Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0249-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-10-01T04:00Z

Page
1
of
72
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
DC
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDE
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
PC
Code
No.
035505
DP
Barcode:
D275045
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Diuron
TO:
Margaret
Rice,
PM
#
52/
Roberta
Farrell,
CRM
Reregistration
Branch
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7508C)

FROM:
Richard
Lee,
Ph.
D.,
Biologist
Ibrahim
Abdel­
Saheb,
Agronomist
James
Breithaupt,
Agronomist
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507C)

THROUGH:
Thomas
Bailey,
Ph.
D.,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
II,
EFED
(
7507C)

Attached
is
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division's
(
EFED)
environmental
risk
assessment
for
the
diuron
RED
(
Case
#
818790).
The
attached
documents
contain
drop­
in
chapters
for
the
environmental
fate
and
transport
assessment,
the
ecological
risk
assessment,
integrated
risk
characterization,
and
drinking
water
assessment.
Page
2
of
72
Summary
of
Drinking
Water
and
Ecological
Risk
Drinking
Water
C
Diuron
is
persistent,
mobile,
and
has
been
found
in
both
surface
and
ground
water.
Parent
diuron
is
frequently
detected
in
surface
water
and
ground
water
with
concentration
ranging
from
2.7­
2849
ppb
in
surface
water
and
0.34­
5.37
ppb
in
groundwater.
However,
available
monitoring
data
may
not
fully
reflect
diuron's
temporal
and
spacial
variability.
Therefore,
frequent
detection
of
diuron
residues
and
occasionally
high
residues
in
the
monitoring
studies
along
with
incident
reports
confirm
EFED
concerns
for
aquatic
plants
and
animals.
If
any
intakes
are
located
downstream
from
diuron
use
areas,
these
intakes
will
likely
receive
get
some
exposure
from
drinking
water.
Also,
if
any
wells
draw
ground
water
in
diuron
use
areas,
there
is
some
possibility
of
exposure.

C
The
metabolite,
3,4­
DCA,
is
of
concern
to
human
health
and
has
been
found
in
the
environment
in
surface
water.
It
is
formed
from
applied
diuron,
linuron,
and
propanil.
Because
of
its
persistence
and
degradation
pathway,
diuron
produces
less
3,4­
DCA
than
propanil
and
possibly
linuron.
Based
on
limited
environmental
fate
data,
3,4­
DCA
is
formed
at
<
1
%
of
applied
diuron.
However,
measurements
of
3,4­
DCA
from
surface
water
monitoring
studies
in
five
southern
states
reached
up
to
26
ppb
in
the
Yazoo
River
Basin
where
both
propanil
and
diuron
are
used
extensively.
However,
there
are
no
nearby
surface
water
intakes
where
the
highest
concentrations
were
observed.
Although
it
is
commonly
seen
in
surface
water
in
areas
with
high
diuron
and
propanil
usage,
EFED
has
received
no
guideline
studies
on
ecological
effects
or
environmental
fate
and
transport
of
3,4­
DCA.
EFED
believes
that
at
minimum
laboratory
studies
are
needed
to
fully
understand
both
the
fate
and
transport
and
the
impact
on
fish
and
wildlife
from
3,4­
DCA.

Terrestrial
Organisms
°
Potential
acute
risk
to
birds
based
on
maximum
labeled
rates
from
high
application
sites
(
right
of
ways,
grapes,
and
citrus)
using
6.4­
12
lbs
ai/
A.

C
Potential
risk
of
reproductive
impairment
to
birds
is
assumed
because
of
persistence
but
is
uncertain
due
to
need
for
additional
data
for
confirmation.

C
Potential
acute
risk
to
small
mammals
feeding
in
short
grass
treated
with
diuron
at
a
rate
of
12
lbs
ai/
A.

C
Potential
chronic
risk
to
mammals
at
all
application
rates
C
Potential
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
at
all
application
rates
Page
3
of
72
Aquatic
Organisms
C
Potential
acute
risk
to
freshwater
fish
at
a
one­
time
rate
of
12
lbs
ai/
A
for
right
of
way
use
C
Potential
acute
risk
to
freshwater
invertebrates
at
one­
time
rates
of
3.2
lbs
ai/
A
and
above
C
Potential
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
at
one­
time
rates
of
9.6
lbs
and
above
C
Potential
chronic
risk
to
estuarine
invertebrates
from
a
one­
time
rate
of
12
lbs
ai/
A
C
High
potential
for
risk
to
aquatic
plants
from
all
application
rates.

