
are
particularly
sensitive
species.
Direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
effects
are
considered
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Although
these
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
they
provide
insight
about
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
i.
e.,
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
have
important
implications
for
both
population­
level
effects
as
well
as
habitat
carrying
capacity.
Indirect
effects
on
critical
habitat
are
only
considered
in
the
risk
characterization
for
the
potential
effects
on
endangered
species,
provided
that
the
risk
quotient
demonstrates
probable
risk.

The
screening
assessment
endpoint
for
plants
in
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
environments
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
both
crop
and
non­
crop
species).
Endpoints
assessed
include
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
endpoints
may
not
address
all
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
during
active
growth
may
impact
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.
Data
on
the
formulated
product
(
as
opposed
to
the
active
ingredient)
are
used
to
characterize
plant
exposure
effects.
If
the
maximum
exposure
rate
results
in
an
effect
level
that
is
less
than
25%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
low
risk
is
presumed
and
a
Tier
II
study
is
not
required.
However,
if
the
effect
level
is
less
than
25%
but
greater
than
5%
in
a
Tier
I
study,
potential
risk
may
still
occur
to
endangered
species
that
cannot
be
quantified.

The
assessment
endpoint
for
aquatic
plants
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measurement
endpoints
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

The
ecological
relevance
of
selecting
the
above­
mentioned
assessment
endpoints
is
three­
fold,
and
includes
the
following:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
the
receptors;
2)
the
receptors
are
potentially
sensitive
to
pesticides
in
the
affected
media
and
from
residues
on
plants,
seeds,
insects,
and
other
food
sources;
and
3)
the
receptors
could
inhabit
areas
where
19
of
82
pesticides
are
applied
or
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
could
impact
sites
containing
available
suitable
habitat.

2.
Measures
of
Ecological
Effects
for
Nonlisted
Species
Each
assessment
endpoint
requires
one
or
more
"
measures
of
ecological
effect,"
which
are
defined
as
changes
in
the
attributes
of
an
assessment
endpoint
itself
or
changes
in
a
surrogate
entity
or
attribute
in
response
to
pesticide
exposure.
Ecological
measurement
endpoints
for
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
in
the
following
broad
groupings:

°
Birds
(
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail)
used
as
surrogate
taxa
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles
°
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat)
°
Freshwater
fish
(
bluegill
sunfish
and
rainbow
trout)
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians
°
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
water
flea
­
Daphnia
magna)
°
Estuarine/
marine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnow)
°
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp)
°
Terrestrial
plants
(
corn,
onion,
ryegrass,
wheat,
buckwheat,
cucumber,
soybean,
sunflower,
tomato,
and
turnip)
°
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
(
algae,
diatoms,
and
duckweed)

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.
A
discussion
of
some
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measurement
endpoints
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
is
included
in
Section
III
of
this
document.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risk
associated
with
napropamide
exposure
is
provided
in
Tables
4
and
15­
17.

3.
Listed
Species
Measures
of
Effect
An
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
individual
effects
at
exposure
levels
equivalent
to
the
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
is
made
based
on
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
and
dose­
response
relationship
established
for
the
effects
study
corresponding
to
each
taxonomic
group
for
which
the
LOCs
are
exceeded.
Proximity
of
endangered
species
habitats
to
areas
that
grow
target
crops
or
contain
target
weed
populations
are
also
evaluated.
20
of
82
Table
4.
Summary
of
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoints
1.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individual
birds
1a.
Mallard
duck
acute
oral
LD50
1b.
Bobwhite
quail
subacute
dietary
LD50
1c.
Mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEL
2.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individual
mammal
2a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50
2b.
Laboratory
rat
chronic
(
reproductive)
NOAEC
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
3a.
Rainbow
trout
acute
LC50
3b.
Freshwater
fish
chronic
NOAEC
(
weight
&
length)
3c.
Water
flea
acute
EC50
3d.
Water
flea
chronic
NOAEC
(
offspring)

4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50
4b.
Estuarine/
marine
fish
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
4c.
Eastern
oyster
acute
EC50
4d.
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
chronic
NOAEC
&
LOAEC
­
NO
STUDIES
SUBMITTED
5.
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species)
5a.
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence
EC25
5b.
Monocot
and
dicot
vegetative
vigor
EC25
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insects
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50
7a.
Algae
and
duckweed
acute
EC50
7b.
Algae
and
duckweed
NOAEC/
EC05
7a.
Algae
and
duckweed
EC50
and
NOAEC/
EC05
­
INCOMPLETE
DATA
SET
LD50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LOAEC
­
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LC50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population
EC50/
EC25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population
21
of
82
C.
Conceptual
Model
A
conceptual
model
(
CM),
which
summarizes
graphically
the
results
of
the
problem
formulation
for
evaluating
risks
to
ecological
receptors
following
application
of
napropamide
to
an
agricultural
field
(
i.
e.,
orchards,
vineyards,
row
crops)
or
to
turf,
is
provided
in
Figure
2
for
flowable
napropamide
(
i.
e.,
dry­
flowable,
and
emulsifiable
concentrate)
applied
as
a
ground
spray
and
in
Figure
3
for
napropamide
applied
as
a
granular.
The
CMs
are
working
hypotheses
about
how
napropamide
is
likely
to
reach
(
i.
e.,
exposure
pathways)
and
affect
ecological
entities
(
i.
e.,
attribute
changes)
of
concern
on
and
adjacent
to
a
treated
agricultural
field.
In
order
for
a
pesticide
stressor
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
an
ecological
receptor
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
The
CMs
outline
specifically
which
measures
of
exposure
(
e.
g.,
foliar
residue
levels,
water
column
concentrations),
ecological
receptors,
and
measures
of
effects
or
measurement
endpoints
will
be
used
to
estimate
risks
(
i.
e.,
estimate
the
effects
of
exposure
on
assessment
endpoints)
from
proposed
reregistration
uses
of
napropamide.
Narrative
descriptions
of
the
risk
hypotheses
are
provided
in
Section
II.
C.
1
for
flowable
napropamide
applied
as
a
ground
spray
and
Section
II.
C.
2
for
granular
napropamide
uses.

1.
Flowable
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
Immediately
following
ground
spraying
without
soil
incorporation,
the
highest
napropamide
residue
levels
are
expected
to
be
located
in
the
soil
and
on
seeds
and
insects
on
the
soil
surface
for
a
treated
agriculture
site
and
foliage,
primarily
short
grasses,
of
treated
turf
sites.
For
application
to
an
agricultural
field,
surface
soil
and
seeds
and
insects
on
the
soil
surface
are
expected
to
contain
the
highest
residues
because
except
for
the
vines
in
vineyards
and
trees
in
orchards,
plant
material
such
as
grasses,
fruit,
and
foliage
are
expected
to
be
non­
existent
to
limited
on
agricultural
fields
at
the
time
of
napropamide
application
as
it
is
applied
to
bare
soil
as
a
pre­
emergence
herbicide.
However,
at
a
turf
site
much
of
the
applied
pesticide
may
be
intercepted
by
the
foliage
present
instead
of
reaching
soil
directly.
Later
watering­
in
either
by
irrigation
or
a
rain
event
is
expected
to
result
in
lower
residues
for
these
media
at
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites.
Napropamide
is
water
soluble,
such
that
residues
on
plants
and
insects
should
decrease
due
to
wash
off
and
residues
in
soil
decrease
with
dispersion
through
the
soil
column.
As
no
major
degradates
of
napropamide
have
been
observed
to
form
in
terrestrial
environments,
the
focus
of
the
assessment
for
these
media
is
on
the
parent,
napropamide.

Napropamide
may
reach
off­
field
terrestrial
or
riparian/
wetland
vegetation
environments
in
spray
drift
at
the
time
of
application.
Following
a
rain
event
napropamide
may
also
reach
off­
field
terrestrial
or
riparian/
wetland
vegetation
environments
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
the
parent,
napropamide
is
the
focus
of
the
assessment
for
off­
field
terrestrial
environments.
22
of
82
Potential
emission
of
volatilized
napropamide
to
the
air
is
not
expected
to
be
a
significant
acute
short­
range
or
long­
range
dissipation
route
for
this
pesticide
because
of
its
low
volatility
in
combination
with
its
relatively
fast
photodegradation
potential.
On
Figure
1
the
dashed
outline
box
around
volatilization
signifies
that
this
source/
transport
pathway
is
not
considered
a
viable
significant
release
mechanism
for
flowable
napropamide
following
application
to
an
agricultural
field
or
turf
site.

Ecological
receptors
of
concern
identified
for
consideration
in
the
terrestrial
environment
include
primary
producers,
represented
by
both
upland
and
wetland/
riparian
vegetation,
and
secondary
and
tertiary
consumers,
both
vertebrates
and
invertebrates,
representing
common
ecological
functional
feeding
groups
(
i.
e.,
herbivores
and
insectivores).
Herbivores
as
used
here
include
animals
that
feed
on
foliage
(
stems
and
leaves),
seeds,
and/
or
fruit;
the
term
granivore
is
sometimes
used
to
identify
animals
that
feed
primarily
on
seeds.
Omnivores
(
i.
e.,
consumers
that
feed
on
a
mixed
diet
of
animals
and
plants)
are
also
potentially
exposed
but
are
not
specifically
included
in
the
receptor
list
for
a
screening
level
risk
assessment
because
exposure
concentrations
and
risk
levels
will
fall
between
the
exclusive
feeding
groups.
Food
chain
transfer
through
biomagnification
or
bioaccumulation
of
napropamide
to
higher
trophic
level
predators
(
e.
g.,
carnivores)
is
not
considered
as
a
viable
significant
exposure
pathway
for
napropamide
since
its
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
is
low,
and
is
expected
to
be
rapidly
metabolized
or
eliminated.

Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Terrestrial
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Flowable
Napropamide
Uses
°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
terrestrial
herbivore
and
insectivore
vertebrates
(
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians)
will
occur
if
napropamide
residues
on
seeds,
insects,
and
foliage
due
to
direct
deposition
or
spray
drift
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
survival.

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
concentrations
reach
levels
of
concern
for
vegetative
vigor.

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
23
of
82
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
concentrations
reach
levels
of
concern
for
vegetative
vigor.

b.
Aquatic
Environment
Napropamide
may
reach
aquatic
environments
in
spray
drift
downwind
of
a
field
being
treated.
Following
a
rain
event
napropamide
may
also
reach
aquatic
environments
from
areas
of
application
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
napropamide
is
the
expected
form
to
be
present
in
runoff
and
soil
erosion.
Once
napropamide
reaches
the
aquatic
environment,
napropamide
is
expected
to
also
be
moderately
persistent.
While
laboratory
data
support
a
4.3
minute
half­
life
in
clear,
shallow,
irradiated
water,
surface
water
usually
has
dissolved
and
suspended
solids
and/
or
shading
that
slow
the
rate
of
degradation.

For
the
aquatic
ecosystem
ecological
receptors
include
all
aquatic
life
(
fish,
amphibians,
invertebrates,
plants)
and
those
terrestrial
animals
(
e.
g.,
birds
and
mammals)
that
consume
aquatic
organisms.

Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Aquatic
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Flowable
Napropamide
Uses
°
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fish
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality.

°
A
reduction
in
aquatic
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
algae
population
growth
or
macrophyte
population
growth.
24
of
82
2.
Granular
Applications
a.
Terrestrial
Environment
Immediately
following
granular
applications
without
soil
incorporation,
granules
are
expected
to
be
available
at
the
soil
surface
on
agriculture
sites
and
on
the
surface
of
the
turf
at
turf
sites.
Later
watering­
in
either
by
irrigation
or
a
rain
event
of
sufficient
size
is
expected
to
result
in
the
movement
of
napropamide
down
into
the
soil
column.

Receptors
of
concern
are
the
same
as
those
discussed
for
flowable
applications
of
napropamide
and
the
terrestrial
environment.

Based
on
the
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
granular
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Terrestrial
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Granular
Napropamide
Uses
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
birds
or
mammals
will
occur
if
granular
concentrations
of
napropamide
at
the
surface
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality
from
ingestion.

A
reduction
in
the
number
of
upland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

A
reduction
in
the
number
of
riparian/
wetland
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
soil
concentrations
of
napropamide
from
surface
water
runoff
reach
levels
of
concern
for
emergence
of
upland
vegetation
(
primarily
grasses
due
to
napropamide's
specificity).

b.
Aquatic
Environment
Following
a
rain
event
of
sufficient
size
napropamide
may
also
reach
aquatic
environments
from
areas
of
application
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments
and
relatively
soluble
in
water.
Because
in
terrestrial
environments
napropamide
is
moderately
persistent
and
no
major
degradates
form,
napropamide
is
the
expected
form
to
be
present
in
runoff
and
soil
erosion.
Once
napropamide
reaches
the
aquatic
environment,
napropamide
is
expected
to
also
be
moderately
persistent.

Receptors
of
concern
are
the
same
as
those
discussed
for
flowable
applications
of
napropamide
and
the
aquatic
environment.
25
of
82
Based
on
the
above
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
flowable
napropamide
following
application
on
agricultural
fields
and
turf
sites
to
selected
assessment
endpoints
is
provided
below.

Aquatic
Environment
Risk
Hypotheses
for
Granular
Napropamide
Uses
A
reduction
in
the
number
of
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fish
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
acute
mortality
from
gill
and
dermal
contact
or
reach
levels
of
concern
for
chronic
mortality,
reproduction,
or
growth
from
gill
and
dermal
contact.

A
reduction
in
aquatic
plants
will
occur
in
areas
adjacent
to
a
field
following
napropamide
application
if
spray
drift
alone
or
in
concert
with
runoff
result
in
water
concentrations
that
reach
levels
of
concern
for
aquatic
plant
standing
crop
or
biomass.
26
of
82
Stressor
Napropamide
applied
as
ground
spray
to
an
agricultural
field
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Volatilization
/
Wind
Suspension
Direct
Deposition
Spray
Drift
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Terrestrial
Food
Residues
(
foliage,

fruit,
insects
Upland
Foliage/
Soil
Riparian/

Wetland
Foliage/
Soil
Water
body
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Individual
Animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Aquatic
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Individual
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
vertebrates
and
invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Bioaccumulation
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Figure
3.
Ecological
Conceptual
Model
for
Screening­
Level
Risk
Assessment
of
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Ground
Spray
to
an
Agricultural
Field
or
Turf
Site
27
of
82
Stressor
Napropamide
applied
as
a
granular
to
an
agricultural
field
Source/
Transport
Pathways
Direct
Deposition
Runoff/
Erosion
Leaching
(
Infiltration/
Percolation
Source/
Exposure
Media
Upland
Soil
Upland
Soil
Riparian/

Wetland
Soil
Water
body
Groundwater
Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Receptors
Attribute
Changes
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Individual
Animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Aquatic
Vertebrates
Aquatic
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Individual
Plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
vertebrates
and
invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Bioaccumulation
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Figure
4.
Ecological
Conceptual
Model
for
Screening­
Level
Risk
Assessment
of
Napropamide
Applied
as
a
Granular
Broadcast
or
In­
Furrow
to
an
Agricultural
Field
or
Turf
Site
28
of
82
D.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Information
Gaps
The
following
uncertainties
and
information
gaps
were
identified
as
part
of
the
problem
formulation:

°
Studies
were
submitted
on
Anabaena
sp.
(
MRID
464591­
12)
and
Lemna
minor
(
MRID
464591­
11),
which
were
incorporated
into
the
revised
risk
assessment.
However,
the
Anabaena
study
was
conducted
for
only
3
days
instead
of
5
days
required
by
EPA
guidelines,
which
introduces
uncertainty
into
the
calculation
of
the
EC
50
and
EC
05
used
to
assess
risk.
The
Lemna
study
was
conducted
on
a
non­
guideline
species.
Data
also
have
not
been
submitted
for
several
algal
species,
such
as
Skeletonema
costatum
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
4.3
minutes)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.

°
A
freshwater
fish
sub­
chronic
study
(
MRID
464591­
09)
and
freshwater
invertebrate
life
cycle
study
(
MRID
464787­
04)
were
submitted,
which
have
been
incorporated
into
the
revised
risk
assessment.
However,
the
sub­
chronic
study
on
freshwater
fish
has
been
classified
as
supplemental,
as
it
does
not
meet
Agency
guidelines.
EFED
acknowledges
uncertainties
that
are
associated
with
use
of
non­
guideline
studies
in
the
risk
assessment.
Chronic
toxicity
data
have
not
been
submitted
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2
>
51
days).

°
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
EFED
must
use
the
default
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
to
determine
foliar
residues.
E.
Analysis
Plan
29
of
82
Ecological
risk
assessment
is
a
process
that
evaluates
the
likelihood
that
adverse
ecological
effects
may
occur
or
are
occurring
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
one
or
more
stressors
(
US
EPA,
1992).
This
risk
assessment
examines
the
ecological
risk
of
napropamide
use,
and
attempts
to
determine
at
what
level
napropamide
can
be
used
to
minimize
deleterious
effects
on
the
environment.
These
negative
effects
include
structural
and/
or
functional
characteristics
or
components
of
ecosystems.
In
order
to
estimate
the
ecological
risk
associated
with
napropamide
use,
use
information,
chemical
and
physical
properties,
fate/
transport
data,
and
toxicity
data
were
examined
for
all
of
the
napropamide
forms
and
application
methods.

1.
Specific
Considerations
a.
Napropamide
is
applied
in
both
liquid
and
granular
forms.
Therefore,
the
fate
properties
of
both
forms
must
be
considered
in
this
assessment
b.
Granular
napropamide
must
be
soil
incorporated
via
irrigation
or
mechanical
incorporation
following
application.

1.
Risk
to
terrestrial
animals
resulting
from
direct
exposure
to
napropamide
granules
through
ingestion
in
the
time­
period
between
application
and
soil
incorporation
must
be
considered
2.
Incorporation
depth
and
granular
dissolution
rate
must
be
considered
to
properly
assess
exposure
to
terrestrial
animals
c.
Napropamide
applied
as
a
liquid
must
be
soil
incorporated
either
through
a
rain
event
or
irrigation.

1.
Runoff
following
rain
events
or
irrigation
must
be
considered
as
an
exposure
route
for
aquatic
organisms
2.
Due
to
necessary
watering­
in
of
napropamide,
the
timing
of
irrigation
or
a
possible
rain
event
after
application
must
be
considered.

d.
Laboratory
studies
demonstrate
a
short
napropamide
half­
life
in
shallow,
clear,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
deep
water,
suspended
solids,
and
shading
may
increase
the
persistence
of
napropamide
in
surface
water
in
the
field.

e.
Napropamide
degradates
of
concern
include
naphthoxy
propionic
acid,
1­
naphthol,
and
isomers
I
and
II.

1.
Naphthoxy
propionic
acid
and
1­
naphthol
are
only
formed
in
minor
amounts
and
will
not
be
considered
in
half­
life
calculations.
2.
Isomers
I
and
II
occur
in
significant
quantities
as
a
result
of
aqueous
30
of
82
photolysis.
However,
both
degradates
have
short
half­
lives
in
the
aqueous
environment.
Additionally,
these
isomers
are
only
formed
in
significant
amounts
as
a
result
of
aqueous
photolysis
that
occurs
in
shallow,
clear,
well­
mixed
water.
True
environmental
conditions
will
most
likely
limit
the
formation
of
these
isomers,
and
therefore
they
will
no
be
considered
in
this
assessment.

f.
Napropamide
is
applied
to
numerous
crops,
and
representative
modeled
surface
water
crop
scenarios
will
address
the
geographical
distribution
of
specific
crops
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
associated
weather
extremes.

2.
Planned
Analyses
a.
Fate
and
Exposure
The
environmental
fate
data
indicate
that
napropamide
is
fairly
persistent
in
the
environment,
with
photolysis
being
the
only
major
degradation
pathway.
Exposure
will
be
examined
for
both
granular
and
liquid
forms,
and
napropamide
levels
will
be
estimated
on
foliar
residue,
in
surface
water,
and
on
the
soil
surface
(
from
granular
application
only).
In
addition,
exposure
resulting
from
spray
drift
will
be
assessed.
Maximum
labeled
application
rates
as
well
as
average
application
rates
will
be
examined.

1.
Initial
Considerations
Methods
used
to
determine
exposure
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
are
dependent
on
its
environmental
fate
and
physicochemical
properties,
the
application
method,
and
the
presence
of
reliable
monitoring
data
that
are
considered
representative
of
the
proposed
use
sites.
Initial
factors
considered
for
the
exposure
assessment
are
provided
in
Table
5
below.

Table
5.
Factors
that
may
affect
the
exposure
to
napropamide
Consideration
Napropamide­
specific
data
Conclusion
Monitoring
data
Monitoring
data
available
from
USGS
EECs
from
models
will
be
compared
to
monitored
values
Degradation
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life­­
446
days
Napropamide
can
be
persistent
in
the
environment
Isomer
I
and
Isomer
II
Some
exposure
to
these
may
occur
in
the
aquatic
environment
from
photodegradation
in
water
Bioconcentration
BCF
values
for
napropamide
are
low
(
32­
35X)
Bioconcentration
will
not
be
modeled
Application
method
Ground
spray,
granules,
and
chemigation
Spray
drift
and
runoff
need
to
be
considered
in
this
assessment
2.
Exposure
in
Terrestrial
Systems
31
of
82
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
organisms
are
considered
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
OPP
primarily
looks
at
the
residues
of
pesticides
on
food
items
and
assumes
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario
for
terrestrial
organisms.
For
napropamide
spray
applications
(
DF,
EC
forms),
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
on
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate
(
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994).
The
first
tier
nomogram
uses
the
maximum
predicted
residues.
Subsequent
refinements
may
consider
mean
residues.
However,
maximum
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
fractions
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
from
mammalian
allometric
relationships
in
EPA's
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
In
all
screening­
level
assessments,
the
organisms
are
assumed
to
consume
100%
of
their
diet
as
one
food
type.

Additionally,
terrestrial
exposure
will
be
assessed
based
on
the
application
of
granular
napropamide.
Devrinol
®
10G
is
applied
to
numerous
field
crops,
and
there
is
potential
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
via
granule
ingestion.
This
exposure
is
highly
dependent
on
the
timing
and
method
of
napropamide
granule
incorporation,
which
can
occur
through
mechanical
incorporation
into
soil,
rainfall,
or
irrigation
techniques.
The
length
of
time
between
application
and
subsequent
incorporation
will
significantly
affect
exposure
scenarios.
Exposure
of
terrestrial
animals
(
birds
and
mammals)
will
be
assessed
using
the
LD
50
/
ft2
index
(
Felthousen,
1977).
This
index
is
based
upon
the
assumption
that
ecological
effects
are
expected
to
occur
when
the
concentration
of
chemical
per
square
foot
of
habitat
is
equal
or
exceeds
the
LD
50
value
determined
in
laboratory
studies.

3.
Exposure
in
Aquatic
Systems
For
aquatic
organisms,
such
as
plants,
fish,
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
and
invertebrates,
OPP
generally
uses
computer
simulation
models
to
estimate
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient.
These
models
calculated
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
surface
water
using
environmental
fate
data.
Monitoring
data,
if
available,
may
also
be
used
to
determine
EECs
or
to
support
the
model's
calculations.
The
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
is
initially
used
to
calculate
highend
estimates
of
surface
water
concentrations
of
pesticides
in
a
generic
pond.
The
User's
Manual
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
Model
description
available
at
the
following
url
can
be
consulted
for
additional
information:
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm.

Although
there
are
over
50
registered
crop
uses
for
napropamide,
EFED
only
assessed
20
crop
use
scenarios
for
surface
water
exposure
because
they
represent
the
crops
and
geographical
areas
where
the
highest
use
rates
and
exposures
are
expected.
EFED
chose
to
model
36
scenarios:
almonds
in
California
(
2
application
rates,
broadcast
and
banded),
citrus
in
Florida
(
2
application
rates,
broadcast
and
banded),
citrus
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
berries
in
Oregon,
apples
in
Pennsylvania
(
2
application
rates,
broadcast
and
banded),
apples
in
North
Carolina
(
2
32
of
82
application
rates,
broadcast
and
banded),
pecans
in
Georgia
(
2
application
rates,
banded
and
banded),
tomatoes
in
California,
peppers
in
Florida,
grapes
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
tobacco
in
North
Carolina,
turf
in
Pennsylvania
(
2
application
rates),
and
cranberries
in
Michigan.
A
more
detailed
description
of
the
models
can
be
found
in
section
III
and
Appendix
B.
No
EECs
are
generated
in
instances
where
no
toxicity
was
observed
at
concentrations
above
the
active
ingredient's
water
solubility
or
at
or
above
the
recommended
limit
concentration
for
a
particular
type
of
study.

b.
Toxicity
Aquatic
and
terrestrial
non­
target
toxicity
endpoints
(
animals
and
plants)
are
provided
by
the
acute
and,
where
appropriate,
chronic
toxicity
data.
These
toxicity
endpoints
are
compared
with
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
napropamide,
based
on
fate
properties,
chemical
type,
exposure
method,
etc.
For
this
assessment,
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
for
each
surrogate
taxa
(
i.
e.,
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
aquatic
plants,
terrestrial
plants,
birds,
and
mammals)
will
be
used
in
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
calculation
with
various
exposure
values
(
see
above).

Endangered
species
analysis
will
be
performed
using
the
EFED
LOCATES
Endangered
Species
Database
to
determine
presence
of
endangered
or
threatened
species
in
counties
where
all
treated
crops
are
grown.
A
species
profile
analysis
will
be
performed
to
determine
whether
there
are
any
potential
risk
scenarios
to
endangered
species
in
those
identified
areas.

c.
Risk
Quotients
and
Levels
of
Concern
Risk
characterization
integrates
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects.
For
ecological
effects,
the
Agency
accomplishes
this
integration
using
the
quotient
risk
method.
Risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
acute
and
chronic
ecotoxicity
values.

RQ
=
EXPOSURE
/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Program's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
to
assess
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Calculation
of
an
RQ
that
exceeds
the
LOC
indicates
that
a
particular
pesticide
use
poses
a
presumed
risk
to
non­
target
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
categories
of
presumed
risk:
°
acute
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
beyond
restricted
use
classification
may
be
warranted
°
acute
restricted
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
°
acute
endangered
species
­
threatened
and
endangered
species
may
be
adversely
affected
°
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.

The
ecotoxicity
values
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
endpoints
derived
from
33
of
82
required
laboratory
toxicity
studies.
Ecotoxicity
endpoints
derived
from
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:

°
LC
50
­
fish
and
birds
°
LD
50
­
birds
and
mammals
°
EC
50
­
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates
°
EC
25
­
terrestrial
plants
The
NOAEC
(
No
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration)
is
the
endpoint
used
to
assess
chronic
effects.
Table
6
gives
formulas
for
calculating
RQs
and
LOCs
for
various
risk
presumptions.

Table
6.
Formulas
for
RQ
calculations
and
LOC
used
for
risk
assessment
of
napropamide.

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
and
Wild
Mammals
Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2*
or
LD50/
day2
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Terrestrial
and
Plants
Inhabiting
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
Acute
Risk
EEC4/
EC25
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Use
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
EC50
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
*
mg/
ft2
1Abbreviation
for
Estimate
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
3
EEC
=
ppm
or
ppb
in
water
4
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
34
of
82
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
a.
Fate
in
the
Terrestrial
Environment
Napropamide
is
expected
to
have
moderate
to
low
mobility
in
soil
based
upon
batch
equilibrium
studies
showing
K
ads
values
averaging
3.38
for
a
sandy
loam,
5.12
for
a
loamy
sand,
8.63
for
a
loamy
sand,
and
14.8
ml/
g
for
a
silt
loam
soil.
The
K
oc
values
for
adsorption
were
1170,
465,
480,
and
674
ml/
g,
respectively.
Adsorption
of
napropamide
increases
with
increasing
clay
content,
organic
carbon
content,
and
pH.
Napropamide
is
not
expected
to
volatilize
from
dry
soil
surfaces
based
upon
its
vapor
pressure
of
1.7
x
10­
7
mm
Hg.

Napropamide
does
photodegrade
on
soil
with
a
half­
life
of
28
days.
The
major
degradate
is
carbon
dioxide.
However,
it
is
important
to
note
that
napropamide
must
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
in
order
to
be
efficacious,
therefore,
photodegradation
on
soil
is
not
expected
to
be
a
major
route
of
dissipation.
Microbial
degradation
of
napropamide
in
soil
under
aerobic
conditions
is
very
slow
with
an
estimated
half
life
of
446
days.
This
suggests
that
the
chemical
may
accumulate
in
soil
with
repeated
applications.
The
major
volatile
degradate
detected
was
CO
2
,
which
increased
to
20
%
of
applied
by
360
days
(
end
of
study).
The
major
non­
volatile
detected
was
naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA),
which
increased
to
5.8
%
by
90
days
and
declined
to
1.5
%
of
applied
by
270
days.
Methyl
napropamide,
4­
nitro
napropamide
and
1,4­
naphthoquinone
were
also
identified
in
smaller
amounts.
Under
anaerobic
conditions,
a
half­
life
of
51
days
was
calculated;
however,
this
is
considered
highly
uncertain
due
to
poor
material
balance
at
60­
days
under
anaerobic
conditions.

Half­
lives
in
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
were:

17.4
days
for
Devrinol
®
50­
DF,
broadcast
applied
twice
as
a
spray
(
1­
month
interval)
on
a
bareground
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
Mississippi,
and
17.0
and
23.9
days
for
Devrinol
®
10­
G,
broadcast
applied
once
on
a
bare
ground
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
California
(
two
separate
studies).

15
and
17
days
for
Devrinol
50
WP,
broadcast
once
in
the
fall
and
spring
on
loam/
sandy
loam
soils
in
Ontario
Canada
28
and
51
days
for
Devrinol
50
WP,
broadcast
once
in
the
fall
and
spring
on
fine
sandy
loam
soils
in
Ontario
Canada
46
and
131
days
for
Devrinol
FL,
broadcast
once
on
four
loamy
fine
sand/
fine
sandy
loam
soils
in
W.
Germany
35
of
82
Napropamide
was
not
detected
below
the
0­
to
6­
inch
depth,
indicating
little
potential
for
leaching.
The
degradates
alpha
naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA)
and
desethyl
napropamide
were
detected
in
these
studies
and,
like
parent
napropamide,
were
not
mobile.

The
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
are
much
shorter
than
what
would
be
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data.
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

b.
Fate
in
the
Aquatic
Environment
In
water,
napropamide
is
expected
to
adsorb
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment.
Napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9,
but
undergoes
rapid
direct
photolysis
in
water
with
a
half­
life
of
6.8
minutes.
Identified
degradates
were
Isomer
One
and
Isomer
Two
(
propionamide),
which
comprised
20
and
27%,
respectively,
of
the
initial
radioactivity
at
10
minutes.
The
two
isomers
also
degrade
rapidly,
as
the
total
residue
half­
life
in
the
photodegradation
in
water
study
was
only
26
minutes.
The
third
degradate
identified
was
a
dimer,
which
comprised
9%
of
the
initial
radioactivity.
Because
of
light
attenuation,
aqueous
photolysis
will
be
an
important
pathway
only
in
shallow
clear
water
bodies.
Binding
to
suspended
solids
and
sediment
can
also
diminish
the
role
photolysis
plays
in
the
degradation
of
napropamide.

Napropamide
was
stable
in
an
anaerobic
flooded
soil
system,
comprising
82
%
of
the
applied
at
365
days.
Naphthoxy
propionic
acid
(
NPA)
was
the
only
identified
degradate,
and
only
reached
0.8
%
of
applied
by
271
days.
No
other
degradates
were
identified,
although
unidentified
radioactivity
comprised
up
to
10.3
%
of
the
applied
by
271
days.
Bound
residues
reached
a
maximum
of
13.1
%
by
90
days,
and
declined
to
9
%
by
365
days.
There
was
no
significant
volatilization
of
radioactivity.
At
the
time
of
application,
most
of
the
radioactivity
(~
60
%)
was
associated
with
the
water
phase.
By
day
365,
aqueous
residues
declined
to
24
%,
and
soil
residues
increased,
demonstrating
that
napropamide
partitions
to
soil
or
sediment.

Neither
volatilization
from
water
nor
bioconcentration
are
expected
to
be
important
fate
processes
based
upon
this
compound's
estimated
Henry's
Law
constant
of
8.1
x10­
10
atm­
m3/
mole,
and
BCF
(
35
in
edible
tissue),
respectively.

2.
Monitoring
Data
The
following
napropamide
monitoring
studies
were
consulted.

Groundwater
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
8
well
water
samples
from
5
counties
in
a
well
inventory
study
in
California
conducted
from
July
1,
1994
through
June
30,
1995.
36
of
82
California
EPA;
Sampling
for
pesticide
residues
in
California
Well
water.
1995
update
of
the
Well
Inventory
Data
Base.
CA
Environ
Prot
Agency.
Dept
Pest
Reg.
EH95­
06
(
1995)
peer
reviewed
Drinking
Water
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
finished
drinking
water
in
Florence,
Italy,
using
water
from
the
Arno
River,
surveyed
from
1992­
1995.
Griffini
O
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
59:
202­
9
(
1997)
­
peer
reviewed
Surface
Water
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
stormwater
runoff
within
the
Sacramento
River
Basin,
California
during
a
storm
in
January
1994(
1).
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
Arno
River
water
samples
entering
the
drinking
water
treatment
plant
in
Florence,
Italy,
collected
from
1992
through
1995(
2).
In
a
study
conducted
from
April
1993
through
April
1994,
napropamide
was
detected
in
water
samples
from
two
tributary
streams
of
the
South
Platte
River,
a
small
agricultural
area
in
the
Lonetree
Creek
Basin
at
a
median
concentration
of
<
0.01
ug/
l,
but
not
detected
in
a
small
urban
area
in
the
Cherry
Creek
Basin
in
Colorado(
3).
Napropamide
was
not
detected
in
ten
water
runoff
samples
from
nine
golf
courses
around
Singapore.
(
1)
Domagalski
J;
J
Amer
Water
Res
Assoc
32:
953­
64
(
1996)
(
2)
Griffini
O
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
59:
202­
9
(
1997)
(
3)
Kimbrough
RA
et
al;
Environ
Sci
Technol
30:
908­
16
(
1996)
(
4)
Wan
HB
et
al;
Bull
Environ
Contam
Toxicol
56:
205­
9
(
1996)
all
peer
reviewed.

3.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
Napropamide
is
a
preemergent,
surface­
applied
herbicide
used
to
control
annual
grassy
and
broadleaf
weeds
on
a
variety
of
food
and
non­
food
crops.
Napropamide
is
sold
in
emulsifiable
liquid,
flowable
concentrate,
dry
flowable,
and
granular
formulations,
and
is
applied
at
the
highest
concentrations
to
tomatoes,
berries,
tobacco,
grapes,
cranberries,
peppers,
nuts,
pome
fruits,
and
citrus
crops,
as
well
as
turf,
trees,
and
ornamentals.

EFED
modeled
surface
water
exposure
using
the
Tier
II
model
PRZM­
EXAMS
for
most
labeled
terrestrial
crops,
and
a
modified
rice
model
for
cranberry
production.
Using
PRZM­
EXAMS,
EFED
modeled
a
variety
of
orchard,
vineyard,
and
vegetable
crops
for
which
scenarios
existed,
use
data
were
available,
maximum
application
rates
were
highest,
and
geographical
distribution
of
the
crops
were
covered.
Scenarios
existed
for
many
of
the
crops
either
directly
or
indirectly.
For
example,
scenarios
were
available
for
tomatoes,
tobacco,
pepper,
almonds,
grapes,
citrus,
berries,
and
apples.
Based
on
professional
judgement,
EFED
made
the
assumption
that
the
California
almond
scenario
represented
all
fruit
and
nut
crops
in
California.
Since
California
almonds
(
and
other
orchard
crops)
have
the
highest
application
rates
on
the
label,
this
approach
was
protective.
37
of
82
The
use
data
for
napropamide
from
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(
NCFAP)
indicate
that
tomatoes,
tobacco,
cranberries,
peppers,
strawberries,
and
almonds
account
for
23.5,
20.7,
11.8,
15.3,
8.9,
and
4.8
%
of
applied
napropamide
in
the
U.
S
in
1997
(
http://
www.
ncfap.
org/
database/
national/
default.
asp
).
With
the
exception
of
strawberries
and
cranberries,
scenarios
were
available
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Even
though
strawberries
were
not
modeled,
the
other
scenarios
with
higher
application
rates
are
expected
to
produce
higher
aquatic
exposure.

The
modeled
surface
water
scenarios
addressed
the
geographical
distribution
of
specific
crops
in
the
U.
S.
and
the
associated
weather
extremes.
For
example,
citrus
was
modeled
both
in
California
and
Florida,
and
apples
were
modeled
in
North
Carolina
and
Pennsylvania.
Berries
(
e.
g.
blackberries
and
raspberries)
were
modeled
in
Oregon
(
Pacific
Northwest).
Pecans
were
modeled
in
Georgia,
which
created
the
highest
estimates
of
water
concentrations.
Generally
speaking,
higher
precipitation
values
create
the
need
for
higher
application
rates
due
to
increased
metabolism,
runoff,
and
leaching.

Napropamide
is
only
effective
in
preventing
seed
germination
and
must
be
incorporated
or
wetted­
in
to
achieve
contact
with
seed.
It
is
recommended
to
be
applied
in
late
fall
prior
to
germination
of
winter
weeds
and
in
early
spring
prior
to
germination
of
spring/
summer
weeds.
EFED
modeled
the
runoff
into
surface
water
using
either
the
fall
or
spring
application,
and
for
orchard
crops,
assumed
two
applications
7
days
apart.
EFED
also
modeled
using
an
assumption
of
no
incorporation.
These
assumptions
were
made
in
order
to
assess
upper­
bound
concentrations
should
there
be
a
runoff
event
shortly
after
application
and
before
incorporation.
For
model
inputs,
see
Table
7.

EFED
modeled
the
cranberry
use
of
napropamide
using
the
Interim
Rice
Model
(
Bradbury,
10/
29/
02)
modified
to
represent
cranberries.
This
model
predicts
the
environmental
aquatic
exposure
concentration
(
EEC)
of
napropamide
resulting
from
the
application
of
napropamide
to
a
cranberry
field.
Although
this
model
has
not
been
officially
approved
by
EFED,
its
use
for
assessing
aquatic
exposure
concentration
resulting
from
use
on
cranberries
is
Division
policy
at
this
time.

The
cranberry
model
assumes
that
napropamide
is
applied
as
a
preemergent
herbicide
to
a
cranberry
field,
and
that
the
field
is
flooded
0­
4
hours
after
application
(
See
Table
8
for
modeling
inputs).
The
model
calculates
the
surface
water
concentration
of
napropamide
over
time
in
the
flooded
field.
The
flood
water
in
cranberry
fields
is
typically
held
for
several
days
before
it
is
released
into
the
surrounding
freshwater
or
marine/
estuarine
habitats.

Inputs
for
PRZM­
EXAMS
and
cranberry
modeling
are
shown
in
Tables
7
and
8,
respectively.
The
resulting
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
from
PRZM­
EXAMS
are
presented
in
Table
9,
and
EECs
estimated
for
napropamide
use
on
cranberries
are
presented
in
Table
10.
38
of
82
Table
7.
Inputs
for
napropamide
ecological
effects
EECs
applied
using
ground
equipment
to
terrestrial
crops
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)

MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
Application
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
and
#
apps
Based
on
Bead
Use
Data
and
Registrant
CA
Almonds
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
FL
Citrus
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
CA
Citrus
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Berry
4.48
1
app
broadcast
OR
Filbert
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Mint
4.48
PA
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
NC
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
PA
Turf
3.36
6.72
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
CA
Tomato
2.24
1
app
broadcast
FL
Pepper
2.24
1
app
broadcast
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
39
of
82
CA
Grape
4.48
6.72
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
GA
Pecan
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
NC
Tobacco
2.24
1
app
broadcast
Interval
between
applications
60
days
for
all
crops
with
two
applications.
Application
interval
of
90
days
was
used
suggested
by
the
registrant
labels.
Label
for
turf
suggests
retreatment
at
8­
10
weeks
after
first
application
60
days
was
used
because
the
PE­
4
Shell
would
not
run
with
an
application
interval
of
90
days
Application
Date(
s)
3/
1
FL
citrus
and
pepper,
GA
pecan,
and
NC
tobacco
4/
1
NC
apple,
PA
turf,
and
PA
apple
11/
1
CA
almonds,
citrus,
tomato,
and
grape,
OR
berry
and
apple,
PA
apple,
OR
mint
and
filberts
Application
method
Ground
per
labels
Molecular
Weight
271
g/
Mol
Vapor
pressure
1.7
x
10­
7
Torr
at
25
oC
46105003
Henry's
Law
Constant
8.2
x
10­
10
calculated
(
Vapor
pressure
*
Molecular
weight)/
(
760
*
water
solubility)

Application
Efficiency
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
for
Ground
Applications
All
non­
granular
uses
0.99
Granular
uses
(
turf)
1.00
Spray
Drift
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
All
non­
granular
uses
0.01
Granular
uses
(
turf
and
6
lb
rate
on
fruit
and
nut
crops)
0.00
Kd
(
ml/
g)
8
Average
of
values
in
MRID
41575302
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
40
of
82
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolic
Halflife
(
days)
parent
1338
3X
446
day
half­
life
based
on
extractable
residues
in
MRID
41105901
Incorporation
depth
(
cm)
All
uses
5
Assumes
compound
is
watered­
in
or
mechanically
incorporated
to
2
inches
of
depth
soon
after
application
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
740
74
mg/
L
at
20
oC
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolic
Half­
life
(
days)
Kbacw
in
EXAMS
0
No
data
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
Kbacs
in
EXAMS
557
MRID
46478703
Upper
10th
cb
on
mean
of
254
and
403
days
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
0.0047
D303453,
dated
11/
30/
04
41575301
1
Input
parameters
based
on
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
41
of
82
Table
8.
Inputs
for
Cranberry
Modeling
of
Napropamide
Use
Input
Value
Comment(
s)

Area
(
ha)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
sediment
interaction
(
cm)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
floodwater
(
m)
0.45
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Volume
=
4.551
*
106
L
Soil
bulk
density
(
g/
cm3)
1.3
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Mass
of
soil
=
130,000
kg/
ha
Organic
carbon
content
(%)
2
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Time
from
application
to
flooding
(
days)
90
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Length
of
flooding
(
days)
5
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Application
rate
(
kg/
ha)
16.8
Maximum
label
rate
for
cranberries
Half­
lives
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
10,704
446
days
MRID
41105901
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
21,408
446­
Day
aerobic
soil
metabolism
*
2
no
162­
4
data
available
Aqueous
photolysis
0.11
6.8
minutes/
60
minutes/
hour
41575301
Mobility
Koc
(
L/
Kg)
1,170
MRID
41575302
Lowest
non­
sand
Estimated
Kd=
23.4
L/
kg
42
of
82
Table
9.
Surface
water
EECs
for
napropamide
(
all
crops
excluding
cranberries).

EECs
(
µ
g/
L)

Scenario*
Peak
21­
day
60­
day
CA
Almonds
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)
15.5
1.7
0.6
CA
Almonds
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)
46.2
5.2
1.9
CA
Almonds
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
20.2
1.8
0.7
CA
Almonds
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
60.7
5.3
2.0
CA
Citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
22.4
1.6
0.6
CA
Citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
14.9
14.9
1.0
0.4
CA
grapes
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
28.3
2.7
1.0
CA
grapes
(
2
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
41.9
3.9
1.4
CA
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.6
2.8
1.0
FL
citrus
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
75.1
4.1
1.6
FL
citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
224.5
12.2
4.6
FL
citrus
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
129.0
7.5
3.2
FL
citrus
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha).
43.5
2.5
1.1
FL
pepper
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
75.9
6.1
3.0
FL
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
76.6
6.1
3.1
FL
turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
59.6
3.2
1.2
FL
turf
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha)
36.8
2.1
0.8
EECs
(
µ
g/
L)

Scenario*
Peak
21­
day
60­
day
43
of
82
GA
pecan
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
156.0
12.1
4.7
GA
pecan
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
209.4
17.8
6.7
GA
pecan
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
52.3
4.0
1.6
GA
pecan
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
69.7
5.9
2.2
NC
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
27.3
2.3
1.0
NC
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
28.7
2.2
0.9
NC
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
86.3
6.5
2.6
NC
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
127.5
51.3
20.6
NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
21.5
1.5
0.7
NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
1.12
kg
ai/
ha)
10.8
0.7
0.4
OR
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
20.2
2.8
1.0
OR
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.6
3.4
1.4
OR
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
47.3
6.9
2.8
OR
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
60.3
8.3
3.0
OR
berry
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
38.9
4.5
1.9
OR
filbert
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
22.4
1.6
0.6
OR
filbert
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
23.0
3.3
1.2
EECs
(
µ
g/
L)

Scenario*
Peak
21­
day
60­
day
44
of
82
OR
filbert
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.7
3.5
1.5
OR
filbert
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
83.0
10.6
4.5
OR
mint
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
50.8
7.6
3.0
PA
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
39.1
2.8
1.1
PA
apple
(
1banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
24.5
2.1
0.9
PA
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
73.6
6.3
2.6
PA
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
117.1
8.4
3.4
PA
turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
60.2
4.3
1.5
PA
turf
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha)
11.4
0.9
0.3
*
All
scenarios
assume
negligible
incorporation
unless
otherwise
noted
Table
10.
EECs
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
on
cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)

Time
(
hours)
Maximum
EEC
(
ppb)

0
2213
1
4.8
2
0.0104
3
2.3
x
10­
5
4
5.0
x
10­
8
4.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
exposures
are
considered
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
as
well
as
reptiles.
For
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms,
such
as
birds
and
mammals,
pesticide
residues
on
food
items
are
estimated
45
of
82
based
on
the
assumption
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
The
application
method
for
napropamide
is
ground
application
only
(
ground
spray,
chemigation,
and
granular
broadcast).

a.
Granular
Applications
Napropamide
is
applied
to
numerous
crops
in
granular
form,
and
despite
recommended
soil
incorporation
methods,
could
pose
significant
risk
to
birds
and
mammals.
Birds
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
ingesting
granules
when
foraging
for
food
or
grit,
and
mammalian
species
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
by
ingesting
the
granules.
They
also
may
be
exposed
by
other
routes,
such
as
by
walking
on
exposed
granules
or
drinking
water
contaminated
by
granules.
The
number
of
lethal
doses
(
LD
50
)
that
are
available
within
one
square
foot
immediately
after
application
(
LD
50
/
ft2)
is
used
as
the
risk
quotient
for
granular
products.
Risk
quotients
are
calculated
for
three
separate
weight
classes
of
birds:
1000g
(
e.
g.
waterfowl),
80g
(
e.
g.
upland
gamebird),
and
20g
(
e.
g.
songbird).
Risk
quotients
are
also
calculated
for
three
separate
weight
classes
of
mammals:
1000g,
35g,
and
5g.
Chronic
risk
assessments
are
not
currently
performed
for
granular
pesticides
on
terrestrial
organisms.

b.
Spray
Applications
and
Residues
For
napropamide
spray
applications,
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
of
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate.
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
generated
from
a
spreadsheet­
based
model
(
T­
REX)
that
calculates
the
decay
of
a
chemical
applied
to
foliar
surfaces
for
single
or
multiple
applications.
Further
explanation
and
the
results
of
the
model
are
presented
in
Appendix
C.

The
terrestrial
exposure
assessment
is
based
on
the
methods
of
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).
Terrestrial
EECs
for
liquid
formulations
(
Table
11)
were
derived
for
representative
major
crops
using
current
application
rates
and
intervals
between
applications
where
applicable.