Outstanding
Data
Requirement
Requirements
for
Additional
Data
Required
Study
Guideline
Number
Environmental
Fate
Upgrade
of
leaching­
adsorption­
desorption
(
material
balances
for
definitive
study
needed,
44490501)
163­
1
Hydrolysis
of
3,4­
DCA
161­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
of
3,4­
DCA
162­
1
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
of
3,4­
DCA
162­
4
Leaching­
Adsorption­
Desorption
of
3,4­
DCA
163­
1
Ecological
Effects
Avian
reproduction
study
(
based
on
persistence
of
diuron)
71­
4
Freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
early
life­
cycle
toxicity
study
(
previous
study
failed
to
establish
NOAEC
72­
4(
b)

Estuarine/
marine
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
study
(
previous
study
failed
to
establish
NOAEC)
72­
4(
a)

Nontarget
aquatic
plant
toxicity
study
a
123­
2
Avian
dietary
LC50
­
3,4­
DCA
71­
2
(
a)

Freshwater
fish
LC50
­
3,4­
DCA
72­
1
(
b)
Page
4
of
72
Freshwater
invertebrate
acute
LC50
­
3,4­
DCA
72­
2
Nontarget
terrestrial
plant
seedling
emergency
toxicity
b
(
Tier
II)
­
3,4­
DCA
123­
1
Nontarget
terrestrial
plant
vegetative
vigor
toxicity
(
Tier
II)
­
3,4­
DCA
b
123­
1
Nontarget
aquatic
plant
toxicity
­
3,4­
DCA
c
123­
2
a
This
study
is
required
for
herbicides.
The
study
should
include
four
species
of
aquatic
plants
(
Kirchneria
subcapitata,
Anabaena
flosaquae,
a
freshwater
diatom,
and
duckweed
,
Lemna
gibba).
b.
Tomato
and
onion
c
.
Skeletonema
costatum
and
lema
gibbs
A
complete
listing
of
submitted
data
and
data
requirements
for
environmental
fate
and
transport,
and
modeling
input
and
output
data,
and
the
ecological
effects
characterization
may
be
found
in
Appendices
1,
2,
and
3
of
the
EFED
RED
Chapter,
respectively.

Recommended
Label
Language
The
following
precautionary
statements
should
be
included
on
both
manufacturing
and
end
use
product
labels
Page
5
of
72
Environmental
Hazards
i.
Non­
aquatic
use
°
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
Do
not
apply
directly
to
water,
to
areas
where
surface
water
is
present,
or
to
intertidal
areas
below
the
mean
high
water
mark.
Drift
and
runoff
may
be
hazardous
to
aquatic
organisms
in
water
adjacent
to
treated
areas.
Do
not
contaminate
water
when
disposing
of
equipment
wash
waters
or
rinsate."

ii.
Aquatic
use
°
Treatment
of
aquatic
weeds
can
result
in
oxygen
loss
from
decomposition
of
dead
weeds.
This
loss
can
cause
fish
suffocation.
Therefore,
to
minimize
this
hazard
,
treat
1/
3
to
½
of
the
water
area
in
a
single
operation
and
wait
at
least
10
to
14
days
between
treatments.
Begin
treatment
along
the
shore
and
proceed
outwards
in
bands
to
allow
fish
to
move
into
untreated
areas.
Consult
with
the
State
agency
in
charge
of
fish
and
game
before
applying
to
public
waters
to
determine
if
a
permit
is
needed.

°
Observe
all
cautions
and
limitations
on
labeling
of
all
products
used
in
mixtures.

Surface
Water
Label
Advisory
This
product
may
contaminate
water
through
drift
of
spray
in
wind.
This
product
has
a
potential
for
runoff
according
to
the
pesticides
"
mean"
soil
partition
coefficient
(
Kd)
for
several
months
or
more
after
application.
Poorly
draining
soils
and
soils
with
shallow
watertables
are
more
prone
to
produce
runoff
that
contains
this
product.
A
level,
well
maintained
vegetative
buffer
strip
between
areas
to
which
this
product
is
applied
and
surface
water
features
such
as
ponds,
streams,
and
springs
will
reduce
the
potential
for
contamination
of
water
from
rainfall­
runoff.
Runoff
of
this
product
will
be
reduced
by
avoiding
applications
when
rainfall
is
forecasted
to
occur
within
48
hours.
Sound
erosion
control
practices
will
reduce
this
product's
contribution
to
surface
water
contamination.

Ground
Water
Advisory
Diuron
is
known
to
leach
through
soil
and
into
ground
water
under
certain
conditions
as
a
result
of
label
use.
Use
of
this
product
in
areas
where
soils
are
permeable,
particularly
where
the
water
table
is
shallow,
may
result
in
ground
water
contamination.
Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Re­
Registration
of
Diuron
N'(
3,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
N'N­
dimethylurea
Prepared
by:

Richard
Lee
Ibrahim
Abdel­
Saheb
James
Breithaupt
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Environmental
Risk
Branch
IV
401
M
Street,
SW
Mail
Code
7507C
Washington,
DC
20460
Reviewed
by:

Tom
Bailey,
Ph.
D.,
Branch
Chief
Page
2
of
72
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
CONCLUSIONS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Mode
of
action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
Application
Rates
and
Methods
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
7
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Water
Resource
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Surface
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
Ground
Water
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
Drinking
Water
Recommendations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
11
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
Nontarget
Aquatic
Anima
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
Nontarget
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
21
ENDANGERED
SPECIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
22
ENVIRONMENTAL
MODELING
AND
MONITORING
REFERENCES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
24
APPENDIX
1:
SUMMARY
OF
SUBMITTED
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
STUDIES
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
Degradation
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
26
Metabolism
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
Mobility
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
27
APPENDIX
2:
SCI­
GROW,
GENEEC
AND
IR­
PCA
PRZM/
EXAMS
FOR
ECOLOGICAL
Page
3
of
72
EFFECTS
AND
DRINKING
WATER
ASSESSMENTS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
Background
Information
on
SCI­
GROW
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
SCI­
GROW
Output
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
Background
Information
on
GENEEC2
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
GENEEC2
Output.........................................................................................................
30
IR­
PCA
PRZM/
EXAMS
Input
and
Output
Files
for
Various
Crops
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
35
APPENDIX
3:
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
56
APPENDIX
4:
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
STUDIES
REVIEWED
..
.
.
.
68
Page
4
of
72
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
CONCLUSIONS
Diuron
has
a
wide
range
of
application
rates
(
1.6
to
12
lbs
ai/
A),
but
the
higher
application
rates
are
used
for
row
or
spot
treatments
of
nonagricultural
sites,
grape
vineyards
and
orchards.
It
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
and
photolysis
and
very
persistent
on
soil.
It
is
moderately
mobile
and
has
been
found
in
ground
water
and
surface
water.
The
major
metabolites
are
sequentially
demethylated
diuron
compounds,
DCPMU
and
DCPU,
which
have
no
herbicidal
effects.
The
ecological
effects
of
the
minor
metabolite
3,4­
DCA
are
unknown.

Based
on
the
likelihood
of
environmental
exposure
and
high
RQ
values,
diuron
poses
potential
risk
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals
and
nontarget
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants.
For
animals,
the
acute
RQ
values
based
on
the
maximum
exposures
are
as
follows:
mammals
(
1.19­
9.22),
avian
(<
1.16),
and
aquatic
animals
(
1.35­
9.00).
For
plants,
the
acute
RQ
values
ranged
from
1.25­
76.5,
and
the
endangered
species
RQ
values
ranged
from
6.5­
306.
No
avian
chronic
data
are
available,
but
exposure
and
risk
are
expected
to
be
high
because
of
diuron's
persistence
in
environment.

Finally,
environmental
monitoring
studies
have
routinely
confirmed
diuron
residues
at
occasional
high
concentrations
in
both
surface
and
ground
water.
OPP's
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS)
summary
report
confirmed
29
cases
of
incidents
involving
nontarget
organism
that
occurred
mostly
in
the
1990'
s.
Of
the
29
incidents,
one
included
birds,
16
involved
fish,
and
12
involved
plants.
EFED
believes
that
the
reported
incidents
are
only
a
subset
of
the
total
number
of
incidents
that
are
likely
occurring
because
of
uncertainty
due
to
spacial
and
temporal
variation
of
monitoring
studies
and
voluntary
incident
reporting.

INTRODUCTION
Diuron
(
PC
Code
035505)
is
a
pre­
emergence
contact
herbicide
belonging
to
the
substituted
urea
herbicides.
Diuron
is
the
common
name
for
3­(
3,4­
dichloro
phenyl)­
1,1­
dimethyl
urea.
It
is
formulated
as
a
wettable
powder
and
as
a
flowable
liquid
suspension.

Mode
of
action
Diuron
is
a
strong
inhibitor
of
the
Hill
Reaction
in
plant
photosynthesis.
This
inhibition
prevents
the
formation
of
high
energy
compounds,
i.
e.
ATP
and
NADPH,
which
are
required
for
carbon
dioxide
fixation
and
numerous
other
biochemical
reactions.
Page
5
of
72
Use
characterization
Diuron
is
registered
on
both
agricultural
and
non­
agricultural
use
sites,
and
is
used
in
combination
with
other
herbicides
to
control
a
wide
variety
of
weeds.
Diuron
is
used
primarily
as
a
pre­
emergent
herbicide
to
control
annual
grasses
and
broadleaf
weeds
in
crops
such
as
alfalfa,
artichoke,
asparagus,
bananas,
barley,
Bermuda
grass
pastures,
blueberries,
cranberries,
gooseberries,
corn,
cotton,
grapes,
perennial
grass­
seed
crops,
papayas,
peppermint,
pineapple,
plantains,
sorghum,
sugarcane,
small
grains,
and
several
fruit­
and
nut­
tree
crops
as
well
as
certain
ornamentals.
For
these
selective
uses,
the
application
rates
are
relatively
low,
usually
1­
4
lbs/
A.
Diuron
is
usually
applied
in
conjunction
with
surfactants.