The
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
the
case
for
small
mammals.
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
napropamide
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
The
predicted
maximum
residues
of
napropamide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
are
presented
in
Table
11.
For
mammals,
the
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
through
mammalian
allometric
relationships.
Maximum
and
average
EECs
were
based
on
label
use
data,
and
typical
rates
were
based
on
data
provided
in
the
USDA
National
Agriculture
Statistics
Service,
"
2002
Census
of
Agriculture,
Volume
1
Chapter
2:
US
State
Level
Data"
at
http://
www.
nass.
usda.
gov/
census/
census02/
volume1/
us/
index2.
htm.
46
of
82
47
of
82
Table
11.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
napropamide
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items.

Application
rate
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
EEC)
(
ppm)

Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
6
lbs
ai/
A
x1
(
broadcast)
1140
660
810
90
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
480
220
270
30
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
a
1253
574
705
78
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
960
440
540
60
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
a
939
431
528
59
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
480
220
270
30
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
160
73
90
10
1.33
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
a
137
64
78
9
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1*(
broadcast)
b
240
110
135
15
*
aApplication
interval
of
60
days.
bAverage
napropamide
use
rate
on
tobacco
5.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.

EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai/
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
napropamide
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means,
but
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.
Inputs
for
the
TERRPLANT
model
are
listed
in
Table
12,
and
the
model
outputs
may
be
seen
in
Appendix
D
(
separate
appendix).
EECs
are
presented
in
Tables
13
and
14.

Table
12.
TERRPLANT
modeling
inputs
for
the
napropamide
plant
risk
quotient
calculations.

Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
6
lbs
ai/
A
6
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
1.33
lb
ai/
A
1.33
lb
ai/
A
1
lb
ai/
A
1
lb
ai/
A
Runoff
Value
(
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
if
chemical
solubility
<
10,
10­
100,
or
>
100
ppm,
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
Application
Rate
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
6
lbs
ai/
A
6
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
4
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
2
lbs
ai/
A
1.33
lb
ai/
A
1.33
lb
ai/
A
1
lb
ai/
A
1
lb
ai/
A
48
of
82
respectively)
Minimum
Incorporation
Depth
(
inches)
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
2
4
Seed
Emerg
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
Seed
Emerg
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
0.0088
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lbs
a.
i./
acre)
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
0.33
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
EC05
or
NOAEC
(
lb
a.
i./
acre)
0.01936
0.0193
6
0.0193
6
0.0193
6
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
0.01936
Table
13.
Napropamide
terrestrial
plant
EECs
for
non­
target
vascular
plants
using
labeled
spray
application
rates.

Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
Spray
Drift
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)

6
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.18
1.26
0.06
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.12
0.66
0.06
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.09
0.36
0.06
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.37
1.02
0.30
4
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.12
0.84
0.04
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.08
0.44
0.04
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.06
0.24
0.04
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.25
0.68
0.20
2
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.06
0.42
0.02
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.04
0.22
0.02
Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
Spray
Drift
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)

49
of
82
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.03
0.12
0.02
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.12
0.34
0.10
1.33
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.04
0.28
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.03
0.15
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.02
0.08
0.01
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.08
0.23
0.07
1
lbs
ai/
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.03
0.21
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.02
0.11
0.01
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.015
0.06
0.01
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.062
0.17
0.05
50
of
82
Table
14.
EECs
for
granular
napropamide
formulation
applications
Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
EEC
(
ppb)
EEC
(
ppb)

6
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp.
0.12
1.2
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.06
0.6
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.03
0.30
4
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.08
0.80
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.04
0.40
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.02
0.20
2
lbs
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.04
0.40
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.02
0.20
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.01
0.10
1.33
lb
ai./
acre
Ground
Unincorp
0.03
0.30
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.013
0.13
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.007
0.07
1
lb
ai/
acre
Ground
Unicorp.
0.02
0.20
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
0.01
0.10
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
0.005
0.05
B.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
1.
Evaluation
of
Aquatic
and
Terrestrial
Ecotoxicity
Studies
In
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessments,
effects
characterization
describes
the
types
of
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
organism
or
plant.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrant­
submitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
In
addition,
other
sources
of
information,
including
51
of
82
reviews
of
the
open
literature
and
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS),
are
conducted
to
further
refine
the
characterization
of
potential
ecological
effects.

Appendix
F
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
Mammalian
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
or
New
Zealand
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

Napropamide
Toxicity
Categories
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
both
an
acute
oral
and
subacute
dietary
basis;
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis;
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees
on
an
acute
oral
basis,
is
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish;
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates;
is
slightly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish;
and
is
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Tables
15
­
17
summarize
the
most
sensitive
ecological
toxicity
endpoints
for
aquatic
organisms,
terrestrial
organisms,
and
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
respectively.
Discussions
of
the
effects
of
napropamide
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
taxonomic
groups
are
presented
below.

Table
15.
Summary
of
Napropamide
Acute
and
Chronic
Aquatic
Toxicity
Data
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
LC50
or
EC50
(
mg
ai/
L)
MRID
LOAEC/
NOAEC
(
mg/
L)
MRID
Rainbow
Trout
Oncorhynchys
mykiss
6.4
115313
1.9
/
1.1
464591­
09
Water
Flea
Daphnia
magna
14.3
88064
57805
2.2
/
1.1
464787­
04
Sheepshead
Minnow
Cyprinodon
variegatus
14.0
416102­
06
NO
DATA
NA
Eastern
Oyster
Crassostrea
virginica
1.4
416671­
01
NO
DATA
NA
Mysid
Shrimp
Americamysis
bahia
4.2
416102­
07
NO
DATA
NA
*
No
chronic
toxicity
data
submitted
for
marine/
estuarine
animals.
Acute
toxicity
tests
demonstrated
acute
toxicity
>
1mg/
L
(
40
CFR
72­
4)
52
of
82
Table
16.
Summary
of
Napropamide
Acute
and
Chronic
Terrestrial
Organism
Toxicity
Data
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
Oral
Toxicity
LD50
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
Subacute
Dietary
LC50
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
NOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kg)
MRID
Affected
Endpoints
Mallard
Duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
>
4640
2296521
>
5620
258393
113820
10002
79548
and
79555
NA2
Laboratory
Rat
Rattus
norvegicus
>
5000
2306021
NA
NA
303
40362902
growth
&
reproduction
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
>
113.5
ug
ai/
bee
464591­
15
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1
Accession
number
2
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effect
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOAEC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
3mg
ai/
kg
diet
Table
17.
Summary
of
napropamide
most
sensitive
plant
toxicity
endpoints.

Species
Toxicity
EC25
/
EC05
NOAEC
(
ppm)
Affected
Endpoint
(
MRID)

Green
alga
Selenastrum
capricornutum
(
TGAI)
EC50
=
3.4
(
ppm)
NA
Cell
density
(
416102­
10)

Blue­
green
alga
Anabaena
sp.
(
TGAI)
EC50
=
13
EC05
=
1.8
(
ppm)
5.05
Cell
density
(
464591­
12)

Aquatic
vascular
plant
Lemna
minor
(
TGAI)
EC50
=
0.35
EC05
=
0.036
(
ppm)
0.071
Biomass
(
464591­
11)

Terrestrial
plants
(
see
Appendix
D
for
a
list
of
species)
(
TEP)
2.1­
0.095
(
lbs
ai/
A)
<
0.017
Percent
emergence
and
dry
weight
(
416102­
09)
53
of
82
2.
Use
of
Probit
Slope
Response
Relationship
The
Agency
uses
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOC).
The
acute
listed
species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.05
are
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively.
As
part
of
the
risk
characterization,
an
interpretation
of
acute
LOCs
for
listed
species
is
discussed.
This
interpretation
is
presented
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
i.
e.,
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
napropamide
on
par
with
the
acute
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
uses
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoints
for
each
taxonomic
group.
The
individual
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOCs
is
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
the
slope
and
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition
to
a
single
effects
probability
estimate
based
on
the
mean,
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
are
also
provided
to
account
for
variance
in
the
slope.
The
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
effects
probability
are
based
on
available
information
on
the
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
slope.
A
statement
regarding
the
confidence
in
the
applicability
of
the
assumed
probit
dose
response
relationship
for
predicting
individual
event
probabilities
is
also
included.
Studies
with
good
probit
fit
characteristics
(
i.
e.,
statistically
appropriate
for
the
data
set)
are
associated
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.
Conversely,
a
low
degree
of
confidence
is
associated
with
data
from
studies
that
do
not
statistically
support
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition,
confidence
in
the
data
set
may
be
reduced
by
high
variance
in
the
slope
(
i.
e.,
large
95%
confidence
intervals),
despite
good
probit
fit
characteristics.

Individual
effect
probabilities
are
calculated
based
on
an
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECV1.1
(
Individual
Effect
Chance
Model
Version
1.1)
developed
by
Ed
Odenkirchen
of
the
U.
S.
EPA,
OPP,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
June
22,
2004).
The
model
allows
for
such
calculations
by
entering
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
and
the
95%
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate)
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.
In
addition,
the
LOC
(
0.1
for
terrestrial
animals
and
0.05
for
aquatic
animals)
is
entered
as
the
desired
threshold.

3.
Incident
Data
Review
A
review
of
the
EIIS
database
for
ecological
incidents
involving
napropamide
was
completed.
There
were
two
reported
incidents.
The
first
incident
involved
adverse
effects
on
fish
(
incident
#
1000799­
04).
Napropamide
and
chlorpyrifos
residues
were
identified
in
soil
in
the
vicinity
of
a
fish
pond.
The
report
deemed
chlorpyrifos
as
a
more
probable
reason
for
the
incident
than
napropamide.
This
is
because
chlorpyrifos
is
very
highly
toxic
to
fish.
Napropamide
is
only
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
fish.
The
second
incident
report
involved
damage
to
seven
acres
of
planted
douglas
fir
trees.
The
report
determined
that
napropamide
was
unlikely
the
cause
of
the
damage
because
it
had
only
been
applied
once
to
the
area.
Additionally,
oryzalin,
which
was
used
in
the
vicinity
of
the
tree
damage,
was
determined
to
be
the
likely
candidate
because
its
label
specifically
warned
that
this
chemical
could
damage
Douglas
fir
trees.
54
of
82
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Risk
characterization
is
the
integration
of
exposure
and
effects
characterization
to
determine
the
ecological
risk
from
the
use
of
napropamide
and
the
likelihood
of
effects
on
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
plants
based
on
varying
pesticide­
use
scenarios.
The
risk
characterization
provides
an
estimation
and
a
description
of
the
risk;
articulates
risk
assessment
assumptions,
limitations,
and
uncertainties;
synthesizes
an
overall
conclusion;
and
provides
the
risk
managers
with
information
to
make
regulatory
decisions.

A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
napropamide
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
is
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
The
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
assess
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
These
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide's
directed
label
use
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.

1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Surface
water
concentrations
resulting
from
napropamide
application
to
selected
crops
were
predicted
with
the
Tier
II
models
PRZM
M­
EXAMS.
Forty­
three
scenarios
were
simulated:
almonds
in
California
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
filberts
in
Oregon
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
citrus
in
Florida
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
citrus
in
California
(
2
application
rates,
broadcast),
berries
in
Oregon,
apples
in
Pennsylvania
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
apples
in
North
Carolina
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
apples
in
Oregon
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
pecans
in
Georgia
(
4
application
rates,
either
broadcast
or
banded),
tomatoes
in
California,
tomatoes
in
Florida,
peppers
in
Florida,
mint
in
Oregon,
grapes
in
California
(
2
application
rates),
tobacco
in
North
Carolina,
turf
in
Pennsylvania,
turf
in
Florida,
and
cranberries
in
Michigan.

Peak
EECs
were
compared
to
acute
toxicity
endpoints
for
napropamide
to
derive
acute
RQs
for
fish
and
invertebrates
(
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine).
EECs
calculated
at
21
days
post
application
were
compared
to
chronic
toxicity
endpoints
to
derive
chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
55
of
82
Acute
risk
to
Aquatic
Animals:

RQ
values
for
napropamide
are
summarized
in
Tables
18
and
19.
None
of
the
acute
fish
(
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine)
or
freshwater
invertebrate
RQs
calculated
for
napropamide
exceeded
any
LOC
values
(
endangered
species
LOC
=
0.05),
except
at
peak
EECs
under
the
cranberry
scenario.
However,
within
1
hour
post
flooding,
acute
RQs
do
not
exceed
any
LOCs
for
aquatic
animals.

Endangered
species
RQ
values
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
mollusks)
exposed
to
napropamide
in
runoff
in
the
following
scenarios:
broadcast
application
to
Oregon
filberts
at
a
rate
of
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.059),
banded
application
to
Florida
citrus
at
an
application
rate
of
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.054)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.092),
broadcast
applications
to
Pennsylvania
apple
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
60­
day
intervals
(
RQ
=
0.084)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.053),
broadcast
applications
to
North
Carolina
apple
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
60­
day
intervals
(
RQ
=
0.091)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.062),
broadcast
applications
to
Florida
tomato
at
an
application
rate
of
2
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
per
year
(
RQ
=
0.055),
broadcast
applications
to
Florida
pepper
at
an
application
rate
of
2
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
per
year
(
RQ
=
0.054).
Acute
RQs
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
crustaceans)
with
broadcast
applications
to
FL
citrus
at
an
application
rate
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
per
year
with
60­
day
intervals
(
RQ
=
0.053).

Restricted
use
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
mollusks)
exposed
in
the
following
scenarios:
broadcast
application
to
Florida
citrus
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
60­
day
intervals
(
RQ
=
0.160),
broadcast
applications
to
Georgia
pecan
at
application
rates
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
applied
twice
a
year
with
60­
day
intervals
(
RQ
=
0.111)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
applied
once
a
year
(
RQ
=
0.150).

Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
resulting
from
application
to
Oregon
filberts,
Florida
citrus,
North
Carolina
apple,
Georgia
pecans,
Florida
tomato,
and
Florida
pepper
based
on
these
surrogate
data.
56
of
82
Table
18.
Acute
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
animals
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish1
Estuarine/
Marine
fish
2
Freshwater
Invertebrates
3
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
oyster
4
shrimp
5
CA
Almond
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
15.5
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.011
0.004
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
46.2
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.033
0.011
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
20.2
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.014
0.005
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
60.7
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.043
0.014
OR
Filbert
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
22.4
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.016
0.005
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
23.0
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.016
0.005
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
23.7
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.017
0.006
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
83.0
0.013
0.006
0.006
0.059*
0.020
FL
Citrus
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
75.1
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.054*
0.018
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
224.5
0.035
0.016
0.016
0.160**
0.053*

6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
129.0
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.092*
0.031
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
43.5
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.031
0.010
CA
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
22.4
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.016
0.005
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
14.9
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.011
0.004
OR
Berry
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
38.9
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.028
0.009
PA
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
39.1
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.028
0.009
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish1
Estuarine/
Marine
fish
2
Freshwater
Invertebrates
3
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
oyster
4
shrimp
5
57
of
82
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
24.5
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.018
0.006
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
73.6
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.053*
0.018
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
117.1
0.018
0.008
0.008
0.084*
0.028
OR
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
20.2
0.003
0.001
0.001
0.014
0.005
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
23.6
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.017
0.006
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
47.3
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.034
0.011
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
60.3
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.043
0.014
NC
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
27.3
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.020
0.007
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
28.7
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.021
0.007
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
86.3
0.013
0.006
0.006
0.062*
0.021
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
127.5
0.020
0.009
0.009
0.091*
0.030
GA
Pecan
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
156.0
0.024
0.011
0.011
0.111**
0.037
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
209.4
0.033
0.015
0.015
0.150**
0.050
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
52.3
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.037
0.012
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
69.7
0.011
0.005
0.005
0.050*
0.017
CA
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
23.6
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.017
0.006
FL
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
76.6
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.055*
0.018
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish1
Estuarine/
Marine
fish
2
Freshwater
Invertebrates
3
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
oyster
4
shrimp
5
58
of
82
FL
Pepper
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
75.9
0.012
0.005
0.005
0.054*
0.018
OR
Mint
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
50.8
0.008
0.004
0.004
0.036
0.012
CA
Grape
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
41.9
0.007
0.003
0.003
0.030
0.010
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
28.3
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.020
0.007
NC
Tobacco
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
21.5
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.015
0.005
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
10.8
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.003
PA
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
60.2
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.043
0.014
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
11.4
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.008
0.003
FL
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
59.6
0.009
0.004
0.004
0.043
0.014
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
36.8
0.006
0.003
0.003
0.026
0.009
*
Exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOC
**
Exceeds
acute
restricted
use
LOC
1Rainbow
Trout
LC50
=
6400
ppb
2Sheepshead
Minnow
LC50
=
14,000
ppb
3Daphnia
EC50
=
14,300
ppb
4
Eastern
Oyster
EC50
=
1400
ppb
5
Mysid
Shrimp
EC50
=
4200
ppb
59
of
82
Table
19.
RQ
calculations
for
aquatic
organisms
based
on
the
peak
EEC
(
5.172
ug/
L)
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
on
cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)
and
most
sensitive
aquatic
organism
toxicity
endpoints.

Acute
RQs
(
LC50/
EC50)

Time
(
hrs)
EEC
(
ug/
L)
Freshwater
fish
(
6.4
ppm)
Freshwater
invert.
(
14.3
ppm)
Marine/
Estuarine
fish
(
14
ppm)
Marine/
Estuarine
invert.
(
1.4
ppm)
Green
algae
(
3.4
ppm)
Bluegreen
algae
(
13
ppm)
Aquatic
vascular
plants
(
0.35
ppm)
(
EC05=
.036
ppm))

0
2,212.6
0.35**
0.16**
0.16**
1.58*
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
nonendangered
:
6.32*
endangered:
61.46*

1
4.8
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
2
0.0104
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
3
2.3
x
10­
5
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
4
5.0
x
10­
8
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
0.05
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
Below
LOC
of
1
RQ
=
EEC/
LC50
or
EEC/
EC50
Exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
*
Exceed
Agency
level
of
concern
for
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
including
endangered
species.
**
Exceed
Agency
level
of
concern
for
restricted
use
and
risk
to
endangered
aquatic
organisms.
Note:
Table
19
demonstrates
that
the
concentration
of
napropamide
degrades
below
the
Agency
level
of
concern
for
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
within
1
hr.
Therefore,
flood
water
released
into
the
surrounding
aquatic
habits
is
not
expected
to
pose
a
significant
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
in
these
habitats.

Chronic
risk
to
Aquatic
Animals:

Chronic
RQs
are
summarized
in
Table
20
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
None
of
the
chronic
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrate
RQs
exceeded
LOCs
for
any
of
the
scenarios
modeled.
Chronic
toxicity
values
for
freshwater
fish
were
compared
to
21­
day
EECs,
since
the
study
provided
was
conducted
for
only
28
days.
60
of
82
Table
20.
Chronic
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
freshwater
animals.

Crop
scenario
Application
21­
Day
EEC
(
ppb)
Chronic
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)
Freshwater
invertebrate
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)

CA
Almond
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
1.7
0.002
0.002
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
5.2
0.005
0.005
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
1.8
0.002
0.002
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
5.3
0.005
0.005
OR
Filbert
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
1.6
0.001
0.001
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
3.3
0.003
0.003
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
3.5
0.003
0.003
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
10.6
0.010
0.010
FL
Citrus
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
4.1
0.004
0.004
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
12.2
0.011
0.011
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
7.5
0.007
0.007
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
2.5
0.002
0.002
CA
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
1.6
0.001
0.001
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
1.0
0.001
0.001
OR
Berry
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
4.5
0.004
0.004
PA
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
2.8
0.003
0.003
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
2.1
0.002
0.002
Crop
scenario
Application
21­
Day
EEC
(
ppb)
Chronic
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)
Freshwater
invertebrate
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)

61
of
82
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
6.3
0.006
0.006
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
8.4
0.008
0.008
OR
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
2.8
0.003
0.003
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
3.4
0.003
0.003
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
6.9
0.006
0.006
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
8.3
0.008
0.008
NC
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
2.3
0.002
0.002
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
2.2
0.002
0.002
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
6.5
0.006
0.006
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
51.3
0.047
0.047
GA
Pecan
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
12.1
0.011
0.011
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
17.8
0.016
0.016
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
4.0
0.004
0.004
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
5.9
0.005
0.005
CA
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
2.8
0.003
0.003
FL
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
6.1
0.006
0.006
FL
Pepper
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
6.1
0.006
0.006
OR
Mint
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
7.6
0.007
0.007
Crop
scenario
Application
21­
Day
EEC
(
ppb)
Chronic
RQ
value
Freshwater
fish
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)
Freshwater
invertebrate
(
NOEC
=
1100
ppb)

62
of
82
CA
Grape
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
3.9
0.004
0.004
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
2.7
0.002
0.002
NC
Tobacco
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
1.5
0.001
0.001
PA
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
4.3
0.004
0.004
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
0.9
0.001
0.001
FL
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
3.2
0.003
0.003
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
2.1
0.002
0.002
Aquatic
plants:
Peak
EECs
for
numerous
napropamide
modeling
scenarios
were
compared
to
the
acute
EC
50
toxicity
endpoint
for
green
alga,
blue­
green
alga,
and
aquatic
vascular
plant
to
derive
acute
non­
endangered
species
RQs
(
Tables
19
and
21).
Based
on
these
values,
there
are
no
LOC
exceedances
for
non­
endangered
aquatic
plants
and
algae,
except
at
peak
EECs
occurring
in
cranberries.
At
this
level,
exceedances
occurred
for
aquatic
vascular
plants.
However,
at
1
hour
after
flooding,
RQs
were
below
concerns
for
plants.
The
LOC
is
exceeded
for
endangered
vascular
aquatic
plants
under
several
scenarios:
broadcast
applications
to
CA
almonds
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
(
x2)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A,
broadcast
applications
to
OR
filberts
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
all
applications
to
FL
citrus,
applications
to
OR
berry,
all
applications
to
PA
apple
except
the
2
lbs
ai/
A
(
x1)
application,
OR
and
NC
apple
at
4
lbs
ai/
A
(
x2)
and
6
lbs
ai/
A
(
x1),
all
applications
to
GA
pecans,
FL
tomato,
FL
pepper,
OR
mint,
applications
of
4
lbs
ai/
A
to
CA
grapes,
all
applications
to
FL
turf,
and
applications
of
6
lbs
ai/
A
to
PA
turf.

Table
21.
Acute
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
for
aquatic
plants
63
of
82
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Green
algae
(
EC50
=
3400
ppb)
Blue­
green
algae
(
EC50
=
13000
ppb)
Non­
edangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC50
=
350
ppb)
Endangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC05
=
36
ppb)

CA
Almond
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
15.5
0.005
0.001
0.044
0.431
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
46.2
0.014
0.004
0.132
1.283
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
20.2
0.006
0.002
0.058
0.561
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
60.7
0.018
0.005
0.173
1.686
OR
Filbert
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
22.4
0.007
0.002
0.064
0.622
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
23.0
0.007
0.002
0.066
0.630
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
23.7
0.007
0.002
0.068
0.639
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
83.0
0.024
0.006
0.237
2.306
FL
Citrus
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
75.1
0.022
0.006
0.215
2.086
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
224.5
0.066
0.017
0.641
6.236
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
129.0
0.038
0.010
0.369
13.583
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
43.5
0.013
0.003
0.124
1.208
CA
Citrus
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
22.4
0.007
0.002
0.064
0.622
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
14.9
0.004
0.001
0.043
0.414
OR
Berry
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
38.9
0.011
0.003
0.111
1.081
PA
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
39.1
0.012
0.003
0.112
1.086
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Green
algae
(
EC50
=
3400
ppb)
Blue­
green
algae
(
EC50
=
13000
ppb)
Non­
edangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC50
=
350
ppb)
Endangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC05
=
36
ppb)

64
of
82
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
24.5
0.007
0.002
0.070
0.681
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
73.6
0.022
0.006
0.210
2.044
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
117.1
0.034
0.009
0.335
3.253
OR
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
20.2
0.006
0.002
0.058
0.561
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
23.6
0.007
0.002
0.067
0.656
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
47.3
0.014
0.004
0.135
1.314
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
60.3
0.018
0.005
0.172
1.675
NC
Apple
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
27.3
0.008
0.002
0.078
0.758
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
28.7
0.008
0.002
0.082
0.797
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
86.3
0.025
0.007
0.247
2.397
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
127.5
0.038
0.010
0.364
3.542
GA
Pecan
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
156.0
0.046
0.012
0.446
4.333
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
209.4
0.062
0.016
0.598
5.817
1.3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
52.3
0.015
0.004
0.149
1.453
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
69.7
0.021
0.005
0.199
1.936
CA
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
23.6
0.007
0.002
0.067
0.656
Crop
scenario
Application
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Acute
RQ
value
Green
algae
(
EC50
=
3400
ppb)
Blue­
green
algae
(
EC50
=
13000
ppb)
Non­
edangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC50
=
350
ppb)
Endangered
aquatic
vascular
plant
(
EC05
=
36
ppb)

65
of
82
FL
Tomato
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
76.6
0.023
0.006
0.219
2.128
FL
Pepper
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
75.9
0.022
0.006
0.217
2.108
OR
Mint
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
50.8
0.015
0.004
0.145
1.411
CA
Grape
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
41.9
0.012
0.003
0.120
1.164
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
28.3
0.008
0.002
0.081
0.786
NC
Tobacco
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
21.5
0.006
0.002
0.061
0.597
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
10.8
0.003
0.001
0.031
0.300
PA
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
60.2
0.018
0.005
0.172
1.672
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
11.4
0.003
0.001
0.033
0.317
FL
Turf
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
59.6
0.018
0.005
0.170
1.656
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
36.8
0.011
0.003
0.105
1.022
RQ
=
EEC/
EC50
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
The
EEC
values
for
terrestrial
exposure
were
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomograph,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.,
(
1994),
which
is
based
on
a
large
set
of
actual
field
residue
data.
Risk
quotients
are
calculated
using
the
most
sensitive
LC
50
and
NOAEC
for
birds,
LD
50
for
mammals
(
based
on
laboratory
rat
studies),
and
appropriate
EEC
values.

Birds:
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
birds
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC50
and
LD50
were
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
66
of
82
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1428
ppb)
(
See
T­
REX
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

No
chronic
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
birds
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure
(
See
Appendix
F,
Table
2).

Mammals:
No
acute
RQs
were
calculated
for
mammals
exposed
to
napropamide
via
spray
or
granular
application
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LD
50
was
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
5000
mg/
kg).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
mammals.
Therefore
the
maximum
mammalian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
See
T­
REX
Model
Appendix
C,
separate
document)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
mammals.

Chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
exceeded
the
LOC
of
1.0
on
all
food
types
and
at
all
napropamide
maximum
application
rates.
Additionally,
chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
exceeded
the
LOC
on
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
at
the
lowest
average
napropamide
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).
RQ
values
ranged
from
1.00
to
41.77.
Chronic
mammalian
RQ
values
are
summarized
in
Table
22.

Table
22.
Mammalian
chronic
RQ
values
for
napropamide
Application
rate
Mammalian
Chronic
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
38.00
22.00
27.00
3.00
6
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
16.00
7.33
9.00
1.00
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
2
41.77
19.13
23.50
2.60
4
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
32.00
14.67
18.00
2.00
3
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
broadcast)
31.30
14.37
17.60
1.97
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
16.00
7.33
9.00
1.00
2
lbs
ai/
A
x
1
(
banded)
5.33
2.43
3.00
0.33
1.33
lbs
ai/
A
x
2
(
banded)
4.57
2.13
2.60
0.30
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
(
broadcast)
3
8.00
3.67
4.50
0.50
1Rat
NOAEC
=
30
mg/
kg/
diet
2Application
interval
of
60
days
3Lowest
average
use
rate
(
tobacco)
exceedances
indicated
in
bold
Insects:
An
acute
oral
toxicity
study
for
honey
bees
indicated
an
LD
50
of
>
113.5
ug
ai/
bee.
Based
on
this
information,
napropamide
has
been
determined
to
be
practically
non­
toxic
to
67
of
82
honeybees
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Contact
data
that
were
submitted
were
determined
to
be
invalid;
therefore,
EFED
cannot
determine
the
acute
contact
risk
for
honeybees.

3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai./
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
for
tobacco.
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means.
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.

EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.
For
the
highest
application
rates
(
1.33,
2,
4,
and
6
lbs.
ai/
A),
potential
risk
was
predicted
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
monocot
and
dicot
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands.
Also,
spray
drift
risk
to
dicot
plants
was
predicted
from
these
application
rates.
(
Table
23).

The
lowest
average
application
rates
of
1
lb
ai/
A
and
1.33
lbs
ai/
A
primarily
pose
a
risk
to
endangered
species
inhabiting
wetlands
and
other
areas
adjacent
to
napropamide
applications.
Exceedances
also
occur
for
non­
endangered
plant
species
inhabiting
adjacent
wetlands.

Table
23.
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotients
(
RQs)

App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
6
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
1.64
6.00
11.45
42.00
0.08
0.18
Dicot
1.14
20.45
7.95
143.18
0.10
3.10
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
1.09
4.00
6.00
22.00
0.08
0.18
Dicot
0.76
13.64
4.17
75.00
0.10
3.10
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.82
3.00
3.27
12.00
0.08
0.18
Dicot
0.57
10.23
2.27
40.91
0.10
3.10
App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
68
of
82
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
3.38
12.40
9.27
34.00
0.38
0.91
Dicot
2.35
42.27
6.44
115.91
0.49
15.50
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.55
2.00
5.45
20.00
NA
NA
Dicot
0.38
6.82
3.79
68.18
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.27
1.00
2.73
10.00
NA
NA
Dicot
0.19
3.41
1.89
34.09
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
1.09
4.00
10.91
40.0
NA
NA
Dicot
0.76
13.64
5.45
136.36
NA
NA
4
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
1.09
4.00
7.64
28.00
0.05
0.12
Dicot
0.76
13.64
5.30
95.45
0.07
2.07
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.73
2.67
4.00
14.67
0.05
0.12
Dicot
0.51
9.09
2.78
50.00
0.07
2.07
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.55
2.00
2.18
8.00
0.05
0.12
Dicot
0.38
6.82
1.52
27.27
0.07
2.07
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
2.25
8.27
6.18
22.67
0.25
0.61
Dicot
1.57
28.18
4.29
77.27
0.33
10.33
granular
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.73
2.67
7.27
26.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.51
9.09
5.05
90.91
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.36
1.33
3.64
13.33
NA
NA
Dicot
0.25
4.55
2.53
45.45
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.67
1.82
6.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.13
2.27
1.26
22.73
NA
NA
2
lbs
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unicorp.
Monocot
0.55
2.00
3.82
14.00
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.38
6.82
2.65
47.73
0.03
1.03
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.36
1.33
2.00
7.33
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.25
4.55
1.39
25.00
0.03
1.03
App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
69
of
82
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.27
1.00
1.09
4.00
0.03
0.06
Dicot
0.19
3.41
0.76
13.64
0.03
1.03
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
1.13
4.13
3.09
11.33
0.13
0.3
Dicot
0.78
14.09
2.15
36.64
0.16
5.17
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.67
1.82
6.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.13
2.27
1.26
22.73
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.09
0.33
0.91
3.33
NA
NA
Dicot
0.06
1.14
0.63
11.36
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.36
1.33
3.64
13.33
NA
NA
Dicot
0.25
4.55
2.53
45.45
NA
NA
1.33
lb
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp
Monocot
0.36
1.33
2.54
9.31
0.02
0.04
Dicot
0.25
4.53
1.76
31.74
0.02
0.69
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.24
0.89
1.33
4.88
0.02
0.04
Dicot
0.17
3.02
0.92
16.63
0.02
0.69
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.67
0.73
2.66
0.02
0.04
Dicot
0.13
2.27
0.50
9.07
0.02
0.69
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
0.75
2.75
2.06
7.54
0.08
0.20
Dicot
0.52
9.37
1.43
25.69
0.11
3.43
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.12
0.44
1.21
4.43
NA
NA
Dicot
0.08
1.51
0.84
15.11
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.06
0.22
0.60
2.22
NA
NA
Dicot
0.04
0.76
0.42
7.56
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.24
0.89
2.42
8.87
NA
NA
Dicot
0.17
3.02
1.68
30.23
NA
NA
1
lb
ai/
A
liquid
Ground
Unincorp
Monocot
0.27
1.00
1.91
7.00
0.01
0.03
Dicot
0.19
3.41
1.33
23.86
0.02
0.52
App
rate
Form
App
method
Plant
Type
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Wetland
Area
Runoff
RQ
values
Spray
Drift
RQ
values
non­
end.
1
end.
2
nonend
3
end
4
non­
end.
5
end.
6
70
of
82
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.18
0.67
1.00
3.67
0.01
0.03
Dicot
0.13
2.27
0.69
12.50
0.02
0.52
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.27
1.00
0.14
0.50
0.56
2.07
Dicot
0.19
3.41
0.09
1.70
0.39
7.05
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
Monocot
0.56
2.07
1.55
5.67
0.06
0.15
Dicot
0.39
7.05
1.07
19.32
0.08
2.58
granular
Ground
Incorp.
(
2
in.)
Monocot
0.09
0.33
0.91
3.33
NA
NA
Dicot
0.06
1.14
0.63
11.36
NA
NA
Ground
Incorp.
(
4
in.)
Monocot
0.05
0.17
0.45
1.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.03
0.57
0.32
5.68
NA
NA
Ground
Unincorp.
Monocot
0.18
0.67
1.82
6.67
NA
NA
Dicot
0.13
2.27
1.26
22.73
NA
NA
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
1RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC25
2RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
3RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC25
4RQ
=
EEC
/
Seedling
emergence
EC05
or
NOAEC
5RQ
=
Drift
EEC
/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC25
6RQ
=
DriftEEC
/
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
or
NOAEC
71
of
82
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Summary
of
major
conclusions
°
Acute
and
chronic
LOCs
were
not
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
at
all
napropamide
application
levels
and
in
all
evaluated
scenarios.

°
The
acute
endangered
species
LOC
was
exceeded
for
marine/
estuarine
invertebrates
(
crustaceans)
under
the
Florida
citrus
scenario
in
which
2
applications
were
applied
60
days
apart
at
4
lbs
ai/
A.

°
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
applications
to
FL
citrus,
OR
filbert,
PA
apple,
NC
apple,
GA
pecan,
FL
tomato,
and
FL
pepper
based
on
these
surrogate
data.
Most
of
these
exceedences
were
based
on
application
of
either
the
maximum
broadcast
rates
(
4
and
6
lbs
ai/
A)
and
two
applications/
year.

°
A
freshwater
fish
sub­
chronic
study
(
MRID
464591­
09)
and
freshwater
invertebrate
life
cycle
study
(
MRID
464787­
04)
were
submitted,
which
have
been
used
to
assess
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
organisms.
Based
on
the
data
from
these
studies,
RQs
do
not
exceed
any
chronic
LOCs
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
However,
the
sub­
chronic
study
on
freshwater
fish,
which
has
been
used
in
place
of
a
guideline
early
life
stage
fish
study,
has
been
classified
as
supplemental.
EFED
acknowledges
uncertainties
that
are
associated
with
use
of
non­
guideline
studies
in
the
risk
assessment.
Chronic
toxicity
data
have
not
been
submitted
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
The
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
by
sunlight.
Laboratory
data
show
a
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
halflives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
essentially
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
and
to
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
(
T
1/
2
>
51
days).
72
of
82
°
EFED
recognizes
that
there
are
no
federally
listed
endangered
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
However,
endangered
species
and
restricted
use
acute
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
mollusks
for
napropamide
applications
to
Oregon
filberts,
Florida
citrus,
North
Carolina
apple,
Georgia
pecans,
Florida
tomato,
and
Florida
pepper.
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
concludes
the
potential
risk
to
freshwater
mollusks
under
these
scenarios.

°
The
modeling
of
napropamide
used
in
cranberry
production
indicates
that
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
is
not
likely
to
be
significant.
This
is
primarily
because
the
maximum
napropamide
concentration
(
2,213
ug/
L)
in
cranberry
field
flood
water
rapidly
degrades
(
within
1
hr)
to
concentrations
below
the
Agency's
level
of
concern
for
acute
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
(
Table
19).
Thus,
because
flood
water
contaminated
with
napropamide
is
typically
held
in
a
cranberry
field
for
several
days,
the
napropamide
concentration
released
into
the
surrounding
aquatic
environment
is
not
expected
to
be
significant.

°
With
the
exception
of
applications
to
cranberries,
no
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
non­
listed
aquatic
plants
based
on
green
alga
toxicity
data
and
supplemental
studies
on
toxicity
to
Lemna
minor
and
Anabaena
sp.
In
the
cranberry
scenario,
the
RQ
for
aquatic
vascular
plants
exceeded
plant
LOCs
at
peak
EECs.
However,
at
1
hour
after
flooding,
RQs
did
not
exceed;
therefore,
EFED
concludes
that
there
is
minimal
risk
to
aquatic
plants
under
this
scenario.
RQs
did
exceed
the
LOC
for
listed
aquatic
vascular
plants
under
several
scenarios
(
some
or
all
application
rates
related
to
CA
almond,
OR
filbert,
OR
berry,
PA
apple,
OR
apple,
NC
apple,
GA
pecan,
FL
tomato,
FL
pepper,
OR
mint,
CA
grape,
PA
turf,
and
FL
turf).
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
The
submission
of
supplemental
studies
provides
additional
information
about
the
toxicity
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
plants;
however,
the
data
do
present
uncertainties.
As
a
result
of
these
uncertainties
and
continued
missing
toxicity
data,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

With
the
exception
of
the
aforementioned
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
scenarios,
napropamide
use
poses
minimal
risk
to
aquatic
animals
and
non­
listed
aquatic
plants.
Napropamide
does
pose
a
risk
to
listed
aquatic
vascular
plants.

2.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
73
of
82
Summary
of
major
conclusions
°
Acute
RQ
values
for
birds
for
both
spray
and
granular
napropamide
applications
were
not
calculated
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LC
50
and
LD
50
were
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
7200
ppm;
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
oral
test
was
4640
mg/
kg
).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
birds.
Therefore
the
maximum
avian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
1428
ppb)
(
See
T­
REX
Model
Appendix
C)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
birds.

°
Chronic
RQ
values
for
birds
were
not
calculated
because
decreased
body
weights
measured
in
the
core
chronic
toxicity
study
were
deemed
unrelated
to
napropamide
exposure.
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effects
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOAEC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.

°
Acute
RQ
values
for
mammals
for
both
spray
and
granular
napropamide
applications
were
not
calculated
because
the
core
acute
toxicity
studies
demonstrated
that
the
LD
50
was
greater
the
greatest
dose
tested
(
highest
dose
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
test
was
5000
mg/
kg).
These
results
classify
napropamide
as
practically
nontoxic
to
mammals.
Therefore
the
maximum
mammalian
environmental
dietary
exposure
concentration
of
napropamide
(
See
T­
REX
Model
Appendix
C,
separate
document)
is
not
expected
to
cause
significant
acute
toxicity
to
mammals.

°
Chronic
risk
to
mammals
(
including
threatened
and
endangered
mammals)
is
possible
from
maximum
labeled
application
rates
of
napropamide
on
all
crops,
as
well
as
from
the
lowest
average
application
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
(
tobacco).

°
There
is
potential
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands
at
maximum
and
average
use
rates.

°
Napropamide
was
determined
to
be
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
As
a
result,
risk
to
beneficial
terrestrial
insects
due
to
napropamide
applications
is
not
expected.
Discussion
74
of
82
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
Although
no
RQs
calculated
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeded
the
endangered
species
LOC,
there
remains
an
uncertainty
as
to
whether
current
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
are
protective
of
freshwater
mollusk
species.
Therefore,
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
RQ
values
as
a
surrogate
for
freshwater
mollusks.
There
are
potential
exceedances
for
freshwater
mollusks
exposed
to
napropamide
resulting
from
application
to
Oregon
filberts,
Florida
citrus,
North
Carolina
apple,
Georgia
pecans,
Florida
tomato,
and
Florida
pepper
based
on
these
surrogate
data.
The
models
used
to
calculate
environmental
concentrations
used
an
incorporation
value
of
0.5
inches,
which
models
negligible
incorporation
and
therefore
simulates
a
runoff
event
immediately
following
application.
However,
the
RQ
values
for
endangered
mollusks
do
not
exceed
the
LOC
if
incorporation
(
2
inches)
occurs.
Given
the
information
that
soil
incorporation
mitigates
risk
to
mollusks,
it
is
possible
that
a
geographically­
specific
label
for
each
of
these
crops
could
be
used
to
lessen
the
risk
of
napropamide
use
to
endangered
mollusks.

Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
A
significant
risk
to
non­
listed
aquatic
plants
and
algae
was
not
calculated
in
this
risk
assessment,
except
immediately
following
flooding
of
a
cranberry
bog.
In
this
case,
significant
risk
was
calculated
only
for
aquatic
vascular
plants,
and
was
also
determined
to
be
below
LOCs
for
aquatic
plants
within
1
hour.
Based
on
these
data,
water
released
from
cranberry
bogs
is
not
expected
to
pose
an
acute
or
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
living
in
waters
downstream.

Listed
aquatic
vascular
species
were
determined
to
be
at
risk
under
several
scenarios
modeled.
Reductions
in
application
rates,
number
of
applications,
and
increases
in
application
intervals
may
reduce
risks
to
listed
aquatic
vascular
plants
under
some
scenarios.

Risk
to
Terrestrial
Plants
EFED
used
a
conservative
first
screen
to
estimate
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
This
screening
method
used
the
maximum
one­
application
rate
of
the
different
types
of
uses
(
orchards
and
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai./
A,
vineyards
at
6
lbs
ai/
A,
and
row
crops
at
2
and
4
lbs
ai/
A),
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb/
ai
A
(
tobacco).
The
labels
require
incorporation
by
either
wetting
in
or
by
mechanical
means,
but
EFED
modeled
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
assuming
incorporation
to
2
and
4
inches
of
depth
to
bracket
potential
exposure.
These
depths
are
specified
in
labels
as
being
minimum
depths
to
incorporate
applied
napropamide.

EFED
used
the
TERRPLANT
model
to
estimate
risk
to
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
areas
adjacent
to
the
treated
field
(
sheet
runoff),
wetland
areas
(
channelized
runoff),
and
from
spray
drift.
For
the
highest
application
rates
(
2,
4
and
6
lbs
ai/
A),
potential
risk
was
predicted
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered
terrestrial
plants
living
in
both
adjacent
areas
and
wetlands
with
liquid
application.
Granular
applications
lead
to
apparent
risk
to
both
endangered
monocots
and
dicots
at
both
incorporation
depths
(
2
and
4
inches).
Spray
drift
poses
a
potential
risk
to
endangered
dicots
at
all
application
rates
(
Table
23).
75
of
82
The
lowest
average
application
rates
of
1
lb
ai/
A
and
1.33
lbs
ai/
A
primarily
pose
a
risk
to
endangered
species
inhabiting
wetlands
and
other
areas
adjacent
to
napropamide
applications.
Exceedances
also
occur
for
non­
endangereds
plant
species
inhabiting
adjacent
wetlands.

Risk
to
plants
from
runoff
will
vary
with
application
conditions
and
application
technique.
Application
of
a
pesticide
to
soil
followed
by
mechanical
incorporation
is
expected
to
reduce
risk
to
plants
relative
to
wetting­
in
because
the
pesticide
will
be
partially
buried
and
exposed
to
soil
where
it
can
sorb
prior
to
a
runoff.
However,
wetting
in
can
also
reduce
runoff
if
the
rate
of
rainfall/
irrigation
is
slow
enough
to
allow
infiltration
into
the
soil.
The
particular
method
of
incorporation
will
depend
on
whether
the
crop
allows
mechanical
incorporation
or
not.
The
roots
of
an
orchard
crop
may
be
damaged
by
mechanical
incorporation
and
watering­
in
may
be
the
predominant
method
of
incorporation.
The
soil
properties
also
affect
runoff.
If
a
sandy
soil
is
present,
applied
water
will
have
a
greater
tendency
to
go
into
the
soil
rather
than
run
off
the
irrigated
area,
as
would
be
expected
with
a
clay
soil.
If
a
field
is
sloped
instead
of
being
flat,
runoff
will
be
favored
over
infiltration
into
the
soil.

Risk
to
Mammals
EFED
has
determined
that
napropamide
may
pose
a
chronic
risk
to
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
small
insects,
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
at
all
maximum
use
rates,
as
well
as
the
lowest
average
use
rate
of
1
lb
ai/
A
x
1
(
tobacco).
This
determination
is
based
on
the
premise
that
chronic
mammalian
risk
quotients
exceeded
the
Agency
Level
of
Concern
for
chronic
risk
to
mammals
including
endangered
species.
The
napropamide
mammalian
chronic
toxicity
study
demonstrated
that
napropamide
chronic
dietary
exposure
caused
chronic
loss
in
body
weight
for
parents
and
offspring.
This
indicates
that
napropamide
dietary
exposure
may
negatively
impair
mammalian
growth
and
development.
Mammals
may
be
exposed
to
napropamide
by
its
application
to
treated
areas,
where
they
feed
on
seeds,
insects,
and
plant
materials.
Such
application
may
contaminate
mammalian
food
materials.
Even
though
napropamide
is
required
to
be
incorporated
into
the
soil
upon
application,
mammalian
exposure
may
occur
because
some
mammals
may
dig
into
the
soil
as
they
forage
for
food
items.
Additionally,
napropamide
is
very
persistent
in
soil
(
aerobic
soil
metabolism
=
446
days;
terrestrial
field
dissipation
half­
lives
=
15­
131
days).
This
persistence
in
soil
may
is
predicted
to
contribute
to
chronic
exposure
and
consequently
chronic
risk.

C.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
1.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
The
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
endangered
and
threatened
mammals
and
non­
target
terrestrial
plants
are
exceeded
for
the
use
of
napropamide.
Appendix
G
provides
a
count
of
endangered
and
threatened
species
for
each
crop
where
napropamide
is
used,
as
well
as
a
list
of
all
of
the
endangered
mammals
and
plants
potentially
at
risk.
The
Agency
also
recognizes
that
there
are
no
Federally
listed
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
or
mollusks.
However,
there
are
76
of
82
numerous
endangered
freshwater
mollusks
and
the
Agency
uses
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusk
data
to
reflect
the
potential
effects
of
napropamide
use
on
endangered
freshwater
mollusks.

The
registrant
must
provide
information
on
the
proximity
of
Federally
listed
endangered
species
to
the
napropamide
usage
sites.
This
requirement
may
be
satisfied
in
one
of
three
ways:
1)
having
membership
in
the
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
(
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
2000­
2);
2)
citing
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
data;
or
3)
independently
producing
these
data,
provided
the
information
is
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
FIFRA
requirements.
The
information
will
be
used
by
the
OPP
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
develop
recommendations
to
avoid
adverse
effects
to
listed
species.

There
are
542
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
in
states
that
grow
crops
where
napropamide
is
potentially
used.
These
species
are
largely
state­
specific,
with
California
and
Hawaii
containing
the
largest
number
of
endangered
plant
species.

There
are
62
endangered
or
threatened
mammal
species
in
states
that
grow
crops
where
napropamide
is
potentially
used.
Based
on
this
assessment,
these
species
could
potentially
be
at
risk
from
chronic
napropamide
exposure.
Several
species,
such
as
the
gray
bat,
Indiana
bat,
and
black­
footed
ferret
occur
in
numerous
states.

2.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
The
probit
slope
response
relationship
is
evaluated
to
calculate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
Probit
slope
analysis
is
not
performed
for
plant
species
or
chronic
risks.
Therefore,
no
probit
slope
analyses
were
done
in
this
assessment.

3.
Critical
Habitats
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
terrestrial
plants
and
mammals.
In
light
of
the
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
77
of
82
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
fall
into,
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
terrestrial
plants
and
mammals.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary
4.
Indirect
Effect
Analyses
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
the
listed
organisms
by,
for
example,
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability,
altering
the
extent
of
nesting
habitat,
creating
gaps
in
the
food
chain,
etc.