Application
rates
and
Methods
Table
1
below
summarizes
the
various
usages,
application
rates,
and
application
methods
for
diuron.
In
addition
to
the
maximum
labeled
rates,
Table
1
includes
the
typical
application
rates
used
by
80
%
of
growers,
according
to
the
registrant's
survey.
The
higher
application
rates
(
6.4
­
12
lbs.
ai/
A)
are
for
nonagricultural
sites
and
some
crops
such
as
grapes
and
citrus.
The
typical
application
rates
are
usually
50­
80
%
lower
than
labeled
rates.

Table
1.
List
of
maximum
labeled
application
rates
and
methods
for
diuron
End­
uses
Appl.
Methods
*
Max.
Label
Rates
(
lbs
ai)
Typical
Rates(
lbs
ai)
Seasonal
Max.
Rate
Non­
Agricultural
Railroad
A/
G
12
6
12
Roadside,
utilities,
irrigation,
drainage
ditch
G
12
6
12
Non­
Agricultural
grape
G
9
.6
2.0
9.6
citrus
G
6
.4
3.2
9.6
Alfalfa
A/
G
3.
2
2.4
3.2
Fruits
(
Peach,
Apple,
Pear)
G
3.2
­
4.0
3.2
4.0
Sugarcane
A/
G
3.
2
2.4
9.6
Grass
seeds
A/
G
3.2
1.5
3.2
Cotton
A/
G
1.6
0.8
2.2
A
=
Aerial,
G
=
Ground
Chemical
and
Physical
properties
Page
6
of
72
Common
Name:
Diuron
Trade
Name(
s):
Karmex,
Krovar,
Direx,
Dailon,
Herbixol,
Tigrex,
Unidron,
Vonduron,
Crisuron.

Chemical
Name:
N'­(
3,4­
Dichlorophenyl)­
N,
N­
dimethylurea.

Chemical
Abstract
Registry
No.:
330­
54­
1
Type
of
Product:
Herbicide
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Summary
of
Risk
Assessment
Note:
Conclusions
of
ecological
risk
are
based
on
a
screening
level
assessment.
In
the
past,
these
risks
would
have
been
characterized
as
"
high"
acute
or
chronic
risk.
However,
recognizing
the
uncertainty
in
the
ability
of
a
screening
level
assessment
to
quantify
the
level
or
significant
of
risk,
the
EFED
is
changing
the
wording
of
the
conclusions
when
exceeding
the
LOC
is
based
solely
on
screening
level
risk
assessment.
This
change
does
not
reflect
a
change
in
the
risk
assessment
process,
or
alter
the
criteria
of
exceeding
the
LOC's.
Also,
it
does
not
change
the
other
presumptions
of
risk,
including
those
related
to
restricted
use
and
endangered
species.

The
major
concerns
for
diuron
are
C
risk
to
plants
C
­
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
and
mammals
C
suspected
chronic
risk
to
birds
due
to
high
application
rates
and
persistence
The
major
ecological
concern
from
the
use
of
diuron
is
the
impact
on
non­
target
plants,
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic.
All
RQ
s
exceeded
the
level
of
concern
for
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
non­
target
plants.
The
terrestrial
plant
RQ
values
ranged
from
1.25­
77
for
acute
effects
and
5­
306
for
endangered
plants.
The
aquatic
plant
RQ
values
ranged
from
9.6
to
171.7,
indicating
acute
risk
to
aquatic
plants.

Another
environmental
risk
concern
is
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
non­
target
organisms.
These
risks
are
expected
to
increase
with
increasing
application
rate.
The
sites
with
the
higher
broadcast
application
rates
include
non­
agricultural
sites
(
12
lbs.
ai/
A),
grape
vineyards
(
9.6
lbs.
ai/
A.),
and
orchards
(
6.4
lbs.
ai/
A).
Non­
agricultural
sites
include
rights­
of­
way
(
e.
g.
sides
of
roads
and
railroads),
utilities,
and
areas
around
industrial
buildings.
However,
diuron
is
applied
as
a
spot
treatment
for
these
uses.
Spot
treatment
refers
to
application
to
part
of
an
area,
and
as
a
result,
the
probability
of
ecological
exposure
will
increase
with
the
percent
of
the
area
treated.
For
vineyards
and
orchards,
row
treatments
are
used
where
only
part
of
the
field
is
treated.
Approximately
33
%
of
the
area
in
a
vineyard
Page
7
of
72
may
be
treated,
while
only
45
%
of
a
citrus
orchard
may
be
treated.
Therefore,
application
rates
for
these
crops
are
2.9­
3.2
lbs
ai/
A
instead
of
the
6.4­
9.6
lbs
ai/
A
broadcast
rates.
Even
with
these
reduced
application
rates
in
vineyards
and
citrus,
our
level
of
concern
is
still
exceeded
for
endangered
species
of
non­
target
terrestrial
organisms
(
birds
and
mammals).
Due
to
persistence,
organisms
may
be
exposed
to
toxic
residuals
for
extended
periods
of
time.

In
addition,
EFED
has
concerns
for
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
birds.
At
an
application
rate
of
4
lbs
ai/
A,
there
are
potential
acute
risks
on
birds.
EFED
assumes
chronic
risk
to
birds
because
diuron
is
persistent,
and
a
rat
study
showed
chronic
effects
to
mammals
(
reduced
pup
body
weight).
However,
EFED
cannot
confirm
chronic
risk
to
birds
because
we
have
received
no
studies
on
the
effects
of
diuron
on
avian
reproduction.

Reported
Diuron
Incidents
There
are
29
ecological
incident
reports
for
nontarget
organisms,
reported
mainly
in
1990'
s.
Of
the
29
incidents,
one
involved
birds,
16
involved
fish,
and
12
involved
plants,
of
which
one
case
included
tissue
analysis
for
both
fish
and
plants.
EFED
believes
that
the
reported
incidents
are
only
a
subset
of
the
total
number
of
incidents
that
are
likely
occurring
because
of
uncertainty
due
to
spacial
and
temporal
variation
of
monitoring
studies
and
voluntary
incident
reporting.

Metabolite
3,4­
DCA
The
metabolite,
3,4­
DCA,
is
of
concern
to
human
health.
It
is
formed
from
applied
diuron,
linuron,
and
propanil.
Because
of
its
persistence
and
degradation
pathway,
diuron
produces
less
3,4­
DCA
than
propanil
and
possibly
linuron.
Although
it
is
commonly
seen
in
surface
water
in
areas
with
high
diuron
and
propanil
usage,
EFED
has
received
no
guideline
studies
on
ecological
effects
or
environmental
fate
and
transport
of
3,4­
DCA,.
EFED
believes
that
at
least
laboratory
studies
are
needed
to
fully
understand
both
the
fate
and
transport
and
the
impact
on
fish
and
wildlife
from
3,4­
DCA.

Exposure
Issues
Typical
Application
Rates
and
Effect
on
Ecological
Risk
The
typical
application
rates
for
diuron
are
lower
than
the
maximum
labeled
rates.
However,
even
the
typical
rates
of
diuron
exceed
our
level
of
concern
for
plants.
Based
on
a
survey
by
the
registrant,
the
typical
rates
applied
by
80
%
of
users
are
20­
50%
of
label
rates.
In
addition
to
the
registrant
survey,
average
weighted
application
rates
are
about
half
the
maximum
labeled
rates
based
on
BEAD's
QUA.
The
QUA
also
claims
that
rates
for
agricultural
sites
are
generally
less
than
2
pounds
ai/
A,
and
not
exceeding
3
pounds
ai/
A/
year.
It
also
claims
that
rates
for
non­
agricultural
sites
are
generally
less
than
6
pounds
ai/
A/
year.
EFED
recommends
that
these
typical
rates
be
put
on
the
label
as
the
maximum
rates
so
that
ecological
exposure
and
risk
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals
may
be
reduced.
Page
8
of
72
Page
9
of
72
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
ASSESSMENT
Summary
Diuron
is
persistent.
It
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH's
5,
7,
and
9.
The
calculated
half­
lives
in
aqueous
and
soil
photolysis
studies
were
43
and
173
days,
respectively.
The
half­
lives
in
aerobic
and
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
studies
were
372
and
1000
days,
respectively.
However,
in
viable
laboratory
aquatic
systems,
degradation
appeared
to
be
accelerated
with
half­
lives
of
33
and
5
days
in
aerobic
and
anaerobic
systems,
respectively.
The
predominant
degradate
formed
in
both
the
soil
photolysis
and
aerobic
soil
metabolism
studies
was
DCPMU.
The
only
significant
(>
10
%
of
applied)
degradate
in
the
aerobic
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
studies
was
mCPDMU.
Diuron
dissipated
in
bare
ground
plots
with
half­
lives
ranging
from
73
to
133
days,
and
the
major
degradate
(
mCPDMU)
dissipated
in
the
same
plots
with
halflives
range
from
217
to
1733
days.
Diuron
and
mCPDMU
residues
were
detected
mainly
at
the
upper
15­
30
cm
depths
at
all
sites
and
sporadically
detected
below
this
depth.