In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
used
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
endangered
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.

Screening­
level
chronic
RQs
for
mammals
exceed
the
endangered
LOC;
therefore,
there
may
be
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects.
The
nature
of
the
chronic
toxicological
endpoint
can
not
be
considered
to
determine
if
a
rationale
for
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
effect"
determination
is
possible.
As
such,
Services­
provided
"
species
profiles",
and
further
evaluation
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
are
all
that
can
be
considered
to
determine
if
a
rationale
for
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
effect"
determination
is
possible.
Indirect
effects
to
mammals
may
result
from
reduced
food
items
to
animals,
behavior
modifications
from
reduced
or
a
modified
habitat,
and
from
alterations
of
habitats.
Alterations
of
habitats
can
affect
the
reproductive
capacity
of
some
terrestrial
animals.

Screening­
level
acute
RQs
for
terrestrial
plants
are
above
the
non­
endangered
species
LOCs.
The
Agency
considers
this
to
be
indicative
of
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
those
listed
species
that
rely
either
on
a
specific
plant
species
(
plant
species
obligate)
or
multiple
plant
species
(
plant
dependent)
for
some
important
aspect
of
their
life
cycle.
The
Agency
may
determine
if
listed
organisms
for
which
plants
are
a
critical
component
of
their
resource
needs
are
within
the
pesticide
use
area.
This
is
accomplished
through
a
comparison
of
Service­
provided
"
species
profiles"
and
listed
species
location
data.
If
no
listed
organisms
that
are
either
plant
species
78
of
82
obligates
or
plant
dependent
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
a
no
effect
determination
on
listed
species
is
made.
If
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
organism
may
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
the
Agency
may
consider
temporal
and
geographical
nature
of
exposure,
and
the
scope
of
the
effects
data,
to
determine
if
any
potential
effects
can
be
determined
to
not
likely
adversely
affect
a
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
listed
organism.

D.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
a.
Location
of
Wildlife
Species
For
screening
terrestrial
risk
assessments
for
listed
species,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
is
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
pesticide
at
a
rate
commensurate
with
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
Spray
drift
model
predictions
suggest
that
this
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
filed.
For
screening
risk
assessment
purposes,
the
actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
are
not
considered,
and
it
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
treated
area
being
modeled.
This
assumption
leads
to
a
maximum
level
of
exposure
in
the
risk
characterization.

Terrestrial
EEC
are
based
on
peak
value
of
the
Kenaga
nomogram
as
modified
by
Fletcher.
The
residues
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram
are
measured
immediately
after
application.
The
peak
maximum
value
is
the
upper
limit
value
and
may
be
conservative.

b.
Routes
of
Exposure
Screening­
level
risk
assessments
for
spray
applications
of
pesticides
consider
dietary
exposure
alone.
Other
routes
of
exposure,
not
considered
in
this
assessment,
are
discussed
below:

°
Incidental
soil
ingestion
exposure
­
This
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
incidental
soil
ingestion.
Available
data
suggests
that
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
can
consist
of
incidentally
ingested
soil
depending
on
the
species
and
feeding
strategy
(
Beyer
et
al.,
1994).

°
Dermal
Exposure
­
The
screening
assessment
does
not
consider
dermal
exposure,
except
as
it
is
indirectly
included
in
calculations
of
RQs
based
on
lethal
doses
per
unit
of
pesticide
treated
area.
Dermal
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
direct
application
of
spray
to
terrestrial
wildlife
in
the
treated
area
or
within
the
drift
footprint,
(
2)
incidental
contact
with
contaminated
vegetation,
or
(
3)
contact
with
contaminated
water
or
soil.
°
Drinking
Water
Exposure
­
Drinking
water
exposure
to
a
pesticide
active
ingredient
may
be
the
result
of
consumption
of
surface
water
or
consumption
of
the
pesticide
in
dew
or
other
water
on
the
surfaces
of
treated
vegetation.
For
79
of
82
pesticide
active
ingredients
with
a
potential
to
dissolve
in
runoff,
puddles
on
the
treated
field
may
contain
the
chemical.

c.
Residue
Levels
Selection
As
discussed
earlier
in
the
exposure
section
of
this
document,
the
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
items.
The
Agency
believes
that
these
residue
assumptions
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entire
above
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
aboveground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.

d.
Dietary
Intake
­
Difference
Between
Laboratory
and
Field
Conditions
The
acute
and
chronic
characterization
of
risk
rely
on
comparisons
of
wildlife
dietary
residues
with
LC
50
or
NOAEC
values
expressed
in
concentrations
of
pesticides
in
laboratory
feed.
These
comparisons
assume
that
ingestion
of
food
items
in
the
field
occurs
at
rates
commensurate
with
those
in
the
laboratory.
Although
the
screening
assessment
process
adjusts
dry­
weight
estimates
of
food
intake
to
reflect
the
increased
mass
in
fresh­
weight
wildlife
food
intake
estimates,
it
does
not
allow
for
gross
energy
and
assimilative
efficiency
differences
between
wildlife
food
items
and
laboratory
feed.

On
gross
energy
content
alone,
direct
comparison
of
a
laboratory
dietary
concentration­
based
effects
threshold
to
a
fresh­
weight
pesticide
residue
estimate
would
result
in
an
underestimation
of
field
exposure
by
food
consumption
by
a
factor
of
1.25
­
2.5
for
most
food
items.
Only
for
seeds
would
the
direct
comparison
of
dietary
threshold
to
residue
estimate
lead
to
an
overestimate
of
exposure.

Differences
in
assimilative
efficiency
between
laboratory
and
wild
diets
suggest
that
current
screening
assessment
methods
do
not
account
for
a
potentially
important
aspect
of
food
requirements.
Depending
upon
species
and
dietary
matrix,
bird
assimilation
of
wild
diet
energy
ranges
from
23
­
80%,
and
mammal's
assimilation
ranges
from
41
­
85%
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
1993).
If
it
is
assumed
that
laboratory
chow
is
formulated
to
maximize
assimilative
efficiency
(
e.
g.,
a
value
of
85%),
a
potential
for
underestimation
of
exposure
may
exist
by
assuming
that
consumption
of
food
in
the
wild
is
comparable
with
consumption
during
laboratory
testing.
In
the
screening
process,
exposure
may
be
underestimated
because
metabolic
rates
are
not
related
to
food
consumption.

Finally,
the
screening
procedure
does
not
account
for
situations
where
the
feeding
rate
may
be
above
or
below
requirements
to
meet
free
living
metabolic
requirements.
Gorging
behavior
is
a
possibility
under
some
specific
wildlife
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
bird
migration)
where
the
food
intake
rate
80
of
82
may
be
greatly
increased.
Kirkwood
(
1983)
has
suggested
that
an
upper­
bound
limit
to
this
behavior
might
be
the
typical
intake
rate
multiplied
by
a
factor
of
5.
Additionally,
food
intake
may
decrease
due
to
pesticide
application
because
food
items
contaminated
with
pesticide
residues
may
be
unpalatable.

e.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
for
Non­
Target
Plants
Currently
the
model
for
predicting
the
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
adjacent
to
application
sites
and
also
to
low­
lying
wetlands
are
based
on
the
application
rate,
method
of
application
(
aerial
or
ground),
and
the
solubility
of
the
pesticide.
Several
transport
factors
are
not
incorporated
into
the
model.
The
exposure
prediction
may
be
underestimated
or
overestimated.
The
model
also
assumes1%
spray
drift
from
ground
application
(
napropamide
is
not
applied
aerially).

f.
Data
Gaps
°
No
foliar
dissipation
studies
were
supplied
by
the
registrant.
Therefore,
the
default
assumption
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
was
used
to
calculate
napropamide
residue
concentrations
on
terrestrial
food
items.

°
The
extent
of
photodegradation
in
surface
water
is
uncertain.
While
napropamide
is
persistent
in
the
field,
laboratory
studies
demonstrated
rapid
(
t
1/
2
=
6.8
minutes
for
parent
napropamide
and
26
minutes
for
parent
+
Isomers
I
and
II)
aqueous
photolysis
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
In
contrast,
surface
water
in
the
natural
environment
usually
contains
suspended
solids,
significantly
reducing
sunlight
penetration
and
subsequent
napropamide
degradation.
Therefore,
EECs
in
surface
water
may
be
underestimated.
Additionally,
the
cranberry
bogs
model
indicated
very
reduced
napropamide
concentrations
within
3
hours.

°
No
explanation
for
the
difference
between
the
persistence
predicted
by
the
laboratory
data
(
stable
in
all
studies
except
photodegradation)
and
the
field
data
has
been
put
forth
by
the
registrant
(
photolysis
was
not
considered
a
major
route
of
dissipation
since
the
product
was
soil
incorporated).
The
fate
of
napropamide
under
field
conditions
remains
an
uncertainty.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
a.
Uncertainties
in
PRZM­
EXAMS
Modeling
81
of
82
°
The
exact
timing
of
applications
in
different
parts
of
the
U.
S.
was
not
known,
so
EFED
assumed
two
sequential
applications
seven
days
apart
for
those
crops
with
two
applications.
This
assumption
likely
overestimates
exposure
on
these
crops.

°
Broadcast
applications
were
assumed
in
the
modeling,
which
may
be
inaccurate
for
many
crops.
In
many
vineyard
and
orchard
crops,
only
the
banded
area
under
the
treeline
are
typically
treated.
Other
areas
are
typically
grassed
in
or
plowed
and
may
not
be
sprayed
with
for
weed
control.
Vegetable
crops
may
only
be
treated
in
a
band
around
the
plant
roots,
and
mechanical
cultivation
is
likely
used
in
areas
between
rows.
Therefore,
EECs
may
be
overestimated
in
these
situations
because
lower
amounts
of
pesticide
are
applied
as
a
band,
and
non­
treated
plowed
or
grassed
areas
may
increase
infiltration
and
prevent
some
runoff
to
surface
water
bodies.

°
North
Carolina
was
used
as
a
surrogate
for
other
tobacco
producing
states
even
though
the
labels
do
not
allow
use
in
North
Carolina.
This
is
the
only
scenario
and
may
not
represent
runoff
potential
in
the
eastern
U.
S.,
which
extends
as
far
north
as
Massachusetts.

°
The
model
assumes
aqueous
photolysis
can
occur
throughout
the
water
column
in
a
surface
water
body.
This
assumption
is
expected
to
increase
the
degradation
rate
of
pesticides
prone
to
undergo
photodegradation
in
water.
For
napropamide,
this
assumption
may
lead
to
underestimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
water
because
of
suspended
sediment,
cloudy
days,
and
shading.

b.
Uncertainties
in
the
Cranberry
Model
°
The
model
assumes
aqueous
photolysis
can
occur
throughout
the
water
column
in
a
flooded
cranberry
bog.
This
assumption
is
expected
to
increase
the
degradation
rate
of
pesticides
prone
to
undergo
photodegradation
in
water.
For
napropamide,
this
assumption
may
lead
to
underestimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
water
because
of
shading
from
floating
cranberries,
any
weeds
present,
suspended
sediment,
cloudy
days,
and
the
cranberry
plants
themselves.

°
The
model
is
designed
to
account
for
only
first
order
degradation
rates
in
soil
and
water
environments.
The
inability
to
account
for
non­
first
order
degradation
kinetics
may
impact
prediction
potential
for
pesticides
with
biphasic
or
monad
type
(
initial
lag
phase)
of
kinetic
patterns.

°
The
model
does
not
directly
account
for
volatilization,
soil
photodegradation,
anaerobic
metabolism,
and
leaching
in
soil/
water
environments.
The
lack
of
consideration
for
several
routes
of
dissipation
can
lead
to
more
conservative
estimates
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
soil
and
water
for
most
pesticides.
However,
in
the
case
of
napropamide,
the
lack
of
consideration
of
these
processes
may
not
make
a
difference
82
of
82
because
of
limited
volatility
in
all
studies
and
essential
stability
in
the
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
study.

°
Agronomic
factors
included
in
the
modeling
include
application
rate,
application
interval,
and
flooding
time.
Spray
drift,
tillage
practices,
plant
growth
phenology,
and
plant
residue
management
are
not
considered
in
the
model.
There
are
uncertainties
associated
with
the
impact
of
model
estimates
on
model
estimates.

°
Pesticides
in
bog
water
are
based
on
a
Kd
equilibrium
model
and
are
estimated
using
first­
order
degradation
kinetics.
This
assessment
process
assumes
that
pesticide
sorption
and
desorption
kinetics
do
not
limit
microbial
degradation
and
photodegradation.

°
Soil
bulk
density
is
assumed
to
be
constant
in
the
model.
Soil
bulk
density
is
know
to
alter
the
pore
volume
of
the
sediment
interaction
zone.
The
model
does
not
account
for
the
auto­
correlative
effects
of
soil
particle
size
distribution,
organic
matter
contends,
etc.
on
soil
bulk
density.

°
Cranberry
bogs
can
either
allow
flow­
through
to
surface
water
or
have
a
recirculating
water
system.
Either
way,
berms
or
levees
act
to
hold
water
in
the
field
because
cranberries
require
2
inches
of
water
per
week.
However,
exposure
in
a
closed
system
may
be
negligible
while
flow­
through
systems
may
create
more
aquatic
exposure.

3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
It
is
generally
recognized
that
test
organism
age
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
observed
sensitivity
to
a
toxicant.
The
screening
risk
assessment
acute
toxicity
data
for
fish
are
collected
on
juvenile
fish
between
0.1
and
5
grams.
Aquatic
invertebrate
acute
testing
is
performed
on
recommended
immature
age
classes
(
e.
g.,
first
instar
for
daphnids,
second
instar
for
amphipods,
stoneflies
and
mayflies,
and
third
instar
for
midges).
Similarly,
acute
dietary
testing
with
birds
is
also
performed
on
juveniles,
with
mallard
being
5­
10
days
old
and
quail
10­
14
days
old.

Testing
of
juveniles
may
overestimate
toxicity
at
older
age
classes
for
pesticidal
active
ingredients,
such
as
napropamide,
that
act
directly
because
younger
age
classes
may
not
have
the
enzymatic
systems
associated
with
detoxifying
xenobiotics.
The
screening
risk
assessment
has
no
current
provisions
for
a
generally
applied
method
that
accounts
for
this
uncertainty.
In
so
far
as
the
available
toxicity
data
may
provide
ranges
of
sensitivity
information
with
respect
to
age
class,
the
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
conservative
screening
endpoint.

b.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
83
of
82
Although
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested,
it
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
selected
toxicity
endpoints
reflect
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
existing
in
a
given
environment.
The
relative
position
of
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
in
the
distribution
of
all
possible
species
is
a
function
of
the
overall
variability
among
species
to
a
particular
chemical.
In
the
case
of
listed
species,
there
is
uncertainty
regarding
the
relationship
of
the
listed
species'
sensitivity
and
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.

The
Agency
is
not
limited
to
a
base
set
of
surrogate
toxicity
information
in
establishing
risk
assessment
conclusions.
The
Agency
also
considers
toxicity
data
on
non­
standard
test
species
when
available.

c.
Data
Gaps
°
Currently,
EFED
cannot
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
napropamide
to
aquatic
organisms
because
chronic
toxicity
data
was
not
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
the
Agency
has
determined
that
chronic
toxicity
data
should
be
submitted
because
of
the
potential
environmental
persistence
of
napropamide
which
may
cause
chronic
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms.
Chronic
exposure
is
likely
from
the
compound
because
the
only
apparent
route
of
degradation
in
surface
water
is
photolysis.
Laboratory
data
show
a
total
half­
life
of
26
minutes
in
clear,
shallow,
well­
mixed
water.
However,
persistence
is
likely
to
be
longer
in
surface
water
because
of
the
presence
of
suspended
sediment,
shading,
deeper
water,
and
cloudy
conditions.
The
half­
lives
in
laboratory
studies
indicate
that
napropamide
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
stable
to
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism.

°
Data
were
not
submitted
for
several
algal
and
aquatic
plant
species,
such
as
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
a
freshwater
diatom
(
such
as
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
the
potential
adverse
effects
of
napropamide
exposure
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

°
A
review
of
the
open
literature
from
the
ECOTOX
database
was
not
performed
for
napropamide.
Analysis
of
this
open
literature
data
may
allow
further
refinement
of
this
assessment.
A­
1
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Assessment
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Napropamide
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classificatio
n
161­
1
Hydrolysis
yes
41863201
acceptable
161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
yes
41575301
43175301
acceptable
161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
yes
41863202
acceptable
161­
4
Photodegradation
in
Air
not
required
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
41105901
acceptable
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
yes
00163271
92125017
acceptable
162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
yes
42699701
162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
not
required1
163­
1
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
yes
41575302
43514401
acceptable
163­
2
Laboratory
Volatility
not
required
163­
3
Field
Volatility
not
required
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
yes
43742401
43742402
acceptable
164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
not
required
164­
3
Forestry
Dissipation
not
required
165­
4
Accumulation
in
Fish
yes
39774
acceptable
165­
5
Accumulation­
aquatic
nontarget
not
required
166­
1
Ground
Water­
small
prospective
not
required
166­
2
Ground
Water­
small
retrospective
not
required
201­
1
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
reserved2
202­
1
Drift
Field
Evaluation
reserved2
1
A
method
validation
study
(
MRID
45074201)
was
incorrectly
submitted
as
a
162­
4
study.
A­
2
2
United
Phosphorus
is
a
member
of
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
and
may
satisfy
the
201­
1
and
202­
1
data
requirements
through
the
Task
Force.
B­
1
APPENDIX
B.
AQUATIC
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
PRZM­
EXAMS
Table
B­
1.
Inputs
for
napropamide
ecological
effects
EECs
applied
using
ground
equipment
to
terrestrial
crops
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)

MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
Application
Rate
(
kg/
ha)
and
#
apps
Based
on
Bead
Use
Data
and
Registrant
CA
Almonds
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
FL
Citrus
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
CA
Citrus
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Berry
4.48
1
app
broadcast
OR
Filbert
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
OR
Mint
4.48
1
app
broadcast
PA
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
NC
Apple
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
PA
Turf
3.36
6.72
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
CA
Tomato
2.24
1
app
broadcast
FL
Pepper
2.24
1
app
broadcast
CA
Grape
4.48
6.72
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
B­
2
GA
Pecan
4.48
6.72
1.5
2.24
2
apps
broadcast
1
app
broadcast
2
apps
banded
1
app
banded
NC
Tobacco
2.24
1
app
broadcast
Interval
between
applications
60
days
for
all
crops
with
two
applications.
Application
interval
of
90
days
was
used
suggested
by
the
registrant
labels.
Label
for
turf
suggests
retreatment
at
8­
10
weeks
after
first
application
60
days
was
used
because
the
PE­
4
Shell
would
not
run
with
an
application
interval
of
90
days
Application
Date(
s)
3/
1
FL
citrus
and
pepper,
GA
pecan,
and
NC
tobacco
4/
1
NC
apple,
PA
turf,
and
PA
apple
11/
1
CA
almonds,
citrus,
tomato,
and
grape,
OR
berry
and
apple,
PA
apple,
OR
mint
and
filberts
Application
method
Ground
per
labels
Molecular
Weight
271
g/
Mol
Vapor
pressure
1.7
x
10­
7
Torr
at
25
oC
46105003
Henry's
Law
Constant
8.2
x
10­
10
calculated
(
Vapor
pressure
*
Molecular
weight)/
(
760
*
water
solubility)