Diuron
has
the
potential
to
leach
to
ground
and
to
contaminate
surface
waters.
An
upgradable
adsorption/
desorption/
leaching
study
(
MRID
#
44490501)
showed
that
diuron
has
low­
medium
Koc
(
468­
1666).
In
addition,
diuron
has
low
water
solubility
(
42
ppm).

The
degradate
3,4­
DCA
is
a
common
degradate
for
diuron,
linuron,
and
propanil.
EFED
does
not
have
sufficient
fate
and
transport
data
on
3,4­
DCA.
This
compound
from
applied
propanil
dissipated
in
an
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study
with
a
half­
life
of
30
days
(
MRID#
41537801),
and
in
paddy
water
with
half­
lives
ranging
from
2­
3
days
(
MRID#
42200401,
42200501).
Even
though
these
studies
suggest
that
3,4­
DCA
will
not
persist
in
soil
or
water,
3,4­
DCA
has
been
detected
often
in
surface
water.
Thus,
more
data
is
needed
to
understand
the
fate
of
this
degradate
in
soil
and
water.
Tetrachloroazobenzene
(
TCAB),
also
a
degradate
of
concern
for
human
health,
was
identified
as
one
of
the
minor
degradates
of
diuron
in
a
soil
photolysis
study
(
MRID
No.
41719302)
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
0.038
ppm.

Water
Resources
Assessment
Surface
Water
EFED
has
limited
monitoring
data
on
the
concentrations
of
diuron
in
surface
water
at
the
present
time.
Therefore,
the
ecological
effects
and
drinking
water
assessments
will
be
bounded,
using
monitoring
as
a
lower
bound
of
exposure
and
modeling
as
an
upper
bound
of
exposure.
based
on
environmental
modeling
and
exposure
summary
of
monitoring
data
will
be
provided
to
place
the
modeling
in
proper
context.
Page
10
of
72
3,4­
DCA
is
a
common
degradate
for
diuron,
linuron,
and
propanil.
3,4­
DCA
from
propanil
dissipated
in
aerobic
metabolism
study
with
a
half­
life
of
30
days
(
MRID#
41537801),
and
in
paddy
water
with
half­
lives
range
from
2­
3
days
(
MRID#
42200401,
42200501).
Thus,
the
limited
available
fate
characteristics
suggest
that
3,4­
DCA
is
not
expected
to
persist
in
soil
or
water.
More
fate
studies
is
needed
to
fully
understand
the
fate
of
this
degradate
in
the
environment.

A
study
on
the
occurrence
of
cotton
herbicides
and
insecticides
in
Playa
lakes
of
the
high
plains
of
western
Texas
concluded
that
diuron
was
the
major
pesticide
detected
in
water
samples
collected
from
32
lakes
with
a
mean
concentration
of
2.7
ppb
(
Thurman
et
al,
2001).
Diuron
metabolites
(
DCPMU,
DCPU,
and
3,4­
DCA)
were
found
in
71%
of
the
samples
analyzed.
The
mean
concentrations
were
0.45
ppb
for
DCPMU,
0.31
ppb
for
3,4­
DCA,
and
0.2
ppb
for
DCPU.
In
this
study,
water
samples
were
taken
within
two
days
after
diuron
application
to
cotton
in
the
region.
Diuron
usage
on
cotton
in
this
part
of
the
state
reached
an
average
of
$
1379
lb
ai/
mile2/
yr.
Even
though
the
use
of
diuron
on
cotton
in
this
part
of
the
state
is
representative
of
actual
use
area,
the
frequency
of
surface
water
sampling
and
the
length
of
sampling
period
were
insufficient
to
satisfy
the
temporal
and
spatial
requirements
for
regulatory
purposes.
This
study
has
limited
use
in
a
national
assessment
because
we
do
not
expect
western
Texas
to
be
one
of
the
most
vulnerable
areas
for
runoff.
However,
because
the
samples
were
taken
within
two
days
after
application,
the
results
may
represent
a
lower
bound
of
possible
peak
concentrations
that
could
occur
in
drinking
water
in
that
area.

The
US
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA)
collected
1420
surface
water
samples
from
62
agricultural
stream
sites
during
the
period
from
1992­
1998
(
USGS,
1998).
One
to
two
samples
were
collected
each
month
during
periods
when
pesticide
transport
in
the
streams
was
expected
to
be
low.
At
most
sites,
the
sampling
frequency
was
increased
to
1
to
3
samples
per
week
during
periods
when
elevated
levels
of
pesticides
were
expected
in
the
streams.
Diuron
was
detected
in
7.32%
of
the
samples
(
detection
limit
=
0.05
ppb)
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
13
ppb
(
estimated
concentration).