Application
Efficiency
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
for
Ground
Applications
All
non­
granular
uses
0.99
Granular
uses
(
turf)
1.00
Spray
Drift
(
Drinking
Water)
Per
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
All
non­
granular
uses
0.01
Granular
uses
(
turf
and
6
lb
rate
on
fruit
and
nut
crops)
0.00
Kd
(
ml/
g)
8
Average
of
values
in
MRID
41575302
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolic
Halflife
(
days)
parent
1338
3X
446
day
half­
life
based
on
extractable
residues
in
MRID
41105901
Incorporation
depth
(
cm)
All
uses
5
Assumes
compound
is
watered­
in
or
mechanically
incorporated
to
2
inches
of
depth
soon
after
application
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
740
74
mg/
L
at
20
oC
MODEL
INPUT
VARIABLE1
INPUT
VALUE
COMMENTS
B­
3
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolic
Half­
life
(
days)
Kbacw
in
EXAMS
0
No
data
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
Kbacs
in
EXAMS
557
MRID
46478703
Upper
10th
cb
on
mean
of
254
and
403
days
Photolysis
Half­
life
(
days)
0.0047
D303453,
dated
11/
30/
04
41575301
1
Input
parameters
based
on
2/
8/
02
Input
Parameter
Guidance
Table
B­
2.
PRZM­
EXAMS
Ecological
Effects
EECs
for
Napropamide
EECs
Scenario
Peak
21­
day
60­
day
CA
Almonds
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)
15.5
1.7
0.6
CA
Almonds
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)
46.2
5.2
1.9
CA
Almonds
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
20.2
1.8
0.7
CA
Almonds
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
60.7
5.3
2.0
CA
Citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
22.4
1.6
0.6
CA
Citrus
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
14.9
1.0
0.4
CA
grapes
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
28.3
2.7
1.0
CA
grapes
(
2
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
41.9
3.9
1.4
CA
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.6
2.8
1.0
FL
citrus
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
75.1
4.1
1.6
FL
citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
224.5
12.2
4.6
FL
citrus
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
129.0
7.5
3.2
FL
citrus
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha).
43.5
2.5
1.1
FL
pepper
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
75.9
6.1
3.0
FL
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
76.6
6.1
3.1
FL
turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
59.6
3.2
1.2
FL
turf
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha)
36.8
2.1
0.8
B­
4
GA
pecan
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
156.0
12.1
4.7
GA
pecan
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
209.4
17.8
6.7
GA
pecan
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
52.3
4.0
1.6
GA
pecan
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
69.7
5.9
2.2
NC
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
27.3
2.3
1.0
NC
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
28.7
2.2
0.9
NC
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
86.3
6.5
2.6
NC
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
127.5
51.3
20.6
NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
21.5
1.5
0.7
NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
1.12
kg
ai/
ha)
10.8
0.7
0.4
OR
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
20.2
2.8
1.0
OR
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.6
3.4
1.4
OR
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
47.3
6.9
2.8
OR
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
60.3
8.3
3.0
OR
berry
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
38.9
4.5
1.9
OR
filbert
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
22.4
1.6
0.6
OR
filbert
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
23.0
3.3
1.2
OR
filbert
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
23.7
3.5
1.5
OR
filbert
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
83.0
10.6
4.5
OR
mint
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
50.8
7.6
3.0
PA
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha)
39.1
2.8
1.1
PA
apple
(
1banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)
24.5
2.1
0.9
PA
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
73.6
6.3
2.6
PA
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)
117.1
8.4
3.4
PA
turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
60.2
4.3
1.5
PA
turf
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha)
11.4
0.9
0.3
CA
almond
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
caalm4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmondIC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
30:
38
B­
5
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
8.627
3.117
0.811
0.300
0.206
0.051
1962
1.426
0.612
0.155
0.093
0.062
0.025
1963
3.895
1.814
0.384
0.143
0.101
0.047
1964
15.650
5.577
1.133
0.407
0.272
0.107
1965
2.913
1.055
0.244
0.086
0.057
0.027
1966
4.023
1.338
0.516
0.259
0.179
0.047
1967
4.583
1.670
0.399
0.149
0.100
0.030
1968
2.513
0.831
0.290
0.126
0.085
0.033
1969
9.961
4.223
1.602
0.625
0.417
0.132
1970
13.560
6.075
1.272
0.499
0.339
0.139
1971
0.838
0.335
0.119
0.048
0.038
0.011
1972
3.731
1.461
0.557
0.201
0.140
0.037
1973
6.201
3.218
1.112
0.450
0.304
0.100
1974
1.974
0.657
0.132
0.078
0.058
0.019
1975
0.750
0.214
0.042
0.015
0.016
0.006
1976
0.750
0.231
0.046
0.016
0.016
0.005
1977
5.421
1.880
0.469
0.242
0.167
0.064
1978
11.450
4.100
1.740
0.617
0.412
0.118
1979
7.561
2.529
0.952
0.336
0.224
0.071
1980
7.331
3.366
0.880
0.310
0.207
0.059
1981
13.820
5.700
1.454
0.529
0.359
0.169
1982
34.740
11.300
2.287
0.807
0.539
0.209
1983
7.248
2.950
0.767
0.379
0.259
0.108
1984
0.750
0.253
0.073
0.026
0.023
0.008
1985
10.150
3.260
0.674
0.256
0.177
0.047
1986
1.891
0.811
0.268
0.159
0.107
0.030
1987
1.097
0.381
0.086
0.044
0.037
0.015
1988
2.219
0.971
0.224
0.080
0.053
0.024
1989
2.446
0.674
0.132
0.061
0.046
0.013
1990
33.190
10.530
2.114
0.745
0.498
0.127
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
34.740
11.300
2.287
0.807
0.539
0.209
0.065
33.190
10.530
2.114
0.745
0.498
0.169
0.097
15.650
6.075
1.740
0.625
0.417
0.139
0.129
13.820
5.700
1.602
0.617
0.412
0.132
0.161
13.560
5.577
1.454
0.529
0.359
0.127
0.194
11.450
4.223
1.272
0.499
0.339
0.118
0.226
10.150
4.100
1.133
0.450
0.304
0.108
0.258
9.961
3.366
1.112
0.407
0.272
0.107
0.290
8.627
3.260
0.952
0.379
0.259
0.100
0.323
7.561
3.218
0.880
0.336
0.224
0.071
0.355
7.331
3.117
0.811
0.310
0.207
0.064
0.387
7.248
2.950
0.767
0.300
0.206
0.059
0.419
6.201
2.529
0.674
0.259
0.179
0.051
0.452
5.421
1.880
0.557
0.256
0.177
0.047
0.484
4.583
1.814
0.516
0.242
0.167
0.047
0.516
4.023
1.670
0.469
0.201
0.140
0.047
B­
6
0.548
3.895
1.461
0.399
0.159
0.107
0.037
0.581
3.731
1.338
0.384
0.149
0.101
0.033
0.613
2.913
1.055
0.290
0.143
0.100
0.030
0.645
2.513
0.971
0.268
0.126
0.085
0.030
0.677
2.446
0.831
0.244
0.093
0.062
0.027
0.710
2.219
0.811
0.224
0.086
0.058
0.025
0.742
1.974
0.674
0.155
0.080
0.057
0.024
0.774
1.891
0.657
0.132
0.078
0.053
0.019
0.806
1.426
0.612
0.132
0.061
0.046
0.015
0.839
1.097
0.381
0.119
0.048
0.038
0.013
0.871
0.838
0.335
0.086
0.044
0.037
0.011
0.903
0.750
0.253
0.073
0.026
0.023
0.008
0.935
0.750
0.231
0.046
0.016
0.016
0.006
0.968
0.750
0.214
0.042
0.015
0.016
0.005
0.1
15.5
6.0
1.7
0.6
0.4
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalm4bd
Metfile:
w23232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmondIC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
B­
7
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Almond
(
2
broadcast
applications
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
caalmond.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmondIC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
30:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
25.770
9.314
2.421
0.898
0.616
0.152
1962
4.258
1.827
0.462
0.278
0.186
0.076
1963
11.630
5.416
1.148
0.427
0.301
0.141
1964
46.750
16.660
3.384
1.216
0.812
0.320
1965
8.698
3.152
0.729
0.257
0.171
0.080
1966
12.020
3.997
1.541
0.773
0.534
0.142
1967
13.690
4.987
1.191
0.446
0.298
0.089
1968
7.509
2.483
0.865
0.377
0.253
0.097
1969
29.740
12.610
4.785
1.867
1.246
0.395
1970
40.490
18.140
3.798
1.490
1.012
0.414
1971
2.502
1.001
0.355
0.143
0.113
0.034
1972
11.140
4.364
1.664
0.599
0.418
0.111
1973
18.520
9.611
3.320
1.345
0.907
0.299
1974
5.894
1.961
0.394
0.233
0.173
0.056
1975
2.240
0.639
0.125
0.044
0.047
0.017
1976
2.240
0.690
0.137
0.048
0.049
0.015
1977
16.190
5.617
1.399
0.724
0.500
0.191
1978
34.180
12.240
5.195
1.844
1.232
0.354
1979
22.580
7.553
2.844
1.004
0.670
0.211
1980
21.900
10.060
2.630
0.925
0.617
0.176
1981
41.270
17.020
4.343
1.578
1.071
0.504
1982
104.000
33.740
6.830
2.410
1.610
0.624
1983
21.640
8.811
2.289
1.132
0.773
0.323
1984
2.240
0.755
0.218
0.076
0.069
0.022
1985
30.320
9.738
2.013
0.765
0.528
0.140
1986
5.646
2.422
0.801
0.474
0.318
0.090
1987
3.276
1.137
0.258
0.132
0.110
0.046
1988
6.626
2.901
0.669
0.239
0.159
0.071
1989
7.305
2.011
0.393
0.181
0.138
0.038
1990
99.140
31.440
6.315
2.226
1.486
0.381
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
104.000
33.740
6.830
2.410
1.610
0.624
0.065
99.140
31.440
6.315
2.226
1.486
0.504
0.097
46.750
18.140
5.195
1.867
1.246
0.414
B­
8
0.129
41.270
17.020
4.785
1.844
1.232
0.395
0.161
40.490
16.660
4.343
1.578
1.071
0.381
0.194
34.180
12.610
3.798
1.490
1.012
0.354
0.226
30.320
12.240
3.384
1.345
0.907
0.323
0.258
29.740
10.060
3.320
1.216
0.812
0.320
0.290
25.770
9.738
2.844
1.132
0.773
0.299
0.323
22.580
9.611
2.630
1.004
0.670
0.211
0.355
21.900
9.314
2.421
0.925
0.617
0.191
0.387
21.640
8.811
2.289
0.898
0.616
0.176
0.419
18.520
7.553
2.013
0.773
0.534
0.152
0.452
16.190
5.617
1.664
0.765
0.528
0.142
0.484
13.690
5.416
1.541
0.724
0.500
0.141
0.516
12.020
4.987
1.399
0.599
0.418
0.140
0.548
11.630
4.364
1.191
0.474
0.318
0.111
0.581
11.140
3.997
1.148
0.446
0.301
0.097
0.613
8.698
3.152
0.865
0.427
0.298
0.090
0.645
7.509
2.901
0.801
0.377
0.253
0.089
0.677
7.305
2.483
0.729
0.278
0.186
0.080
0.710
6.626
2.422
0.669
0.257
0.173
0.076
0.742
5.894
2.011
0.462
0.239
0.171
0.071
0.774
5.646
1.961
0.394
0.233
0.159
0.056
0.806
4.258
1.827
0.393
0.181
0.138
0.046
0.839
3.276
1.137
0.355
0.143
0.113
0.038
0.871
2.502
1.001
0.258
0.132
0.110
0.034
0.903
2.240
0.755
0.218
0.076
0.069
0.022
0.935
2.240
0.690
0.137
0.048
0.049
0.017
0.968
2.240
0.639
0.125
0.044
0.047
0.015
0.1
46.2
18.0
5.2
1.9
1.2
0.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalmond
Metfile:
w23232.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmondIC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
B­
9
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
almonds
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
caalm6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmond0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
13:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
13.010
4.703
1.222
0.429
0.286
0.071
1962
7.649
3.629
0.896
0.316
0.211
0.063
1963
18.440
8.432
1.792
0.684
0.465
0.141
1964
13.390
4.771
0.969
0.340
0.227
0.112
1965
1.521
0.515
0.120
0.076
0.051
0.016
1966
6.494
2.159
0.805
0.388
0.259
0.066
1967
5.648
2.018
0.454
0.160
0.107
0.028
1968
3.504
1.165
0.320
0.128
0.091
0.034
1969
7.063
3.005
0.663
0.232
0.155
0.073
1970
20.440
9.162
1.918
0.725
0.483
0.140
1971
1.264
0.506
0.139
0.049
0.032
0.009
1972
5.854
2.291
0.786
0.282
0.191
0.050
1973
2.210
0.904
0.428
0.187
0.124
0.048
1974
2.978
0.991
0.199
0.094
0.063
0.016
1975
1.150
0.363
0.139
0.073
0.050
0.012
1976
0.956
0.292
0.057
0.039
0.026
0.006
1977
7.084
2.116
0.809
0.421
0.281
0.090
B­
10
1978
4.387
1.572
0.588
0.212
0.142
0.054
1979
3.708
1.443
0.415
0.159
0.108
0.043
1980
3.103
1.415
0.358
0.150
0.101
0.031
1981
21.040
8.679
1.842
0.699
0.470
0.174
1982
17.720
6.128
1.508
0.652
0.435
0.138
1983
10.930
4.448
1.084
0.544
0.363
0.097
1984
0.496
0.167
0.034
0.012
0.008
0.003
1985
15.990
5.136
1.061
0.376
0.251
0.067
1986
1.586
0.710
0.183
0.092
0.062
0.015
1987
3.774
1.166
0.232
0.157
0.115
0.032
1988
1.811
0.610
0.123
0.059
0.039
0.016
1989
3.701
1.019
0.199
0.070
0.049
0.016
1990
21.460
6.807
1.355
0.542
0.362
0.095
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
21.460
9.162
1.918
0.725
0.483
0.174
0.065
21.040
8.679
1.842
0.699
0.470
0.141
0.097
20.440
8.432
1.792
0.684
0.465
0.140
0.129
18.440
6.807
1.508
0.652
0.435
0.138
0.161
17.720
6.128
1.355
0.544
0.363
0.112
0.194
15.990
5.136
1.222
0.542
0.362
0.097
0.226
13.390
4.771
1.084
0.429
0.286
0.095
0.258
13.010
4.703
1.061
0.421
0.281
0.090
0.290
10.930
4.448
0.969
0.388
0.259
0.073
0.323
7.649
3.629
0.896
0.376
0.251
0.071
0.355
7.084
3.005
0.809
0.340
0.227
0.067
0.387
7.063
2.291
0.805
0.316
0.211
0.066
0.419
6.494
2.159
0.786
0.282
0.191
0.063
0.452
5.854
2.116
0.663
0.232
0.155
0.054
0.484
5.648
2.018
0.588
0.212
0.142
0.050
0.516
4.387
1.572
0.454
0.187
0.124
0.048
0.548
3.774
1.443
0.428
0.160
0.115
0.043
0.581
3.708
1.415
0.415
0.159
0.108
0.034
0.613
3.701
1.166
0.358
0.157
0.107
0.032
0.645
3.504
1.165
0.320
0.150
0.101
0.031
0.677
3.103
1.019
0.232
0.128
0.091
0.028
0.710
2.978
0.991
0.199
0.094
0.063
0.016
0.742
2.210
0.904
0.199
0.092
0.062
0.016
0.774
1.811
0.710
0.183
0.076
0.051
0.016
0.806
1.586
0.610
0.139
0.073
0.050
0.016
0.839
1.521
0.515
0.139
0.070
0.049
0.015
0.871
1.264
0.506
0.123
0.059
0.039
0.012
0.903
1.150
0.363
0.120
0.049
0.032
0.009
0.935
0.956
0.292
0.057
0.039
0.026
0.006
0.968
0.496
0.167
0.034
0.012
0.008
0.003
0.1
20.2
8.3
1.8
0.7
0.5
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalm6bd
Metfile:
w23232.
d
B­
11
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmond0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Almond
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
caalm6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAalmond0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
13:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
22
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
39.050
14.110
3.668
1.288
0.859
0.212
1962
22.950
10.890
2.687
0.949
0.634
0.190
1963
55.310
25.290
5.377
2.051
1.396
0.423
1964
40.160
14.310
2.908
1.019
0.682
0.335
1965
4.564
1.545
0.359
0.229
0.153
0.047
1966
19.480
6.476
2.416
1.165
0.777
0.198
B­
12
1967
16.940
6.051
1.360
0.480
0.321
0.084
1968
10.510
3.495
0.961
0.384
0.274
0.101
1969
21.190
9.015
1.988
0.696
0.464
0.219
1970
61.310
27.480
5.752
2.174
1.449
0.420
1971
3.791
1.517
0.417
0.146
0.097
0.027
1972
17.560
6.871
2.359
0.847
0.574
0.151
1973
6.629
2.711
1.284
0.560
0.373
0.145
1974
8.933
2.972
0.597
0.283
0.189
0.049
1975
3.450
1.089
0.416
0.220
0.149
0.037
1976
2.868
0.875
0.171
0.116
0.077
0.019
1977
21.260
6.350
2.426
1.264
0.843
0.271
1978
13.160
4.716
1.765
0.636
0.426
0.162
1979
11.120
4.330
1.246
0.478
0.324
0.131
1980
9.310
4.245
1.075
0.451
0.302
0.093
1981
63.110
26.040
5.527
2.098
1.409
0.521
1982
53.160
18.380
4.523
1.957
1.305
0.413
1983
32.780
13.350
3.253
1.633
1.089
0.290
1984
1.489
0.502
0.101
0.035
0.024
0.008
1985
47.970
15.410
3.184
1.127
0.752
0.201
1986
4.759
2.130
0.550
0.277
0.186
0.046
1987
11.320
3.497
0.695
0.472
0.344
0.096
1988
5.433
1.830
0.369
0.176
0.118
0.048
1989
11.100
3.057
0.597
0.210
0.148
0.049
1990
64.390
20.420
4.065
1.626
1.085
0.284
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
64.390
27.480
5.752
2.174
1.449
0.521
0.065
63.110
26.040
5.527
2.098
1.409
0.423
0.097
61.310
25.290
5.377
2.051
1.396
0.420
0.129
55.310
20.420
4.523
1.957
1.305
0.413
0.161
53.160
18.380
4.065
1.633
1.089
0.335
0.194
47.970
15.410
3.668
1.626
1.085
0.290
0.226
40.160
14.310
3.253
1.288
0.859
0.284
0.258
39.050
14.110
3.184
1.264
0.843
0.271
0.290
32.780
13.350
2.908
1.165
0.777
0.219
0.323
22.950
10.890
2.687
1.127
0.752
0.212
0.355
21.260
9.015
2.426
1.019
0.682
0.201
0.387
21.190
6.871
2.416
0.949
0.634
0.198
0.419
19.480
6.476
2.359
0.847
0.574
0.190
0.452
17.560
6.350
1.988
0.696
0.464
0.162
0.484
16.940
6.051
1.765
0.636
0.426
0.151
0.516
13.160
4.716
1.360
0.560
0.373
0.145
0.548
11.320
4.330
1.284
0.480
0.344
0.131
0.581
11.120
4.245
1.246
0.478
0.324
0.101
0.613
11.100
3.497
1.075
0.472
0.321
0.096
0.645
10.510
3.495
0.961
0.451
0.302
0.093
0.677
9.310
3.057
0.695
0.384
0.274
0.084
0.710
8.933
2.972
0.597
0.283
0.189
0.049
0.742
6.629
2.711
0.597
0.277
0.186
0.049
0.774
5.433
2.130
0.550
0.229
0.153
0.048
0.806
4.759
1.830
0.417
0.220
0.149
0.047
0.839
4.564
1.545
0.416
0.210
0.148
0.046
0.871
3.791
1.517
0.369
0.176
0.118
0.037
0.903
3.450
1.089
0.359
0.146
0.097
0.027
B­
13
0.935
2.868
0.875
0.171
0.116
0.077
0.019
0.968
1.489
0.502
0.101
0.035
0.024
0.008
0.1
60.7
24.8
5.3
2.0
1.4
0.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
caalm6p
Metfile:
w23232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAalmond0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
cacitrus.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
14:
54
B­
14
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
20
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.240
0.623
0.122
0.045
0.047
0.012
1962
22.610
7.976
2.506
0.902
0.602
0.160
1963
20.010
6.170
1.223
0.445
0.298
0.087
1964
2.240
0.652
0.128
0.046
0.048
0.016
1965
8.225
3.116
0.594
0.230
0.171
0.050
1966
8.272
2.460
0.485
0.213
0.142
0.068
1967
2.240
0.705
0.140
0.049
0.050
0.022
1968
2.240
0.708
0.141
0.049
0.051
0.016
1969
5.860
1.876
0.373
0.158
0.106
0.040
1970
6.988
2.087
0.411
0.163
0.109
0.043
1971
6.091
1.700
0.331
0.116
0.077
0.034
1972
3.495
0.893
0.194
0.068
0.064
0.029
1973
20.020
5.966
1.197
0.433
0.293
0.084
1974
6.703
2.197
0.440
0.198
0.176
0.068
1975
2.496
0.726
0.143
0.071
0.048
0.022
1976
2.240
0.653
0.128
0.045
0.047
0.014
1977
14.500
5.225
0.995
0.364
0.260
0.087
1978
172.000
70.260
14.310
5.055
3.376
0.846
1979
2.240
0.630
0.123
0.043
0.046
0.018
1980
2.240
0.595
0.139
0.049
0.045
0.019
1981
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
1982
3.563
1.148
0.229
0.131
0.106
0.031
1983
15.390
5.594
1.561
0.580
0.392
0.117
1984
2.240
0.686
0.136
0.050
0.051
0.017
1985
2.240
0.676
0.139
0.050
0.051
0.017
1986
2.240
0.603
0.117
0.044
0.046
0.016
1987
23.060
7.417
1.546
0.543
0.362
0.107
1988
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
1989
2.240
0.586
0.114
0.041
0.044
0.014
1990
2.240
0.590
0.114
0.040
0.044
0.014
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
172.000
70.260
14.310
5.055
3.376
0.846
0.065
23.060
7.976
2.506
0.902
0.602
0.160
0.097
22.610
7.417
1.561
0.580
0.392
0.117
0.129
20.020
6.170
1.546
0.543
0.362
0.107
0.161
20.010
5.966
1.223
0.445
0.298
0.087
0.194
15.390
5.594
1.197
0.433
0.293
0.087
0.226
14.500
5.225
0.995
0.364
0.260
0.084
0.258
8.272
3.116
0.594
0.230
0.176
0.068
0.290
8.225
2.460
0.485
0.213
0.171
0.068
0.323
6.988
2.197
0.440
0.198
0.142
0.050
0.355
6.703
2.087
0.411
0.163
0.109
0.043
0.387
6.091
1.876
0.373
0.158
0.106
0.040
0.419
5.860
1.700
0.331
0.131
0.106
0.034
0.452
3.563
1.148
0.229
0.116
0.077
0.031
0.484
3.495
0.893
0.194
0.071
0.064
0.029
0.516
2.496
0.726
0.143
0.068
0.051
0.022
0.548
2.240
0.708
0.141
0.050
0.051
0.022
B­
15
0.581
2.240
0.705
0.140
0.050
0.051
0.019
0.613
2.240
0.686
0.139
0.049
0.050
0.018
0.645
2.240
0.676
0.139
0.049
0.048
0.017
0.677
2.240
0.655
0.136
0.049
0.048
0.017
0.710
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
0.742
2.240
0.653
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
0.774
2.240
0.652
0.128
0.046
0.047
0.016
0.806
2.240
0.630
0.128
0.045
0.047
0.016
0.839
2.240
0.623
0.123
0.045
0.046
0.016
0.871
2.240
0.603
0.122
0.044
0.046
0.014
0.903
2.240
0.595
0.117
0.043
0.045
0.014
0.935
2.240
0.590
0.114
0.041
0.044
0.014
0.968
2.240
0.586
0.114
0.040
0.044
0.012
0.1
22.4
7.3
1.6
0.6
0.4
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cacitrus
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
B­
16
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Citrus
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
cacit6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
14:
54
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
20
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1962
15.400
5.433
1.712
0.600
0.400
0.099
1963
14.640
4.515
0.895
0.315
0.210
0.052
1964
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1965
8.275
2.713
0.517
0.181
0.121
0.032
1966
5.356
1.767
0.362
0.131
0.087
0.042
1967
0.888
0.298
0.060
0.021
0.014
0.004
1968
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1969
3.926
1.256
0.250
0.098
0.065
0.016
1970
4.888
1.459
0.288
0.101
0.067
0.021
1971
3.983
1.112
0.217
0.076
0.051
0.013
1972
2.337
0.597
0.116
0.040
0.027
0.009
1973
12.840
3.826
0.753
0.264
0.179
0.044
1974
7.273
2.384
0.478
0.167
0.141
0.046
1975
1.595
0.464
0.091
0.032
0.022
0.005
1976
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1977
14.890
4.943
0.942
0.330
0.220
0.068
1978
115.000
47.240
9.622
3.387
2.262
0.559
1979
0.483
0.163
0.033
0.012
0.008
0.002
1980
0.545
0.243
0.051
0.019
0.013
0.003
1981
0.022
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1982
4.025
1.296
0.258
0.090
0.060
0.016
1983
10.410
3.784
1.053
0.377
0.253
0.070
1984
0.072
0.025
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
1985
0.092
0.028
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
1986
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1987
14.610
4.701
0.938
0.329
0.220
0.059
1988
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1989
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1990
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
115.000
47.240
9.622
3.387
2.262
0.559
0.065
15.400
5.433
1.712
0.600
0.400
0.099
0.097
14.890
4.943
1.053
0.377
0.253
0.070
B­
17
0.129
14.640
4.701
0.942
0.330
0.220
0.068
0.161
14.610
4.515
0.938
0.329
0.220
0.059
0.194
12.840
3.826
0.895
0.315
0.210
0.052
0.226
10.410
3.784
0.753
0.264
0.179
0.046
0.258
8.275
2.713
0.517
0.181
0.141
0.044
0.290
7.273
2.384
0.478
0.167
0.121
0.042
0.323
5.356
1.767
0.362
0.131
0.087
0.032
0.355
4.888
1.459
0.288
0.101
0.067
0.021
0.387
4.025
1.296
0.258
0.098
0.065
0.016
0.419
3.983
1.256
0.250
0.090
0.060
0.016
0.452
3.926
1.112
0.217
0.076
0.051
0.013
0.484
2.337
0.597
0.116
0.040
0.027
0.009
0.516
1.595
0.464
0.091
0.032
0.022
0.005
0.548
0.888
0.298
0.060
0.021
0.014
0.004
0.581
0.545
0.243
0.051
0.019
0.013
0.003
0.613
0.483
0.163
0.033
0.012
0.008
0.002
0.645
0.092
0.028
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.677
0.072
0.025
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.710
0.022
0.007
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.742
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.774
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.806
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.839
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.871
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.903
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.935
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.968
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.1
14.9
4.9
1.0
0.4
0.2
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.04
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cacit6p
Metfile:
w23155.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
B­
18
:
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
0
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
grapes
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
cagrap6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
6.927
2.668
0.816
0.288
0.192
0.047
1962
17.270
7.021
1.553
0.545
0.364
0.090
1963
18.090
6.434
1.758
0.641
0.432
0.129
1964
4.048
1.039
0.307
0.143
0.105
0.026
1965
6.404
1.851
0.363
0.130
0.086
0.041
1966
22.820
11.060
2.445
0.856
0.571
0.142
1967
5.022
1.603
0.380
0.150
0.147
0.040
1968
23.780
7.679
1.572
0.702
0.476
0.117
1969
22.300
8.885
5.286
1.944
1.300
0.321
1970
17.530
6.748
1.969
0.791
0.528
0.225
1971
3.896
1.276
0.492
0.172
0.115
0.030
1972
18.430
9.013
2.296
0.815
0.543
0.134
1973
5.906
2.008
0.407
0.155
0.109
0.049
1974
5.299
2.092
0.446
0.157
0.105
0.046
1975
0.381
0.118
0.024
0.009
0.006
0.003
B­
19
1976
30.390
9.244
2.738
0.961
0.641
0.194
1977
28.840
10.040
2.617
0.916
0.611
0.160
1978
11.010
4.374
0.932
0.684
0.474
0.136
1979
2.013
0.699
0.242
0.099
0.066
0.022
1980
11.990
3.942
1.155
0.731
0.488
0.120
1981
16.680
5.784
1.384
0.506
0.340
0.084
1982
16.650
5.544
1.130
0.798
0.534
0.207
1983
19.850
7.559
2.728
0.989
0.662
0.194
1984
6.394
2.116
0.425
0.260
0.173
0.043
1985
3.279
1.079
0.324
0.136
0.091
0.023
1986
47.750
16.960
3.462
1.212
0.808
0.258
1987
4.543
1.575
0.331
0.139
0.094
0.024
1988
5.117
1.725
0.585
0.205
0.137
0.044
1989
1.347
0.405
0.080
0.038
0.034
0.010
1990
21.430
8.045
1.644
0.578
0.386
0.113
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
47.750
16.960
5.286
1.944
1.300
0.321
0.065
30.390
11.060
3.462
1.212
0.808
0.258
0.097
28.840
10.040
2.738
0.989
0.662
0.225
0.129
23.780
9.244
2.728
0.961
0.641
0.207
0.161
22.820
9.013
2.617
0.916
0.611
0.194
0.194
22.300
8.885
2.445
0.856
0.571
0.194
0.226
21.430
8.045
2.296
0.815
0.543
0.160
0.258
19.850
7.679
1.969
0.798
0.534
0.142
0.290
18.430
7.559
1.758
0.791
0.528
0.136
0.323
18.090
7.021
1.644
0.731
0.488
0.134
0.355
17.530
6.748
1.572
0.702
0.476
0.129
0.387
17.270
6.434
1.553
0.684
0.474
0.120
0.419
16.680
5.784
1.384
0.641
0.432
0.117
0.452
16.650
5.544
1.155
0.578
0.386
0.113
0.484
11.990
4.374
1.130
0.545
0.364
0.090
0.516
11.010
3.942
0.932
0.506
0.340
0.084
0.548
6.927
2.668
0.816
0.288
0.192
0.049
0.581
6.404
2.116
0.585
0.260
0.173
0.047
0.613
6.394
2.092
0.492
0.205
0.147
0.046
0.645
5.906
2.008
0.446
0.172
0.137
0.044
0.677
5.299
1.851
0.425
0.157
0.115
0.043
0.710
5.117
1.725
0.407
0.155
0.109
0.041
0.742
5.022
1.603
0.380
0.150
0.105
0.040
0.774
4.543
1.575
0.363
0.143
0.105
0.030
0.806
4.048
1.276
0.331
0.139
0.094
0.026
0.839
3.896
1.079
0.324
0.136
0.091
0.024
0.871
3.279
1.039
0.307
0.130
0.086
0.023
0.903
2.013
0.699
0.242
0.099
0.066
0.022
0.935
1.347
0.405
0.080
0.038
0.034
0.010
0.968
0.381
0.118
0.024
0.009
0.006
0.003
0.1
28.3
10.0
2.7
1.0
0.7
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
B­
20
Output
File:
cagrap6p
Metfile:
w93193.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
grapes
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
cagrape.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.571
1.760
0.539
0.234
0.173
0.043
1962
30.240
12.310
2.722
0.981
0.655
0.173
1963
26.670
9.490
2.590
0.944
0.643
0.191
1964
6.867
2.160
0.567
0.231
0.181
0.050
B­
21
1965
12.550
3.629
0.712
0.254
0.187
0.076
1966
23.640
11.460
2.531
0.934
0.640
0.162
1967
11.040
3.523
0.834
0.329
0.337
0.103
1968
20.200
6.522
1.447
0.634
0.454
0.115
1969
47.850
19.070
11.290
4.248
2.838
0.716
1970
28.600
11.090
3.299
1.306
0.887
0.309
1971
3.690
1.208
0.542
0.207
0.155
0.046
1972
18.380
8.999
2.449
0.870
0.598
0.153
1973
13.210
4.490
0.908
0.367
0.258
0.094
1974
10.270
4.045
0.926
0.326
0.219
0.085
1975
2.320
0.696
0.151
0.053
0.053
0.019
1976
43.470
13.220
3.919
1.389
0.928
0.288
1977
26.380
9.187
2.476
0.884
0.606
0.167
1978
19.520
7.961
1.696
1.236
0.874
0.245
1979
3.334
1.157
0.475
0.190
0.127
0.047
1980
19.140
6.295
1.898
1.176
0.802
0.209
1981
24.370
8.451
2.026
0.742
0.512
0.140
1982
25.050
8.024
1.669
0.641
0.479
0.239
1983
42.500
16.180
5.825
2.124
1.440
0.393
1984
6.004
1.987
0.399
0.299
0.217
0.058
1985
3.069
1.010
0.301
0.177
0.137
0.039
1986
36.130
12.840
2.700
0.960
0.657
0.289
1987
8.107
2.796
0.633
0.254
0.172
0.055
1988
4.397
1.482
0.582
0.221
0.165
0.061
1989
2.588
0.778
0.154
0.072
0.081
0.034
1990
32.400
12.170
2.536
0.893
0.597
0.185
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
47.850
19.070
11.290
4.248
2.838
0.716
0.065
43.470
16.180
5.825
2.124
1.440
0.393
0.097
42.500
13.220
3.919
1.389
0.928
0.309
0.129
36.130
12.840
3.299
1.306
0.887
0.289
0.161
32.400
12.310
2.722
1.236
0.874
0.288
0.194
30.240
12.170
2.700
1.176
0.802
0.245
0.226
28.600
11.460
2.590
0.981
0.657
0.239
0.258
26.670
11.090
2.536
0.960
0.655
0.209
0.290
26.380
9.490
2.531
0.944
0.643
0.191
0.323
25.050
9.187
2.476
0.934
0.640
0.185
0.355
24.370
8.999
2.449
0.893
0.606
0.173
0.387
23.640
8.451
2.026
0.884
0.598
0.167
0.419
20.200
8.024
1.898
0.870
0.597
0.162
0.452
19.520
7.961
1.696
0.742
0.512
0.153
0.484
19.140
6.522
1.669
0.641
0.479
0.140
0.516
18.380
6.295
1.447
0.634
0.454
0.115
0.548
13.210
4.490
0.926
0.367
0.337
0.103
0.581
12.550
4.045
0.908
0.329
0.258
0.094
0.613
11.040
3.629
0.834
0.326
0.219
0.085
0.645
10.270
3.523
0.712
0.299
0.217
0.076
0.677
8.107
2.796
0.633
0.254
0.187
0.061
0.710
6.867
2.160
0.582
0.254
0.181
0.058
0.742
6.004
1.987
0.567
0.234
0.173
0.055
0.774
4.571
1.760
0.542
0.231
0.172
0.050
0.806
4.397
1.482
0.539
0.221
0.165
0.047
0.839
3.690
1.208
0.475
0.207
0.155
0.046
B­
22
0.871
3.334
1.157
0.399
0.190
0.137
0.043
0.903
3.069
1.010
0.301
0.177
0.127
0.039
0.935
2.588
0.778
0.154
0.072
0.081
0.034
0.968
2.320
0.696
0.151
0.053
0.053
0.019
0.1
41.9
13.2
3.9
1.4
0.9
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
cagrape
Metfile:
w93193.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)
B­
23
CA
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
catomato.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAtomato0C.
txt
modified
Tueday,
8
June
2004
at
12:
42:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
12.260
4.164
1.795
0.653
0.435
0.107
1962
15.940
7.471
1.873
0.716
0.479
0.123
1963
17.300
6.538
2.452
0.930
0.674
0.235
1964
6.007
2.299
0.717
0.388
0.290
0.074
1965
6.714
2.724
0.743
0.392
0.268
0.091
1966
19.420
9.595
2.468
0.952
0.635
0.161
1967
6.099
1.946
0.534
0.227
0.174
0.081
1968
22.380
7.226
1.781
0.865
0.602
0.165
1969
17.660
7.036
3.863
1.420
0.949
0.257
1970
15.650
6.473
2.010
0.905
0.603
0.282
1971
6.221
2.170
0.776
0.305
0.205
0.062
1972
17.670
8.747
2.817
1.052
0.702
0.185
1973
6.146
2.317
0.462
0.311
0.213
0.091
1974
10.920
3.669
0.754
0.310
0.207
0.091
1975
3.709
1.139
0.227
0.083
0.060
0.023
1976
26.080
9.996
3.203
1.124
0.750
0.238
1977
23.780
8.279
2.429
0.865
0.581
0.167
1978
9.381
3.764
1.086
0.716
0.489
0.152
1979
4.240
1.588
0.642
0.298
0.201
0.068
1980
10.120
3.399
1.397
0.820
0.548
0.141
1981
14.480
5.052
1.753
0.653
0.442
0.120
1982
13.630
4.540
1.778
1.022
0.686
0.237
1983
13.590
5.563
2.333
0.875
0.586
0.217
1984
8.994
2.977
0.665
0.470
0.316
0.083
1985
11.320
4.304
1.332
0.574
0.384
0.103
1986
33.690
11.970
2.592
0.942
0.628
0.236
1987
8.560
3.317
0.718
0.321
0.239
0.078
1988
10.510
3.543
1.174
0.521
0.348
0.127
1989
2.529
0.666
0.130
0.102
0.097
0.038
1990
19.970
8.225
1.695
0.653
0.436
0.136
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
33.690
11.970
3.863
1.420
0.949
0.282
0.065
26.080
9.996
3.203
1.124
0.750
0.257
0.097
23.780
9.595
2.817
1.052
0.702
0.238
0.129
22.380
8.747
2.592
1.022
0.686
0.237
0.161
19.970
8.279
2.468
0.952
0.674
0.236
0.194
19.420
8.225
2.452
0.942
0.635
0.235
0.226
17.670
7.471
2.429
0.930
0.628
0.217
0.258
17.660
7.226
2.333
0.905
0.603
0.185
0.290
17.300
7.036
2.010
0.875
0.602
0.167
0.323
15.940
6.538
1.873
0.865
0.586
0.165
0.355
15.650
6.473
1.795
0.865
0.581
0.161
B­
24
0.387
14.480
5.563
1.781
0.820
0.548
0.152
0.419
13.630
5.052
1.778
0.716
0.489
0.141
0.452
13.590
4.540
1.753
0.716
0.479
0.136
0.484
12.260
4.304
1.695
0.653
0.442
0.127
0.516
11.320
4.164
1.397
0.653
0.436
0.123
0.548
10.920
3.764
1.332
0.653
0.435
0.120
0.581
10.510
3.669
1.174
0.574
0.384
0.107
0.613
10.120
3.543
1.086
0.521
0.348
0.103
0.645
9.381
3.399
0.776
0.470
0.316
0.091
0.677
8.994
3.317
0.754
0.392
0.290
0.091
0.710
8.560
2.977
0.743
0.388
0.268
0.091
0.742
6.714
2.724
0.718
0.321
0.239
0.083
0.774
6.221
2.317
0.717
0.311
0.213
0.081
0.806
6.146
2.299
0.665
0.310
0.207
0.078
0.839
6.099
2.170
0.642
0.305
0.205
0.074
0.871
6.007
1.946
0.534
0.298
0.201
0.068
0.903
4.240
1.588
0.462
0.227
0.174
0.062
0.935
3.709
1.139
0.227
0.102
0.097
0.038
0.968
2.529
0.666
0.130
0.083
0.060
0.023
0.1
23.6
9.5
2.8
1.0
0.7
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
catomato
Metfile:
w93193.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
CAtomato0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
B­
25
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
citrus
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
flcit4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
39:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
10.430
2.872
0.688
0.353
0.313
0.124
1962
6.926
2.905
0.941
0.390
0.313
0.119
1963
11.260
3.917
1.882
0.786
0.534
0.157
1964
35.420
11.540
2.333
1.257
0.996
0.301
1965
22.010
10.660
2.807
1.100
0.736
0.205
1966
39.270
12.730
3.048
1.347
0.909
0.244
1967
7.303
2.886
1.271
0.720
0.518
0.133
1968
29.220
9.270
1.890
1.034
0.759
0.195
1969
46.700
13.550
3.236
1.380
1.168
0.345
1970
26.160
7.193
1.761
0.653
0.662
0.199
1971
84.100
21.310
4.169
1.557
1.109
0.297
1972
28.410
8.659
1.771
0.868
0.701
0.197
1973
28.560
8.186
1.640
0.600
0.470
0.163
1974
37.050
15.310
3.369
1.499
1.006
0.288
1975
24.490
6.723
2.667
1.077
0.732
0.192
1976
77.340
22.760
4.677
1.908
1.294
0.329
1977
7.818
2.114
0.613
0.323
0.239
0.064
1978
11.420
3.050
0.989
0.471
0.382
0.111
1979
271.000
72.850
14.890
5.256
3.742
0.943
1980
20.700
5.558
1.172
0.683
0.586
0.184
1981
28.440
7.692
2.437
0.936
0.663
0.188
1982
16.560
7.048
2.154
1.062
0.727
0.213
1983
55.430
14.440
3.167
1.349
1.128
0.345
1984
34.990
9.129
1.783
0.812
0.591
0.160
1985
28.610
15.160
3.119
1.327
0.894
0.249
1986
28.460
8.854
1.761
0.736
0.502
0.167
1987
23.900
6.320
1.593
1.025
0.977
0.284
1988
14.460
3.839
1.059
0.513
0.407
0.166
1989
21.070
5.824
1.449
0.588
0.400
0.107
1990
7.384
2.097
0.711
0.508
0.353
0.110
B­
26
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
271.000
72.850
14.890
5.256
3.742
0.943
0.065
84.100
22.760
4.677
1.908
1.294
0.345
0.097
77.340
21.310
4.169
1.557
1.168
0.345
0.129
55.430
15.310
3.369
1.499
1.128
0.329
0.161
46.700
15.160
3.236
1.380
1.109
0.301
0.194
39.270
14.440
3.167
1.349
1.006
0.297
0.226
37.050
13.550
3.119
1.347
0.996
0.288
0.258
35.420
12.730
3.048
1.327
0.977
0.284
0.290
34.990
11.540
2.807
1.257
0.909
0.249
0.323
29.220
10.660
2.667
1.100
0.894
0.244
0.355
28.610
9.270
2.437
1.077
0.759
0.213
0.387
28.560
9.129
2.333
1.062
0.736
0.205
0.419
28.460
8.854
2.154
1.034
0.732
0.199
0.452
28.440
8.659
1.890
1.025
0.727
0.197
0.484
28.410
8.186
1.882
0.936
0.701
0.195
0.516
26.160
7.692
1.783
0.868
0.663
0.192
0.548
24.490
7.193
1.771
0.812
0.662
0.188
0.581
23.900
7.048
1.761
0.786
0.591
0.184
0.613
22.010
6.723
1.761
0.736
0.586
0.167
0.645
21.070
6.320
1.640
0.720
0.534
0.166
0.677
20.700
5.824
1.593
0.683
0.518
0.163
0.710
16.560
5.558
1.449
0.653
0.502
0.160
0.742
14.460
3.917
1.271
0.600
0.470
0.157
0.774
11.420
3.839
1.172
0.588
0.407
0.133
0.806
11.260
3.050
1.059
0.513
0.400
0.124
0.839
10.430
2.905
0.989
0.508
0.382
0.119
0.871
7.818
2.886
0.941
0.471
0.353
0.111
0.903
7.384
2.872
0.711
0.390
0.313
0.110
0.935
7.303
2.114
0.688
0.353
0.313
0.107
0.968
6.926
2.097
0.613
0.323
0.239
0.064
0.1
75.1
20.7
4.1
1.6
1.2
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcit4bd
Metfile:
w12842.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
B­
27
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
citrus
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
flcitrus.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
39:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
31.140
8.576
2.054
1.055
0.936
0.369
1962
20.690
8.678
2.810
1.166
0.935
0.355
1963
33.630
11.700
5.621
2.347
1.594
0.470
1964
106.000
34.480
6.969
3.755
2.974
0.898
1965
65.730
31.840
8.383
3.284
2.197
0.613
1966
117.000
38.040
9.103
4.024
2.715
0.730
1967
21.800
8.618
3.796
2.152
1.546
0.396
B­
28
1968
87.290
27.690
5.646
3.088
2.268
0.582
1969
139.000
40.450
9.664
4.122
3.487
1.031
1970
78.160
21.490
5.260
1.951
1.977
0.595
1971
251.000
63.630
12.450
4.648
3.313
0.886
1972
84.850
25.860
5.289
2.592
2.093
0.589
1973
85.310
24.450
4.898
1.792
1.404
0.486
1974
111.000
45.730
10.060
4.477
3.005
0.861
1975
73.140
20.080
7.966
3.217
2.186
0.574
1976
231.000
67.970
13.970
5.697
3.865
0.982
1977
23.360
6.316
1.832
0.964
0.715
0.193
1978
34.120
9.111
2.955
1.407
1.140
0.330
1979
808.000
218.000
44.460
15.700
11.170
2.816
1980
61.820
16.600
3.499
2.041
1.750
0.548
1981
84.930
22.970
7.277
2.795
1.980
0.560
1982
49.470
21.050
6.435
3.171
2.172
0.637
1983
166.000
43.120
9.458
4.030
3.369
1.030
1984
105.000
27.270
5.326
2.425
1.766
0.477
1985
85.410
45.280
9.312
3.963
2.670
0.743
1986
84.980
26.440
5.260
2.199
1.500
0.499
1987
71.380
18.870
4.755
3.062
2.916
0.849
1988
43.190
11.470
3.163
1.533
1.214
0.495
1989
62.950
17.400
4.330
1.757
1.195
0.319
1990
22.050
6.261
2.124
1.516
1.053
0.328
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
808.000
218.000
44.460
15.700
11.170
2.816
0.065
251.000
67.970
13.970
5.697
3.865
1.031
0.097
231.000
63.630
12.450
4.648
3.487
1.030
0.129
166.000
45.730
10.060
4.477
3.369
0.982
0.161
139.000
45.280
9.664
4.122
3.313
0.898
0.194
117.000
43.120
9.458
4.030
3.005
0.886
B­
29
0.226
111.000
40.450
9.312
4.024
2.974
0.861
0.258
106.000
38.040
9.103
3.963
2.916
0.849
0.290
105.000
34.480
8.383
3.755
2.715
0.743
0.323
87.290
31.840
7.966
3.284
2.670
0.730
0.355
85.410
27.690
7.277
3.217
2.268
0.637
0.387
85.310
27.270
6.969
3.171
2.197
0.613
0.419
84.980
26.440
6.435
3.088
2.186
0.595
0.452
84.930
25.860
5.646
3.062
2.172
0.589
0.484
84.850
24.450
5.621
2.795
2.093
0.582
0.516
78.160
22.970
5.326
2.592
1.980
0.574
0.548
73.140
21.490
5.289
2.425
1.977
0.560
0.581
71.380
21.050
5.260
2.347
1.766
0.548
0.613
65.730
20.080
5.260
2.199
1.750
0.499
0.645
62.950
18.870
4.898
2.152
1.594
0.495
0.677
61.820
17.400
4.755
2.041
1.546
0.486
0.710
49.470
16.600
4.330
1.951
1.500
0.477
0.742
43.190
11.700
3.796
1.792
1.404
0.470
0.774
34.120
11.470
3.499
1.757
1.214
0.396
0.806
33.630
9.111
3.163
1.533
1.195
0.369
0.839
31.140
8.678
2.955
1.516
1.140
0.355
0.871
23.360
8.618
2.810
1.407
1.053
0.330
0.903
22.050
8.576
2.124
1.166
0.936
0.328
0.935
21.800
6.316
2.054
1.055
0.935
0.319
0.968
20.690
6.261
1.832
0.964
0.715
0.193
0.1
224.5
61.8
12.2
4.6
3.5
1.0
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.7
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcitrus
B­
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atmm
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
citrus
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
flcit6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
39:
50
B­
31
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
47.190
12.990
2.535
1.245
0.910
0.288
1962
31.340
13.150
4.258
1.593
1.119
0.304
1963
18.150
6.410
3.048
1.247
0.843
0.301
1964
97.690
28.560
5.688
3.116
2.274
0.619
1965
32.700
15.790
4.093
1.545
1.032
0.340
1966
63.580
20.600
4.920
2.111
1.421
0.418
1967
15.100
5.973
2.622
1.470
1.050
0.260
1968
51.890
16.460
3.355
1.760
1.279
0.334
1969
72.780
22.040
7.482
2.652
2.726
0.728
1970
30.680
10.250
4.044
1.676
1.489
0.384
1971
143.000
36.340
7.088
2.892
1.973
0.533
1972
40.740
12.410
2.542
1.195
0.960
0.297
1973
129.000
37.040
7.420
2.652
1.843
0.481
1974
55.510
23.570
5.187
2.343
1.567
0.548
1975
42.060
11.550
4.643
1.844
1.308
0.337
1976
113.000
33.300
6.832
2.695
1.887
0.487
1977
14.360
3.882
1.130
0.585
0.425
0.106
1978
16.300
4.350
1.429
0.702
0.747
0.201
1979
465.000
125.000
25.520
8.997
7.079
1.772
1980
34.320
9.281
2.520
1.448
1.193
0.327
1981
53.350
14.430
4.544
1.722
1.442
0.391
1982
34.570
9.431
2.437
1.064
1.162
0.327
1983
89.190
24.890
7.249
3.156
2.457
0.629
1984
55.470
14.470
2.823
1.281
0.911
0.264
1985
46.950
24.660
5.072
2.112
1.601
0.457
1986
129.000
40.070
7.815
2.917
1.949
0.530
1987
98.370
28.590
7.205
4.571
3.189
0.800
1988
65.360
17.350
4.231
1.604
1.121
0.364
1989
34.980
9.670
2.383
0.934
0.626
0.176
1990
30.220
7.653
1.481
0.682
0.629
0.205
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
465.000
125.000
25.520
8.997
7.079
1.772
0.065
143.000
40.070
7.815
4.571
3.189
0.800
0.097
129.000
37.040
7.482
3.156
2.726
0.728
0.129
129.000
36.340
7.420
3.116
2.457
0.629
0.161
113.000
33.300
7.249
2.917
2.274
0.619
0.194
98.370
28.590
7.205
2.892
1.973
0.548
0.226
97.690
28.560
7.088
2.695
1.949
0.533
0.258
89.190
24.890
6.832
2.652
1.887
0.530
0.290
72.780
24.660
5.688
2.652
1.843
0.487
0.323
65.360
23.570
5.187
2.343
1.601
0.481
0.355
63.580
22.040
5.072
2.112
1.567
0.457
0.387
55.510
20.600
4.920
2.111
1.489
0.418
0.419
55.470
17.350
4.643
1.844
1.442
0.391
0.452
53.350
16.460
4.544
1.760
1.421
0.384
0.484
51.890
15.790
4.258
1.722
1.308
0.364
0.516
47.190
14.470
4.231
1.676
1.279
0.340
B­
32
0.548
46.950
14.430
4.093
1.604
1.193
0.337
0.581
42.060
13.150
4.044
1.593
1.162
0.334
0.613
40.740
12.990
3.355
1.545
1.121
0.327
0.645
34.980
12.410
3.048
1.470
1.119
0.327
0.677
34.570
11.550
2.823
1.448
1.050
0.304
0.710
34.320
10.250
2.622
1.281
1.032
0.301
0.742
32.700
9.670
2.542
1.247
0.960
0.297
0.774
31.340
9.431
2.535
1.245
0.911
0.288
0.806
30.680
9.281
2.520
1.195
0.910
0.264
0.839
30.220
7.653
2.437
1.064
0.843
0.260
0.871
18.150
6.410
2.383
0.934
0.747
0.205
0.903
16.300
5.973
1.481
0.702
0.629
0.201
0.935
15.100
4.350
1.429
0.682
0.626
0.176
0.968
14.360
3.882
1.130
0.585
0.425
0.106
0.1
129.0
37.0
7.5
3.2
2.7
0.7
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.4
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcit6p
Metfile:
w12842.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
B­
33
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
citrus
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
flcit6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLcitrusC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
39:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12842.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
15.730
4.331
0.845
0.415
0.303
0.096
1962
10.450
4.382
1.419
0.531
0.373
0.101
1963
6.051
2.137
1.016
0.416
0.281
0.100
1964
32.570
9.522
1.897
1.039
0.758
0.206
1965
10.900
5.263
1.364
0.515
0.344
0.113
1966
21.190
6.865
1.639
0.703
0.473
0.139
1967
5.033
1.990
0.874
0.490
0.350
0.087
1968
17.290
5.485
1.118
0.586
0.426
0.111
1969
24.250
7.343
2.494
0.884
0.909
0.243
1970
10.230
3.419
1.348
0.559
0.496
0.128
1971
47.820
12.120
2.363
0.964
0.658
0.178
1972
13.580
4.138
0.847
0.398
0.320
0.099
1973
43.080
12.350
2.473
0.884
0.614
0.160
1974
18.510
7.859
1.729
0.781
0.522
0.183
1975
14.020
3.850
1.548
0.615
0.436
0.112
1976
37.730
11.100
2.278
0.899
0.629
0.162
1977
4.786
1.294
0.377
0.195
0.142
0.035
1978
5.432
1.450
0.477
0.234
0.249
0.067
1979
155.000
41.710
8.505
2.999
2.360
0.591
1980
11.440
3.093
0.840
0.483
0.398
0.109
1981
17.790
4.811
1.515
0.574
0.481
0.131
1982
11.520
3.143
0.812
0.355
0.387
0.109
1983
29.740
8.298
2.417
1.052
0.819
0.210
1984
18.480
4.821
0.941
0.427
0.304
0.088
1985
15.650
8.221
1.690
0.704
0.534
0.152
1986
42.920
13.360
2.605
0.972
0.650
0.177
1987
32.800
9.532
2.402
1.524
1.063
0.267
1988
21.790
5.786
1.411
0.535
0.374
0.121
1989
11.660
3.223
0.794
0.311
0.209
0.059
1990
10.070
2.551
0.494
0.227
0.210
0.068
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
B­
34
0.032
155.000
41.710
8.505
2.999
2.360
0.591
0.065
47.820
13.360
2.605
1.524
1.063
0.267
0.097
43.080
12.350
2.494
1.052
0.909
0.243
0.129
42.920
12.120
2.473
1.039
0.819
0.210
0.161
37.730
11.100
2.417
0.972
0.758
0.206
0.194
32.800
9.532
2.402
0.964
0.658
0.183
0.226
32.570
9.522
2.363
0.899
0.650
0.178
0.258
29.740
8.298
2.278
0.884
0.629
0.177
0.290
24.250
8.221
1.897
0.884
0.614
0.162
0.323
21.790
7.859
1.729
0.781
0.534
0.160
0.355
21.190
7.343
1.690
0.704
0.522
0.152
0.387
18.510
6.865
1.639
0.703
0.496
0.139
0.419
18.480
5.786
1.548
0.615
0.481
0.131
0.452
17.790
5.485
1.515
0.586
0.473
0.128
0.484
17.290
5.263
1.419
0.574
0.436
0.121
0.516
15.730
4.821
1.411
0.559
0.426
0.113
0.548
15.650
4.811
1.364
0.535
0.398
0.112
0.581
14.020
4.382
1.348
0.531
0.387
0.111
0.613
13.580
4.331
1.118
0.515
0.374
0.109
0.645
11.660
4.138
1.016
0.490
0.373
0.109
0.677
11.520
3.850
0.941
0.483
0.350
0.101
0.710
11.440
3.419
0.874
0.427
0.344
0.100
0.742
10.900
3.223
0.847
0.416
0.320
0.099
0.774
10.450
3.143
0.845
0.415
0.304
0.096
0.806
10.230
3.093
0.840
0.398
0.303
0.088
0.839
10.070
2.551
0.812
0.355
0.281
0.087
0.871
6.051
2.137
0.794
0.311
0.249
0.068
0.903
5.432
1.990
0.494
0.234
0.210
0.067
0.935
5.033
1.450
0.477
0.227
0.209
0.059
0.968
4.786
1.294
0.377
0.195
0.142
0.035
0.1
43.1
12.3
2.5
1.1
0.9
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flcit6bd
Metfile:
w12842.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
FLcitrusC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
B­
35
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
pepper
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
flpepper.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLpeppersC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
41:
28
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
34.480
11.490
3.231
1.172
0.932
0.245
1962
35.420
12.810
2.891
1.260
0.880
0.240
1963
55.450
17.140
3.383
1.222
0.819
0.210
1964
33.170
9.844
2.618
1.525
1.040
0.264
1965
14.470
6.002
2.770
1.182
0.805
0.203
1966
17.580
4.999
1.394
0.599
0.651
0.184
1967
30.430
8.350
2.087
0.815
0.872
0.234
1968
21.780
8.655
3.183
1.441
0.989
0.251
1969
30.700
9.756
2.412
1.241
0.913
0.241
1970
86.010
28.280
9.186
3.331
2.364
0.602
1971
40.680
11.260
2.490
1.262
0.864
0.220
1972
26.800
7.766
2.913
1.864
1.319
0.328
1973
13.930
4.008
1.192
0.760
0.664
0.183
B­
36
1974
29.450
7.853
1.582
0.608
0.449
0.147
1975
13.700
5.363
1.291
0.636
0.437
0.112
1976
14.390
4.917
1.706
0.792
0.706
0.181
1977
78.120
22.250
5.526
2.718
1.820
0.456
1978
13.980
4.001
1.206
0.656
0.475
0.136
1979
131.000
37.190
7.824
3.046
2.036
0.509
1980
37.640
10.420
2.036
0.843
0.883
0.231
1981
12.230
3.248
1.170
0.543
0.432
0.133
1982
53.640
19.240
6.125
3.366
2.273
0.563
1983
13.720
3.753
0.999
0.456
0.499
0.135
1984
45.150
11.700
3.827
1.555
1.294
0.330
1985
48.390
12.950
2.520
1.343
0.998
0.272
1986
23.970
6.659
2.131
0.787
0.536
0.171
1987
48.020
14.390
3.752
1.550
1.150
0.293
1988
27.140
7.111
2.119
1.301
1.059
0.298
1989
42.380
12.660
2.595
1.009
0.676
0.187
1990
18.650
5.833
1.416
0.615
0.451
0.121
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
131.000
37.190
9.186
3.366
2.364
0.602
0.065
86.010
28.280
7.824
3.331
2.273
0.563
0.097
78.120
22.250
6.125
3.046
2.036
0.509
0.129
55.450
19.240
5.526
2.718
1.820
0.456
0.161
53.640
17.140
3.827
1.864
1.319
0.330
0.194
48.390
14.390
3.752
1.555
1.294
0.328
0.226
48.020
12.950
3.383
1.550
1.150
0.298
0.258
45.150
12.810
3.231
1.525
1.059
0.293
0.290
42.380
12.660
3.183
1.441
1.040
0.272
0.323
40.680
11.700
2.913
1.343
0.998
0.264
0.355
37.640
11.490
2.891
1.301
0.989
0.251
0.387
35.420
11.260
2.770
1.262
0.932
0.245
0.419
34.480
10.420
2.618
1.260
0.913
0.241
0.452
33.170
9.844
2.595
1.241
0.883
0.240
0.484
30.700
9.756
2.520
1.222
0.880
0.234
0.516
30.430
8.655
2.490
1.182
0.872
0.231
0.548
29.450
8.350
2.412
1.172
0.864
0.220
0.581
27.140
7.853
2.131
1.009
0.819
0.210
0.613
26.800
7.766
2.119
0.843
0.805
0.203
0.645
23.970
7.111
2.087
0.815
0.706
0.187
0.677
21.780
6.659
2.036
0.792
0.676
0.184
0.710
18.650
6.002
1.706
0.787
0.664
0.183
0.742
17.580
5.833
1.582
0.760
0.651
0.181
0.774
14.470
5.363
1.416
0.656
0.536
0.171
0.806
14.390
4.999
1.394
0.636
0.499
0.147
0.839
13.980
4.917
1.291
0.615
0.475
0.136
0.871
13.930
4.008
1.206
0.608
0.451
0.135
0.903
13.720
4.001
1.192
0.599
0.449
0.133
0.935
13.700
3.753
1.170
0.543
0.437
0.121
0.968
12.230
3.248
0.999
0.456
0.432
0.112
0.1
75.9
21.9
6.1
3.0
2.0
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
B­
37
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
flpepper
Metfile:
w12844.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
FLpeppersC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
tomato
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
fltomato.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLtomatoC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
44:
04
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)
B­
38
Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
25.070
8.577
2.317
0.834
0.643
0.168
1962
35.480
13.440
2.998
1.303
0.915
0.248
1963
56.460
17.450
3.445
1.245
0.834
0.214
1964
33.930
10.070
2.679
1.564
1.064
0.270
1965
14.720
6.106
2.819
1.206
0.822
0.207
1966
13.760
3.913
1.424
0.614
0.611
0.175
1967
28.780
7.898
2.129
0.832
0.861
0.232
1968
22.100
8.783
3.232
1.463
0.997
0.253
1969
28.780
9.145
2.222
1.178
0.867
0.230
1970
81.200
26.510
8.712
3.160
2.248
0.573
1971
41.570
11.510
2.546
1.293
0.885
0.226
1972
26.990
7.822
2.932
1.799
1.291
0.321
1973
12.620
3.684
1.200
0.765
0.629
0.174
1974
26.650
7.106
1.437
0.546
0.408
0.137
1975
13.860
5.426
1.306
0.645
0.443
0.113
1976
12.630
4.933
1.711
0.794
0.684
0.176
1977
78.820
22.450
5.576
2.743
1.836
0.460
1978
14.260
4.080
1.233
0.670
0.485
0.135
1979
135.000
38.120
8.020
3.124
2.088
0.522
1980
34.430
9.528
1.862
0.776
0.838
0.220
1981
12.360
3.284
1.183
0.549
0.417
0.130
1982
54.440
20.050
6.184
3.281
2.217
0.549
1983
11.650
3.181
1.031
0.426
0.493
0.132
1984
50.780
13.160
4.109
1.629
1.355
0.346
1985
44.910
12.020
2.339
1.281
0.957
0.262
1986
21.840
6.069
1.897
0.702
0.480
0.158
1987
45.490
13.630
3.515
1.486
1.111
0.284
1988
27.170
7.120
1.763
1.160
0.965
0.275
1989
43.380
12.960
2.618
1.005
0.677
0.187
1990
19.350
6.047
1.468
0.640
0.469
0.124
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
135.000
38.120
8.712
3.281
2.248
0.573
0.065
81.200
26.510
8.020
3.160
2.217
0.549
0.097
78.820
22.450
6.184
3.124
2.088
0.522
0.129
56.460
20.050
5.576
2.743
1.836
0.460
0.161
54.440
17.450
4.109
1.799
1.355
0.346
0.194
50.780
13.630
3.515
1.629
1.291
0.321
0.226
45.490
13.440
3.445
1.564
1.111
0.284
0.258
44.910
13.160
3.232
1.486
1.064
0.275
0.290
43.380
12.960
2.998
1.463
0.997
0.270
0.323
41.570
12.020
2.932
1.303
0.965
0.262
0.355
35.480
11.510
2.819
1.293
0.957
0.253
0.387
34.430
10.070
2.679
1.281
0.915
0.248
0.419
33.930
9.528
2.618
1.245
0.885
0.232
0.452
28.780
9.145
2.546
1.206
0.867
0.230
0.484
28.780
8.783
2.339
1.178
0.861
0.226
0.516
27.170
8.577
2.317
1.160
0.838
0.220
0.548
26.990
7.898
2.222
1.005
0.834
0.214
0.581
26.650
7.822
2.129
0.834
0.822
0.207
0.613
25.070
7.120
1.897
0.832
0.684
0.187
0.645
22.100
7.106
1.862
0.794
0.677
0.176
B­
39
0.677
21.840
6.106
1.763
0.776
0.643
0.175
0.710
19.350
6.069
1.711
0.765
0.629
0.174
0.742
14.720
6.047
1.468
0.702
0.611
0.168
0.774
14.260
5.426
1.437
0.670
0.493
0.158
0.806
13.860
4.933
1.424
0.645
0.485
0.137
0.839
13.760
4.080
1.306
0.640
0.480
0.135
0.871
12.630
3.913
1.233
0.614
0.469
0.132
0.903
12.620
3.684
1.200
0.549
0.443
0.130
0.935
12.360
3.284
1.183
0.546
0.417
0.124
0.968
11.650
3.181
1.031
0.426
0.408
0.113
0.1
76.6
22.2
6.1
3.1
2.1
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
fltomato
Metfile:
w12844.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
FLtomatoC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.23E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.10E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
B­
40
entire
run)

FL
Turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
fltrf2.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
14:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.002
0.281
0.055
0.025
0.018
0.004
1962
7.009
2.224
0.446
0.157
0.105
0.026
1963
4.488
1.350
0.278
0.141
0.094
0.023
1964
3.242
1.074
0.272
0.141
0.094
0.023
1965
4.357
1.324
0.279
0.098
0.065
0.031
1966
75.100
20.580
4.010
1.702
1.138
0.281
1967
23.500
8.681
1.744
0.618
0.412
0.102
1968
2.098
0.747
0.302
0.106
0.071
0.017
1969
3.826
1.099
0.268
0.097
0.065
0.016
1970
16.210
5.052
1.012
0.402
0.270
0.067
1971
20.450
5.574
1.085
0.412
0.277
0.068
1972
29.990
8.880
1.933
0.706
0.473
0.117
1973
4.027
1.176
0.265
0.094
0.063
0.015
1974
20.510
8.790
1.742
0.611
0.415
0.103
1975
14.710
4.033
0.800
0.281
0.187
0.046
1976
60.440
15.770
3.056
1.096
0.731
0.180
1977
5.174
1.417
0.279
0.098
0.066
0.016
1978
36.120
10.010
1.952
1.156
0.771
0.196
1979
52.270
21.440
4.211
1.486
0.993
0.245
1980
4.486
1.244
0.242
0.104
0.069
0.017
1981
7.784
2.125
0.440
0.154
0.133
0.035
1982
19.430
6.855
1.634
0.711
0.474
0.117
1983
32.370
10.600
2.902
1.023
0.683
0.169
1984
61.590
16.620
3.234
1.175
0.784
0.193
1985
7.673
2.084
0.406
0.216
0.146
0.036
1986
0.103
0.030
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
1987
7.969
3.163
0.680
0.463
0.309
0.076
1988
11.520
3.105
1.056
0.371
0.248
0.061
1989
5.379
1.537
0.298
0.104
0.070
0.017
1990
0.318
0.107
0.021
0.007
0.005
0.001
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
75.100
21.440
4.211
1.702
1.138
0.281
0.065
61.590
20.580
4.010
1.486
0.993
0.245
0.097
60.440
16.620
3.234
1.175
0.784
0.196
0.129
52.270
15.770
3.056
1.156
0.771
0.193
0.161
36.120
10.600
2.902
1.096
0.731
0.180
0.194
32.370
10.010
1.952
1.023
0.683
0.169
0.226
29.990
8.880
1.933
0.711
0.474
0.117
0.258
23.500
8.790
1.744
0.706
0.473
0.117
B­
41
0.290
20.510
8.681
1.742
0.618
0.415
0.103
0.323
20.450
6.855
1.634
0.611
0.412
0.102
0.355
19.430
5.574
1.085
0.463
0.309
0.076
0.387
16.210
5.052
1.056
0.412
0.277
0.068
0.419
14.710
4.033
1.012
0.402
0.270
0.067
0.452
11.520
3.163
0.800
0.371
0.248
0.061
0.484
7.969
3.105
0.680
0.281
0.187
0.046
0.516
7.784
2.224
0.446
0.216
0.146
0.036
0.548
7.673
2.125
0.440
0.157
0.133
0.035
0.581
7.009
2.084
0.406
0.154
0.105
0.031
0.613
5.379
1.537
0.302
0.141
0.094
0.026
0.645
5.174
1.417
0.298
0.141
0.094
0.023
0.677
4.488
1.350
0.279
0.106
0.071
0.023
0.710
4.486
1.324
0.279
0.104
0.070
0.017
0.742
4.357
1.244
0.278
0.104
0.069
0.017
0.774
4.027
1.176
0.272
0.098
0.066
0.017
0.806
3.826
1.099
0.268
0.098
0.065
0.016
0.839
3.242
1.074
0.265
0.097
0.065
0.016
0.871
2.098
0.747
0.242
0.094
0.063
0.015
0.903
1.002
0.281
0.055
0.025
0.018
0.004
0.935
0.318
0.107
0.021
0.007
0.005
0.001
0.968
0.103
0.030
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.1
59.6
16.5
3.2
1.2
0.8
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
fltrf2
Metfile:
w12834.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
tx
t
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
B­
42
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
turf
(
2
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
fltrf2ap.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
14:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.114
1.155
0.226
0.108
0.074
0.018
1962
18.740
5.963
1.199
0.425
0.284
0.070
1963
12.230
3.705
0.783
0.382
0.255
0.063
1964
17.600
4.930
1.026
0.407
0.272
0.072
1965
24.070
7.175
1.906
0.668
0.446
0.118
1966
37.540
10.290
2.005
1.381
0.931
0.230
1967
26.080
9.647
1.939
0.687
0.458
0.113
1968
6.694
2.430
0.910
0.319
0.213
0.052
1969
13.540
3.889
1.011
0.372
0.248
0.061
1970
8.106
2.526
0.506
0.201
0.176
0.046
1971
14.100
3.760
0.731
0.446
0.345
0.085
1972
15.000
4.440
0.966
0.542
0.388
0.098
1973
2.013
0.588
0.133
0.047
0.034
0.008
1974
10.250
4.394
0.871
0.305
0.253
0.063
1975
7.358
2.017
0.400
0.146
0.101
0.025
1976
30.230
7.886
1.529
0.838
0.559
0.138
1977
10.650
2.936
0.581
0.204
0.140
0.034
1978
18.060
6.441
1.335
0.697
0.470
0.172
1979
26.190
10.720
2.106
0.743
0.829
0.205
1980
12.400
3.366
0.696
0.286
0.196
0.048
1981
9.888
2.569
0.498
0.239
0.168
0.052
1982
10.340
3.429
0.817
0.356
0.375
0.096
1983
38.410
10.630
2.350
0.824
0.824
0.220
1984
56.850
15.470
3.013
1.621
1.083
0.267
1985
3.836
1.042
0.203
0.108
0.090
0.022
1986
0.658
0.191
0.039
0.014
0.009
0.002
1987
3.985
1.581
0.340
0.232
0.196
0.050
1988
5.760
1.553
0.528
0.204
0.136
0.040
B­
43
1989
18.170
5.296
1.027
0.360
0.240
0.059
1990
0.262
0.073
0.017
0.007
0.005
0.002
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
56.850
15.470
3.013
1.621
1.083
0.267
0.065
38.410
10.720
2.350
1.381
0.931
0.230
0.097
37.540
10.630
2.106
0.838
0.829
0.220
0.129
30.230
10.290
2.005
0.824
0.824
0.205
0.161
26.190
9.647
1.939
0.743
0.559
0.172
0.194
26.080
7.886
1.906
0.697
0.470
0.138
0.226
24.070
7.175
1.529
0.687
0.458
0.118
0.258
18.740
6.441
1.335
0.668
0.446
0.113
0.290
18.170
5.963
1.199
0.542
0.388
0.098
0.323
18.060
5.296
1.027
0.446
0.375
0.096
0.355
17.600
4.930
1.026
0.425
0.345
0.085
0.387
15.000
4.440
1.011
0.407
0.284
0.072
0.419
14.100
4.394
0.966
0.382
0.272
0.070
0.452
13.540
3.889
0.910
0.372
0.255
0.063
0.484
12.400
3.760
0.871
0.360
0.253
0.063
0.516
12.230
3.705
0.817
0.356
0.248
0.061
0.548
10.650
3.429
0.783
0.319
0.240
0.059
0.581
10.340
3.366
0.731
0.305
0.213
0.052
0.613
10.250
2.936
0.696
0.286
0.196
0.052
0.645
9.888
2.569
0.581
0.239
0.196
0.050
0.677
8.106
2.526
0.528
0.232
0.176
0.048
0.710
7.358
2.430
0.506
0.204
0.168
0.046
0.742
6.694
2.017
0.498
0.204
0.140
0.040
0.774
5.760
1.581
0.400
0.201
0.136
0.034
0.806
4.114
1.553
0.340
0.146
0.101
0.025
0.839
3.985
1.155
0.226
0.108
0.090
0.022
0.871
3.836
1.042
0.203
0.108
0.074
0.018
0.903
2.013
0.588
0.133
0.047
0.034
0.008
0.935
0.658
0.191
0.039
0.014
0.009
0.002
0.968
0.262
0.073
0.017
0.007
0.005
0.002
0.1
36.8
10.6
2.1
0.8
0.8
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
fltrf2ap
Metfile:
w12834.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
tx
t
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
B­
44
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
3.36
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

GA
pecan
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
gapc4p2i.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
07:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
13.610
3.823
1.075
0.475
0.374
0.126
1962
135.000
38.930
8.573
3.458
2.335
0.680
1963
11.680
3.681
0.933
0.707
0.543
0.175
1964
50.670
14.650
2.957
1.919
1.745
0.512
1965
105.000
33.650
11.640
4.580
3.283
1.186
1966
76.250
21.570
4.350
2.631
2.081
0.709
1967
60.210
16.620
4.586
1.949
1.434
0.365
1968
24.190
6.613
1.418
0.776
0.596
0.172
1969
49.230
16.370
6.745
2.433
1.713
0.481
1970
166.000
52.360
12.100
4.846
3.552
0.995
1971
10.280
3.490
1.026
0.546
0.398
0.139
1972
137.000
40.550
8.306
4.118
3.497
0.954
1973
60.410
17.710
6.597
3.820
3.719
0.965
B­
45
1974
69.800
20.730
6.630
3.163
2.194
0.563
1975
83.400
26.500
5.937
3.796
2.889
0.732
1976
38.090
13.080
3.826
1.860
1.694
0.431
1977
55.230
18.270
5.157
1.978
1.833
0.556
1978
67.110
21.500
6.167
2.266
1.575
0.459
1979
158.000
47.760
10.050
4.733
3.244
0.892
1980
138.000
58.850
12.270
4.601
3.579
0.917
1981
87.820
39.110
8.169
3.043
2.098
0.575
1982
114.000
32.260
6.664
2.652
2.183
0.644
1983
210.000
64.070
14.290
5.345
4.147
1.165
1984
51.330
19.360
4.152
2.877
2.318
0.602
1985
70.590
21.410
4.879
1.917
1.310
0.456
1986
80.990
23.370
5.842
2.242
1.542
0.431
1987
106.000
31.210
6.277
3.717
2.717
0.790
1988
110.000
41.020
8.218
3.143
2.129
0.554
1989
24.740
9.201
2.381
1.345
1.368
0.363
1990
30.740
8.288
2.024
1.056
0.732
0.296
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
210.000
64.070
14.290
5.345
4.147
1.186
0.065
166.000
58.850
12.270
4.846
3.719
1.165
0.097
158.000
52.360
12.100
4.733
3.579
0.995
0.129
138.000
47.760
11.640
4.601
3.552
0.965
0.161
137.000
41.020
10.050
4.580
3.497
0.954
0.194
135.000
40.550
8.573
4.118
3.283
0.917
0.226
114.000
39.110
8.306
3.820
3.244
0.892
0.258
110.000
38.930
8.218
3.796
2.889
0.790
0.290
106.000
33.650
8.169
3.717
2.717
0.732
0.323
105.000
32.260
6.745
3.458
2.335
0.709
0.355
87.820
31.210
6.664
3.163
2.318
0.680
0.387
83.400
26.500
6.630
3.143
2.194
0.644
0.419
80.990
23.370
6.597
3.043
2.183
0.602
0.452
76.250
21.570
6.277
2.877
2.129
0.575
0.484
70.590
21.500
6.167
2.652
2.098
0.563
0.516
69.800
21.410
5.937
2.631
2.081
0.556
0.548
67.110
20.730
5.842
2.433
1.833
0.554
0.581
60.410
19.360
5.157
2.266
1.745
0.512
0.613
60.210
18.270
4.879
2.242
1.713
0.481
0.645
55.230
17.710
4.586
1.978
1.694
0.459
0.677
51.330
16.620
4.350
1.949
1.575
0.456
0.710
50.670
16.370
4.152
1.919
1.542
0.431
0.742
49.230
14.650
3.826
1.917
1.434
0.431
0.774
38.090
13.080
2.957
1.860
1.368
0.365
0.806
30.740
9.201
2.381
1.345
1.310
0.363
0.839
24.740
8.288
2.024
1.056
0.732
0.296
0.871
24.190
6.613
1.418
0.776
0.596
0.175
0.903
13.610
3.823
1.075
0.707
0.543
0.172
0.935
11.680
3.681
1.026
0.546
0.398
0.139
0.968
10.280
3.490
0.933
0.475
0.374
0.126
0.1
156.0
51.9
12.1
4.7
3.6
1.0
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.6
B­
46
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapc4p2i
Metfile:
w93805.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

GA
pecan
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
gapcan6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
07:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
B­
47
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
20.620
5.791
1.628
0.625
0.428
0.110
1962
204.000
58.980
12.990
5.169
3.450
0.868
1963
14.860
4.358
1.202
0.428
0.390
0.118
1964
42.190
15.580
3.206
1.750
1.196
0.329
1965
94.920
44.090
9.305
3.791
2.538
0.651
1966
115.000
32.620
6.409
2.325
1.932
0.532
1967
32.170
8.875
2.407
1.074
0.816
0.203
1968
22.300
6.243
1.221
0.644
0.459
0.121
1969
74.560
24.800
10.220
3.621
2.428
0.604
1970
251.000
79.330
18.340
7.270
4.870
1.213
1971
10.180
2.882
0.822
0.289
0.229
0.064
1972
88.590
24.410
4.900
2.745
2.297
0.608
1973
57.320
25.090
8.146
4.564
3.054
0.755
1974
32.120
9.835
3.610
1.875
1.269
0.314
1975
126.000
40.150
8.995
4.983
3.348
0.827
1976
39.180
12.190
4.506
1.655
1.350
0.334
1977
83.670
27.610
7.613
2.926
2.074
0.524
1978
102.000
32.580
9.147
3.363
2.254
0.564
1979
39.770
12.230
4.817
2.417
1.632
0.405
1980
210.000
89.150
18.400
6.893
4.613
1.137
1981
133.000
59.190
12.360
4.545
3.046
0.764
1982
40.420
12.570
3.524
1.739
1.194
0.357
1983
318.000
97.060
21.610
8.035
5.378
1.333
1984
77.730
29.300
6.290
4.293
2.905
0.718
1985
49.050
13.510
3.235
1.139
0.809
0.284
1986
41.770
12.050
2.966
1.127
0.759
0.251
1987
52.700
16.150
6.863
2.813
2.047
0.517
1988
166.000
62.020
12.280
4.698
3.141
0.779
1989
29.680
13.940
2.969
1.377
1.014
0.252
1990
46.570
12.560
3.066
1.537
1.027
0.284
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
318.000
97.060
21.610
8.035
5.378
1.333
0.065
251.000
89.150
18.400
7.270
4.870
1.213
0.097
210.000
79.330
18.340
6.893
4.613
1.137
0.129
204.000
62.020
12.990
5.169
3.450
0.868
0.161
166.000
59.190
12.360
4.983
3.348
0.827
0.194
133.000
58.980
12.280
4.698
3.141
0.779
0.226
126.000
44.090
10.220
4.564
3.054
0.764
0.258
115.000
40.150
9.305
4.545
3.046
0.755
0.290
102.000
32.620
9.147
4.293
2.905
0.718
0.323
94.920
32.580
8.995
3.791
2.538
0.651
0.355
88.590
29.300
8.146
3.621
2.428
0.608
0.387
83.670
27.610
7.613
3.363
2.297
0.604
0.419
77.730
25.090
6.863
2.926
2.254
0.564
0.452
74.560
24.800
6.409
2.813
2.074
0.532
0.484
57.320
24.410
6.290
2.745
2.047
0.524
0.516
52.700
16.150
4.900
2.417
1.932
0.517
0.548
49.050
15.580
4.817
2.325
1.632
0.405
0.581
46.570
13.940
4.506
1.875
1.350
0.357
B­
48
0.613
42.190
13.510
3.610
1.750
1.269
0.334
0.645
41.770
12.570
3.524
1.739
1.196
0.329
0.677
40.420
12.560
3.235
1.655
1.194
0.314
0.710
39.770
12.230
3.206
1.537
1.027
0.284
0.742
39.180
12.190
3.066
1.377
1.014
0.284
0.774
32.170
12.050
2.969
1.139
0.816
0.252
0.806
32.120
9.835
2.966
1.127
0.809
0.251
0.839
29.680
8.875
2.407
1.074
0.759
0.203
0.871
22.300
6.243
1.628
0.644
0.459
0.121
0.903
20.620
5.791
1.221
0.625
0.428
0.118
0.935
14.860
4.358
1.202
0.428
0.390
0.110
0.968
10.180
2.882
0.822
0.289
0.229
0.064
0.1
209.4
77.6
17.8
6.7
4.5
1.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.5
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapcan6p
Metfile:
w93805.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
B­
49
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

GA
pecan
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
gapcn4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
07:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.558
1.280
0.360
0.159
0.125
0.042
1962
45.120
13.030
2.870
1.158
0.782
0.228
1963
3.913
1.233
0.312
0.237
0.182
0.059
1964
16.960
4.903
0.990
0.642
0.584
0.171
1965
35.180
11.260
3.897
1.533
1.099
0.397
1966
25.530
7.221
1.456
0.881
0.697
0.237
1967
20.170
5.567
1.536
0.653
0.480
0.122
1968
8.102
2.215
0.475
0.260
0.200
0.058
1969
16.480
5.480
2.258
0.815
0.574
0.161
1970
55.550
17.530
4.053
1.623
1.189
0.333
1971
3.443
1.169
0.344
0.183
0.133
0.046
1972
45.880
13.580
2.781
1.379
1.171
0.320
1973
20.230
5.930
2.209
1.279
1.245
0.323
1974
23.370
6.940
2.220
1.059
0.735
0.189
1975
27.920
8.873
1.988
1.271
0.967
0.245
1976
12.760
4.379
1.281
0.623
0.567
0.144
1977
18.500
6.120
1.727
0.663
0.614
0.186
1978
22.480
7.200
2.065
0.759
0.527
0.154
1979
52.940
15.990
3.364
1.585
1.086
0.299
1980
46.320
19.700
4.107
1.540
1.198
0.307
1981
29.400
13.090
2.735
1.019
0.702
0.193
1982
38.260
10.800
2.232
0.888
0.731
0.216
1983
70.270
21.450
4.786
1.790
1.389
0.390
1984
17.190
6.481
1.390
0.963
0.776
0.202
1985
23.640
7.171
1.634
0.642
0.439
0.153
1986
27.130
7.827
1.957
0.751
0.517
0.144
1987
35.410
10.450
2.102
1.245
0.910
0.265
1988
36.810
13.740
2.752
1.052
0.713
0.186
1989
8.281
3.081
0.797
0.450
0.458
0.122
1990
10.290
2.775
0.678
0.353
0.245
0.099
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
70.270
21.450
4.786
1.790
1.389
0.397
0.065
55.550
19.700
4.107
1.623
1.245
0.390
B­
50
0.097
52.940
17.530
4.053
1.585
1.198
0.333
0.129
46.320
15.990
3.897
1.540
1.189
0.323
0.161
45.880
13.740
3.364
1.533
1.171
0.320
0.194
45.120
13.580
2.870
1.379
1.099
0.307
0.226
38.260
13.090
2.781
1.279
1.086
0.299
0.258
36.810
13.030
2.752
1.271
0.967
0.265
0.290
35.410
11.260
2.735
1.245
0.910
0.245
0.323
35.180
10.800
2.258
1.158
0.782
0.237
0.355
29.400
10.450
2.232
1.059
0.776
0.228
0.387
27.920
8.873
2.220
1.052
0.735
0.216
0.419
27.130
7.827
2.209
1.019
0.731
0.202
0.452
25.530
7.221
2.102
0.963
0.713
0.193
0.484
23.640
7.200
2.065
0.888
0.702
0.189
0.516
23.370
7.171
1.988
0.881
0.697
0.186
0.548
22.480
6.940
1.957
0.815
0.614
0.186
0.581
20.230
6.481
1.727
0.759
0.584
0.171
0.613
20.170
6.120
1.634
0.751
0.574
0.161
0.645
18.500
5.930
1.536
0.663
0.567
0.154
0.677
17.190
5.567
1.456
0.653
0.527
0.153
0.710
16.960
5.480
1.390
0.642
0.517
0.144
0.742
16.480
4.903
1.281
0.642
0.480
0.144
0.774
12.760
4.379
0.990
0.623
0.458
0.122
0.806
10.290
3.081
0.797
0.450
0.439
0.122
0.839
8.281
2.775
0.678
0.353
0.245
0.099
0.871
8.102
2.215
0.475
0.260
0.200
0.059
0.903
4.558
1.280
0.360
0.237
0.182
0.058
0.935
3.913
1.233
0.344
0.183
0.133
0.046
0.968
3.443
1.169
0.312
0.159
0.125
0.042
0.1
52.3
17.4
4.0
1.6
1.2
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapcn4bd
Metfile:
w93805.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
730
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
B­
51
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

GA
pecan
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
gapcn6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
GAPecansC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
22
April
2003
at
07:
57:
20
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
6.875
1.930
0.543
0.208
0.143
0.037
1962
68.050
19.660
4.329
1.723
1.150
0.289
1963
4.954
1.453
0.401
0.143
0.130
0.039
1964
14.060
5.194
1.069
0.583
0.399
0.110
1965
31.630
14.690
3.101
1.264
0.846
0.217
1966
38.440
10.870
2.136
0.775
0.644
0.177
1967
10.730
2.959
0.802
0.358
0.272
0.068
1968
7.432
2.081
0.407
0.215
0.153
0.040
1969
24.850
8.265
3.405
1.207
0.809
0.201
1970
83.800
26.450
6.114
2.424
1.624
0.404
1971
3.394
0.961
0.274
0.096
0.076
0.021
1972
29.540
8.138
1.634
0.915
0.766
0.203
1973
19.110
8.365
2.716
1.522
1.018
0.252
1974
10.710
3.279
1.203
0.625
0.423
0.105
1975
42.120
13.380
2.999
1.661
1.116
0.276
1976
13.060
4.062
1.502
0.552
0.450
0.111
1977
27.880
9.201
2.537
0.975
0.691
0.175
1978
33.900
10.860
3.049
1.121
0.752
0.188
1979
13.250
4.078
1.605
0.806
0.544
0.135
1980
69.870
29.720
6.135
2.298
1.538
0.379
1981
44.310
19.730
4.121
1.515
1.015
0.255
B­
52
1982
13.470
4.191
1.175
0.580
0.398
0.119
1983
106.000
32.350
7.201
2.678
1.792
0.444
1984
25.920
9.770
2.097
1.431
0.969
0.239
1985
16.350
4.504
1.078
0.380
0.270
0.095
1986
13.920
4.017
0.989
0.376
0.253
0.084
1987
17.560
5.383
2.287
0.938
0.682
0.172
1988
55.350
20.670
4.092
1.566
1.047
0.260
1989
9.893
4.648
0.990
0.459
0.338
0.084
1990
15.530
4.187
1.022
0.513
0.343
0.095
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
106.000
32.350
7.201
2.678
1.792
0.444
0.065
83.800
29.720
6.135
2.424
1.624
0.404
0.097
69.870
26.450
6.114
2.298
1.538
0.379
0.129
68.050
20.670
4.329
1.723
1.150
0.289
0.161
55.350
19.730
4.121
1.661
1.116
0.276
0.194
44.310
19.660
4.092
1.566
1.047
0.260
0.226
42.120
14.690
3.405
1.522
1.018
0.255
0.258
38.440
13.380
3.101
1.515
1.015
0.252
0.290
33.900
10.870
3.049
1.431
0.969
0.239
0.323
31.630
10.860
2.999
1.264
0.846
0.217
0.355
29.540
9.770
2.716
1.207
0.809
0.203
0.387
27.880
9.201
2.537
1.121
0.766
0.201
0.419
25.920
8.365
2.287
0.975
0.752
0.188
0.452
24.850
8.265
2.136
0.938
0.691
0.177
0.484
19.110
8.138
2.097
0.915
0.682
0.175
0.516
17.560
5.383
1.634
0.806
0.644
0.172
0.548
16.350
5.194
1.605
0.775
0.544
0.135
0.581
15.530
4.648
1.502
0.625
0.450
0.119
0.613
14.060
4.504
1.203
0.583
0.423
0.111
0.645
13.920
4.191
1.175
0.580
0.399
0.110
0.677
13.470
4.187
1.078
0.552
0.398
0.105
0.710
13.250
4.078
1.069
0.513
0.343
0.095
0.742
13.060
4.062
1.022
0.459
0.338
0.095
0.774
10.730
4.017
0.990
0.380
0.272
0.084
0.806
10.710
3.279
0.989
0.376
0.270
0.084
0.839
9.893
2.959
0.802
0.358
0.253
0.068
0.871
7.432
2.081
0.543
0.215
0.153
0.040
0.903
6.875
1.930
0.407
0.208
0.143
0.039
0.935
4.954
1.453
0.401
0.143
0.130
0.037
0.968
3.394
0.961
0.274
0.096
0.076
0.021
0.1
69.7
25.9
5.9
2.2
1.5
0.4
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
gapcn6bd
Metfile:
w93805.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
B­
53
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
ncapp4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
4.274
1.925
0.606
0.348
0.253
0.076
1966
12.330
4.167
0.986
0.597
0.437
0.169
1967
14.680
6.269
1.871
0.973
0.700
0.195
1968
9.511
2.942
1.147
0.654
0.469
0.124
1969
19.150
5.873
1.264
0.541
0.392
0.129
1970
6.217
2.019
0.571
0.219
0.158
0.070
B­
54
1971
7.959
2.634
0.805
0.411
0.322
0.085
1972
35.230
10.200
2.142
1.094
0.809
0.210
1973
20.450
6.563
1.591
0.980
0.813
0.251
1974
14.470
5.735
1.222
0.546
0.456
0.151
1975
23.920
7.464
2.205
0.904
0.619
0.167
1976
13.720
6.322
1.868
0.985
0.717
0.188
1977
18.810
5.785
1.236
0.478
0.443
0.154
1978
14.590
5.147
1.121
0.445
0.334
0.124
1979
8.529
3.379
0.930
0.503
0.408
0.127
1980
9.890
2.969
0.736
0.417
0.424
0.113
1981
19.800
7.592
2.372
0.869
0.588
0.152
1982
8.398
2.807
1.050
0.583
0.424
0.167
1983
9.055
4.116
1.058
0.431
0.360
0.110
1984
6.767
2.007
0.518
0.354
0.331
0.119
1985
18.030
6.023
1.242
0.527
0.359
0.104
1986
21.730
7.480
1.707
0.618
0.443
0.131
1987
79.480
24.360
5.535
1.991
1.370
0.360
1988
3.821
1.137
0.350
0.144
0.148
0.065
1989
10.310
3.636
1.726
0.820
0.575
0.150
1990
15.010
4.822
1.254
0.787
0.554
0.170
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037
79.480
24.360
5.535
1.991
1.370
0.360
0.074
35.230
10.200
2.372
1.094
0.813
0.251
0.111
23.920
7.592
2.205
0.985
0.809
0.210
0.148
21.730
7.480
2.142
0.980
0.717
0.195
0.185
20.450
7.464
1.871
0.973
0.700
0.188
0.222
19.800
6.563
1.868
0.904
0.619
0.170
0.259
19.150
6.322
1.726
0.869
0.588
0.169
0.296
18.810
6.269
1.707
0.820
0.575
0.167
0.333
18.030
6.023
1.591
0.787
0.554
0.167
0.370
15.010
5.873
1.264
0.654
0.469
0.154
0.407
14.680
5.785
1.254
0.618
0.456
0.152
0.444
14.590
5.735
1.242
0.597
0.443
0.151
0.481
14.470
5.147
1.236
0.583
0.443
0.150
0.519
13.720
4.822
1.222
0.546
0.437
0.131
0.556
12.330
4.167
1.147
0.541
0.424
0.129
0.593
10.310
4.116
1.121
0.527
0.424
0.127
0.630
9.890
3.636
1.058
0.503
0.408
0.124
0.667
9.511
3.379
1.050
0.478
0.392
0.124
0.704
9.055
2.969
0.986
0.445
0.360
0.119
0.741
8.529
2.942
0.930
0.431
0.359
0.113
0.778
8.398
2.807
0.805
0.417
0.334
0.110
0.815
7.959
2.634
0.736
0.411
0.331
0.104
0.852
6.767
2.019
0.606
0.354
0.322
0.085
0.889
6.217
2.007
0.571
0.348
0.253
0.076
0.926
4.274
1.925
0.518
0.219
0.158
0.070
0.963
3.821
1.137
0.350
0.144
0.148
0.065
0.1
27.3
8.4
2.3
1.0
0.8
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
B­
55
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapp4bd
Metfile:
w03812.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
ncapp6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)
B­
56
Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
5.50
1.97
0.44
0.27
0.18
0.05
1966
11.45
4.89
1.33
0.58
0.38
0.10
1967
9.53
3.12
1.19
0.52
0.39
0.10
1968
3.77
1.16
0.45
0.22
0.16
0.05
1969
6.54
2.55
0.65
0.27
0.20
0.06
1970
8.24
2.70
0.54
0.19
0.13
0.05
1971
2.81
1.14
0.32
0.23
0.16
0.04
1972
17.94
5.93
1.40
0.65
0.44
0.11
1973
30.84
9.90
2.40
1.37
0.92
0.23
1974
21.75
8.60
1.78
0.80
0.55
0.14
1975
9.37
4.39
1.88
0.69
0.47
0.12
1976
20.69
9.33
2.72
1.04
0.70
0.17
1977
28.27
8.70
1.80
0.67
0.48
0.12
1978
5.97
1.95
0.68
0.27
0.18
0.06
1979
12.66
5.04
1.34
0.58
0.39
0.10
1980
14.92
4.48
1.05
0.61
0.43
0.11
1981
14.54
4.43
1.30
0.50
0.33
0.08
1982
2.85
1.06
0.30
0.18
0.16
0.04
1983
13.62
6.06
1.53
0.63
0.43
0.11
1984
6.34
2.10
0.68
0.48
0.34
0.08
1985
6.97
2.33
0.48
0.21
0.14
0.05
1986
10.42
3.59
0.81
0.29
0.25
0.07
1987
29.86
9.14
2.06
0.74
0.56
0.14
1988
4.89
1.43
0.46
0.16
0.11
0.04
1989
10.52
3.20
0.79
0.39
0.27
0.07
1990
5.35
1.69
0.62
0.28
0.27
0.08
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037
30.840
9.900
2.717
1.367
0.924
0.232
0.074
29.860
9.331
2.399
1.038
0.703
0.174
0.111
28.270
9.137
2.060
0.800
0.560
0.141
0.148
21.750
8.696
1.876
0.740
0.546
0.138
0.185
20.690
8.598
1.796
0.694
0.481
0.125
0.222
17.940
6.060
1.781
0.673
0.466
0.117
0.259
14.920
5.932
1.528
0.649
0.444
0.110
0.296
14.540
5.035
1.400
0.626
0.431
0.109
0.333
13.620
4.885
1.336
0.605
0.429
0.107
0.370
12.660
4.478
1.328
0.580
0.393
0.099
0.407
11.450
4.434
1.301
0.575
0.388
0.098
0.444
10.520
4.388
1.191
0.522
0.384
0.097
0.481
10.420
3.589
1.046
0.500
0.335
0.085
0.519
9.529
3.200
0.805
0.484
0.334
0.083
0.556
9.370
3.119
0.793
0.390
0.268
0.076
0.593
8.244
2.699
0.685
0.292
0.268
0.069
0.630
6.974
2.547
0.679
0.281
0.245
0.067
0.667
6.540
2.330
0.654
0.275
0.203
0.062
0.704
6.341
2.103
0.615
0.275
0.184
0.059
0.741
5.972
1.974
0.538
0.274
0.183
0.050
0.778
5.500
1.948
0.478
0.227
0.164
0.049
0.815
5.347
1.690
0.462
0.222
0.163
0.049
0.852
4.889
1.432
0.451
0.211
0.163
0.046
0.889
3.769
1.163
0.439
0.190
0.142
0.044
B­
57
0.926
2.854
1.143
0.323
0.181
0.131
0.043
0.963
2.805
1.059
0.298
0.162
0.109
0.042
0.1
28.7
9.2
2.2
0.9
0.6
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapp6bd
Metfile:
w03812.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.21E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)
B­
58
stored
as
ncapp6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
16.500
5.919
1.316
0.824
0.552
0.147
1966
34.360
14.650
3.985
1.725
1.151
0.299
1967
28.590
9.358
3.574
1.567
1.163
0.292
1968
11.310
3.490
1.354
0.666
0.490
0.137
1969
19.610
7.639
1.961
0.824
0.607
0.187
1970
24.740
8.097
1.614
0.570
0.393
0.147
1971
8.418
3.431
0.970
0.682
0.491
0.127
1972
53.830
17.790
4.199
1.947
1.332
0.330
1973
92.480
29.690
7.196
4.101
2.770
0.695
1974
65.260
25.800
5.343
2.401
1.637
0.413
1975
28.110
13.160
5.629
2.082
1.399
0.350
1976
62.080
27.990
8.151
3.113
2.110
0.522
1977
84.840
26.090
5.390
2.019
1.444
0.374
1978
17.910
5.842
2.055
0.821
0.548
0.177
1979
37.980
15.100
4.009
1.741
1.178
0.294
1980
44.760
13.440
3.137
1.816
1.288
0.319
1981
43.630
13.300
3.903
1.501
1.003
0.249
1982
8.561
3.177
0.893
0.543
0.490
0.131
1983
40.860
18.180
4.584
1.877
1.292
0.326
1984
19.020
6.309
2.038
1.451
1.006
0.254
1985
20.920
6.989
1.435
0.634
0.426
0.151
1986
31.270
10.770
2.415
0.874
0.736
0.206
1987
89.590
27.420
6.181
2.220
1.680
0.422
1988
14.670
4.296
1.386
0.487
0.326
0.130
1989
31.550
9.600
2.379
1.169
0.803
0.200
1990
16.040
5.067
1.845
0.843
0.804
0.227
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037
92.480
29.690
8.151
4.101
2.770
0.695
0.074
89.590
27.990
7.196
3.113
2.110
0.522
0.111
84.840
27.420
6.181
2.401
1.680
0.422
0.148
65.260
26.090
5.629
2.220
1.637
0.413
0.185
62.080
25.800
5.390
2.082
1.444
0.374
0.222
53.830
18.180
5.343
2.019
1.399
0.350
0.259
44.760
17.790
4.584
1.947
1.332
0.330
0.296
43.630
15.100
4.199
1.877
1.292
0.326
0.333
40.860
14.650
4.009
1.816
1.288
0.319
0.370
37.980
13.440
3.985
1.741
1.178
0.299
0.407
34.360
13.300
3.903
1.725
1.163
0.294
0.444
31.550
13.160
3.574
1.567
1.151
0.292
0.481
31.270
10.770
3.137
1.501
1.006
0.254
0.519
28.590
9.600
2.415
1.451
1.003
0.249
0.556
28.110
9.358
2.379
1.169
0.804
0.227
0.593
24.740
8.097
2.055
0.874
0.803
0.206
B­
59
0.630
20.920
7.639
2.038
0.843
0.736
0.200
0.667
19.610
6.989
1.961
0.824
0.607
0.187
0.704
19.020
6.309
1.845
0.824
0.552
0.177
0.741
17.910
5.919
1.614
0.821
0.548
0.151
0.778
16.500
5.842
1.435
0.682
0.491
0.147
0.815
16.040
5.067
1.386
0.666
0.490
0.147
0.852
14.670
4.296
1.354
0.634
0.490
0.137
0.889
11.310
3.490
1.316
0.570
0.426
0.131
0.926
8.561
3.431
0.970
0.543
0.393
0.130
0.963
8.418
3.177
0.893
0.487
0.326
0.127
0.1
86.3
27.6
6.5
2.6
1.8
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapp6p
Metfile:
w03812.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.21E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
B­
60
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
ncapple.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
2.240
0.664
0.131
0.046
0.048
0.012
1966
51.040
24.820
11.890
7.928
5.339
1.494
1967
16.350
4.649
1.663
0.999
0.685
0.268
1968
77.230
22.460
4.555
1.654
1.380
0.380
1969
20.880
6.611
2.645
1.006
0.704
0.317
1970
18.640
5.543
3.616
1.964
1.313
0.427
1971
36.400
11.910
2.443
1.156
0.790
0.345
1972
15.300
5.004
2.341
1.297
0.883
0.307
1973
58.550
11.320
3.563
2.335
1.574
0.630
1974
25.480
8.579
1.882
1.080
0.749
0.278
1975
120.000
21.710
4.141
2.492
1.679
0.638
1976
50.840
14.670
2.924
1.853
1.251
0.500
1977
102.000
38.060
21.970
8.931
6.483
2.109
1978
168.000
167.000
116.000
47.880
32.070
8.073
1979
126.000
36.970
7.865
3.295
2.215
1.028
1980
19.520
8.426
2.426
0.888
0.736
0.228
1981
74.380
21.800
4.449
1.731
1.163
0.348
1982
131.000
130.000
126.000
63.620
42.460
10.640
1983
35.890
11.680
4.448
1.756
1.188
0.491
1984
57.380
16.740
4.053
1.689
1.232
0.392
1985
29.080
11.960
8.352
4.836
3.227
0.967
1986
51.940
18.000
3.889
1.589
1.078
0.329
1987
21.790
7.433
1.610
1.114
0.762
0.302
1988
35.960
35.700
23.520
8.499
5.672
1.485
1989
48.410
14.390
4.587
2.943
1.980
0.589
1990
43.290
14.010
3.039
1.299
0.926
0.433
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037
168.000
167.000
126.000
63.620
42.460
10.640
0.074
131.000
130.000
116.000
47.880
32.070
8.073
0.111
126.000
38.060
23.520
8.931
6.483
2.109
0.148
120.000
36.970
21.970
8.499
5.672
1.494
0.185
102.000
35.700
11.890
7.928
5.339
1.485
0.222
77.230
24.820
8.352
4.836
3.227
1.028
0.259
74.380
22.460
7.865
3.295
2.215
0.967
0.296
58.550
21.800
4.587
2.943
1.980
0.638
0.333
57.380
21.710
4.555
2.492
1.679
0.630
0.370
51.940
18.000
4.449
2.335
1.574
0.589
B­
61
0.407
51.040
16.740
4.448
1.964
1.380
0.500
0.444
50.840
14.670
4.141
1.853
1.313
0.491
0.481
48.410
14.390
4.053
1.756
1.251
0.433
0.519
43.290
14.010
3.889
1.731
1.232
0.427
0.556
36.400
11.960
3.616
1.689
1.188
0.392
0.593
35.960
11.910
3.563
1.654
1.163
0.380
0.630
35.890
11.680
3.039
1.589
1.078
0.348
0.667
29.080
11.320
2.924
1.299
0.926
0.345
0.704
25.480
8.579
2.645
1.297
0.883
0.329
0.741
21.790
8.426
2.443
1.156
0.790
0.317
0.778
20.880
7.433
2.426
1.114
0.762
0.307
0.815
19.520
6.611
2.341
1.080
0.749
0.302
0.852
18.640
5.543
1.882
1.006
0.736
0.278
0.889
16.350
5.004
1.663
0.999
0.704
0.268
0.926
15.300
4.649
1.610
0.888
0.685
0.228
0.963
2.240
0.664
0.131
0.046
0.048
0.012
0.1
127.5
65.6
51.3
20.6
14.2
3.9
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ncapple
Metfile:
w03812.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
11­
Jan
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
B­
62
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
nctobacc.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
13:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w13722.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
11.520
3.856
0.966
0.364
0.257
0.066
1962
4.469
1.393
0.414
0.213
0.142
0.042
1963
3.146
0.975
0.332
0.117
0.136
0.036
1964
9.296
3.316
0.725
0.299
0.200
0.059
1965
6.784
2.152
0.761
0.269
0.189
0.080
1966
10.870
2.991
0.640
0.246
0.215
0.066
1967
6.249
1.957
0.451
0.178
0.158
0.044
1968
2.976
0.930
0.214
0.140
0.110
0.032
1969
4.059
1.190
0.421
0.153
0.112
0.034
1970
1.716
0.614
0.195
0.094
0.069
0.025
1971
17.970
5.369
1.112
0.446
0.328
0.085
1972
4.257
1.443
0.406
0.189
0.136
0.042
1973
5.841
2.033
0.490
0.415
0.288
0.078
1974
2.886
0.888
0.234
0.148
0.127
0.032
1975
23.100
10.410
2.296
0.808
0.540
0.139
1976
2.347
0.737
0.269
0.096
0.099
0.031
1977
7.520
2.281
0.769
0.307
0.216
0.057
1978
18.030
5.425
1.131
0.724
0.497
0.125
1979
5.117
1.490
0.556
0.220
0.153
0.044
1980
9.232
2.989
0.854
0.336
0.236
0.069
1981
1.922
0.572
0.150
0.092
0.071
0.023
1982
8.966
2.817
0.696
0.254
0.178
0.056
1983
39.790
12.550
2.910
1.146
0.771
0.191
1984
7.956
2.372
0.545
0.291
0.213
0.056
1985
3.459
1.053
0.234
0.113
0.111
0.033
1986
11.240
3.813
0.830
0.291
0.232
0.067
1987
8.184
3.144
0.631
0.263
0.176
0.052
1988
3.438
1.034
0.207
0.096
0.075
0.022
1989
19.200
6.270
1.433
0.644
0.448
0.112
B­
63
1990
21.780
7.330
1.483
0.568
0.408
0.102
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
39.790
12.550
2.910
1.146
0.771
0.191
0.065
23.100
10.410
2.296
0.808
0.540
0.139
0.097
21.780
7.330
1.483
0.724
0.497
0.125
0.129
19.200
6.270
1.433
0.644
0.448
0.112
0.161
18.030
5.425
1.131
0.568
0.408
0.102
0.194
17.970
5.369
1.112
0.446
0.328
0.085
0.226
11.520
3.856
0.966
0.415
0.288
0.080
0.258
11.240
3.813
0.854
0.364
0.257
0.078
0.290
10.870
3.316
0.830
0.336
0.236
0.069
0.323
9.296
3.144
0.769
0.307
0.232
0.067
0.355
9.232
2.991
0.761
0.299
0.216
0.066
0.387
8.966
2.989
0.725
0.291
0.215
0.066
0.419
8.184
2.817
0.696
0.291
0.213
0.059
0.452
7.956
2.372
0.640
0.269
0.200
0.057
0.484
7.520
2.281
0.631
0.263
0.189
0.056
0.516
6.784
2.152
0.556
0.254
0.178
0.056
0.548
6.249
2.033
0.545
0.246
0.176
0.052
0.581
5.841
1.957
0.490
0.220
0.158
0.044
0.613
5.117
1.490
0.451
0.213
0.153
0.044
0.645
4.469
1.443
0.421
0.189
0.142
0.042
0.677
4.257
1.393
0.414
0.178
0.136
0.042
0.710
4.059
1.190
0.406
0.153
0.136
0.036
0.742
3.459
1.053
0.332
0.148
0.127
0.034
0.774
3.438
1.034
0.269
0.140
0.112
0.033
0.806
3.146
0.975
0.234
0.117
0.111
0.032
0.839
2.976
0.930
0.234
0.113
0.110
0.032
0.871
2.886
0.888
0.214
0.096
0.099
0.031
0.903
2.347
0.737
0.207
0.096
0.075
0.025
0.935
1.922
0.614
0.195
0.094
0.071
0.023
0.968
1.716
0.572
0.150
0.092
0.069
0.022
0.1
21.5
7.2
1.5
0.7
0.5
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
nctobacc
Metfile:
w13722.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
B­
64
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
tobacco
(
1
broadcast
app
of
1.12
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
nctob1lb.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
13:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w13722.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
5.757
1.927
0.483
0.182
0.128
0.033
1962
2.235
0.696
0.207
0.107
0.071
0.021
1963
1.573
0.487
0.166
0.058
0.068
0.018
1964
4.648
1.658
0.363
0.150
0.100
0.029
1965
3.392
1.076
0.381
0.134
0.094
0.040
1966
5.437
1.496
0.320
0.123
0.108
0.033
1967
3.123
0.978
0.225
0.089
0.079
0.022
1968
1.488
0.465
0.107
0.070
0.055
0.016
1969
2.030
0.595
0.211
0.076
0.056
0.017
1970
0.858
0.307
0.098
0.047
0.034
0.012
1971
8.986
2.685
0.556
0.223
0.164
0.042
1972
2.129
0.722
0.203
0.094
0.068
0.021
1973
2.920
1.016
0.245
0.208
0.144
0.039
1974
1.443
0.444
0.117
0.074
0.064
0.016
1975
11.550
5.204
1.148
0.404
0.270
0.070
1976
1.173
0.369
0.135
0.048
0.050
0.016
B­
65
1977
3.761
1.141
0.385
0.154
0.108
0.029
1978
9.018
2.713
0.565
0.362
0.249
0.062
1979
2.558
0.745
0.278
0.110
0.076
0.022
1980
4.615
1.494
0.427
0.168
0.118
0.034
1981
0.961
0.286
0.075
0.046
0.036
0.012
1982
4.484
1.409
0.348
0.127
0.089
0.028
1983
19.900
6.275
1.455
0.573
0.386
0.095
1984
3.977
1.186
0.272
0.146
0.107
0.028
1985
1.729
0.527
0.117
0.056
0.055
0.017
1986
5.619
1.906
0.415
0.146
0.116
0.033
1987
4.092
1.572
0.316
0.132
0.088
0.026
1988
1.719
0.517
0.103
0.048
0.038
0.011
1989
9.600
3.134
0.716
0.322
0.224
0.056
1990
10.890
3.666
0.742
0.284
0.204
0.051
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
19.900
6.275
1.455
0.573
0.386
0.095
0.065
11.550
5.204
1.148
0.404
0.270
0.070
0.097
10.890
3.666
0.742
0.362
0.249
0.062
0.129
9.600
3.134
0.716
0.322
0.224
0.056
0.161
9.018
2.713
0.565
0.284
0.204
0.051
0.194
8.986
2.685
0.556
0.223
0.164
0.042
0.226
5.757
1.927
0.483
0.208
0.144
0.040
0.258
5.619
1.906
0.427
0.182
0.128
0.039
0.290
5.437
1.658
0.415
0.168
0.118
0.034
0.323
4.648
1.572
0.385
0.154
0.116
0.033
0.355
4.615
1.496
0.381
0.150
0.108
0.033
0.387
4.484
1.494
0.363
0.146
0.108
0.033
0.419
4.092
1.409
0.348
0.146
0.107
0.029
0.452
3.977
1.186
0.320
0.134
0.100
0.029
0.484
3.761
1.141
0.316
0.132
0.094
0.028
0.516
3.392
1.076
0.278
0.127
0.089
0.028
0.548
3.123
1.016
0.272
0.123
0.088
0.026
0.581
2.920
0.978
0.245
0.110
0.079
0.022
0.613
2.558
0.745
0.225
0.107
0.076
0.022
0.645
2.235
0.722
0.211
0.094
0.071
0.021
0.677
2.129
0.696
0.207
0.089
0.068
0.021
0.710
2.030
0.595
0.203
0.076
0.068
0.018
0.742
1.729
0.527
0.166
0.074
0.064
0.017
0.774
1.719
0.517
0.135
0.070
0.056
0.017
0.806
1.573
0.487
0.117
0.058
0.055
0.016
0.839
1.488
0.465
0.117
0.056
0.055
0.016
0.871
1.443
0.444
0.107
0.048
0.050
0.016
0.903
1.173
0.369
0.103
0.048
0.038
0.012
0.935
0.961
0.307
0.098
0.047
0.036
0.012
0.968
0.858
0.286
0.075
0.046
0.034
0.011
0.1
10.8
3.6
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.03
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
nctob1lb
B­
66
Metfile:
w13722.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
NCtobaccoC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.12
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Mar
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
orapp4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
9.070
3.676
0.844
0.453
0.308
0.076
1962
9.682
3.862
1.920
0.760
0.513
0.141
B­
67
1963
11.580
5.947
1.308
0.517
0.349
0.156
1964
5.207
2.902
1.335
0.612
0.409
0.177
1965
8.520
3.545
1.227
0.594
0.397
0.187
1966
14.920
7.867
2.011
0.916
0.617
0.270
1967
4.427
2.018
0.854
0.382
0.268
0.096
1968
13.160
6.512
1.722
0.865
0.584
0.240
1969
24.890
24.820
24.460
11.000
7.342
1.979
1970
11.200
5.137
2.674
0.982
0.658
0.233
1971
7.753
3.467
1.524
0.565
0.381
0.153
1972
11.200
4.501
1.597
0.604
0.414
0.181
1973
13.110
6.547
2.792
1.016
0.684
0.221
1974
26.720
13.890
3.472
1.263
0.846
0.321
1975
10.390
4.903
2.056
0.944
0.632
0.207
1976
5.042
2.171
0.769
0.320
0.219
0.060
1977
8.287
3.874
1.726
0.697
0.471
0.130
1978
5.392
2.328
0.549
0.267
0.179
0.084
1979
14.830
2.950
0.969
0.549
0.373
0.180
1980
10.330
5.674
2.638
0.958
0.643
0.308
1981
10.520
3.979
0.936
0.629
0.427
0.143
1982
6.258
2.717
1.198
0.526
0.352
0.167
1983
20.650
9.005
2.347
0.888
0.599
0.218
1984
16.190
8.505
1.973
0.942
0.635
0.183
1985
5.390
2.123
0.614
0.278
0.192
0.063
1986
2.695
1.400
0.669
0.308
0.212
0.088
1987
12.720
7.931
2.306
0.830
0.560
0.252
1988
8.671
3.603
0.858
0.338
0.232
0.113
1989
4.774
1.944
0.592
0.369
0.252
0.101
1990
9.109
6.423
1.686
0.724
0.484
0.171
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
26.720
24.820
24.460
11.000
7.342
1.979
0.065
24.890
13.890
3.472
1.263
0.846
0.321
0.097
20.650
9.005
2.792
1.016
0.684
0.308
0.129
16.190
8.505
2.674
0.982
0.658
0.270
0.161
14.920
7.931
2.638
0.958
0.643
0.252
0.194
14.830
7.867
2.347
0.944
0.635
0.240
0.226
13.160
6.547
2.306
0.942
0.632
0.233
0.258
13.110
6.512
2.056
0.916
0.617
0.221
0.290
12.720
6.423
2.011
0.888
0.599
0.218
0.323
11.580
5.947
1.973
0.865
0.584
0.207
0.355
11.200
5.674
1.920
0.830
0.560
0.187
0.387
11.200
5.137
1.726
0.760
0.513
0.183
0.419
10.520
4.903
1.722
0.724
0.484
0.181
0.452
10.390
4.501
1.686
0.697
0.471
0.180
0.484
10.330
3.979
1.597
0.629
0.427
0.177
0.516
9.682
3.874
1.524
0.612
0.414
0.171
0.548
9.109
3.862
1.335
0.604
0.409
0.167
0.581
9.070
3.676
1.308
0.594
0.397
0.156
0.613
8.671
3.603
1.227
0.565
0.381
0.153
0.645
8.520
3.545
1.198
0.549
0.373
0.143
0.677
8.287
3.467
0.969
0.526
0.352
0.141
0.710
7.753
2.950
0.936
0.517
0.349
0.130
0.742
6.258
2.902
0.858
0.453
0.308
0.113
0.774
5.392
2.717
0.854
0.382
0.268
0.101
B­
68
0.806
5.390
2.328
0.844
0.369
0.252
0.096
0.839
5.207
2.171
0.769
0.338
0.232
0.088
0.871
5.042
2.123
0.669
0.320
0.219
0.084
0.903
4.774
2.018
0.614
0.308
0.212
0.076
0.935
4.427
1.944
0.592
0.278
0.192
0.063
0.968
2.695
1.400
0.549
0.267
0.179
0.060
0.1
20.2
9.0
2.8
1.0
0.7
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orapp4bd
Metfile:
w24229.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)
B­
69
OR
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
orappp6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
13.680
5.545
1.273
0.651
0.434
0.107
1962
14.600
5.823
2.894
1.113
0.742
0.184
1963
10.800
4.425
1.432
0.565
0.377
0.098
1964
7.575
3.263
0.997
0.652
0.435
0.113
1965
12.430
5.172
1.586
0.749
0.499
0.124
1966
22.490
11.860
2.974
1.345
0.897
0.227
1967
2.435
1.533
0.521
0.219
0.146
0.040
1968
19.820
9.810
2.544
1.268
0.845
0.222
1969
32.050
11.900
2.684
1.463
0.976
0.260
1970
7.784
3.230
1.292
0.585
0.390
0.109
1971
4.319
2.229
1.001
0.480
0.320
0.082
1972
5.639
3.270
1.195
0.675
0.450
0.112
1973
19.750
9.856
4.139
1.494
0.996
0.248
1974
11.500
5.913
2.582
0.979
0.653
0.162
1975
4.983
2.620
1.024
0.411
0.274
0.073
1976
0.254
0.120
0.038
0.014
0.010
0.004
1977
12.500
5.843
2.604
1.016
0.677
0.174
1978
6.315
2.442
0.759
0.318
0.212
0.054
1979
7.753
2.975
1.247
0.539
0.359
0.101
1980
13.870
8.080
1.887
1.313
0.876
0.228
1981
15.860
5.997
1.355
0.918
0.612
0.153
1982
8.390
3.423
1.502
0.681
0.454
0.115
1983
30.740
13.400
3.501
1.302
0.868
0.218
1984
23.760
12.360
2.874
1.385
0.924
0.230
1985
8.033
3.164
0.829
0.384
0.256
0.066
1986
4.065
2.112
1.008
0.430
0.287
0.078
1987
19.180
11.960
3.477
1.218
0.812
0.205
1988
4.094
1.955
1.194
0.472
0.315
0.083
1989
7.197
2.933
0.894
0.523
0.349
0.088
1990
8.856
3.567
1.144
0.425
0.283
0.102
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
32.050
13.400
4.139
1.494
0.996
0.260
0.065
30.740
12.360
3.501
1.463
0.976
0.248
0.097
23.760
11.960
3.477
1.385
0.924
0.230
0.129
22.490
11.900
2.974
1.345
0.897
0.228
0.161
19.820
11.860
2.894
1.313
0.876
0.227
0.194
19.750
9.856
2.874
1.302
0.868
0.222
0.226
19.180
9.810
2.684
1.268
0.845
0.218
0.258
15.860
8.080
2.604
1.218
0.812
0.205
0.290
14.600
5.997
2.582
1.113
0.742
0.184
B­
70
0.323
13.870
5.913
2.544
1.016
0.677
0.174
0.355
13.680
5.843
1.887
0.979
0.653
0.162
0.387
12.500
5.823
1.586
0.918
0.612
0.153
0.419
12.430
5.545
1.502
0.749
0.499
0.124
0.452
11.500
5.172
1.432
0.681
0.454
0.115
0.484
10.800
4.425
1.355
0.675
0.450
0.113
0.516
8.856
3.567
1.292
0.652
0.435
0.112
0.548
8.390
3.423
1.273
0.651
0.434
0.109
0.581
8.033
3.270
1.247
0.585
0.390
0.107
0.613
7.784
3.263
1.195
0.565
0.377
0.102
0.645
7.753
3.230
1.194
0.539
0.359
0.101
0.677
7.575
3.164
1.144
0.523
0.349
0.098
0.710
7.197
2.975
1.024
0.480
0.320
0.088
0.742
6.315
2.933
1.008
0.472
0.315
0.083
0.774
5.639
2.620
1.001
0.430
0.287
0.082
0.806
4.983
2.442
0.997
0.425
0.283
0.078
0.839
4.319
2.229
0.894
0.411
0.274
0.073
0.871
4.094
2.112
0.829
0.384
0.256
0.066
0.903
4.065
1.955
0.759
0.318
0.212
0.054
0.935
2.435
1.533
0.521
0.219
0.146
0.040
0.968
0.254
0.120
0.038
0.014
0.010
0.004
0.1
23.6
12.0
3.4
1.4
0.9
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orappp6bd
Metfile:
w24229.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
B­
71
Drift
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
orapp6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
27.360
11.090
2.546
1.302
0.868
0.214
1962
29.200
11.650
5.788
2.226
1.484
0.368
1963
21.590
8.850
2.865
1.130
0.754
0.196
1964
15.150
6.528
1.995
1.304
0.869
0.227
1965
24.860
10.340
3.171
1.497
0.998
0.248
1966
44.990
23.720
5.947
2.691
1.794
0.454
1967
4.871
3.066
1.043
0.437
0.292
0.081
1968
39.630
19.620
5.088
2.536
1.691
0.444
1969
64.100
23.800
5.368
2.927
1.952
0.521
1970
15.560
6.458
2.583
1.170
0.781
0.217
1971
8.640
4.458
2.003
0.961
0.640
0.165
1972
11.280
6.540
2.389
1.349
0.899
0.224
1973
39.500
19.710
8.279
2.987
1.992
0.497
1974
22.990
11.830
5.165
1.958
1.306
0.325
1975
9.967
5.241
2.047
0.823
0.549
0.145
1976
0.508
0.239
0.076
0.028
0.019
0.007
1977
24.990
11.680
5.207
2.032
1.355
0.348
1978
12.630
4.886
1.518
0.636
0.424
0.108
1979
15.510
5.949
2.494
1.078
0.719
0.203
1980
27.740
16.160
3.775
2.627
1.751
0.456
1981
31.720
11.990
2.711
1.835
1.223
0.305
1982
16.780
6.846
3.004
1.362
0.908
0.230
1983
61.470
26.810
7.002
2.604
1.736
0.435
1984
47.520
24.710
5.747
2.770
1.847
0.460
1985
16.070
6.329
1.659
0.769
0.513
0.132
B­
72
1986
8.129
4.224
2.016
0.860
0.573
0.157
1987
38.360
23.920
6.954
2.436
1.624
0.410
1988
8.190
3.910
2.389
0.944
0.630
0.167
1989
14.400
5.866
1.787
1.046
0.698
0.175
1990
17.720
7.136
2.289
0.850
0.567
0.204
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
64.100
26.810
8.279
2.987
1.992
0.521
0.065
61.470
24.710
7.002
2.927
1.952
0.497
0.097
47.520
23.920
6.954
2.770
1.847
0.460
0.129
44.990
23.800
5.947
2.691
1.794
0.456
0.161
39.630
23.720
5.788
2.627
1.751
0.454
0.194
39.500
19.710
5.747
2.604
1.736
0.444
0.226
38.360
19.620
5.368
2.536
1.691
0.435
0.258
31.720
16.160
5.207
2.436
1.624
0.410
0.290
29.200
11.990
5.165
2.226
1.484
0.368
0.323
27.740
11.830
5.088
2.032
1.355
0.348
0.355
27.360
11.680
3.775
1.958
1.306
0.325
0.387
24.990
11.650
3.171
1.835
1.223
0.305
0.419
24.860
11.090
3.004
1.497
0.998
0.248
0.452
22.990
10.340
2.865
1.362
0.908
0.230
0.484
21.590
8.850
2.711
1.349
0.899
0.227
0.516
17.720
7.136
2.583
1.304
0.869
0.224
0.548
16.780
6.846
2.546
1.302
0.868
0.217
0.581
16.070
6.540
2.494
1.170
0.781
0.214
0.613
15.560
6.528
2.389
1.130
0.754
0.204
0.645
15.510
6.458
2.389
1.078
0.719
0.203
0.677
15.150
6.329
2.289
1.046
0.698
0.196
0.710
14.400
5.949
2.047
0.961
0.640
0.175
0.742
12.630
5.866
2.016
0.944
0.630
0.167
0.774
11.280
5.241
2.003
0.860
0.573
0.165
0.806
9.967
4.886
1.995
0.850
0.567
0.157
0.839
8.640
4.458
1.787
0.823
0.549
0.145
0.871
8.190
4.224
1.659
0.769
0.513
0.132
0.903
8.129
3.910
1.518
0.636
0.424
0.108
0.935
4.871
3.066
1.043
0.437
0.292
0.081
0.968
0.508
0.239
0.076
0.028
0.019
0.007
0.1
47.3
23.9
6.9
2.8
1.8
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orapp6p
Metfile:
w24229.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
B­
73
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
orapple.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
27.090
10.980
2.521
1.352
0.920
0.227
1962
28.920
11.540
5.736
2.270
1.533
0.421
1963
34.580
17.760
3.908
1.544
1.043
0.465
1964
15.550
8.668
3.987
1.826
1.222
0.529
1965
25.440
10.580
3.664
1.774
1.185
0.557
1966
44.560
23.490
6.004
2.735
1.843
0.806
1967
13.220
6.027
2.550
1.139
0.801
0.286
1968
39.300
19.450
5.144
2.584
1.743
0.716
1969
74.400
74.200
73.110
32.880
21.940
5.915
1970
33.450
15.340
7.987
2.931
1.964
0.694
1971
23.160
10.360
4.552
1.688
1.139
0.456
1972
33.450
13.450
4.770
1.804
1.238
0.540
B­
74
1973
39.150
19.550
8.338
3.034
2.043
0.660
1974
79.810
41.480
10.370
3.774
2.527
0.960
1975
31.030
14.640
6.141
2.821
1.888
0.618
1976
15.060
6.484
2.297
0.955
0.654
0.178
1977
24.740
11.570
5.155
2.082
1.408
0.389
1978
16.100
6.950
1.640
0.796
0.533
0.251
1979
44.290
8.811
2.893
1.641
1.113
0.539
1980
30.840
16.940
7.880
2.861
1.920
0.918
1981
31.420
11.880
2.794
1.879
1.274
0.426
1982
18.690
8.113
3.578
1.570
1.052
0.497
1983
61.660
26.890
7.009
2.652
1.788
0.650
1984
48.340
25.400
5.891
2.812
1.895
0.546
1985
16.090
6.338
1.833
0.830
0.573
0.189
1986
8.050
4.182
1.996
0.921
0.633
0.262
1987
37.980
23.690
6.886
2.480
1.673
0.754
1988
25.890
10.760
2.561
1.010
0.692
0.337
1989
14.260
5.808
1.769
1.101
0.754
0.301
1990
27.200
19.180
5.034
2.163
1.445
0.512
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
79.810
74.200
73.110
32.880
21.940
5.915
0.065
74.400
41.480
10.370
3.774
2.527
0.960
0.097
61.660
26.890
8.338
3.034
2.043
0.918
0.129
48.340
25.400
7.987
2.931
1.964
0.806
0.161
44.560
23.690
7.880
2.861
1.920
0.754
0.194
44.290
23.490
7.009
2.821
1.895
0.716
0.226
39.300
19.550
6.886
2.812
1.888
0.694
0.258
39.150
19.450
6.141
2.735
1.843
0.660
0.290
37.980
19.180
6.004
2.652
1.788
0.650
0.323
34.580
17.760
5.891
2.584
1.743
0.618
0.355
33.450
16.940
5.736
2.480
1.673
0.557
0.387
33.450
15.340
5.155
2.270
1.533
0.546
0.419
31.420
14.640
5.144
2.163
1.445
0.540
0.452
31.030
13.450
5.034
2.082
1.408
0.539
0.484
30.840
11.880
4.770
1.879
1.274
0.529
0.516
28.920
11.570
4.552
1.826
1.238
0.512
0.548
27.200
11.540
3.987
1.804
1.222
0.497
0.581
27.090
10.980
3.908
1.774
1.185
0.465
0.613
25.890
10.760
3.664
1.688
1.139
0.456
0.645
25.440
10.580
3.578
1.641
1.113
0.426
0.677
24.740
10.360
2.893
1.570
1.052
0.421
0.710
23.160
8.811
2.794
1.544
1.043
0.389
0.742
18.690
8.668
2.561
1.352
0.920
0.337
0.774
16.100
8.113
2.550
1.139
0.801
0.301
0.806
16.090
6.950
2.521
1.101
0.754
0.286
0.839
15.550
6.484
2.297
1.010
0.692
0.262
0.871
15.060
6.338
1.996
0.955
0.654
0.251
0.903
14.260
6.027
1.833
0.921
0.633
0.227
0.935
13.220
5.808
1.769
0.830
0.573
0.189
0.968
8.050
4.182
1.640
0.796
0.533
0.178
0.1
60.3
26.7
8.3
3.0
2.0
0.9
Average
of
yearly
0.7
B­
75
averages:

Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orapple
Metfile:
w24229.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
berry
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
orberry.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORberriesC.
txt
modified
Monday,
3
May
2004
at
12:
14:
18
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
B­
76
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
5.605
2.373
0.655
0.484
0.323
0.080
1962
20.490
8.298
2.512
1.015
0.679
0.168
1963
6.579
2.725
1.445
0.532
0.354
0.094
1964
4.760
2.469
1.000
0.671
0.447
0.114
1965
16.330
7.116
2.935
1.272
0.855
0.212
1966
17.970
10.740
2.861
1.476
0.985
0.249
1967
10.710
5.942
1.926
0.750
0.500
0.127
1968
10.620
4.905
1.580
1.116
0.744
0.203
1969
54.880
20.410
4.496
2.488
1.660
0.411
1970
14.460
7.239
1.932
0.878
0.590
0.161
1971
4.840
2.733
0.980
0.485
0.324
0.082
1972
9.080
5.376
1.513
0.822
0.548
0.137
1973
21.610
10.820
5.127
1.855
1.237
0.309
1974
28.960
13.620
4.395
1.678
1.119
0.278
1975
17.420
6.897
1.777
1.011
0.674
0.173
1976
2.240
0.768
0.155
0.055
0.036
0.014
1977
18.930
8.548
2.704
1.186
0.791
0.201
1978
21.090
7.581
1.848
0.769
0.513
0.129
1979
9.081
4.360
1.579
0.699
0.467
0.217
1980
18.840
10.160
3.322
1.605
1.072
0.269
1981
25.750
10.190
4.099
1.843
1.229
0.305
1982
15.800
5.714
2.196
0.989
0.660
0.168
1983
17.760
7.973
2.651
1.025
0.685
0.172
1984
50.750
25.070
6.363
2.449
1.633
0.404
1985
21.090
8.064
1.889
0.709
0.473
0.123
1986
15.610
6.125
2.102
0.812
0.542
0.139
1987
27.540
15.560
4.422
1.674
1.116
0.280
1988
8.531
3.791
1.390
0.661
0.444
0.115
1989
39.980
16.230
3.486
1.513
1.009
0.251
1990
25.940
10.490
2.627
1.065
0.710
0.222
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
54.880
25.070
6.363
2.488
1.660
0.411
0.065
50.750
20.410
5.127
2.449
1.633
0.404
0.097
39.980
16.230
4.496
1.855
1.237
0.309
0.129
28.960
15.560
4.422
1.843
1.229
0.305
0.161
27.540
13.620
4.395
1.678
1.119
0.280
0.194
25.940
10.820
4.099
1.674
1.116
0.278
0.226
25.750
10.740
3.486
1.605
1.072
0.269
0.258
21.610
10.490
3.322
1.513
1.009
0.251
0.290
21.090
10.190
2.935
1.476
0.985
0.249
0.323
21.090
10.160
2.861
1.272
0.855
0.222
0.355
20.490
8.548
2.704
1.186
0.791
0.217
0.387
18.930
8.298
2.651
1.116
0.744
0.212
0.419
18.840
8.064
2.627
1.065
0.710
0.203
0.452
17.970
7.973
2.512
1.025
0.685
0.201
0.484
17.760
7.581
2.196
1.015
0.679
0.173
0.516
17.420
7.239
2.102
1.011
0.674
0.172
0.548
16.330
7.116
1.932
0.989
0.660
0.168
0.581
15.800
6.897
1.926
0.878
0.590
0.168
0.613
15.610
6.125
1.889
0.822
0.548
0.161
B­
77
0.645
14.460
5.942
1.848
0.812
0.542
0.139
0.677
10.710
5.714
1.777
0.769
0.513
0.137
0.710
10.620
5.376
1.580
0.750
0.500
0.129
0.742
9.081
4.905
1.579
0.709
0.473
0.127
0.774
9.080
4.360
1.513
0.699
0.467
0.123
0.806
8.531
3.791
1.445
0.671
0.447
0.115
0.839
6.579
2.733
1.390
0.661
0.444
0.114
0.871
5.605
2.725
1.000
0.532
0.354
0.094
0.903
4.840
2.469
0.980
0.485
0.324
0.082
0.935
4.760
2.373
0.655
0.484
0.323
0.080
0.968
2.240
0.768
0.155
0.055
0.036
0.014
0.1
38.9
16.2
4.5
1.9
1.2
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orberry
Metfile:
w24232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORberriesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
B­
78
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
filbert
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
orfilbrt.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
09:
14:
54
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
20
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.240
0.623
0.122
0.045
0.047
0.012
1962
22.610
7.976
2.506
0.902
0.602
0.160
1963
20.010
6.170
1.223
0.445
0.298
0.087
1964
2.240
0.652
0.128
0.046
0.048
0.016
1965
8.225
3.116
0.594
0.230
0.171
0.050
1966
8.272
2.460
0.485
0.213
0.142
0.068
1967
2.240
0.705
0.140
0.049
0.050
0.022
1968
2.240
0.708
0.141
0.049
0.051
0.016
1969
5.860
1.876
0.373
0.158
0.106
0.040
1970
6.988
2.087
0.411
0.163
0.109
0.043
1971
6.091
1.700
0.331
0.116
0.077
0.034
1972
3.495
0.893
0.194
0.068
0.064
0.029
1973
20.020
5.966
1.197
0.433
0.293
0.084
1974
6.703
2.197
0.440
0.198
0.176
0.068
1975
2.496
0.726
0.143
0.071
0.048
0.022
1976
2.240
0.653
0.128
0.045
0.047
0.014
1977
14.500
5.225
0.995
0.364
0.260
0.087
1978
172.000
70.260
14.310
5.055
3.376
0.846
1979
2.240
0.630
0.123
0.043
0.046
0.018
1980
2.240
0.595
0.139
0.049
0.045
0.019
1981
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
1982
3.563
1.148
0.229
0.131
0.106
0.031
1983
15.390
5.594
1.561
0.580
0.392
0.117
1984
2.240
0.686
0.136
0.050
0.051
0.017
1985
2.240
0.676
0.139
0.050
0.051
0.017
1986
2.240
0.603
0.117
0.044
0.046
0.016
1987
23.060
7.417
1.546
0.543
0.362
0.107
1988
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
1989
2.240
0.586
0.114
0.041
0.044
0.014
1990
2.240
0.590
0.114
0.040
0.044
0.014
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
172.000
70.260
14.310
5.055
3.376
0.846
0.065
23.060
7.976
2.506
0.902
0.602
0.160
0.097
22.610
7.417
1.561
0.580
0.392
0.117
0.129
20.020
6.170
1.546
0.543
0.362
0.107
0.161
20.010
5.966
1.223
0.445
0.298
0.087
0.194
15.390
5.594
1.197
0.433
0.293
0.087
0.226
14.500
5.225
0.995
0.364
0.260
0.084
B­
79
0.258
8.272
3.116
0.594
0.230
0.176
0.068
0.290
8.225
2.460
0.485
0.213
0.171
0.068
0.323
6.988
2.197
0.440
0.198
0.142
0.050
0.355
6.703
2.087
0.411
0.163
0.109
0.043
0.387
6.091
1.876
0.373
0.158
0.106
0.040
0.419
5.860
1.700
0.331
0.131
0.106
0.034
0.452
3.563
1.148
0.229
0.116
0.077
0.031
0.484
3.495
0.893
0.194
0.071
0.064
0.029
0.516
2.496
0.726
0.143
0.068
0.051
0.022
0.548
2.240
0.708
0.141
0.050
0.051
0.022
0.581
2.240
0.705
0.140
0.050
0.051
0.019
0.613
2.240
0.686
0.139
0.049
0.050
0.018
0.645
2.240
0.676
0.139
0.049
0.048
0.017
0.677
2.240
0.655
0.136
0.049
0.048
0.017
0.710
2.240
0.655
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
0.742
2.240
0.653
0.129
0.046
0.048
0.016
0.774
2.240
0.652
0.128
0.046
0.047
0.016
0.806
2.240
0.630
0.128
0.045
0.047
0.016
0.839
2.240
0.623
0.123
0.045
0.046
0.016
0.871
2.240
0.603
0.122
0.044
0.046
0.014
0.903
2.240
0.595
0.117
0.043
0.045
0.014
0.935
2.240
0.590
0.114
0.041
0.044
0.014
0.968
2.240
0.586
0.114
0.040
0.044
0.012
0.1
22.4
7.3
1.6
0.6
0.4
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orfilbrt
Metfile:
w23155.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAcitrus0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
B­
80
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
filbert
(
2
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
orflb4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
18:
04
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
4.332
2.492
0.636
0.394
0.269
0.066
1962
10.120
4.100
1.459
0.590
0.400
0.123
1963
14.190
6.023
1.447
0.602
0.417
0.161
1964
9.887
5.595
1.729
0.678
0.454
0.176
1965
12.540
5.181
1.969
0.794
0.530
0.253
1966
16.360
8.076
2.084
0.870
0.586
0.271
1967
13.910
6.216
1.635
0.612
0.409
0.181
1968
12.710
5.364
1.641
0.824
0.551
0.248
1969
23.210
8.618
1.932
1.164
0.782
0.307
1970
8.054
4.197
2.216
0.811
0.543
0.229
1971
6.046
3.964
1.125
0.434
0.293
0.133
1972
25.340
10.090
3.391
1.240
0.835
0.299
1973
10.930
5.034
2.644
0.961
0.648
0.244
1974
29.620
14.710
4.465
1.625
1.087
0.421
1975
8.903
3.772
1.003
0.579
0.393
0.192
1976
8.757
3.421
1.224
0.533
0.360
0.095
1977
10.310
4.856
1.608
0.683
0.462
0.130
1978
11.980
6.111
1.677
0.664
0.444
0.191
1979
8.978
8.918
8.747
3.814
2.548
0.706
1980
9.643
5.196
1.797
0.864
0.583
0.239
1981
15.090
6.105
2.404
1.044
0.702
0.198
1982
9.378
3.412
1.366
0.690
0.462
0.214
1983
9.776
5.749
1.509
0.726
0.486
0.214
1984
21.460
10.710
2.809
1.095
0.737
0.241
1985
9.388
3.610
0.896
0.362
0.248
0.106
1986
8.922
3.643
1.346
0.510
0.346
0.127
B­
81
1987
13.910
7.984
2.309
0.914
0.616
0.251
1988
13.610
5.888
1.948
0.688
0.462
0.183
1989
18.620
7.558
1.713
0.804
0.543
0.186
1990
16.060
7.925
1.971
0.901
0.602
0.261
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
29.620
14.710
8.747
3.814
2.548
0.706
0.065
25.340
10.710
4.465
1.625
1.087
0.421
0.097
23.210
10.090
3.391
1.240
0.835
0.307
0.129
21.460
8.918
2.809
1.164
0.782
0.299
0.161
18.620
8.618
2.644
1.095
0.737
0.271
0.194
16.360
8.076
2.404
1.044
0.702
0.261
0.226
16.060
7.984
2.309
0.961
0.648
0.253
0.258
15.090
7.925
2.216
0.914
0.616
0.251
0.290
14.190
7.558
2.084
0.901
0.602
0.248
0.323
13.910
6.216
1.971
0.870
0.586
0.244
0.355
13.910
6.111
1.969
0.864
0.583
0.241
0.387
13.610
6.105
1.948
0.824
0.551
0.239
0.419
12.710
6.023
1.932
0.811
0.543
0.229
0.452
12.540
5.888
1.797
0.804
0.543
0.214
0.484
11.980
5.749
1.729
0.794
0.530
0.214
0.516
10.930
5.595
1.713
0.726
0.486
0.198
0.548
10.310
5.364
1.677
0.690
0.462
0.192
0.581
10.120
5.196
1.641
0.688
0.462
0.191
0.613
9.887
5.181
1.635
0.683
0.462
0.186
0.645
9.776
5.034
1.608
0.678
0.454
0.183
0.677
9.643
4.856
1.509
0.664
0.444
0.181
0.710
9.388
4.197
1.459
0.612
0.417
0.176
0.742
9.378
4.100
1.447
0.602
0.409
0.161
0.774
8.978
3.964
1.366
0.590
0.400
0.133
0.806
8.922
3.772
1.346
0.579
0.393
0.130
0.839
8.903
3.643
1.224
0.533
0.360
0.127
0.871
8.757
3.610
1.125
0.510
0.346
0.123
0.903
8.054
3.421
1.003
0.434
0.293
0.106
0.935
6.046
3.412
0.896
0.394
0.269
0.095
0.968
4.332
2.492
0.636
0.362
0.248
0.066
0.1
23.0
10.0
3.3
1.2
0.8
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orflb4bd
Metfile:
w24232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
B­
82
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
filbert
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
orflb6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
18:
04
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
6.536
3.692
0.934
0.547
0.364
0.090
1962
15.250
6.002
2.123
0.823
0.549
0.136
1963
6.399
2.479
1.113
0.433
0.289
0.076
1964
4.446
2.516
1.021
0.526
0.351
0.089
1965
15.030
6.911
2.429
1.031
0.688
0.170
1966
15.730
9.613
2.530
1.236
0.824
0.208
1967
9.468
5.376
1.816
0.654
0.436
0.110
1968
10.320
4.921
1.472
0.940
0.626
0.170
1969
34.850
12.740
2.823
1.684
1.123
0.278
1970
12.050
6.200
1.848
0.789
0.526
0.137
1971
4.872
2.884
1.083
0.481
0.321
0.081
B­
83
1972
9.343
4.950
1.427
0.787
0.525
0.130
1973
14.090
7.354
3.793
1.353
0.902
0.226
1974
20.370
9.491
3.506
1.306
0.871
0.216
1975
13.370
5.164
1.393
0.815
0.543
0.137
1976
0.301
0.122
0.040
0.017
0.012
0.005
1977
15.480
7.156
2.349
0.960
0.640
0.165
1978
18.070
6.397
1.724
0.682
0.455
0.114
1979
7.583
3.706
2.111
0.881
0.588
0.248
1980
14.420
7.686
2.639
1.235
0.824
0.207
1981
22.760
9.038
3.535
1.499
1.000
0.248
1982
14.150
5.051
2.010
0.840
0.560
0.141
1983
11.360
5.082
2.036
0.772
0.515
0.129
1984
31.510
15.350
3.999
1.563
1.042
0.257
1985
14.000
5.256
1.223
0.492
0.328
0.083
1986
13.450
5.359
1.965
0.713
0.475
0.123
1987
20.710
11.810
3.371
1.301
0.867
0.218
1988
7.019
3.371
1.263
0.555
0.370
0.095
1989
28.080
11.230
2.530
1.153
0.769
0.192
1990
23.960
9.435
2.467
0.944
0.629
0.194
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
34.850
15.350
3.999
1.684
1.123
0.278
0.065
31.510
12.740
3.793
1.563
1.042
0.257
0.097
28.080
11.810
3.535
1.499
1.000
0.248
0.129
23.960
11.230
3.506
1.353
0.902
0.248
0.161
22.760
9.613
3.371
1.306
0.871
0.226
0.194
20.710
9.491
2.823
1.301
0.867
0.218
0.226
20.370
9.435
2.639
1.236
0.824
0.216
0.258
18.070
9.038
2.530
1.235
0.824
0.208
0.290
15.730
7.686
2.530
1.153
0.769
0.207
0.323
15.480
7.354
2.467
1.031
0.688
0.194
0.355
15.250
7.156
2.429
0.960
0.640
0.192
0.387
15.030
6.911
2.349
0.944
0.629
0.170
0.419
14.420
6.397
2.123
0.940
0.626
0.170
0.452
14.150
6.200
2.111
0.881
0.588
0.165
0.484
14.090
6.002
2.036
0.840
0.560
0.141
0.516
14.000
5.376
2.010
0.823
0.549
0.137
0.548
13.450
5.359
1.965
0.815
0.543
0.137
0.581
13.370
5.256
1.848
0.789
0.526
0.136
0.613
12.050
5.164
1.816
0.787
0.525
0.130
0.645
11.360
5.082
1.724
0.772
0.515
0.129
0.677
10.320
5.051
1.472
0.713
0.475
0.123
0.710
9.468
4.950
1.427
0.682
0.455
0.114
0.742
9.343
4.921
1.393
0.654
0.436
0.110
0.774
7.583
3.706
1.263
0.555
0.370
0.095
0.806
7.019
3.692
1.223
0.547
0.364
0.090
0.839
6.536
3.371
1.113
0.526
0.351
0.089
0.871
6.399
2.884
1.083
0.492
0.328
0.083
0.903
4.872
2.516
1.021
0.481
0.321
0.081
0.935
4.446
2.479
0.934
0.433
0.289
0.076
0.968
0.301
0.122
0.040
0.017
0.012
0.005
0.1
27.7
11.8
3.5
1.5
1.0
0.2
Average
0.2
B­
84
of
yearly
averages:

Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orflb6bd
Metfile:
w24232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
06
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
filbert
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
orflbrt6.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
18:
04
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
B­
85
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
19.600
11.070
2.802
1.639
1.093
0.270
1962
45.730
18.010
6.368
2.470
1.647
0.409
1963
19.190
7.436
3.340
1.300
0.867
0.228
1964
13.340
7.549
3.065
1.578
1.052
0.268
1965
45.090
20.730
7.286
3.094
2.063
0.510
1966
47.200
28.840
7.590
3.709
2.473
0.623
1967
28.400
16.130
5.448
1.963
1.309
0.330
1968
30.970
14.760
4.416
2.818
1.879
0.509
1969
105.000
38.240
8.471
5.052
3.368
0.834
1970
36.150
18.600
5.543
2.365
1.577
0.412
1971
14.610
8.652
3.248
1.442
0.962
0.242
1972
28.030
14.850
4.281
2.361
1.574
0.391
1973
42.280
22.060
11.380
4.060
2.707
0.679
1974
61.120
28.480
10.520
3.917
2.612
0.647
1975
40.110
15.490
4.179
2.444
1.630
0.412
1976
0.903
0.366
0.119
0.050
0.035
0.015
1977
46.440
21.470
7.047
2.881
1.921
0.496
1978
54.210
19.190
5.173
2.046
1.364
0.343
1979
22.750
11.120
6.331
2.641
1.764
0.745
1980
43.280
23.060
7.918
3.705
2.473
0.622
1981
68.280
27.110
10.600
4.498
2.999
0.744
1982
42.440
15.150
6.029
2.521
1.681
0.424
1983
34.070
15.240
6.107
2.317
1.545
0.388
1984
94.530
46.050
12.000
4.689
3.128
0.772
1985
42.000
15.770
3.670
1.477
0.985
0.250
1986
40.350
16.080
5.894
2.139
1.426
0.368
1987
62.150
35.440
10.110
3.902
2.602
0.655
1988
21.050
10.110
3.789
1.666
1.111
0.286
1989
84.250
33.700
7.592
3.459
2.306
0.575
1990
71.860
28.300
7.402
2.831
1.887
0.581
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
105.000
46.050
12.000
5.052
3.368
0.834
0.065
94.530
38.240
11.380
4.689
3.128
0.772
0.097
84.250
35.440
10.600
4.498
2.999
0.745
0.129
71.860
33.700
10.520
4.060
2.707
0.744
0.161
68.280
28.840
10.110
3.917
2.612
0.679
0.194
62.150
28.480
8.471
3.902
2.602
0.655
0.226
61.120
28.300
7.918
3.709
2.473
0.647
0.258
54.210
27.110
7.592
3.705
2.473
0.623
0.290
47.200
23.060
7.590
3.459
2.306
0.622
0.323
46.440
22.060
7.402
3.094
2.063
0.581
0.355
45.730
21.470
7.286
2.881
1.921
0.575
0.387
45.090
20.730
7.047
2.831
1.887
0.510
0.419
43.280
19.190
6.368
2.818
1.879
0.509
0.452
42.440
18.600
6.331
2.641
1.764
0.496
0.484
42.280
18.010
6.107
2.521
1.681
0.424
0.516
42.000
16.130
6.029
2.470
1.647
0.412
0.548
40.350
16.080
5.894
2.444
1.630
0.412
0.581
40.110
15.770
5.543
2.365
1.577
0.409
0.613
36.150
15.490
5.448
2.361
1.574
0.391
B­
86
0.645
34.070
15.240
5.173
2.317
1.545
0.388
0.677
30.970
15.150
4.416
2.139
1.426
0.368
0.710
28.400
14.850
4.281
2.046
1.364
0.343
0.742
28.030
14.760
4.179
1.963
1.309
0.330
0.774
22.750
11.120
3.789
1.666
1.111
0.286
0.806
21.050
11.070
3.670
1.639
1.093
0.270
0.839
19.600
10.110
3.340
1.578
1.052
0.268
0.871
19.190
8.652
3.248
1.477
0.985
0.250
0.903
14.610
7.549
3.065
1.442
0.962
0.242
0.935
13.340
7.436
2.802
1.300
0.867
0.228
0.968
0.903
0.366
0.119
0.050
0.035
0.015
0.1
83.0
35.3
10.6
4.5
3.0
0.7
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.5
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
orflbrt6
Metfile:
w24232.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
ORfilbertsC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
06
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
PLVKRT
B­
87
18:
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
mint
(
1
broadcast
app
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
ormint.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
ORmintC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
20:
16
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
9.336
5.562
1.457
0.910
0.607
0.150
1962
26.120
10.580
3.847
1.590
1.063
0.263
1963
12.120
5.795
2.833
1.060
0.707
0.181
1964
8.728
4.700
1.829
1.204
0.803
0.201
1965
26.940
12.500
5.185
2.092
1.401
0.347
1966
29.990
18.470
4.978
2.369
1.580
0.396
1967
17.430
9.988
3.410
1.286
0.857
0.215
1968
18.530
8.999
2.940
1.748
1.165
0.310
1969
82.160
30.520
6.734
3.696
2.465
0.610
1970
22.330
11.260
3.373
1.458
0.975
0.256
1971
8.439
5.090
1.857
0.960
0.640
0.160
1972
17.070
7.977
2.256
1.461
0.975
0.241
1973
33.800
18.070
8.364
3.009
2.006
0.500
1974
47.260
23.140
7.677
2.879
1.920
0.476
1975
31.650
12.520
3.320
1.745
1.164
0.295
1976
2.313
0.794
0.161
0.067
0.045
0.017
1977
28.630
13.400
4.330
1.810
1.207
0.315
1978
33.710
12.120
3.211
1.358
0.906
0.226
1979
13.570
6.702
2.862
1.198
0.801
0.395
1980
24.140
13.110
4.669
2.356
1.572
0.392
1981
43.510
17.580
6.846
2.898
1.933
0.479
1982
26.110
9.477
3.667
1.545
1.030
0.261
1983
29.900
13.990
4.689
1.777
1.185
0.295
1984
78.700
39.420
10.270
3.864
2.577
0.636
1985
34.860
13.630
3.293
1.258
0.839
0.214
1986
25.060
10.160
3.628
1.369
0.914
0.234
1987
38.500
22.300
6.291
2.539
1.693
0.423
1988
11.100
5.631
2.146
1.225
0.819
0.208
1989
51.170
20.770
4.680
2.171
1.447
0.360
1990
41.770
16.880
4.467
1.770
1.180
0.351
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
82.160
39.420
10.270
3.864
2.577
0.636
0.065
78.700
30.520
8.364
3.696
2.465
0.610
B­
88
0.097
51.170
23.140
7.677
3.009
2.006
0.500
0.129
47.260
22.300
6.846
2.898
1.933
0.479
0.161
43.510
20.770
6.734
2.879
1.920
0.476
0.194
41.770
18.470
6.291
2.539
1.693
0.423
0.226
38.500
18.070
5.185
2.369
1.580
0.396
0.258
34.860
17.580
4.978
2.356
1.572
0.395
0.290
33.800
16.880
4.689
2.171
1.447
0.392
0.323
33.710
13.990
4.680
2.092
1.401
0.360
0.355
31.650
13.630
4.669
1.810
1.207
0.351
0.387
29.990
13.400
4.467
1.777
1.185
0.347
0.419
29.900
13.110
4.330
1.770
1.180
0.315
0.452
28.630
12.520
3.847
1.748
1.165
0.310
0.484
26.940
12.500
3.667
1.745
1.164
0.295
0.516
26.120
12.120
3.628
1.590
1.063
0.295
0.548
26.110
11.260
3.410
1.545
1.030
0.263
0.581
25.060
10.580
3.373
1.461
0.975
0.261
0.613
24.140
10.160
3.320
1.458
0.975
0.256
0.645
22.330
9.988
3.293
1.369
0.914
0.241
0.677
18.530
9.477
3.211
1.358
0.906
0.234
0.710
17.430
8.999
2.940
1.286
0.857
0.226
0.742
17.070
7.977
2.862
1.258
0.839
0.215
0.774
13.570
6.702
2.833
1.225
0.819
0.214
0.806
12.120
5.795
2.256
1.204
0.803
0.208
0.839
11.100
5.631
2.146
1.198
0.801
0.201
0.871
9.336
5.562
1.857
1.060
0.707
0.181
0.903
8.728
5.090
1.829
0.960
0.640
0.160
0.935
8.439
4.700
1.457
0.910
0.607
0.150
0.968
2.313
0.794
0.161
0.067
0.045
0.017
0.1
50.8
23.1
7.6
3.0
2.0
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ormint
Metfile:
w24232.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
ORmintC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
B­
89
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Nov
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
apple
(
2
banded
apps
of
1.5
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
paaapp4bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
20.930
6.945
1.911
0.693
0.470
0.179
1962
15.720
5.184
1.086
0.561
0.400
0.216
1963
13.420
4.299
1.040
0.457
0.352
0.145
1964
3.112
1.000
0.431
0.381
0.284
0.131
1965
3.028
1.012
0.484
0.232
0.158
0.069
1966
5.864
1.901
0.576
0.369
0.259
0.103
1967
46.160
14.790
3.656
1.451
1.018
0.328
1968
13.320
4.252
0.878
0.573
0.396
0.173
1969
15.430
7.514
1.959
0.758
0.519
0.166
1970
40.090
13.460
2.857
1.083
0.763
0.264
1971
7.961
3.641
0.794
0.437
0.417
0.170
1972
43.300
15.420
3.852
2.076
1.418
0.391
1973
30.610
10.320
2.153
0.845
0.634
0.267
1974
7.825
2.779
0.792
0.438
0.385
0.166
1975
15.540
5.271
1.219
0.616
0.586
0.191
1976
15.900
5.277
1.069
0.480
0.347
0.195
1977
7.539
2.610
0.654
0.346
0.335
0.159
1978
6.204
2.173
0.925
0.453
0.350
0.131
1979
6.632
2.618
0.806
0.415
0.354
0.129
1980
2.753
0.905
0.182
0.117
0.091
0.049
1981
4.335
1.434
0.466
0.305
0.219
0.068
1982
19.090
7.829
2.432
1.151
0.922
0.273
B­
90
1983
9.620
4.312
1.635
0.595
0.503
0.158
1984
17.740
6.346
1.444
0.761
0.661
0.235
1985
8.776
3.946
0.847
0.512
0.480
0.152
1986
15.680
6.184
1.294
0.535
0.373
0.139
1987
16.430
5.882
1.289
0.480
0.438
0.184
1988
14.930
5.387
1.205
0.456
0.471
0.149
1989
6.838
2.492
0.990
0.747
0.544
0.158
1990
10.530
3.646
0.776
0.461
0.459
0.143
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
46.160
15.420
3.852
2.076
1.418
0.391
0.065
43.300
14.790
3.656
1.451
1.018
0.328
0.097
40.090
13.460
2.857
1.151
0.922
0.273
0.129
30.610
10.320
2.432
1.083
0.763
0.267
0.161
20.930
7.829
2.153
0.845
0.661
0.264
0.194
19.090
7.514
1.959
0.761
0.634
0.235
0.226
17.740
6.945
1.911
0.758
0.586
0.216
0.258
16.430
6.346
1.635
0.747
0.544
0.195
0.290
15.900
6.184
1.444
0.693
0.519
0.191
0.323
15.720
5.882
1.294
0.616
0.503
0.184
0.355
15.680
5.387
1.289
0.595
0.480
0.179
0.387
15.540
5.277
1.219
0.573
0.471
0.173
0.419
15.430
5.271
1.205
0.561
0.470
0.170
0.452
14.930
5.184
1.086
0.535
0.459
0.166
0.484
13.420
4.312
1.069
0.512
0.438
0.166
0.516
13.320
4.299
1.040
0.480
0.417
0.159
0.548
10.530
4.252
0.990
0.480
0.400
0.158
0.581
9.620
3.946
0.925
0.461
0.396
0.158
0.613
8.776
3.646
0.878
0.457
0.385
0.152
0.645
7.961
3.641
0.847
0.456
0.373
0.149
0.677
7.825
2.779
0.806
0.453
0.354
0.145
0.710
7.539
2.618
0.794
0.438
0.352
0.143
0.742
6.838
2.610
0.792
0.437
0.350
0.139
0.774
6.632
2.492
0.776
0.415
0.347
0.131
0.806
6.204
2.173
0.654
0.381
0.335
0.131
0.839
5.864
1.901
0.576
0.369
0.284
0.129
0.871
4.335
1.434
0.484
0.346
0.259
0.103
0.903
3.112
1.012
0.466
0.305
0.219
0.069
0.935
3.028
1.000
0.431
0.232
0.158
0.068
0.968
2.753
0.905
0.182
0.117
0.091
0.049
0.1
39.1
13.1
2.8
1.1
0.9
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.2
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paaapp4bd
Metfile:
w14737.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
B­
91
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.5
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
apple
(
1
banded
app
of
2.24
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
paapp6bd.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
12.220
4.340
1.035
0.377
0.256
0.110
1962
6.068
2.019
0.548
0.212
0.228
0.084
1963
7.749
2.482
0.594
0.263
0.198
0.066
1964
3.299
1.146
0.617
0.274
0.230
0.078
1965
1.658
0.553
0.263
0.120
0.081
0.023
1966
2.279
0.737
0.186
0.127
0.088
0.033
B­
92
1967
11.740
3.718
0.914
0.462
0.341
0.092
1968
20.090
6.409
1.319
0.817
0.552
0.143
1969
5.210
2.667
0.700
0.272
0.184
0.066
1970
59.940
20.130
4.245
1.607
1.109
0.307
1971
5.632
1.942
0.500
0.243
0.196
0.098
1972
12.810
4.510
1.123
0.660
0.495
0.127
1973
7.827
4.754
1.305
0.562
0.430
0.121
1974
9.599
3.322
0.765
0.391
0.303
0.091
1975
23.180
7.863
1.659
0.640
0.504
0.138
1976
22.840
7.239
1.516
0.586
0.419
0.154
1977
9.584
3.272
0.916
0.371
0.296
0.099
1978
8.492
3.184
0.733
0.303
0.241
0.071
1979
6.436
2.700
0.556
0.252
0.186
0.061
1980
1.507
0.579
0.206
0.115
0.081
0.025
1981
5.829
1.894
0.521
0.226
0.160
0.041
1982
7.912
2.702
0.999
0.410
0.335
0.093
1983
14.510
6.497
2.389
0.865
0.594
0.151
1984
26.690
9.545
2.109
1.119
0.770
0.199
1985
13.230
5.950
1.276
0.552
0.429
0.120
1986
23.650
9.329
1.942
0.770
0.525
0.158
1987
24.630
8.820
1.875
0.697
0.512
0.152
1988
22.530
8.126
1.745
0.614
0.466
0.125
1989
6.681
3.428
1.293
0.537
0.364
0.092
1990
10.790
3.828
0.868
0.420
0.321
0.093
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
59.940
20.130
4.245
1.607
1.109
0.307
0.065
26.690
9.545
2.389
1.119
0.770
0.199
0.097
24.630
9.329
2.109
0.865
0.594
0.158
0.129
23.650
8.820
1.942
0.817
0.552
0.154
0.161
23.180
8.126
1.875
0.770
0.525
0.152
0.194
22.840
7.863
1.745
0.697
0.512
0.151
0.226
22.530
7.239
1.659
0.660
0.504
0.143
0.258
20.090
6.497
1.516
0.640
0.495
0.138
0.290
14.510
6.409
1.319
0.614
0.466
0.127
0.323
13.230
5.950
1.305
0.586
0.430
0.125
0.355
12.810
4.754
1.293
0.562
0.429
0.121
0.387
12.220
4.510
1.276
0.552
0.419
0.120
0.419
11.740
4.340
1.123
0.537
0.364
0.110
0.452
10.790
3.828
1.035
0.462
0.341
0.099
0.484
9.599
3.718
0.999
0.420
0.335
0.098
0.516
9.584
3.428
0.916
0.410
0.321
0.093
0.548
8.492
3.322
0.914
0.391
0.303
0.093
0.581
7.912
3.272
0.868
0.377
0.296
0.092
0.613
7.827
3.184
0.765
0.371
0.256
0.092
0.645
7.749
2.702
0.733
0.303
0.241
0.091
0.677
6.681
2.700
0.700
0.274
0.230
0.084
0.710
6.436
2.667
0.617
0.272
0.228
0.078
0.742
6.068
2.482
0.594
0.263
0.198
0.071
0.774
5.829
2.019
0.556
0.252
0.196
0.066
0.806
5.632
1.942
0.548
0.243
0.186
0.066
0.839
5.210
1.894
0.521
0.226
0.184
0.061
0.871
3.299
1.146
0.500
0.212
0.160
0.041
0.903
2.279
0.737
0.263
0.127
0.088
0.033
B­
93
0.935
1.658
0.579
0.206
0.120
0.081
0.025
0.968
1.507
0.553
0.186
0.115
0.081
0.023
0.1
24.5
9.3
2.1
0.9
0.6
0.2
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paapp6bd
Metfile:
w14737.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
2.24
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
apple
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
paapp6p.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
B­
94
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
36.660
13.020
3.105
1.131
0.767
0.329
1962
18.200
6.059
1.645
0.635
0.683
0.253
1963
23.250
7.448
1.783
0.789
0.594
0.197
1964
9.894
3.437
1.851
0.820
0.689
0.235
1965
4.976
1.660
0.788
0.360
0.244
0.070
1966
6.835
2.211
0.558
0.382
0.264
0.098
1967
35.220
11.150
2.742
1.387
1.024
0.275
1968
60.270
19.230
3.956
2.450
1.656
0.430
1969
15.630
8.003
2.101
0.816
0.553
0.199
1970
180.000
60.390
12.740
4.823
3.328
0.921
1971
16.890
5.825
1.500
0.729
0.588
0.293
1972
38.410
13.530
3.370
1.980
1.485
0.381
1973
23.480
14.260
3.915
1.687
1.289
0.361
1974
28.800
9.965
2.294
1.174
0.908
0.272
1975
69.550
23.590
4.978
1.920
1.513
0.413
1976
68.520
21.710
4.548
1.758
1.258
0.463
1977
28.760
9.818
2.748
1.112
0.889
0.298
1978
25.480
9.551
2.198
0.909
0.724
0.215
1979
19.310
8.100
1.669
0.754
0.557
0.183
1980
4.520
1.737
0.618
0.345
0.244
0.076
1981
17.480
5.680
1.561
0.678
0.478
0.125
1982
23.740
8.109
2.996
1.231
1.005
0.278
1983
43.520
19.490
7.166
2.596
1.781
0.453
1984
80.070
28.640
6.327
3.357
2.309
0.598
1985
39.710
17.850
3.829
1.655
1.288
0.361
1986
70.970
27.990
5.825
2.310
1.574
0.474
1987
73.930
26.470
5.627
2.093
1.536
0.456
1988
67.600
24.380
5.237
1.841
1.399
0.374
1989
20.050
10.290
3.881
1.610
1.092
0.276
1990
32.390
11.490
2.604
1.261
0.962
0.280
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
180.000
60.390
12.740
4.823
3.328
0.921
0.065
80.070
28.640
7.166
3.357
2.309
0.598
0.097
73.930
27.990
6.327
2.596
1.781
0.474
0.129
70.970
26.470
5.825
2.450
1.656
0.463
0.161
69.550
24.380
5.627
2.310
1.574
0.456
0.194
68.520
23.590
5.237
2.093
1.536
0.453
0.226
67.600
21.710
4.978
1.980
1.513
0.430
0.258
60.270
19.490
4.548
1.920
1.485
0.413
0.290
43.520
19.230
3.956
1.841
1.399
0.381
0.323
39.710
17.850
3.915
1.758
1.289
0.374
0.355
38.410
14.260
3.881
1.687
1.288
0.361
0.387
36.660
13.530
3.829
1.655
1.258
0.361
0.419
35.220
13.020
3.370
1.610
1.092
0.329
0.452
32.390
11.490
3.105
1.387
1.024
0.298
0.484
28.800
11.150
2.996
1.261
1.005
0.293
B­
95
0.516
28.760
10.290
2.748
1.231
0.962
0.280
0.548
25.480
9.965
2.742
1.174
0.908
0.278
0.581
23.740
9.818
2.604
1.131
0.889
0.276
0.613
23.480
9.551
2.294
1.112
0.767
0.275
0.645
23.250
8.109
2.198
0.909
0.724
0.272
0.677
20.050
8.100
2.101
0.820
0.689
0.253
0.710
19.310
8.003
1.851
0.816
0.683
0.235
0.742
18.200
7.448
1.783
0.789
0.594
0.215
0.774
17.480
6.059
1.669
0.754
0.588
0.199
0.806
16.890
5.825
1.645
0.729
0.557
0.197
0.839
15.630
5.680
1.561
0.678
0.553
0.183
0.871
9.894
3.437
1.500
0.635
0.478
0.125
0.903
6.835
2.211
0.788
0.382
0.264
0.098
0.935
4.976
1.737
0.618
0.360
0.244
0.076
0.968
4.520
1.660
0.558
0.345
0.244
0.070
0.1
73.6
27.8
6.3
2.6
1.8
0.5
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.3
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paapp6p
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
B­
96
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
apple
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
4.48
kg
ai/
ha
60
days
apart)

stored
as
paaapple.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
62.490
20.740
5.707
2.069
1.404
0.533
1962
46.940
15.480
3.243
1.675
1.194
0.646
1963
40.070
12.840
3.105
1.364
1.051
0.431
1964
9.297
2.987
1.289
1.137
0.848
0.392
1965
9.044
3.022
1.447
0.692
0.471
0.207
1966
17.510
5.676
1.721
1.102
0.774
0.307
1967
138.000
44.180
10.920
4.333
3.041
0.979
1968
39.790
12.700
2.622
1.712
1.183
0.515
1969
46.070
22.440
5.850
2.265
1.551
0.495
1970
120.000
40.200
8.533
3.236
2.279
0.787
1971
23.780
10.870
2.372
1.306
1.246
0.508
1972
129.000
46.070
11.510
6.202
4.235
1.167
1973
91.450
30.840
6.431
2.524
1.894
0.798
1974
23.370
8.299
2.366
1.307
1.150
0.497
1975
46.400
15.740
3.640
1.838
1.750
0.571
1976
47.500
15.760
3.192
1.434
1.035
0.582
1977
22.520
7.797
1.953
1.034
1.002
0.475
1978
18.530
6.492
2.762
1.351
1.046
0.392
1979
19.810
7.819
2.406
1.239
1.057
0.384
1980
8.222
2.702
0.543
0.349
0.272
0.146
1981
12.940
4.282
1.392
0.911
0.653
0.204
1982
57.030
23.380
7.264
3.437
2.752
0.814
1983
28.730
12.880
4.884
1.776
1.504
0.471
1984
52.990
18.950
4.312
2.272
1.973
0.702
1985
26.210
11.780
2.529
1.528
1.434
0.453
1986
46.830
18.470
3.866
1.599
1.112
0.415
1987
49.070
17.570
3.851
1.434
1.308
0.549
1988
44.600
16.090
3.600
1.362
1.405
0.444
1989
20.420
7.444
2.957
2.231
1.623
0.471
1990
31.460
10.890
2.317
1.378
1.371
0.426
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
138.000
46.070
11.510
6.202
4.235
1.167
0.065
129.000
44.180
10.920
4.333
3.041
0.979
0.097
120.000
40.200
8.533
3.437
2.752
0.814
B­
97
0.129
91.450
30.840
7.264
3.236
2.279
0.798
0.161
62.490
23.380
6.431
2.524
1.973
0.787
0.194
57.030
22.440
5.850
2.272
1.894
0.702
0.226
52.990
20.740
5.707
2.265
1.750
0.646
0.258
49.070
18.950
4.884
2.231
1.623
0.582
0.290
47.500
18.470
4.312
2.069
1.551
0.571
0.323
46.940
17.570
3.866
1.838
1.504
0.549
0.355
46.830
16.090
3.851
1.776
1.434
0.533
0.387
46.400
15.760
3.640
1.712
1.405
0.515
0.419
46.070
15.740
3.600
1.675
1.404
0.508
0.452
44.600
15.480
3.243
1.599
1.371
0.497
0.484
40.070
12.880
3.192
1.528
1.308
0.495
0.516
39.790
12.840
3.105
1.434
1.246
0.475
0.548
31.460
12.700
2.957
1.434
1.194
0.471
0.581
28.730
11.780
2.762
1.378
1.183
0.471
0.613
26.210
10.890
2.622
1.364
1.150
0.453
0.645
23.780
10.870
2.529
1.362
1.112
0.444
0.677
23.370
8.299
2.406
1.351
1.057
0.431
0.710
22.520
7.819
2.372
1.307
1.051
0.426
0.742
20.420
7.797
2.366
1.306
1.046
0.415
0.774
19.810
7.444
2.317
1.239
1.035
0.392
0.806
18.530
6.492
1.953
1.137
1.002
0.392
0.839
17.510
5.676
1.721
1.102
0.848
0.384
0.871
12.940
4.282
1.447
1.034
0.774
0.307
0.903
9.297
3.022
1.392
0.911
0.653
0.207
0.935
9.044
2.987
1.289
0.692
0.471
0.204
0.968
8.222
2.702
0.543
0.349
0.272
0.146
0.1
117.1
39.3
8.4
3.4
2.7
0.8
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.5
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paaapple
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
ex
v
Chemical
Name:
napropamid
e
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
B­
98
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
4.48
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
turf
(
1
broadcast
app
of
6.72
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
paturf.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
22.630
8.000
1.630
0.571
0.381
0.095
1962
4.427
1.461
0.305
0.107
0.076
0.019
1963
0.055
0.018
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.000
1964
2.633
0.910
0.387
0.142
0.094
0.023
1965
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
1966
0.088
0.041
0.010
0.003
0.002
0.001
1967
3.614
1.274
0.391
0.150
0.101
0.025
1968
57.790
18.330
3.649
1.345
0.897
0.221
1969
0.456
0.149
0.036
0.013
0.011
0.003
1970
160.000
53.300
10.690
3.749
2.502
0.618
1971
4.235
1.453
0.309
0.109
0.073
0.020
1972
1.997
0.703
0.148
0.094
0.063
0.016
1973
14.330
6.948
1.659
0.582
0.388
0.096
1974
20.570
7.001
1.416
0.517
0.346
0.085
1975
59.720
20.070
4.040
1.417
0.947
0.234
1976
39.680
12.440
2.470
0.866
0.579
0.143
1977
12.130
3.824
0.894
0.314
0.210
0.052
1978
10.600
3.751
0.766
0.269
0.179
0.044
1979
1.091
0.405
0.083
0.032
0.022
0.005
1980
0.639
0.244
0.070
0.025
0.017
0.004
1981
3.542
1.150
0.250
0.088
0.058
0.014
1982
0.989
0.299
0.059
0.047
0.032
0.008
B­
99
1983
17.500
8.578
2.301
0.808
0.539
0.133
1984
62.500
22.190
4.538
1.624
1.084
0.267
1985
23.330
10.420
2.143
0.756
0.504
0.125
1986
48.620
17.550
3.553
1.271
0.848
0.210
1987
60.300
21.410
4.367
1.531
1.022
0.253
1988
7.116
2.842
0.598
0.210
0.140
0.035
1989
7.506
3.530
0.868
0.305
0.203
0.050
1990
2.417
0.857
0.287
0.146
0.099
0.025
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
160.000
53.300
10.690
3.749
2.502
0.618
0.065
62.500
22.190
4.538
1.624
1.084
0.267
0.097
60.300
21.410
4.367
1.531
1.022
0.253
0.129
59.720
20.070
4.040
1.417
0.947
0.234
0.161
57.790
18.330
3.649
1.345
0.897
0.221
0.194
48.620
17.550
3.553
1.271
0.848
0.210
0.226
39.680
12.440
2.470
0.866
0.579
0.143
0.258
23.330
10.420
2.301
0.808
0.539
0.133
0.290
22.630
8.578
2.143
0.756
0.504
0.125
0.323
20.570
8.000
1.659
0.582
0.388
0.096
0.355
17.500
7.001
1.630
0.571
0.381
0.095
0.387
14.330
6.948
1.416
0.517
0.346
0.085
0.419
12.130
3.824
0.894
0.314
0.210
0.052
0.452
10.600
3.751
0.868
0.305
0.203
0.050
0.484
7.506
3.530
0.766
0.269
0.179
0.044
0.516
7.116
2.842
0.598
0.210
0.140
0.035
0.548
4.427
1.461
0.391
0.150
0.101
0.025
0.581
4.235
1.453
0.387
0.146
0.099
0.025
0.613
3.614
1.274
0.309
0.142
0.094
0.023
0.645
3.542
1.150
0.305
0.109
0.076
0.020
0.677
2.633
0.910
0.287
0.107
0.073
0.019
0.710
2.417
0.857
0.250
0.094
0.063
0.016
0.742
1.997
0.703
0.148
0.088
0.058
0.014
0.774
1.091
0.405
0.083
0.047
0.032
0.008
0.806
0.989
0.299
0.070
0.032
0.022
0.005
0.839
0.639
0.244
0.059
0.025
0.017
0.004
0.871
0.456
0.149
0.036
0.013
0.011
0.003
0.903
0.088
0.041
0.010
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.935
0.055
0.018
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.968
0.005
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.1
60.2
21.3
4.3
1.5
1.0
0.3
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.1
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paturf
Metfile:
w14737.
dv
f
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
tx
t
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
B­
100
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Descriptio
n
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis
:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis
:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0.5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
6.72
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
turf
(
2
broadcast
apps
of
3.36
kg
ai/
ha)