Even
though,
the
surface
water
monitoring
data
collected
by
NAWQA
are
from
sites
considered
typical
use
areas,
the
frequency
of
sampling
and
the
length
of
sampling
period
were
not
sufficient
to
represent
the
temporal
and
spatial
requirements
for
regulatory
purposes.

An
edge
of
plot­
right
of
way
study
was
conducted
in
the
state
of
California
from
September
1991­
November
1991.
Sampling
of
runoff
events
showed
that
diuron
was
detected
in
100%
of
the
samples
with
a
maximum
detection
of
2849
ppb
(
Powell
et
al.,
1996).

Monitoring
has
also
shown
high
concentrations
of
3,4­
DCA
in
smaller
streams
such
as
bayous,
creeks,
and
rivers.
In
MS,
MO,
TN,
AR,
and
North
LA,
Harris
(
2001)
reported
that
3,4­
DCA
did
not
exceed
26
ppb
in
surface
water
(
96.2%
detection
rate,
333
detections,
13
non­
detections).
The
overall
concentrations
ranged
from
below
the
detection
limit
of
0.05
ppb
to
26
ppb,
with
the
majority
of
the
sample
detections
being
<
1
ppb.
EFED
notes
that
3,4­
DCA
was
detected
in
these
regions
year­
round;
higher
concentrations
were
generally
associated
with
the
application
time
of
pesticides.
DCA
detections
in
MS,
Page
11
of
72
MO,
TN,
AR,
and
North
LA
are
likely
to
be
a
result
of
both
diuron
and
propanil
applications
for
cotton
and
rice
production,
respectively.
However
in
South
Louisiana,
there
were
only
three
samples
analyzed
for
3,4­
DCA
in
the
suburban
area
of
E.
Baton
Rouge
Parish.
The
concentrations
ranged
from
0.01­
0.06
ppb
in
these
three
samples
along
with
diuron
(
Walters,
2001).
Therefore,
the
presence
of
DCA
in
these
samples
is
most
likely
due
to
roadside
use
of
diuron
because
cotton
and
rice
are
not
grown
in
E.
Baton
Rouge
Parish.

Screening
models
were
used
to
determine
estimated
concentrations
of
diuron
in
surface
water.

Ground
Water
EFED
has
limited
monitoring
data
on
the
concentrations
of
diuron
in
groundwater.
Monitoring
data
for
diuron
that
are
available
for
the
states
of
California,
Florida,
Georgia,
and
Texas
showed
a
maximum
diuron
concentration
of
5.37
ppb
(
USEPA,
1992).

The
US
Geological
Survey
(
USGS)
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA)
analyzed
pesticide
occurrence
and
concentrations
for
major
aquifers
and
shallow
ground
water
in
agricultural
areas
(
detection
limit
=
0.05
ppb).
Analysis
of
2608
samples
(
major
aquifers
study)
showed
diuron
in
71%
of
the
samples
analyzed
with
a
maximum
concentration
of
0.34
ppb.
Maximum
diuron
concentration
in
897
samples
from
shallow
groundwater
sites
was
2.0
ppb,
with
diuron
detected
in
only
1.23%
of
samples
analyzed
(
USGS,
1998).
A
major
component
of
the
sampling
design
in
the
NAWQA
study
was
to
target
specific
watersheds
and
shallow
ground
water
areas
that
are
influenced
primarily
by
a
single
dominant
land
use(
agricultural
or
urban)
that
is
important
in
the
particular
area.
The
ground­
water
data
were
primarily
collected
from
a
combination
of
production
and
monitoring
wells.
Ground­
water
sites
in
the
ground­
water
data
were
sampled
for
pesticides
from
a
single
snap­
shot
in
time.

According
to
the
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection
(
2001),
ground
water
samples
from
wells
collected
between
5/
90
and
11/
97,
showed
diuron
detections
with
concentrations
range
from
0.94
­
12
ppb
(
detection
limit=
0.48
ppb).
The
arithmetic
mean
concentration
was
2.44
ppb.
Well
water
samples
were
collected
from
the
following
counties:
Highlands,
Jackson,
Lake,
Orange,
and
Polk.
With
the
exception
of
the
12
ppb
sample
in
Orange
County,
the
most
of
the
detections
were
in
Highlands
County
where
citrus
is
grown.
Diuron
concentrations
in
Highlands
County
decreased
with
time
to
about
1
ppb
but
were
detected
every
year.
In
Polk
County,
diuron
concentrations
show
a
seasonal
patter,
with
highest
concentrations
in
the
spring
and
lower
concentrations
in
the
fall,
but
was
not
detected
in
all
years.