stored
as
paturf2.
out
Chemical:
napropamide
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.244
0.743
0.157
0.055
0.037
0.018
1962
2.572
0.842
0.169
0.061
0.046
0.012
1963
0.062
0.020
0.004
0.003
0.002
0.001
1964
0.226
0.078
0.033
0.012
0.011
0.003
B­
101
1965
0.017
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
1966
0.414
0.134
0.028
0.010
0.007
0.002
1967
13.710
4.339
0.919
0.326
0.222
0.055
1968
5.689
1.804
0.359
0.131
0.087
0.022
1969
0.078
0.031
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.001
1970
15.480
5.144
1.032
0.362
0.241
0.060
1971
1.670
0.559
0.124
0.047
0.032
0.008
1972
11.960
4.210
0.904
0.330
0.222
0.055
1973
6.104
2.048
0.409
0.143
0.105
0.033
1974
2.031
0.691
0.140
0.050
0.060
0.015
1975
5.725
1.924
0.387
0.136
0.123
0.031
1976
3.798
1.191
0.236
0.083
0.058
0.015
1977
1.041
0.328
0.078
0.028
0.029
0.007
1978
0.889
0.314
0.064
0.029
0.020
0.005
1979
0.715
0.261
0.057
0.020
0.015
0.004
1980
0.049
0.019
0.005
0.002
0.002
0.000
1981
0.376
0.124
0.030
0.017
0.011
0.003
1982
2.117
0.943
0.273
0.098
0.067
0.017
1983
1.471
0.747
0.199
0.070
0.059
0.015
1984
5.779
2.052
0.420
0.149
0.116
0.029
1985
2.231
1.018
0.209
0.088
0.059
0.015
1986
4.469
1.605
0.325
0.116
0.078
0.019
1987
5.694
2.022
0.412
0.145
0.109
0.027
1988
0.730
0.243
0.051
0.021
0.022
0.005
1989
0.798
0.282
0.110
0.064
0.043
0.011
1990
0.502
0.166
0.033
0.015
0.014
0.004
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032
15.480
5.144
1.032
0.362
0.241
0.060
0.065
13.710
4.339
0.919
0.330
0.222
0.055
0.097
11.960
4.210
0.904
0.326
0.222
0.055
0.129
6.104
2.052
0.420
0.149
0.123
0.033
0.161
5.779
2.048
0.412
0.145
0.116
0.031
0.194
5.725
2.022
0.409
0.143
0.109
0.029
0.226
5.694
1.924
0.387
0.136
0.105
0.027
0.258
5.689
1.804
0.359
0.131
0.087
0.022
0.290
4.469
1.605
0.325
0.116
0.078
0.019
0.323
3.798
1.191
0.273
0.098
0.067
0.018
0.355
2.572
1.018
0.236
0.088
0.060
0.017
0.387
2.244
0.943
0.209
0.083
0.059
0.015
0.419
2.231
0.842
0.199
0.070
0.059
0.015
0.452
2.117
0.747
0.169
0.064
0.058
0.015
0.484
2.031
0.743
0.157
0.061
0.046
0.015
0.516
1.670
0.691
0.140
0.055
0.043
0.012
0.548
1.471
0.559
0.124
0.050
0.037
0.011
0.581
1.041
0.328
0.110
0.047
0.032
0.008
0.613
0.889
0.314
0.078
0.029
0.029
0.007
0.645
0.798
0.282
0.064
0.028
0.022
0.005
0.677
0.730
0.261
0.057
0.021
0.020
0.005
0.710
0.715
0.243
0.051
0.020
0.015
0.004
0.742
0.502
0.166
0.033
0.017
0.014
0.004
0.774
0.414
0.134
0.033
0.015
0.011
0.003
0.806
0.376
0.124
0.030
0.012
0.011
0.003
0.839
0.226
0.078
0.028
0.010
0.007
0.002
B­
102
0.871
0.078
0.031
0.010
0.005
0.004
0.001
0.903
0.062
0.020
0.005
0.003
0.002
0.001
0.935
0.049
0.019
0.004
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.968
0.017
0.006
0.002
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.1
11.4
4.0
0.9
0.3
0.2
0.1
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.02
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
paturf2
Metfile:
w14737.
d
vf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
tx
t
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
napropamide
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comment
s
Molecular
weight
mwt
271
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
8.20E­
10
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.70E­
07
torr
Solubility
sol
740
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
8
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.0047
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
0
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
557
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
1338
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
5
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
4
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
5
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
3.36
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
1
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
1­
Apr
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
B­
103
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CRANBERRY
MODEL
EFED
modeled
the
Cranberry
use
of
napropamide
using
the
Interim
Rice
Model
(
Bradbury,
10/
29/
02)
that
was
modified
to
represent
cranberries.
This
is
a
modeling
approach
that
has
not
been
officially
approved
at
this
time.
EFED
assumed
the
maximum
application
rate
in
cranberries
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)
and
attempted
to
bracket
the
potential
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
by
assuming
that
no
runoff
exists
in
the
assumed
90
days
from
application
until
harvest
by
flooding
(
lower
bound)
and
by
assuming
that
all
of
a
2­
inch
rain
runs
off
the
field
immediately
after
flooding
(
upper
bound).
Because
cranberries
are
only
grown
in
northern
states,
EECs
at
different
times
(
hours)
from
the
modeling
were
compared
to
acute
toxicity
values
for
the
rainbow
trout
(
northern
fish,
LC50=
6.4
mg/
L)
and
the
mysid
shrimp
(
LC50=
4.2
mg/
L).
Table
B.
2
contains
the
inputs
for
Cranberry
modeling.

The
modeling
of
napropamide
used
in
cranberry
production
indicates
that
because
of
napropamide's
rapid
degradation
in
water
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
is
not
likely
to
be
significant.
Napropamide
concentrations
in
the
cranberry
bog
started
at
2217­
5172
ug/
L
immediately
after
establishment
of
full
flood
and
declined
rapidly
to
<
1
ug/
L
by
5­
6
hours
after
full
flood.
The
lower
bound
of
exposure
is
below
the
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
LOC=
0.05)
for
both
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
by
two
hours
after
flooding.
The
upper
bound
of
exposure
goes
below
the
endangered
species
level
of
concern
(
LOC=
0.05)
for
aquatic
invertebrates
by
three
hours
after
flooding
for
the
mysid
shrimp
and
two
hours
for
rainbow
trout.
Table
B.
3
below
contains
the
EECs
from
cranberry
modeling.

B­
3.
Inputs
and
Model
Outputs
for
Cranberry
Modeling
of
Napropamide
Use
Input
Value
Comment(
s)

Area
(
ha)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
sediment
interaction
(
cm)
1
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Depth
of
floodwater
(
m)
0.45
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Volume
=
4.551
*
106
L
Soil
bulk
density
(
g/
cm3)
1.3
assumed
in
Interim
Rice
Model
Mass
of
soil
=
130,000
kg/
ha
Organic
carbon
content
(%)
2
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Time
from
application
to
flooding
(
days)
90
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Length
of
flooding
(
days)
5
assumed
in
Cranberry
modeling
Best
professional
judgement
Application
rate
(
kg/
ha)
16.8
Maximum
label
rate
for
cranberries
Half­
lives
(
hours)

Aerobic
soil
metabolism
10,704
446
days
MRID
41105901
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
21,408
446­
Day
aerobic
soil
metabolism
*
2
no
162­
4
data
available
Aqueous
photolysis
0.433
26
minutes/
60
minutes/
day
r2=
0.87,
F=
121,
p=
2.1
x
10­
9
41575301
Include
parent
+
Isomer
I
+
Isomer
II
B­
104
Mobility
Koc
(
L/
Kg)
1,170
MRID
41575302
Lowest
non­
sand
Estimated
Kd=
23.4
L/
kg
Table
B­
4.
EECs
in
cranberry
bog
for
napropamide
used
in
Cranberries
at
maximum
rate
(
15
lbs
ai/
A)

Time
(
hours)
Lower
bound
(
ug/
L)
Upper
bound
(
ug/
L)

0
2,213
5,172
1
446
1,043
2
30
210
3
18
42
4
4
9
5
0.7
2
6
0.1
0.3
7
0.03
0.01
C­
1
Appendix
C.
T­
REX
Runs
for
Napropamide
T­
REX
Version
1.1
Decembe
r
7,
2004
This
spreadsheet
was
developed
by
the
Terrestrial
Biology
and
Exposure
Technical
Teams.
For
information
or
questions
concerning
this
spreadsheet,
please
contact
John
Ravenscroft
or
Edward
Odenkirchen.

**
NOTE**:
Please
save
this
file
to
you
own
computer
first.
Select
``
File'',
then
``
Save
As''
on
the
menu
bar.
Select
the
destination
on
your
own
hard
drive
(
usually
set
to
C:).
Do
not
modify
this
file
on
the
F:
drive.

New
Version
Notes
This
section
will
contain
any
changes/
additions
in
future
versions
of
T­
REX.

Supporting
Documentation
CLICK
HERE
to
display
the
'
READ
ME'
document
containing
T­
REX
operating
instructions
and
background
information.

References
Fletcher,
J.
S.,
J.
E.
Nellesson
and
T.
G.
Pfleeger.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
EPA
food­
chain
(
Kenaga)
nomogram,
an
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Environ.
Tox.
And
Chem.
13(
9):
1383­
1391
Hoerger,
F.
and
E.
E.
Kenaga.
1972.
Pesticide
residues
on
plants:
correlation
of
representative
dada
as
a
basis
for
estimation
of
their
magnitude
in
the
environment.
IN:
F.
Coulston
and
F.
Corte,
eds.,
Environmental
Quality
and
Safety:
Chemistry,
Toxicology
and
Technology.
Vol
1.
Georg
Theime
Publishers,
Stuttgart,
Germany.
pp.
9­
28
USEPA.
1993.
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
Volume
I
of
II.
EPA/
600/
R­
93/
187a.
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Washington,
D.
C.
20460.
Willis
and
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
persistence
on
foliage.
Environ.
Contam.
Toxicol.
100:
23­
73
C­
2
Points
to
Consider
in
Development
of
Risk
Description
for
Birds
and
Mammals
Acute
and
Reproduction
Dietary
Discussions
The
risk
assessment
includes
numerous
calculations
of
dietary
exposure
for
multiple
weight
classes
of
animals.
H
are
energetic
considerations
that
suggest
that
some
weight
class/
food
item
combinations
are
not
likely
to
naturally
occur.
For
ex
not
likely
to
be
many
15
g
mammals
or
20
g
birds
that
exclusively
feed
on
vegetation.
The
risk
assessor
is
urged
to
consult
such
texts
a
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
(
USEPA
1993),
which
provides
more
comprehensive
approaches
to
consider
energy
requirements
and
availability
to
estimate
dietary
exposure.
In
addition,
age
of
individuals
may
also
play
an
important
role
in
the
types
and
relative
amounts
selected.
This
should
also
be
taken
into
account
when
describing
dietary
risks.

Acute
Toxicity
RQ
Approaches
Dose­
based
and
dietary­
based
acute
RQs
should
be
provided
to
risk
managers
whenever
effects
data
allow.
Ther
to
each
approach.
The
dose­
based
approach
considers
that
the
uptake
and
absorption
kinetics
of
a
gavage
toxicity
study
to
approxim
associated
with
uptake
from
a
dietary
matrix.
Toxic
response
is
a
function
of
duration
and
intensity
of
exposure.
For
many
compounds
a
gava
represents
a
very
short­
term
high
intensity
exposure,
where
dietary
exposure
may
be
of
a
more
prolonged
nature.
The
dietary­
based
approach
animals
in
the
field
are
consuming
food
at
a
rate
similar
to
that
of
confined
laboratory
animals.
Energy
content
in
food
items
differs
betwe
the
laboratory
as
does
the
energy
requirements
of
wild
and
captive
animals.
The
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook
can
provi
energy
requirements
of
animals
in
the
wild
as
well
as
energy
content
of
their
diets
Reproduction
RQ
Approach
The
typical
21­
week
avian
reproduction
study
does
not
address
the
exposure
duration
needed
to
elicit
the
observe
The
study
protocol
was
designed
to
establish
a
steady­
state
tissue
concentration
for
bioaccumulative
compounds.
For
other
pesticides
it
is
entirely
p
steady­
state
tissue
concentrations
are
achieved
earlier
than
the
21­
week
exposure
period.
Moreover,
pesticides
may
exert
effects
at
critical
periods
reproduction
cycle
and
so
long
term
exposure
may
not
be
necessary
to
elicit
the
effect
observed
in
the
21­
week
protocol.
The
EFED
risk
assessment
day
maximum
estimated
EEC
as
a
conservative
approach.
The
degree
to
which
this
exposure
is
conservative
cannot
be
determined
by
the
exis
study.
However,
risk
assessment
discussions
should
be
accompanied
by
the
graphics
from
T­
REX
model
regarding
the
number
of
days
is
above
the
NOAEC.
The
greater
number
of
days
EECs
exceed
the
NOAEC,
the
greater
the
confidence
in
predictions
of
reproductive
ri
Inputs
1
lb
ai/
A
broadcast
C­
3
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:
Product
name
and
form:

%
A.
I.:
Application
Rate:
1
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:

Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
1
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
C­
4
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
1
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)
Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
C­
5
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
240.00
Tall
Grass
110.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
135.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
15.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kgbw
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
274
156
70
Tall
Grass
125
72
32
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
154
88
39
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
17
10
4
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.12
0.05
0.02
Tall
Grass
0.05
0.02
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.07
0.03
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.00
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
C­
6
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.08
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.04
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kgbw
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
228
158
36
Tall
Grass
105
73
17
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
128
89
20
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
14
10
2
3
2
0
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
C­
7
Short
Grass
0.02
69.16
0.02
59.38
0.01
31.20
Tall
Grass
0.01
31.70
0.01
27.22
0.00
14.30
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.01
38.90
0.01
33.40
0.01
17.55
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
4.32
0.00
3.71
0.00
1.95
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.96
0.00
0.84
0.00
0.39
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
8.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
3.67
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
4.50
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.50
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Descripti
on
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
1
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
C­
8
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
85.00
Tall
Grass
36.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
45.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
7.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
97
55
25
Tall
Grass
41
23
10
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
51
29
13
C­
9
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
8
5
2
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.04
0.02
0.01
Tall
Grass
0.02
0.01
0.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
0.01
0.00
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.00
1.33
lb
ai/
A
banded
at
60
days
apart
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:

Product
name
and
form:
%
A.
I.:

Application
Rate:
0.443
Half­
life:
35
C­
10
Application
Interval:
60
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
2
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
C­
11
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.
Chemical
Name:
Napropamid
e
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
0.443
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentration­
based
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentration­
based
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
138.72
Tall
Grass
63.58
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
78.03
C­
12
Insects
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
8.67
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consumed
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
158
90
40
Tall
Grass
72
41
18
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
89
51
23
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
10
6
3
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.07
0.03
0.01
Tall
Grass
0.03
0.01
0.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.04
0.02
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.05
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.00
C­
13
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consumed
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
132
92
21
Tall
Grass
60
42
10
C­
14
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
74
52
12
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
8
6
1
2
1
0
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.01
39.97
0.01
34.32
0.01
18.04
Tall
Grass
0.01
18.32
0.00
15.73
0.00
8.27
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.01
22.49
0.01
19.31
0.00
10.14
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
2.50
0.00
2.15
0.00
1.13
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.55
0.00
0.49
0.00
0.23
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
4.62
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
2.12
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
2.60
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.29
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
0.443
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
C­
15
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
49.13
Tall
Grass
20.81
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
26.01
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
4.05
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
C­
16
Short
Grass
56
32
14
Tall
Grass
24
14
6
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
30
17
8
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
5
3
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.02
0.01
0.00
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.00
0.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.00
C­
17
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
47
32
7
Tall
Grass
20
14
3
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
25
17
4
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
4
3
1
1
1
0
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.00
14.16
0.00
12.16
0.00
6.39
Tall
Grass
0.00
6.00
0.00
5.15
0.00
2.71
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.00
7.50
0.00
6.44
0.00
3.38
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
1.17
0.00
1.00
0.00
0.53
C­
18
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.26
0.00
0.23
0.00
0.11
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
1.64
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.69
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.87
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.13
2
lbs
ai/
a
broadcast
once
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:
Product
name
and
form:

%
A.
I.:
Application
Rate:
2
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:

Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
1
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
C­
19
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
Avian
acute
LC50
C­
20
of
Concern
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
480.00
Tall
Grass
220.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
270.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
30.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
C­
21
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
547
312
139
Tall
Grass
251
143
64
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
308
176
78
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
34
20
9
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.24
0.11
0.03
Tall
Grass
0.11
0.05
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.13
0.06
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.16
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.07
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.09
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
C­
22
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
456
317
72
Tall
Grass
209
145
33
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
257
178
41
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
29
20
5
6
5
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.04
138.32
0.04
118.77
0.02
62.41
Tall
Grass
0.02
63.40
0.02
54.43
0.01
28.60
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
77.80
0.02
66.81
0.01
35.10
C­
23
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
8.64
0.00
7.42
0.00
3.90
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
1.91
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.78
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
16.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
7.33
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
9.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
1.00
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
C­
24
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
170.00
Tall
Grass
72.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
90.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
14.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
194
111
49
Tall
Grass
82
47
21
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
103
59
26
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
16
9
4
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.08
0.04
0.01
Tall
Grass
0.04
0.02
0.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.04
0.02
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.00
0.00
C­
25
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.06
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.00
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
C­
26
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
162
112
26
Tall
Grass
68
48
11
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
86
59
14
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
13
9
2
3
2
0
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.01
48.99
0.01
42.06
0.01
22.10
Tall
Grass
0.01
20.75
0.01
17.81
0.00
9.36
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.01
25.93
0.01
22.27
0.00
11.70
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
4.03
0.00
3.46
0.00
1.82
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.36
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
5.67
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
2.40
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
3.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.47
C­
27
3
lbs
ai/
a
x
2
apps
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:
Product
name
and
form:

%
A.
I.:
Application
Rate:
3
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:
60
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
2
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
2
C­
28
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?

0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
3
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
C­
29
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
939.42
Tall
Grass
430.57
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
528.43
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
58.71
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
1071
611
272
Tall
Grass
491
280
125
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
602
343
153
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
67
38
17
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.46
0.21
0.07
Tall
Grass
0.21
0.09
0.03
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.26
0.12
0.04
C­
30
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.03
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.31
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.14
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.18
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
C­
31
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
892
620
141
Tall
Grass
409
284
65
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
502
349
79
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
56
39
9
12
9
2
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.08
270.71
0.07
232.44
0.04
122.14
Tall
Grass
0.04
124.07
0.03
106.54
0.02
55.98
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.05
152.27
0.04
130.75
0.02
68.70
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
16.92
0.00
14.53
0.00
7.63
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
3.74
0.00
3.30
0.00
1.53
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
31.31
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
14.35
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
17.61
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
1.96
C­
32
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
3
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
332.71
Tall
Grass
140.91
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
176.14
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
27.40
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
Adjusted
C­
33
wgt
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
379
216
96
Tall
Grass
161
92
41
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
201
114
51
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
31
18
8
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.16
0.07
0.02
Tall
Grass
0.07
0.03
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.09
0.04
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.11
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
C­
34
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
316
220
50
Tall
Grass
134
93
21
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
167
116
26
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
26
18
4
6
4
1
C­
35
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.03
95.88
0.02
82.32
0.01
43.26
Tall
Grass
0.01
40.61
0.01
34.87
0.01
18.32
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
50.76
0.01
43.58
0.01
22.90
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
7.90
0.00
6.78
0.00
3.56
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
1.75
0.00
1.54
0.00
0.71
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
11.09
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
4.70
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
5.87
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.91
4
lbs
ai/
A
*
1
app
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:

Product
name
and
form:
%
A.
I.:

Application
Rate:
4
C­
36
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:

Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
1
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
C­
37
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
960.00
Tall
Grass
440.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
540.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
60.00
Avian
Results
C­
38
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
1094
624
278
Tall
Grass
502
286
128
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
616
351
157
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
68
39
17
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.47
0.21
0.07
Tall
Grass
0.22
0.10
0.03
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.26
0.12
0.04
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.03
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.32
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.15
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.18
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
C­
39
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
912
634
144
Tall
Grass
418
290
66
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
513
356
81
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
57
40
9
13
9
2
C­
40
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.08
276.64
0.07
237.53
0.04
124.81
Tall
Grass
0.04
126.79
0.03
108.87
0.02
57.21
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.05
155.61
0.04
133.61
0.02
70.21
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
17.29
0.00
14.85
0.00
7.80
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
3.82
0.00
3.37
0.00
1.56
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
32.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
14.67
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
18.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
2.00
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
Avian
acute
LC50
C­
41
of
Concern
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
340.00
Tall
Grass
144.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
180.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
28.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
388
221
99
Tall
Grass
164
94
42
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
205
117
52
C­
42
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
32
18
8
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.17
0.07
0.02
Tall
Grass
0.07
0.03
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.09
0.04
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.11
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
C­
43
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
323
224
51
Tall
Grass
137
95
22
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
171
119
27
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
27
18
4
6
4
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.03
97.98
0.03
84.13
0.01
44.20
Tall
Grass
0.01
41.50
0.01
35.63
0.01
18.72
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
51.87
0.01
44.54
0.01
23.40
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
8.07
0.00
6.93
0.00
3.64
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
1.78
0.00
1.57
0.00
0.73
C­
44
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
11.33
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
4.80
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
6.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.93
4
lbs
ai/
A
broadcast
at
60
days
apart
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:
Product
name
and
form:

%
A.
I.:
Application
Rate:
4
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:
60
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
2
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
C­
45
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
C­
46
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
1252.56
Tall
Grass
574.09
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
704.57
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
78.29
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
C­
47
Short
Grass
1428
814
363
Tall
Grass
654
373
166
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
803
458
204
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
89
51
23
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.61
0.28
0.09
Tall
Grass
0.28
0.13
0.04
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.35
0.15
0.05
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.04
0.02
0.01
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.42
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.19
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.23
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
C­
48
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
1190
827
188
Tall
Grass
545
379
86
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
669
465
106
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
74
52
12
16
12
2
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.11
360.94
0.09
309.92
0.05
162.85
Tall
Grass
0.05
165.43
0.04
142.05
0.02
74.64
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.06
203.03
0.05
174.33
0.03
91.60
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
22.56
0.01
19.37
0.00
10.18
C­
49
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
4.99
0.00
4.40
0.00
2.04
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
41.75
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
19.14
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
23.49
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
2.61
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
4
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
60
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
2
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
C­
50
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
443.62
Tall
Grass
187.88
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
234.86
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
36.53
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
506
288
129
Tall
Grass
214
122
54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
268
153
68
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
42
24
11
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.22
0.10
0.03
Tall
Grass
0.09
0.04
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.12
0.05
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
C­
51
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)

Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.15
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.06
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.08
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
C­
52
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
421
293
67
Tall
Grass
178
124
28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
223
155
35
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
35
24
5
8
5
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.04
127.83
0.03
109.76
0.02
57.68
Tall
Grass
0.02
54.14
0.01
46.49
0.01
24.43
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
67.68
0.02
58.11
0.01
30.53
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
10.53
0.00
9.04
0.00
4.75
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
2.33
0.00
2.05
0.00
0.95
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
14.79
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
6.26
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
7.83
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
1.22
6
lbs
ai/
A
banded
once
C­
53
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:

Product
name
and
form:
%
A.
I.:

Application
Rate:
2
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:

Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
1
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
C­
54
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
C­
55
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
480.00
Tall
Grass
220.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
270.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
30.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
547
312
139
Tall
Grass
251
143
64
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
308
176
78
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
34
20
9
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.24
0.11
0.03
Tall
Grass
0.11
0.05
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.13
0.06
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
C­
56
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)

Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.16
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.07
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.09
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
C­
57
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
456
317
72
Tall
Grass
209
145
33
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
257
178
41
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
29
20
5
6
5
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.04
138.32
0.04
118.77
0.02
62.41
Tall
Grass
0.02
63.40
0.02
54.43
0.01
28.60
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
77.80
0.02
66.81
0.01
35.10
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
8.64
0.00
7.42
0.00
3.90
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
1.91
0.00
1.69
0.00
0.78
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
16.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
7.33
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
9.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
1.00
C­
58
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
2
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
170.00
Tall
Grass
72.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
90.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
14.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
C­
59
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
194
111
49
Tall
Grass
82
47
21
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
103
59
26
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
16
9
4
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.08
0.04
0.01
Tall
Grass
0.04
0.02
0.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.04
0.02
0.01
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
0.00
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.06
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.00
C­
60
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
162
112
26
Tall
Grass
68
48
11
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
86
59
14
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
13
9
2
3
2
0
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
C­
61
NOAEL)

Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.01
48.99
0.01
42.06
0.01
22.10
Tall
Grass
0.01
20.75
0.01
17.81
0.00
9.36
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.01
25.93
0.01
22.27
0.00
11.70
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
4.03
0.00
3.46
0.00
1.82
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
0.89
0.00
0.79
0.00
0.36
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
5.67
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
2.40
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
3.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.47
6
lb
ai/
a
broadcast
once
TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
These
values
will
be
used
in
the
calculation
of
exposure
estimates
for
foliar,
granular,
liquid
and/
or
seed
applications
of
pesticides.

Chemical
Name:
Napropamide
Use:

Product
name
and
form:
%
A.
I.:

Application
Rate:
6
Half­
life:
35
Application
Interval:

Maximum
#
Apps./
Year:
1
C­
62
Length
of
Simulation:
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern:
2250
(
ppm)

Choose
label:
1
Endpoints
Avian
Indicate
test
species
below
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
2
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
1
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
1
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)

Reported
Chronic
endpoint
30
2
Dose
or
Diet
Rat
Calculated
Endpoint
1.5
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
standard
rat
conversion
Would
you
like
to
calculate
an
LD50
ft­
2
for
this
use?
2
0%

TREX
MODEL
INPUTS
Page
2
Napropamide
Upper
Bound
Kenaga
Residues
For
RQ
Calculation
Acute
and
Chronic
RQs
are
based
on
the
Upper
Bound
C­
63
Kenaga
Residues.

Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
The
maximum
single
day
residue
estimation
is
used
for
Use
0
both
the
acute
and
reproduction
RQs.
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
6
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
of
Concern
Avian
acute
LC50
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
Note:
To
provide
risk
management
with
the
maximum
possible
information,
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
dose­
based
and
concentrationbased
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
RQs
be
calculated
when
data
are
available
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
1440.00
Tall
Grass
660.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
810.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
90.00
Avian
Results
C­
64
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
1642
936
418
Tall
Grass
752
429
191
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
923
527
235
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
103
59
26
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.71
0.32
0.10
Tall
Grass
0.32
0.14
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.40
0.18
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.04
0.02
0.01
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.48
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.22
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.27
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.03
C­
65
Napropamide
0
Upper
bound
Kenaga
Residues
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
1368
950
216
Tall
Grass
627
436
99
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
770
535
122
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
86
59
14
19
14
3
C­
66
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.12
414.95
0.11
356.30
0.06
187.22
Tall
Grass
0.06
190.19
0.05
163.30
0.03
85.81
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.07
233.41
0.06
200.42
0.03
105.31
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.01
25.93
0.01
22.27
0.00
11.70
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
5.73
0.00
5.06
0.00
2.34
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
48.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
22.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
27.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
3.00
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
For
Risk
Description
Purposes
Chemical
Name:
Naprop
amide
Use
0
Formulation
0
Application
Rate
6
lbs
a.
i./
acre
Half­
life
35
days
Application
Interval
0
days
Maximum
#
Apps./
Year
1
Length
of
Simulation
1
year
Concentration
of
Concern
2250.00
(
ppm)

Name
of
Concentration
Avian
acute
LC50
C­
67
of
Concern
Endpoints
Avian
Mallard
duck
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
4640
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
0
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
3000
Mammals
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
5000
LC50
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
0
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
1.5
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
30
EECs
(
ppm)
Kenaga
Values
Short
Grass
510.00
Tall
Grass
216.00
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
270.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
42.00
Avian
Results
Avian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
Small
20
114
2326
Mid
100
65
2960
Large
1000
29
4182
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Avian
Classes
and
Body
Weights
small
mid
large
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
581
332
148
Tall
Grass
246
140
63
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
308
176
78
C­
68
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
48
27
12
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50)
Avian
Acute
RQs
20
g
100
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
0.25
0.11
0.04
Tall
Grass
0.11
0.05
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.13
0.06
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.02
0.01
0.00
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.17
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
0.07
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.09
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
0.01
Napropamide
0
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
C­
69
Mammalian
Results
Mammalian
Body
%
body
wgt
Adjusted
Adjusted
Class
Weight
consume
d
LD50
NOAEL
15
95
10989
3
Herbivores/
35
66
8891
3
insectivores
1000
15
3846
1
15
21
10989
3
Grainvores
35
15
8891
3
1000
3
3846
1
EEC
equivalent
dose
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
Mammalian
Classes
and
Body
weight
Herbivores/
insectivores
Granivore
s
15
g
35
g
1000
g
15
g
35
g
1000
g
Short
Grass
485
337
77
Tall
Grass
205
143
32
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
257
178
41
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
40
28
6
9
6
1
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
LD50
or
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.04
146.96
0.04
126.19
0.02
66.31
Tall
Grass
0.02
62.24
0.02
53.44
0.01
28.08
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
0.02
77.80
0.02
66.81
0.01
35.10
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
0.00
12.10
0.00
10.39
0.00
5.46
Seeds
(
granivore)
0.00
2.68
0.00
2.36
0.00
1.09
C­
70
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Mammal
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
17.00
Tall
Grass
#
DIV/
0!
7.20
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
#
DIV/
0!
9.00
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
#
DIV/
0!
1.40
E­
1
APPENDIX
E.
SUMMARY
OF
ECOTOXICITY
DATA
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirements
for
Napropamide
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classification
71­
1
Avian
Oral
LD50
yes
MRID
79548
and
79555
core
71­
2
Avian
Dietary
LC50
yes
435067­
01
core
49497
supplemental
25893
core
39775
and
49497
invalid
258393
and
113820
core
416102­
03
core
25894
supplemental
125894
and
113819
core
Accession
093519
supplemental
Accession
supplemental
093519
Stauffer
Chem.
Comp.
core
71­
4
Avian
Reproduction
yes
420813­
01
420277­
01
core
72­
1
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
yes
39772
Invalid
39772
Invalid
39773
and
118002
Invalid
E­
2
416102­
04
Core
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Stauffer
Chemical
Core
115313
Core
115313
and
25895
Supplemental
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
39771
and
49496
Supplemental
39771
and
49496
Supplemental
72686
Supplemental
72­
2
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
LC50
yes
88064
and
57805
core
416102­
05
core
72­
3(
a)
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC50
yes
416102­
06
core
72­
3(
b)
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
EC50
yes
416671­
01
core
65360
invalid
72­
3(
c)
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
EC50
yes
416102­
07
core
Acc.
No
229228
Invalid
Acc.
No
229228
Invalid
72­
4(
a)
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
no
464591­
09
supplemental
E­
3
72­
4(
b)
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
yes
464787­
04
core
72­
5
Freshwater
Fish
Full
Life­
Cycle
no
Not
submitted
Not
submitted
123­
1(
a)
Seedling
Emergence
yes
416102­
09
core
464591­
13
supplemental
464591­
14
invalid
123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
yes
416102­
09
core
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
partially
416102­
10
core
464591­
11
supplemental
464591­
12
supplemental
144­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
LD50
yes
464591­
16
invalid
464591­
15
invalid
Honey
Bee
Acute
Oral
LD50
464591­
15
supplemental
141­
2
Honey
Bee
Residue
on
Foliage
not
required
NA
NA
F­
1
Appendix
F.
Ecological
Effects
Data
for
Napropamide
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Since
the
LD
50
values
are
>
2000
mg/
kg
(
Table
1),
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
upland
game
bird
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.

Table
1.
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Avian
Species.

Species
%
ai
LD
50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Study
Classification
Mallard
Duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
94.6
4640
Practically
non­
toxic
79548
and
79555
Core
1Core
(
study
satisfies
guideline).
Supplemental
(
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline)

Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Since
the
LC
50
values
are
>
5000
ppm
(
Table
2),
Napropamide
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
F­
2
Table
2.
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Northern
Bobwhite
Quail
and
Mallard
Ducks.

Species
%
AI
8­
Day
LC
50
(
ppm)
1
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
94.9
>
2250
Practically
non­
toxic
435067­
01
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97.8
>
5600
Practically
non­
toxic
49497
Supplemental
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
87
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
25893
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97.8
>
56000
Practically
non­
toxic
39775
and
49497
Invalid
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
97.8
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
258393
and
113820
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95.2
>
5620
Practically
non­
toxic
416102­
03
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
10,000
Practically
non­
toxic
25894
Supplemental
1
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
3000
Practically
non­
toxic
25894
and
113819
Core
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
50
>
32000
Practically
non­
toxic
79548
Supplemental
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
97.8
>
56000
Practically
non­
toxic
79555
Supplemental
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97.8
>
7200
Practically
non­
toxic
Stauffer
Chem.
Comp.
Core
Avian
Chronic
Species/
Study
Type
%
ai
Test
Type
Toxicity
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg)
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Classification
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
95.2
Reproduction
3000
NA
1
420813­
01
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95.2
Reproduction
10002
Reduced
Body
Weight2
420277­
01
Core
1
No
endpoints
were
significantly
effected.
The
NOAEC
occurred
at
the
highest
concentration
tested.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
2
The
effect
demonstrated
on
body
weight
was
deemed
not
related
to
the
toxicant
effects
of
napropamide.
This
is
because
the
effects
was
only
demonstrated
in
the
3000
ppm
males
during
the
last
two
weeks
of
the
study.
The
differences
observed
were
slight,
and
appeared
to
be
related
to
a
slightly
lighter
initial
body
weight
of
the
males
in
this
group.
Furthermore,
there
were
no
significant
differences
in
mean
body
weight
change
between
the
control
group
and
the
3000
ppm
treatment
group
at
any
time
during
the
course
of
the
study.
Therefore,
EFED
conclusion
is
that
a
LOAEC
was
not
established
in
the
study.
Therefore,
this
NOEAC
will
not
be
used
to
calculate
an
RQ.
F­
3
Mammal,
acute
and
chronic
Based
on
the
available
data
(
Table
3),
Napropamide
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
with
an
LD50
of
rat.

Table
3.
Mammalian
toxicity
data
for
rats
exposed
to
Napropamide.

Species/
Study
Type
%
ai
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.
or
Acc.
#
Classification
Rat
acute
oral
Tech.
>
5000
mg/
kg
(
LD50)
Mortality
MRID
40362902
Core
Multi
generation
Reproduction
and
Fertility
Study
Tech.
100
ppm
(
LOEL)
30
ppm
(
NOAEL)
Decreased
body
weight
MRID
92125069
Core
Toxicity
to
Non­
target
Insects
Two
guideline
studies
that
were
submitted
to
determine
the
toxicity
to
non­
target
insects
have
been
determined
to
be
invalid
(
Table
4).
One
study
contained
data
on
acute
oral
toxicity
to
honeybees,
and
has
been
classified
as
supplemental.
Based
on
the
data
contained
in
this
study,
Napropamide
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
honey
bees
on
an
acute
oral
basis.

Table
4.
Non­
target
insect
toxicity
data
for
honeybees
exposed
to
Napropamide.

Species/
Study
Type
%
ai
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.
or
Acc.
#
Classification
Honeybee
acute
contact
Not
reported
Not
reported
Mortality
MRID
464591­
15
Invalid
Honeybee
acute
oral
toxicity
Not
reported
>
113.5
ug/
bee
(
LD50)
Mortality
MRID
464591­
15
Supplementa
l
Honeybee
acute
contact
50
Not
reported
Mortality
MRID
464591­
16
Invalid
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Since
the
TGAI
LC
50
for
freshwater
fish
ranges
from
29
to
6.4
ppm,
the
TGAI
of
Napropamide
is
categorized
as
moderately
to
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis
(
Table
5).
F­
4
Table
5.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Freshwater
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID,
Acc.
No.,
or
Reference
Study
Classification
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
98.5
29
Slightly
Toxic
39772
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
50
13.3
Slightly
Toxic
39772
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
12.6
(
144
hr.)
Slightly
Toxic
39773
and
118002
MRID
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
98.5
12
Slightly
Toxic
416102­
04
MRID
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
95.2
18
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
50
(
R­
7465
Devrinol
Technical)
13.5
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.5
30
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
18
(
24hr)
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Bluegill
Sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrohirus)
97.8
12.2
(
144
hr
LC50)
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
9.4
Moderately
Toxic
Stauffer
Chemical
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
6.4
Moderately
Toxic
115313
MRID
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
Tech.
13.4
Slightly
Toxic
115313
and
25895
MRID
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
50
(
R­
7465
Devrinol
Technical)
10.7
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
16.6
Slightly
Toxic
093519
Acc.
No.
Invalid
Table
5.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Freshwater
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID,
Acc.
No.,
or
Reference
Study
Classification
F­
5
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
97.8
18.1
Slightly
Toxic
39771
and
49496
MRIDs
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
50
10.1
Slightly
Toxic
39771
and
49496
MRIDs
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(
Salmo
gairdneri)
Tech.
9.3
Moderately
Toxic
72686
MRID
Supplemental
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
A
chronic
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
freshwater
fish
(
Table
6).

Table
6.
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Chronic
Toxicity
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
NOEC/
LOEC
(
ppm)
Most
Sensitive
Endpoint
MRID
Study
Classification
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
94.0
1.9
/
3.2
Terminal
growth
(
length
and
weight)
MRID
464591­
09
Supplemental
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Napropamide
is
slightly
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
Results
indicate
that
Napropamide
is
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
(
Table
7).

Table
7.
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
48­
hour
EC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
94.6
14.3
Slightly
MRID
88064
and
57805
Core
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
Tech.
24.7
Slightly
MRID
416102­
05
Core
F­
6
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
chronic
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna
(
Table
8).

Table
8.
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Chronic
Toxicity
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
NOEC/
LOEC
(
ppm)
Most
Sensitive
Endpoint
MRID
Study
Classification
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)
94.0
­
94.2
2.2
/
1.1
Growth
(
length)
MRID
464787­
04
Core
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Aquatic
Animals
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
fish
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
the
use
may
be
associated
with
estaurine
or
marine
habitats.
The
preferred
test
species
is
sheepshead
minnow.
The
LC
50
value
indicates
that
Napropamide
is
slightly
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
(
Table
9).

Table
9.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
95.2
14
Slightly
Toxic
MRID
416102­
06
Core
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
the
use
site
may
be
associated
with
estaurine
or
marine
habitat.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oyster.
The
EC
50
value
for
Napropamide
indicates
that
the
TGAI
is
moderately
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
estuarine/
marine
eastern
oyster
(
Table
10).
The
LC
50
value
for
Napropamide
indicates
that
the
TGAI
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
moderately
toxic
on
an
acute
basis
to
the
mysid
shrimp.

Table
10.
Acute
Toxicity
of
Napropamide
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates.

Species
%
AI
96­
hour
EC50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
or
Acc.
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Eastern
Oyster
Tech.
1.4
Moderately
Toxic
MRID
416671­
01
Core
Mysidopis
bahia
Tech.
4.2
Moderately
Toxic
MRID
416102­
07
Core
F­
7
Easter
Oyster
larvae
97.4
Not
Obtained
NA
65360
Invalid
Pink
Shrimp
97.4
18
Slightly
Toxic
65360
Invalid
Fiddler
Crab
97.4
>
100
Practically
nontoxic
65360
Invalid
Toxicity
to
Non­
Target
Plants
Terrestrial
Plants
Tier
II
phytotoxicity
tests
measured
the
response
of
plants
to
Napropamide,
relative
to
a
control,
and
five
or
more
test
concentrations.
Results
from
the
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical/
TEP
material
are
reported
in
Table
11.

Table
11.
Terrestrial
Non­
Target
Plant
Toxicity
Data
(
Tier
II)
for
Napropamide.

Type
of
Test
Most
sensitive
species
EC
25
(
lb
ai/
A)
EC05
(
lb
ai/
a)
Parameter
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Seedling
Germination
NC1
NC
NC
NC
416102­
09
Invalid
Seedling
Emergence
Avena
fatua
(
Monocot
species)
0.1144
0.029
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Seedling
Emergence
Beta
vulgaris
(
Dicot)
0.00352
0.000001848
Dryweight
416102­
09
Core
Vegetative
Avena
fatua
(
Monocot)
0.8008
0.3344
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Vegetative
Beta
vulgaris
(
Dicot)
546
0.000000132
Dry
weight
416102­
09
Core
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
is
required
for
Napropamide
because
aerial
application
and
outdoor
nonresidential
aquatic
use
will
expose
non­
target
aquatic
plants
to
Napropamide.
EFED
has
aquatic
plant
toxicity
data
for
Selenastrum
capricornutum,
Lemna
minor,
and
Anabaena
sp.
(
Table
12);
however,
data
were
not
submitted
for
the
following
algal
and
aquatic
plants
species:
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
and
a
freshwater
diatom,
usually
Navicula
pelliculosa).
Therefore,
EFED
cannot
fully
assess
potential
adverse
effects
to
aquatic
plants
and
algae.

Table
12.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
EC50/
EC05
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Selenastrum
capricornumtum
45
3.4
416102­
10
Core
Table
12.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)
for
Napropamide
Species
%
AI
EC50/
EC05
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
F­
8
Lemna
minor
93.2
0.35
/
0.036
464591­
11
Supplemental
Anabaena
sp.
93.2
13.0
/
1.8
464591­
12
Supplemental
G­
1
APPENDIX
G.
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
Table
G­
1:
Number
of
endangered
plant
and
mammal
species
by
state
for
each
crop
group
Crop
Group
Sta
te
#
of
endange
red
plants
#
of
endange
red
mammal
s
Nuts
AL
17
4
AZ
11
8
AR
1
1
CA
165
21
FL
20
7
GA
14
2
ID
0
3
KS
2
2
KY
2
2
LA
1
2
M
0
1
MS
2
1
M
5
2
NE
1
0
NV
7
0
N
8
5
NC
9
4
OH
0
1
OK
2
3
OR
8
1
SC
18
3
TN
9
4
TX
19
3
UT
4
1
VA
3
2
W
3
4
Berries
Berries
(
cont)
AL
16
4
AZ
7
4
AR
2
3
CA
169
21
CO
4
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
39
8
GA
15
4
ID
3
3
IL
6
1
IN
0
2
IA
4
1
KS
2
2
KY
3
2
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
M
6
3
M
3
2
MI
6
2
M
4
1
MS
1
1
M
6
2
MT
2
2
NE
1
0
NV
7
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
N
6
1
NY
6
2
NC
25
6
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
9
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
17
3
SD
1
0
TN
12
4
TX
13
3
UT
14
2
VT
2
1
VA
11
6
W
4
4
W
5
4
WI
6
1
Brassica
AL
4
2
AZ
3
2
AR
2
2
CA
155
21
CO
4
2
CT
2
2
DE
1
1
FL
27
5
GA
4
1
HI
134
2
IL
4
1
IN
1
2
IA
4
1
KS
0
1
KY
3
2
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
M
5
3
M
2
2
MI
5
2
M
3
1
MS
0
1
M
4
2
MT
1
2
NE
1
0
NH
1
1
NJ
5
2
Crop
Group
Sta
te
#
of
endange
red
plants
#
of
endange
red
mammal
s
G­
2
N
4
1
NY
6
2
NC
21
6
OH
4
1
OK
0
1
OR
7
1
PA
2
2
RI
1
1
SC
10
3
TN
6
2
Crop
Group
Sta
te
#
of
endange
red
plants
#
of
endange
red
mammal
s
Brassica
(
cont)
TX
8
3
VT
2
1
VA
5
3
W
2
3
W
1
1
WI
6
0
Citrus
AL
3
1
AZ
4
3
CA
155
20
CT
0
1
FL
42
6
HI
134
2
M
2
2
M
1
1
MI
2
0
NJ
2
1
NY
0
2
NC
0
2
OH
0
1
OR
7
0
PA
1
2
TX
3
2
VA
0
1
W
2
3
Stone
Fruits
AL
16
4
AZ
11
8
AR
4
3
CA
165
21
CO
6
2
CT
2
2
DE
1
2
FL
23
3
GA
12
2
ID
3
3
IL
4
2
IN
0
2
IA
3
1
KS
2
2
KY
4
2
LA
1
2
ME
0
1
M
5
3
M
3
1
MI
6
1
M
0
1
MS
1
1
M
7
2
MT
2
2
NV
7
0
NH
1
1
NJ
5
2
N
10
2
NY
6
2
NC
22
5
OH
4
1
OK
2
3
OR
10
1
PA
2
2
RI
1
2
SC
18
1
SD
1
0
TN
15
4
TX
13
3
UT
18
2
VT
1
0
VA
11
5
W
6
4
Crop
Group
Sta
te
#
of
endange
red
plants
#
of
endange
red
mammal
s
G­
3
W
4
2
WI
4
0
Pome
Fruits
AL
17
4
AZ
15
8
AR
1
3
CA
176
22
CO
7
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
1
FL
10
4
GA
14
2
ID
3
3
IL
6
2
IN
1
2
IA
5
1
KS
2
2
KY
9
3
LA
1
1
ME
1
2
M
5
3
M
3
1
MI
7
2
M
4
1
MS
1
1
M
7
2
MT
2
2
NE
1
0
NV
8
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
N
13
2
NY
6
2
NC
22
5
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
13
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
17
1
SD
1
0
TN
19
4
TX
10
2
SC
17
1
SD
1
0
TN
19
4
TX
10
2
UT
23
2
VT
2
1
VA
12
6
W
6
4
W
5
5
WI
6
1
W
0
3
Crop
Group
Sta
te
#
of
endange
red
plants
#
of
endange
red
mammal
s
Fruiting
Vegetables
AL
13
4
AZ
8
6
AR
2
3
CA
168
21
CO
6
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
39
7
GA
11
2
HI
134
2
ID
2
3
IL
6
2
IN
1
2
IA
5
1
KS
2
1
KY
7
2
LA
2
1
ME
3
2
M
6
3
M
3
2
MI
6
2
M
2
1
MS
0
1
M
6
2
MT
1
2
NE
1
1
NV
7
0
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
N
11
5
NY
6
2
NC
24
5
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
7
1
PA
2
2
G­
4
RI
2
2
SC
15
3
SD
1
0
TN
13
4
TX
10
3
UT
11
2
VT
2
1
VA
9
6
W
4
4
W
3
1
WI
6
1
Tropical
Fruits
AL
2
2
AZ
3
2
CA
159
21
FL
20
5
GA
1
1
HI
134
2
LA
1
1
MS
0
1
NC
0
1
OR
3
1
SC
0
1
TX
7
3
VA
0
1
W
0
2
Misc.
Crops
AL
6
3
AR
1
0
CA
63
9
CT
1
1
FL
8
4
GA
5
3
HI
134
2
IN
1
2
KS
2
0
KY
10
3
LA
0
1
ME
1
1
M
2
3
M
1
1
MI
3
0
MS
1
1
M
3
2
NJ
4
2
NY
2
2
NC
27
6
OH
1
1
OR
1
0
PA
2
2
SC
14
1
TN
15
4
TX
0
1
VA
7
6
W
0
2
W
1
1
WI
3
0
Oil
Seed
Crops
CA
103
17
IN
1
1
MT
1
2
OR
4
0
W
0
3
WI
2
0
Trees/
Ornamentals
AL
16
4
AZ
13
8
AR
1
3
CA
174
22
CO
8
2
CT
2
2
DE
2
2
FL
49
8
GA
16
4
HI
134
2
ID
1
4
IL
8
2
IN
2
2
IA
6
1
KS
2
2
KY
5
3
LA
1
1
ME
3
2
M
5
3
M
3
2
MI
7
2
M
4
1
MS
1
1
M
7
2
MT
2
2
NE
2
1
NH
2
1
NJ
5
2
N
12
1
NY
6
2
NC
26
6
OH
4
1
OK
1
3
OR
11
1
PA
2
2
RI
2
2
SC
18
3
SD
1
1
TN
16
4
TX
11
3
UT
20
2
VT
2
1
VA
12
6
W
6
4
W
5
3
WI
6
1
W
2
4
Nuts
(
almond,
pistachio,
pecan,
filbert,
walnut)
G­
5
Berries/
small
fruit
(
blackberry,
boysenberry,
loganberry,
raspberry,
blueberry,
strawberry,
cranberry,
currant,
grape)
Brassica
and
leafy
vegetables
(
broccoli,
brussels
sprouts,
cabbage,
cauliflower,
asparagus)
Citrus
(
grapefruit,
lemon,
nectarine,
orange,
tangerine,
tangelo)
Stone
fruit
(
apricot,
cherry,
peach,
plum,
prune)
Pome
fruit
(
apple,
pear)
Fruiting
vegetables
(
eggplant,
pepper,
tomato)
Tropical
fruit
(
fig,
kiwi
fruit,
persimmon,
avocado,
pomegranate)
Additional
crops
(
artichoke,
rhubarb,
tobacco,
sweet
potato)
Oil
seed
crops
(
mint,
olive)
Trees/
ornamentals
(
conifer,
shade
tree,
ornamental
tree,
ground
cover,
herbaceous
plants,
woody
shrubs,
vines,
lawns,
turf,
potting
soil)
G­
6
Table
G­
2.
List
of
endangered
plant
species
potentially
at
risk
from
napropamide
use
SPECIES
NAME
STATE
(
S)

ACHYRANTHES
MUTICA
(
NCN)
HI
ADOBE
SUNBURST,
SAN
JOAQUIN
CA
A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
DIPETALUM
VAR.
TOMENTOSUM)
HI
A'E
(
ZANTHOXYLUM
HIENSE)
HI
AGAVE,
AZ
AZ
'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
BREVIFLORUM)
HI
'
AIEA
(
NOTHOCESTRUM
PELTATUM)
HI
'
AKOKO
(
EUPHORBIA
HAELEELEANA)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
HAUPUENSIS)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
KNUDSENII)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
PALLIDA)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
QUADRANGULARIS)
HI
ALANI
(
MELICOPE
ZAHLBRUCKNERI)
HI
ALLOCARYA,
CALISTOGA
CA
ALOPECURUS,
SONOMA
CA
ALSINIDENDRON
VISCOSUM
(
NCN)
HI
AMARANTH,
SEABEACH
NY,
NC
AMBROSIA,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
AMBROSIA,
SOUTH
TX
TX
Amole,
Camatta
Canyon
CA
AMOLE,
PURPLE
CA
AMPHIANTHUS,
LITTLE
AL,
GA,
SC
'
ANUNU
(
SICYOS
ALBA)
HI
ARROWHEAD,
BUNCHED
NC,
SC
ASPLENIUM
FRAGILE
VAR.
INSULARE
(
NCN)
HI
ASTER,
DECURRENT
FALSE
IL,
MO
ASTER,
DEL
MAR
SAND
CA
ASTER,
FL
GOLDEN
FL
ASTER,
RUTH'S
GOLDEN
TN
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
HOSAKAE)
HI
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LAURIFOLIUM)
HI
AUPAKA
(
ISODENDRION
LONGIFOLIUM)
HI
AVENS,
SPREADING
NC,
TN
'
AWIWI
(
CENTAURIUM
SEBAEOIDES)
HI
'
AWIWI
(
HEDYOTIS
COOKIANA)
HI
AYENIA,
TX
TX
BACCHARIS,
ENCINITAS
CA
BARBARA'S
BUTTONS,
MOHR'S
AL,
GA
BARBERRY,
ISLAND
CA
BARBERRY,
NEVIN'S
CA
BEAKED­
RUSH,
KNIESKERN'S
NJ
BEARGRASS,
BRITTON'S
FL
BEAR­
POPPY,
DWARF
UT
BEDSTRAW,
EL
DORADO
CA
BEDSTRAW,
ISLAND
CA
BELLFLOWER,
BROOKSVILLE
FL
G­
7
BIRCH,
VA
ROUND­
LEAF
VA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PALMATE­
BRACTED
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
PENNELL'S
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
SALT
MARSH
CA
BIRD'S­
BEAK,
SOFT
CA
BIRDS­
IN­
A­
NEST,
WHITE
FL
BITTERCRESS,
SMALL­
ANTHERED
NC,
VA
BLADDERPOD,
KODACHROME
UT
BLADDERPOD,
LYRATE
AL
BLADDERPOD,
MO
AR,
MO
BLADDERPOD,
SAN
BERNARDINO
MOUNTAINS
CA
BLADDERPOD,
SPRING
CREEK
TN
BLADDERPOD,
WHITE
TX
BLADDERPOD,
ZAPATA
TX
BLAZING
STAR,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
BLAZING
STAR,
HELLER'S
NC
BLAZING
STAR,
SCRUB
FL
BLUECURLS,
HIDDEN
LAKE
CA
BLUEGRASS,
HIAN
HI
BLUEGRASS,
MANN'S
(
POA
MANNII)
HI
BLUEGRASS,
NAPA
CA
BLUEGRASS,
SAN
BERNARDINO
CA
BLUE­
STAR,
KEARNEY'S
AZ
BLUET,
ROAN
MOUNTAIN
NC,
TN
BONAMIA
MENZIESII
(
NCN)
HI
BONAMIA,
FL
FL
BRODIAEA,
CHINESE
CAMP
CA
BRODIAEA,
THREAD­
LEAVED
CA
BROOM,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
CUSHENBURY
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
IONE
(
IRISH
HILL)
CA
BUCKWHEAT,
SCRUB
FL
BUCKWHEAT,
SOUTHERN
MOUNTAIN
WILD
CA
BULRUSH,
NORTHEASTERN
(=
BARBED
BRISTLE)
MD,
MA,
PA,
VT,
VA,
WV
BUSH­
CLOVER,
PRAIRIE
IL,
IA,
MN,
WI
BUSH­
MALLOW,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
BUSHMALLOW,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
BUTTERCUP,
AUTUMN
UT
BUTTERFLY
PLANT,
CO
CO
BUTTERWEED,
LAYNE'S
CA
BUTTERWORT,
GODFREY'S
FL
BUTTON­
CELERY,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
CACTUS,
AZ
HEDGEHOG
AZ
CACTUS,
BAKERSFIELD
CA
CACTUS,
BLACK
LACE
TX
CACTUS,
BRADY
PINCUSHION
AZ
CACTUS,
COCHISE
PINCUSHION
AZ
CACTUS,
KNOWLTON
CO,
NM
CACTUS,
KUENZLER
HEDGEHOG
NM
CACTUS,
LEE
PINCUSHION
NM
CACTUS,
MESA
VERDE
CO,
NM
G­
8
CACTUS,
NICHOL'S
TURK'S
HEAD
AZ
CACTUS,
PEEBLES
NAVAJO
AZ
CACTUS,
PIMA
PINEAPPLE
AZ
CACTUS,
SAN
RAFAEL
UT
CACTUS,
SILER
PINCUSHION
AZ,
UT
CACTUS,
SNEED
PINCUSHION
NM,
TX
CACTUS,
STAR
TX
CACTUS,
TOBUSCH
FISHHOOK
TX
CACTUS,
UINTA
BASIN
HOOKLESS
CO,
UT
CACTUS,
WINKLER
UT
CACTUS,
WRIGHT
FISHHOOK
UT
CAMPION,
FRINGED
FL,
GA
CATCHFLY,
SPALDING'S
ID.
MT,
OR,
WA
CEANOTHUS,
COYOTE
CA
CEANOTHUS,
PINE
HILL
CA
CEANOTHUS,
VAIL
LAKE
CA
CENTAURY,
SPRING­
LOVING
CA,
NV
CHAFFSEED,
AMERICAN
FL,
NJ,
NC,
SC
CHAMAESYCE
HALEMANUI
HI
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KECK'S
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
KENWOOD
MARSH
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
NELSON'S
OR,
WA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
PEDATE
CA
CHECKER­
MALLOW,
WENATCHEE
MOUNTAINS
WA
CLADONIA,
FL
PERFORATE
FL
CLARKIA,
PISMO
CA
CLARKIA,
PRESIDIO
CA
CLARKIA,
SPRINGVILLE
CA
CLARKIA,
VINE
HILL
CA
CLIFFROSE,
AZ
AZ
CLOVER,
MONTEREY
CA
CLOVER,
RUNNING
BUFFALO
IN,
KY,
MO,
OH,
WV
CLOVER,
SHOWY
INDIAN
CA
CONEFLOWER,
SMOOTH
NC,
SC,
VA
CONEFLOWER,
TN
PURPLE
TN
COYOTE­
THISTLE,
LOCH
LOMOND
CA
CROWN­
BEARD,
BIG­
LEAVED
CA
CROWNSCALE,
SAN
JACINTO
VALLEY
CA
CYANEA
UNDULATA
(
NCN)
HI
CYCLADENIA,
JONES
AZ,
UT
CYPRESS,
GOWEN
CA
CYPRESS,
SANTA
CRUZ
CA
DAISY,
LAKESIDE
IL,
OH
DAISY,
MAGUIRE
UT
DAISY,
PARISH'S
CA
DAISY,
WILLAMETTE
OR
DAWN­
FLOWER,
TX
PRAIRIE
(=
TX
BITTERWEED
TX
DELISSEA
RHYTODISPERMA
(
NCN)
HI
DIELLIA
ERECTA
(
NCN)
HI
DIELLIA
PALLIDA
(
NCN)
HI
DOCK,
CHIRICAHUA
AZ,
NM
G­
9
DOGWEED,
ASHY
TX
DROPWORT,
CANBY'S
GA,
MD,
NC,
SC
DUBAUTIA
LATIFOLIA
HI
DUBAUTIA
PAUCIFLORULA
HI
DUDLEYA,
CONEJO
CA
DUDLEYA,
MARCESCENT
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
CLARA
VALLEY
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
DUDLEYA,
SANTA
MONICA
MOUNTAINS
CA
DUDLEYA,
VERITY'S
CA
DWARF­
FLAX,
MARIN
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
ANTIOCH
DUNES
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
EUREKA
VALLEY
CA
EVENING­
PRIMROSE,
SAN
BENITO
CA
FERN,
AL
STREAK­
SORUS
AL
FERN,
AMERICAN
HART'S­
TONGUE
AL,
MI,
NY,
TN
FERN,
PENDANT
KIHI
(
ADENOPHORUS
PERIENS)
HI
FIDDLENECK,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
CA
FLANNELBUSH,
MEXICAN
CA
FLANNELBUSH,
PINE
HILL
CA
FLEABANE,
ZUNI
AZ,
NM
FOUR­
O'CLOCK,
MACFARLANE'S
ID,
OR
FRINGE
TREE,
PYGMY
FL
FRINGEPOD,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
FRITILLARY,
GENTNER'S
OR
GEOCARPON
MINIMUM
AR,
LA,,
MO
GERARDIA,
SANDPLAIN
CT,
MD,
MA,
NY,
RI
GILIA,
HOFFMANN'S
SLENDER­
FLOWERED
CA
GILIA,
MONTEREY
CA
GOLDEN
SUNBURST,
HARTWEG'S
CA
GOLDENROD,
BLUE
RIDGE
NC
GOLDENROD,
BLUE
RIDGE
TN
GOLDENROD,
HOUGHTON'S
MI
GOLDENROD,
SHORT'S
KY
GOLDENROD,
WHITE­
HAIRED
KY
GOLDFIELDS,
BURKE'S
CA
GOLDFIELDS,
CONTRA
COSTA
CA
GOOSEBERRY,
MICCOSUKEE
(
FL)
FL
GOUANIA
MEYENII
(
NCN)
HI
GOURD,
OKEECHOBEE
FL
GRASS,
CA
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
COLUSA
CA
GRASS,
EUREKA
DUNE
CA
GRASS,
HAIRY
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SACRAMENTO
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
VALLEY
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SLENDER
ORCUTT
CA
GRASS,
SOLANO
CA
GRASS,
TN
YELLOW­
EYED
AL,
GA,
TN
GROUND­
PLUM,
GUTHRIE'S
TN
GROUNDSEL,
SAN
FRANCISCO
PEAKS
AZ
G­
10
GUMPLANT,
ASH
MEADOWS
CA,
NV
HAHA
(
CYANEA
ASARIFOLIA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
COPELANDII
SSP.
COPELANDII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
HAMATIFLORA
SSP.
CARLSONII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
PLATYPHYLLA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
RECTA)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
REMYI)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
SHIPMANII)
HI
HAHA
(
CYANEA
STICTOPHYLLA)
HI
HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
GIFFARDII)
HI
HA'IWALE
(
CYRTANDRA
LIMAHULIENSIS)
HI
HALA
PEPE
(
PLEOMELE
HIENSIS)
HI
HAPLOSTACHYS
HAPLOSTACHYA
(
NCN)
HI
HAREBELLS,
AVON
PARK
FL
HARPERELLA
AL,
AR,
MD,
NC,
SC,
WV
HAU
KAUHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
WOODI)
HI
HAU
KUAHIWI
(
HIBISCADELPHUS
DISTANS)
HI
HEARTLEAF,
DWARF­
FLOWERED
NC,
SC
HEATHER,
MOUNTAIN
GOLDEN
NC
HEAU
(
EXOCARPOS
LUTEOLUS)
HI
HEDYOTIS
ST.­
JOHNII
(
NCN)
HI
HESPEROMANNIA
LYDGATEI
(
NCN)
HI
HIBISCUS,
CLAY'S
HI
HILO
ISCHAEMUM
(
ISCHAEMUM
BYRONE)
HI
HOLEI
(
OCHROSIA
KILAUEAENSIS)
HI
HOWELLIA,
WATER
ID,
MT,
WA
HYPERICUM,
HIGHLANDS
SCRUB
FL
ILIAU
(
WILKESIA
HOBDYI)
HI
IPOMOPSIS,
HOLY
GHOST
NM
IRIS,
DWARF
LAKE
MI,
WI
IRISETTE,
WHITE
NC,
SC
IVESIA,
ASH
MEADOWS
CA
IVESIA,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
JACQUEMONTIA,
BEACH
FL
JEWELFLOWER,
CA
CA
JEWELFLOWER,
TIBURON
CA
JOINT­
VETCH,
SENSITIVE
MD,
NJ,
NC,
VA
KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
LYDGATEI)
HI
KAMAKAHALA
(
LABORDIA
TINIFOLIA
VAR.
WAHIAWAEN
HI
KAUILA
(
COLUBRINA
OPPOSITIFOLIA)
HI
KAULU
(
PTERALYXIA
KAUAIENSIS)
HI
KIO'ELE
(
HEDYOTIS
CORIACEA)
HI
KIPONAPONA
(
PHYLLOSTEGIA
RACEMOSA)
HI
KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
DRYNARIOIDES)
HI
KOKI'O
(
KOKIA
KAUAIENSIS)
HI
KOKI'O
KE'OKE'O
(
HIBISCUS
WAIMEAE
SSP.
HANNER
HI
KOLEA
(
MYRSINE
LINEARIFOLIA)
HI
KO'OLOA'ULA
(
ABUTILON
MENZIESII)
HI
KUAWAWAENOHU
(
ALSINIDENDRON
LYCHNOIDES)
HI
G­
11
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
CANELO
HILLS
AZ
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
NAVASOTA
TX
LADIES'­
TRESSES,
UTE
CO,
NV,
UT
LARKSPUR,
BAKER'S
CA
LARKSPUR,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
LARKSPUR,
YELLOW
CA
LAU'EHU
(
PANICUM
NIIHAUENSE)
HI
LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
HAWAIENSIS)
HI
LAUKAHI
KUAHIWI
(
PLANTAGO
PRINCEPS)
HI
LAULIHILIHI
(
SCHIEDEA
STELLARIOIDES)
HI
LAYIA,
BEACH
CA
LEAD­
PLANT,
CRENULATE
FL
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
AL
AL
LEATHER­
FLOWER,
MOREFIELD'S
AL
LESSINGIA,
SAN
FRANCISCO
CA
LICHEN,
ROCK
GNOME
NC,
TN
LILY,
MN
TROUT
MN
LILY,
PITKIN
MARSH
CA
LILY,
WESTERN
CA,
OR
LIPOCHAETA
VENOSA
(
NCN)
HI
LIVEFOREVER,
LAGUNA
BEACH
CA
LIVEFOREVER,
SANTA
BARBARA
ISLAND
CA
LOBELIA
NIIHAUENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
LOCOWEED,
FASSETT'S
WI
LOMATIUM,
BRADSHAW'S
OR
LOMATIUM,
COOK'S
OR
LOOSESTRIFE,
ROUGH­
LEAVED
NC,
SC
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
AFFINIS)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
NAPALIENSIS)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
SCHATTAUERI)
HI
LOULU
(
PRITCHARDIA
VISCOSA)
HI
LOUSEWORT,
FURBISH
ME
LUPINE,
CLOVER
CA
LUPINE,
KINCAID'S
OR,
WA
LUPINE,
NIPOMO
MESA
CA
LUPINE,
SCRUB
FL
LYSIMACHIA
FILIFOLIA
(
NCN)
HI
MAHOE
(
ALECTRYON
MACROCOCCUS)
HI
MAKOU
(
PEUCEDANUM
SANDWICENSE)
HI
MALACOTHRIX,
ISLAND
CA
MALACOTHRIX,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
MALLOW,
KERN
CA
MALLOW,
PETER'S
MOUNTAIN
VA
MANIOC,
WALKER'S
TX
MANZANITA,
DEL
MAR
CA
MANZANITA,
IONE
CA
MANZANITA,
MORRO
CA
MANZANITA,
PALLID
CA
MANZANITA,
SAN
BRUNO
MOUNTAIN
CA
MANZANITA,
SANTA
ROSA
ISLAND
CA
MA'O
HAU
HELE
(
HIBISCUS
BRACKENRIDGEI)
HI
G­
12
MA'OLI'OLI
(
SCHIEDEA
APOKREMNOS)
HI
MAPELE
(
CYRTANDRA
CYANEOIDES)
HI
MARISCUS
FAURIEI
(
NCN)
HI
MARISCUS
PENNATIFORMIS
(
NCN)
HI
MEADOWFOAM,
BUTTE
COUNTY
CA
MEADOWFOAM,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
WOOLY
OR
MEADOWFOAM,
SEBASTOPOL
CA
MEADOWRUE,
COOLEY'S
FL,
NC
MEHAMEHAME
(
FLUEGGEA
NEOWAWRAEA)
HI
MILKPEA,
SMALL'S
FL
MILK­
VETCH,
APPLEGATE'S
OR
MILK­
VETCH,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
MILK­
VETCH,
BRAUNTON'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
CLARA
HUNT'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
COACHELLA
VALLEY
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
COASTAL
DUNES
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
CUSHENBURY
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
DESERET
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
FISH
SLOUGH
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
HELIOTROPE
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
HOLMGREN
AZ,
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
JESUP'S
NH,
VT
MILK­
VETCH,
LANE
MOUNTAIN
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
MANCOS
CO,
NM
MILK­
VETCH,
PIERSON'S
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
SENTRY
AZ
MILK­
VETCH,
SHIVWITS
UT
MILK­
VETCH,
TRIPLE­
RIBBED
CA
MILK­
VETCH,
VENTURA
MARSH
CA
MILKWEED,
MEAD'S
IL,
IA,
KS,
MO
MILKWEED,
WELSH'S
AZ.
UT
MINT,
GARRETT'S
FL
MINT,
LAKELA'S
FL
MINT,
LONGSPURRED
FL
MINT,
OTAY
MESA
CA
MINT,
SAN
DIEGO
MESA
CA
MINT,
SCRUB
FL
MONARDELLA,
WILLOWY
CA
MONKEY­
FLOWER,
MI
MI
MONKSHOOD,
NORTHERN
WILD
IA,
NY,
OH,
WI
MORNING­
GLORY,
STEBBINS
CA
MOUNTAINBALM,
INDIAN
KNOB
CA
MOUNTAIN­
MAHOGANY,
CATALINA
ISLAND
CA
MUNROIDENDRON
RACEMOSUM
(
NCN)
HI
MUSTARD,
CARTER'S
FL
MUSTARD,
SLENDER­
PETALED
CA
NANI
WAI'ALE'ALE
(
VIOLA
KAUAENSIS
VAR.
WAHIAW
HI
NAVARRETIA,
FEW­
FLOWERED
CA
NAVARRETIA,
MANY­
FLOWERED
CA
NAVARRETIA,
SPREADING
CA
G­
13
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
FAURIEI)
HI
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
MICRANTHA)
HI
NEHE
(
LIPOCHAETA
WAIMEAENSIS)
HI
NERAUDIA
OVATA
(
NCN)
HI
NERAUDIA
SERICEA
(
NCN)
HI
NITERWORT,
AMARGOSA
CA
NITERWORT,
AMARGOSA
NV
NOHOANU
(
GERANIUM
MULTIFLORUM)
HI
'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
RIVULARIS)
HI
'
OHA
(
DELISSEA
UNDULATA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
DREPANOMORPHA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
LINDSEYANA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PELEANA)
HI
'
OHA
WAI
(
CLERMONTIA
PYRULARIA)
HI
'
OHAI
(
SESBANIA
TOMENTOSA)
HI
'
OLULU
(
BRIGHAMIA
INSIGNIS)
HI
ONION,
MUNZ'S
CA
ORCHID,
EASTERN
PRAIRIE
FRINGED
IL,
IA,
ME,
MI,
OH,
OK,
VA,
WI
OWL'S­
CLOVER,
FLESHY
CA
OXYTHECA,
CUSHENBURY
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
ASH­
GREY
INDIAN
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
GOLDEN
WA
PAINTBRUSH,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
INDIAN
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
SOFT­
LEAVED
CA
PAINTBRUSH,
TIBURON
CA
PAWPAW,
BEAUTIFUL
FL
PAWPAW,
FOUR­
PETAL
FL
PAWPAW,
RUGEL'S
FL
PENNY­
CRESS,
KNEELAND
PRAIRIE
CA
PENNYROYAL,
TODSEN'S
NM
PENSTEMON,
BLOWOUT
NE
PENTACHAETA,
LYON'S
CA
PENTACHAETA,
WHITE­
RAYED
CA
PEPPER­
GRASS,
KODACHROME
UT
PEPPERGRASS,
SLICK
SPOT
ID
PHACELIA,
CLAY
UT
PHACELIA,
ISLAND
CA
PHLOX,
TX
TRAILING
TX
PHLOX,
YREKA
CA
PHYLLOSTEGIA
KNUDSENII
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
VELUTINA
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAIMEAE
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WARSHAUERI
(
NCN)
HI
PHYLLOSTEGIA
WAWRANA
(
NCN)
HI
PINK,
SWAMP
DE,
GA,
MD,
NJ,
NC,
SC,
VA
PINKROOT,
GENTIAN
FL
PIPERIA,
YADON'S
CA
PITCHER­
PLANT,
AL
CANEBRAKE
AL
PITCHER­
PLANT,
GREEN
AL,
GA,
NC
PITCHER­
PLANT,
MOUNTAIN
SWEET
NC,
SC
PLATANTHERA
HOLOCHILA
(
NCN)
HI
G­
14
PLUM,
SCRUB
FL
POA
SIPHONOGLOSSA
(
NCN)
HI
PO'E
(
PORTULACA
SCLEROCARPA)
HI
POGONIA,
SMALL
WHORLED
CT,
DE,
GA,
IL,
ME,
MA,
MI,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
NC,

PA,
RI,
SC,
TN,
VA
POLYGALA,
LEWTON'S
FL
POLYGALA,
TINY
FL
POLYGONUM,
SCOTT'S
VALLEY
CA
PONDBERRY
AR,
GA,
MS,
MO,
NC,
SC
PONDWEED,
LITTLE
AGUJA
CREEK
TX
POPCORNFLOWER,
ROUGH
OR
POPOLO
'
AIAKEAKUA
(
SOLANUM
SANDWICENSE)
HI
POPOLO
KU
MAI
(
SOLANUM
INCOMPLETUM)
HI
POPPY,
SACRAMENTO
PRICKLY
NM
POPPY­
MALLOW,
TX
TX
POTATO­
BEAN,
PRICE'S
AL,
IL,
KY,
NC,
TN
POTENTILLA,
HICKMAN'S
CA
PRAIRIE­
CLOVER,
LEAFY
AL,
IL,
TN
PRICKLY­
APPLE,
FRAGRANT
FL
PRIMROSE,
MAGUIRE
UT
PUSSYPAWS,
MARIPOSA
CA
PU'UKA'A
(
CYPERUS
TRACHYSANTHOS)
HI
QUILLWORT,
BLACK­
SPORED
GA,
SC
QUILLWORT,
LOUISIANA
AL,
LA
QUILLWORT,
MAT­
FORMING
GA
RATTLEWEED,
HAIRY
GA
REED­
MUSTARD,
BARNEBY
UT
REED­
MUSTARD,
CLAY
UT
REED­
MUSTARD,
SHRUBBY
UT
REMYA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
REMYA
MONTGOMERYI
(
NCN)
HI
RHODODENDRON,
CHAPMAN
FL
RIDGE­
CRESS
(=
PEPPER­
CRESS),
BARNEBY
UT
ROCK­
CRESS,
HOFFMANN'S
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
LARGE
(=
BRAUN'S)
KY,
TN
ROCK­
CRESS,
MCDONALD'S
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
ROCK­
CRESS,
SHALE
BARREN
VA,
WV
ROCK­
CRESS,
SMALL
KY
ROSEMARY,
CUMBERLAND
KY,
TN
ROSEMARY,
ETONIA
FL
ROSEMARY,
SHORT­
LEAVED
FL
ROSEROOT,
LEEDY'S
MN,
NY
RUSH­
PEA,
SLENDER
TX
RUSH­
ROSE,
ISLAND
CA
SANDLACE
FL
SAND­
VERBENA,
LARGE­
FRUITED
TX
SANDWORT,
BEAR
VALLEY
CA
SANDWORT,
CUMBERLAND
KY,
TN
SANDWORT,
MARSH
CA
SCHIEDEA
HELLERI
(
NCN)
HI
G­
15
SCHIEDEA
KAUAIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
MEMBRANACEA
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
NUTTALLII
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
LEIOPODA
(
NCN)
HI
SCHIEDEA
SPERGULINA
VAR.
SPERGULINA
(
NCN)
HI
SEA­
BLITE,
CA
CA
SEAGRASS,
JOHNSON'S
FL
SEDGE,
GOLDEN
NC
SEDGE,
NAVAJO
AZ,
UT
SEDGE,
WHITE
CA
SILENE
HIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SILENE
LANCEOLATA
(
NCN)
HI
SILVERSWORD,
KA'U
(
ARGYROXIPHIUM
KAUENSE)
HI
SILVERSWORD,
MAUNA
KEA
('
AHINAHINA)
HI
SKULLCAP,
LARGE­
FLOWERED
GA,
TN
SNAKEROOT
FL
SNEEZEWEED,
VA
MO,
VA
SNOWBELLS,
TX
TX
SPERMOLEPIS
HIENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
SPIDERLING,
MATHIS
TX
SPINEFLOWER,
BEN
LOMOND
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
HOWELL'S
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
MONTEREY
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
ORCUTT'S
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
ROBUST
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SCOTTS
VALLEY
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SLENDER­
HORNED
CA
SPINEFLOWER,
SONOMA
CA
SPIRAEA,
VA
GA,
KY,
NC,
TN,
VA,
WV
SPURGE,
DELTOID
FL
SPURGE,
GARBER'S
FL
SPURGE,
HOOVER'S
CA
SPURGE,
TELEPHUS
FL
STENOGYNE
ANGUSTIFOLIA
(
NCN)
HI
STENOGYNE
CAMPANULATA
(
NCN)
HI
STICKSEED,
SHOWY
WA
STICKYSEED,
BAKER'S
CA
STONECROP,
LAKE
COUNTY
CA
SUMAC,
MICHAUX'S
GA,
NC,
VA
SUNFLOWER,
EGGERT'S
AL,
KY,
TN
SUNFLOWER,
PECOS
NM,
TX
SUNFLOWER,
SAN
MATEO
WOOLLY
CA
SUNFLOWER,
SCHWEINITZ'S
NC,
SC
SUNRAY,
ASH
MEADOWS
NV
TARAXACUM,
CA
CA
TARPLANT,
GAVIOTA
CA
TARPLANT,
OTAY
CA
TARPLANT,
SANTA
CRUZ
CA
TETRAMOLOPIUM
ARENARIUM
(
NCN)
HI
THELYPODY,
HOWELL'S
SPECTACULAR
OR
THISTLE,
CHORRO
CREEK
BOG
CA
G­
16
THISTLE,
FOUNTAIN
CA
THISTLE,
LA
GRACIOSA
CA
THISTLE,
PITCHER'S
IN,
MI,
WI
THISTLE,
SACRAMENTO
MOUNTAINS
NM
THISTLE,
SUISUN
CA
THORNMINT,
SAN
DIEGO
CA
THORNMINT,
SAN
MATEO
CA
TORREYA,
FL
FL.
GA
TOWNSENDIA,
LAST
CHANCE
UT
TRILLIUM,
PERSISTENT
GA,
SC
TRILLIUM,
RELICT
AL,
GA,
SC
TUCTORIA,
GREEN'S
CA
UHIUHI
(
CAESALPINIA
KAVAIENSIS)
HI
UMBEL,
HUACHUCA
WATER
AZ
VERVAIN,
CA
CA
VETCH,
HIAN
(
VICIA
MENZIESII)
HI
VIGNA
O­
WAHUENSIS
(
NCN)
HI
VIOLA
HELENAE
(
NCN)
HI
WAHINE
NOHO
KULA
(
ISODENDRION
PYRIFOLIUM)
HI
WALLFLOWER,
BEN
LOMOND
CA
WALLFLOWER,
CONTRA
COSTA
CA
WALLFLOWER,
MENZIE'S
CA
WAREA,
WIDE­
LEAF
FL
WATERCRESS,
GAMBEL'S
CA
WATER­
PLANTAIN,
KRAL'S
AL,
GA
WATER­
WILLOW,
COOLEY'S
FL
WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
HUPERZIA)
MANNII)
HI
WAWAE'IOLE
(
PHLEGMARIURUS
(=
LYCOPODIUM)
NUTAN
HI
WHITLOW­
WORT,
PAPERY
FL
WILD­
BUCKWHEAT,
CLAY­
LOVING
CO
WILD­
BUCKWHEAT,
GYPSUM
NM
WILD­
RICE,
TX
TX
WINGS,
PIGEON
FL
WIRE­
LETTUCE,
MALHEUR
OR
WIREWEED
FL
WOODLAND­
STAR,
SAN
CLEMENTE
ISLAND
CA
WOOLLY­
STAR,
SANTA
ANA
RIVER
CA
WOOLLY­
THREADS,
SAN
JOAQUIN
CA
XYLOSMA
CRENATUM
(
NCN)
HI
YERBA
SANTA,
LOMPOC
CA
ZIZIPHUS,
FL
FL
G­
17
Table
G­
3.
List
of
endangered
mammalian
species
potentially
at
risk
from
napropamide
use
SPECIES
NAME
STATE(
S)

BAT,
GRAY
AL,
AR,
FL,
GA,
IL,
IN,
KS,
KY,
MO,
OK,

TN,
VA,
WV
BAT,
HIAN
HOARY
HI
BAT,
INDIANA
AL,
AR,
CT,
FL,
GA,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KY,
MD,
MA,

MI,
MO,
NH,
NJ,
NY,
NC,
OH,
OK,
PA,
RI,

TN,
VT,
VA,
WV
BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
LONG­
NOSED
AZ,
NM
BAT,
MEXICAN
LONG­
NOSED
NM
BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
AR,
OK
BAT,
VA
BIG­
EARED
GA,
KY,
NC,
VA,
WV
BEAR,
AMERICAN
BLACK
LA
BEAR,
GRIZZLY
ID,
MT,
WA,
WY
BEAR,
LA
BLACK
LA,
MS,
TX
CARIBOU,
WOODLAND
ID
DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
OR,
WA
FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
CO,
KS,
MT,
NE,
NM,
SD,
UT,
WY
FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
CA
FOX,
SAN
MIGUEL
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
CATALINA
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
CA
FOX,
SANTA
ROSA
ISLAND
CA
JAGUAR
AZ,
NM
JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
TX
Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
AZ
KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
MORRO
BAY
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
SAN
BERNARDINO
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
STEPHENS'
CA
KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
CA
LYNX,
CANADA
ME
MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FL)
FL,
GA
MOUNTAIN
BEAVER,
POINT
ARENA
CA
MOUSE,
AL
BEACH
AL
MOUSE,
ANASTASIA
ISLAND
BEACH
FL
MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
FL
MOUSE,
PACIFIC
POCKET
CA
MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
AL,
FL
MOUSE,
PREBLE'S
MEADOW
JUMPING
CO
MOUSE,
SALT
MARSH
HARVEST
CA
MOUSE,
SOUTHEASTERN
BEACH
FL
OCELOT
AZ,
TX
OTTER,
SOUTHERN
SEA
CA
PANTHER,
FL
FL
PRAIRIE
DOG,
UT
UT
PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
AZ
RABBIT,
PYGMY
WA
RABBIT,
RIPARIAN
BRUSH
CA
G­
18
SEAL,
GUADALUPE
FUR
CA
SEAL,
HIAN
MONK
HI
SHEEP,
PENINSULAR
BIGHORN
CA
SHEEP,
SIERRA
NEVADA
BIGHORN
CA
SHREW,
BUENA
VISTA
CA
SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
NC,
TN,
WV
SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
DE,
MD,
PA,
VA
SQUIRREL,
MOUNT
GRAHAM
RED
AZ
SQUIRREL,
NORTHERN
ID
GROUND
ID
SQUIRREL,
VA
NORTHERN
FLYING
VA,
WV
VOLE,
AMARGOSA
CA
VOLE,
FL
SALT
MARSH
FL
VOLE,
HUALAPAI
MEXICAN
AZ
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
CT,
DE,
FL,
ME,
MD,
MA,
NJ,
NY,
NC,
RI,
SC,
VA
WOLF,
GRAY
AZ,
ID,
MI,
MN,
MT,
NM,
WA,
WI,
WY
WOLF,
RED
NC,
SC,
TN
WOODRAT,
RIPARIAN
CA
H­
1
APPENDIX
H.
EXPLANATION
OF
LEVEL
OF
CONCERN
(
LOC)
AND
PROBIT
SLOPE
Use
of
the
Probit
Dose
Response
Relationship
to
Provide
Information
on
the
Endangered
Species
Levels
of
Concern
Introduction
The
document
entitled
Overview
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA
2004,
the
Overview
Document)
discusses
methods
for
providing
the
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
USFWS)
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
with
additional
information
regarding
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
This
document
provides
(
1)
the
background
information
on
how
agreements
were
reached
between
the
services
and
USEPA
for
methods
to
provide
additional
LOC
information,
and
(
2)
a
discussion
of
issues
concerning
those
methods
and
their
resolution.
Risk
Assessors
within
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
should
use
the
Overview
Document
as
well
as
the
following
information
as
guidance
for
using
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
species
LOCs
Effective
immediately,
all
screening­
level
risk
assessments
(
REDS,
Section
3'
s,
Section
18'
s,
etc.)
using
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
methods
will
incorporate
this
analysis,
regardless
of
whether
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
or
not.

Background
on
Discussion
of
LOCs
with
USFWS
and
NMFS
Over
the
course
of
negotiations
with
the
USFWS
and
NMFS,
one
topic
of
discussion
centered
on
the
risk
quotient
values
established
as
screening
thresholds
for
consideration
of
direct
toxic
effects
on
listed
species
(
i.
e.,
the
acute
listed
species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.05
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively).
The
Agency
provided
the
Services
with
the
mathematical
interpretations
of
these
LOC
values,
which
was
documented
in
the
background
information
supplied
to
the
Services
and
is
included
in
the
Overview
Document
CD
distributed
to
all
employees
in
EFED.
In
short,
the
interpretation
of
the
LOCs
was
discussed
in
terms
of
best
estimates
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
the
pesticide
on
par
with
the
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.

The
mathematics
were
based
on
a
long­
held
assumption
of
a
probit
dose­
response
relationship
for
acute
toxicity
endpoints.
The
listed
species
LOCs
or
the
fraction
(
0.05
or
0.1)
of
the
dose
estimated
to
produce
50%
mortality
were
used
to
interpolate
from
a
probit
dose
response
curve
to
estimate
the
associated
ECx,
LDx,
or
LCx.
These
values
were
then
used
to
estimate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event.

Two
issues
were
identified
over
the
course
of
discussions
with
the
Services
in
regard
to
the
Agency's
presentations
of
the
math
and
the
interpretation
of
the
LOCs.
First
was
the
issue
that
the
chance
of
individual
event
was
highly
dependant
upon
the
assumed
shape
and
slope
of
the
H­
2
dose­
response
relationship.
Second
was
that
the
Services
were
unwilling
to
present
a
generic
threshold
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event,
below
which
the
Services
would
not
have
a
concern
for
listed
species
impacts
The
services
indicated
that
the
baseline
conditions
of
a
species
and
it's
biology
would
dictate
species­
specific
concerns
for
tolerated
effects.
Further
discussion
on
the
confidence
of
extreme
value
extrapolations
for
probit
dose
response
did
not
achieve
an
agreement
between
all
parties
on
what
the
lower
limit
of
cutoff
in
reporting
extreme
events
should
be
for
interpretation
of
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
Even
consideration
of
using
the
most
intolerant
listed
species
within
taxonomic
groups
as
a
screening
basis
for
other
more
tolerant
listed
species
was
not
accepted
as
a
viable
strategy
for
establishing
generic
effects
thresholds
for
listed
species.

Consequently,
it
was
accepted
by
all
parties
that
the
Agency
would
provide
in
its
risk
assessments
an
interpretation
of
the
listed
species
LOCs
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
effect
should
organisms
be
exposed
to
a
media
concentration
or
dose
corresponding
to
1/
10
or
1/
20
of
the
LC
50
,
LD
50
,
or
EC
50
used
as
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoint
for
a
particular
animal
taxonomic
group.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
would
use
(
1)
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoints
for
each
animal
taxonomic
group;
(
2)
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship;
(
3)
a
mean
estimate
of
slope
consistent
with
current
Agency
statistical
procedures;
and
(
4)
a
lower
limit
to
the
estimate
of
individual
effect
chance
based
on
what
could
be
calculated
by
Excel
spreadsheet
"
Normdist"
function.

Issues
with
the
LOC
Interpretation
Method
and
Their
Resolution
Discussion
within
the
Agency
has
identified
three
issues
with
regard
to
the
calculation
of
the
chance
of
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
The
largest
issue
is
the
extrapolation
to
extremely
low
probability
events,
referring
to
the
very
large
confidence
intervals
surrounding
such
estimates.
A
secondary
issue,
but
still
very
important,
is
the
extent
to
which
probit
dose
response
slopes
can
be
calculated
for
existing
studies
(
i.
e.,
the
fitting
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
to
available
data).
The
third
issue
is
how
to
proceed
when
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope.
The
following
guidance
information
will
address
these
issues:

Extrapolation
to
Extremely
Low
Probability
Events
The
nature
of
this
issue
centers
on
the
fact
that
slope
estimates
are
accompanied
by
a
corresponding
variance
in
the
slope
term.
This
variance
in
the
slope
term
and
to
some
extent
the
variance
in
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate,
can
result
in
wide
variations
of
effects
probabilities
at
the
upper
and
lower
tails
of
the
dose
range.
While
the
Agency
has
agreed
to
present
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOCs
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
slope,
it
is
evident
that
expression
of
this
single
estimate
of
the
corresponding
effects
probability
would
suggest
that
the
Agency
has
inordinately
high
confidence
in
this
estimate,
when
in
fact
there
is
likely
considerable
variability
in
the
estimate.
Consequently,
for
the
short
term,
it
is
recommended
that
both
the
estimate
of
effects
probability
be
calculated
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
and
listed
species
LOC
and
available
information
on
the
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
slope
estimate
be
used
to
calculate
an
upper
and
lower
estimate
of
the
effects
probability.
It
is
important
to
note
that
interpretation
of
these
results
is
not
required
under
agreement
with
the
Services.
The
Services
H­
3
have
requested
that
the
results
be
made
available
in
the
screening
assessment
reports.
It
is
recommended
that
reporting
minimally
include
the
following
discussion:

"
Based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
(
enter
slope
here),
the
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
(
0.1
or
0.05)
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
(
enter
appropriate
animal
taxonomic
group)
is
(
enter
value).
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
enter
the
95
percent
confidence
interval
for
the
slope)
were
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
These
values
are
(
enter
the
upper
and
lower
estimates)."

For
the
present
time,
the
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECV1.1
will
allow
for
such
calculations
by
entering
in
the
mean
slope
estimate
and
the
95
percent
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
model
output
can
go
as
low
as
10
E­
16
in
estimating
the
event
probability.
This
cut­
off
is
a
limit
in
the
Excel
spreadsheet
environment
and
is
not
to
be
interpreted
as
an
agreed
upon
lower
bound
threshold
for
concern
for
individual
effects
in
any
given
listed
species.

EFED
will
continue
to
work
on
establishing
subsequent
approaches
to
account
for
both
the
variance
in
the
slope
and
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
when
establishing
this
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
effects
estimates
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOCs.

Probit
Slopes
for
Existing
Studies
Slope
information
may
or
may
not
be
estimated
for
a
given
study
upon
which
RQs
were
calculated.
When
the
available
data
evaluation
records
(
DERs)
or
study
reports
provide
the
slope
information
(
i.
e.,
mean
slope
estimate,
p­
value
of
estimate,
and
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
estimate)
,
it
should
be
used
as
reported
once
these
reported
values
have
been
carefully
reviewed
to
ensure
their
accuracy.
However,
there
are
likely
to
be
situations
where
slope
information
is
not
provided
in
the
DERs.
For
such
situations,
the
raw
data
from
the
study
must
be
entered
into
and
analyzed
by
the
EFED
current
statistical
package
for
acute
effects
studies.
See
the
EFED
Statistical
Workgroup
for
assistance
with
accessing
these
software.
Probit
slope
information
will
be
used
from
these
analyses.
However,
there
a
re
two
distinctions
that
must
be
made
in
the
reporting
of
these
results
for
listed
species
evaluation.
First,
studies
with
good
probit
fit
characteristics
can
be
used
as
reported
accompanied
with
a
statement
that
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
was
statistically
appropriate
for
the
data
set.
Alternatively,
if
the
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
was
shown
to
be
statistically
unsupported,
the
slope
estimates
are
still
used
in
the
listed
species
LOC
interpretation
(
remember
we
have
in
our
policy
assumed
probit
dose
response
when
LOCs
were
established),
but
the
statistical
rejection
criteria
must
be
presented
along
with
a
statement
:

"
Although
the
Agency
has
assumed
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
in
establishing
the
listed
species
LOCs,
the
available
data
for
the
toxicity
study
H­
4
generating
RQs
for
this
taxonomic
group
do
not
statistically
support
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
(
enter
the
p­
value
from
the
statistical
package)
and
so
the
confidence
in
estimated
event
probabilities
based
on
this
dose
response
relationship
and
the
listed
species
LOC
is
low."

EFED
will
continue
to
work
on
the
development
of
statistical
tools
to
explore
alternative
dose
response
relationships
in
situations
where
the
assumption
of
probit
dose
response
relationship
is
not
upheld
by
available
data.

How
to
Proceed
When
Information
is
Unavailable
to
Estimate
a
Slope
State
in
the
assessment
that
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope
from
the
available
toxicity
study
and
the
reason
why
re­
analysis
of
raw
data
is
not
possible.
Then
state
that
a
event
probability
was
calculated
for
the
listed
species
LOC
based
on
a
default
slope
assumption
of
4.5
as
per
original
Agency
assumptions
of
typical
slope
cited
in
Urban
and
Cook
(
1986).

References
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA).
2004.
Overview
of
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
DC.

Urban
D.
J.
and
N.
J.
Cook.
1986.
Hazard
Evaluation
Division
Standard
Evaluation
Procedure
Ecological
Risk
Assessment.
EPA
540/
9­
85­
001.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Washington,
DC.