Even
though,
the
groundwater
monitoring
data
collected
by
NAWQA
are
from
sites
considered
typical
for
use
areas,
the
frequency
of
sampling
and
the
length
of
sampling
period
were
not
sufficient
temporal
and
spatial
requirements
for
regulatory
purposes.

The
SCI­
GROW
model
(
Barrett,
1997)
was
used
to
estimate
potential
groundwater
concentrations.
The
modeled
GW
EEC's
from
SCI­
GROW
were
consistent
with
the
State
of
Florida
Page
12
of
72
monitoring
data,
but
were
higher
than
the
other
monitoring
data.

Drinking
Water
Recommendation
For
surface
water,
EFED
recommends
to
use
the
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
concentration
from
the
IRPC
modeling
as
the
acute
toxicity
endpoint,
the
1­
in­
10­
year
annual
mean
concentration
as
the
chronic
non­
cancer
toxicity
endpoint,
and
the
mean
of
annual
values
as
the
cancer
toxicity
endpoint.

Tier
II
surface
water
modeling
was
done
using
the
Index
Reservoir
(
IR)
and
Percent
Crop
Area
(
PCA)
modifications
for
diuron
use
on
citrus
(
Jones
et.
al,
1998,
and
Effland
et
al.,
2000).
The
modeling
results
indicate
that
diuron
has
the
potential
to
contaminate
surface
waters
used
as
a
source
of
drinking
water
by
runoff,
especially
in
areas
with
large
amounts
of
annual
rainfall.
The
maximum
diuron
estimated
environmental
concentration
was
290
ppb,
chronic
(
non­
cancer)
was
67.1
ppb,
and
chronic
(
cancer)
was
45.2
ppb.

For
groundwater,
EFED
recommends
using
the
SCI­
GROW
EEC's
for
both
acute
and
chronic
endpoints.
The
EEC
from
SCI­
GROW
modeling
was
11.7
ppb.
Page
13
of
72
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
ASSESSMENT
SUMMARY:

Seventy
ecological
toxicity
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
Forty­
nine
studies
were
classified
as
acceptable
and
fulfilling
the
guideline
requirements.
Twenty­
one
studies
were
classified
as
supplemental
and
provide
the
useful
information
for
an
ecological
risk
assessment.
Some
studies
were
conducted
prior
to
current
Pesticide
Assessment
Guidelines
or
failed
to
provide
critical
information
(
such
as
using
non­
recommended
species
or
lacking
of
NOEC
value).
These
studies
are
considered
unfulfilled
and
must
be
repeated.

Diuron
is
sightly
toxic
to
bobwhite
quail
and
practically
nontoxic
to
mallard
duck
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
It
is
practically
nontoxic
to
bobwhite
quail
and
slightly
toxic
to
mallard
duck
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
Diuron
is
relative
nontoxic
to
both
honey
bees
and
laboratory
rats.
In
the
rat
chronic
study,
diuron
caused
pop
body
weight
loss.
No
avian
reproduction
study
was
submitted
by
the
registrant
and
it
is
required
because
diuron
is
persistent
in
the
environment
(
Table
2).

Table
2.
Summary
of
acute
and
chronic
terrestrial
toxicity
estimates
using
technical
diuron
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
Acute
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
(
MRID)
Subacut
e
LC50
(
ppm)
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
(
MRID)
NOEC/
LOE
C
(
ppm)
(
MRID)
Affected
endpoint
Northern
bobwhite
quail
Colinus
virgianus
940
Slightly
toxic
(
50150170)
>
5000
Practically
nontoxic
(
00022923)
 
­
­

Mallard
duck
Anas
platyrhynchous
>
2000
Practic.
nontoxic
(
00160000)
1730
Slightly
toxic
(
00022923)
­­
­­

Honey
bee
Apis
meliferus
145*
Practic.
nontoxic
(
00036935)
 
 
 
­
­

Laboratory
rat
Rattus
norvegicus
M)
5000
F)
10000
Class.
III
(
00146145)
 
­
­
NOEC
=
250
LOEC
=
1750
(
00146145)
Pup
body
weight
*
F
g/
bee
Diuron
is
moderately
toxic
to
the
majority
of
aquatic
animals
tested
(
including
rainbow
trout,
bluegill
sunfish,
water
flea,
striped
mullet,
sheepshead
minnow,
Eastern
oyster,
and
brown
shrimp).
However,
it
is
highly
toxic
to
cutthroat
trout
and
scuds
and
slightly
toxic
to
fathead
minnow
In
chronic
studies,
diuron
reduced
number
of
survival
(
fathead
minnow),
growth/
survival
(
sheepshead
minnow),
and
growth/
reproduction
(
mysid
shrimp).
Water
flea
and
sheepshead
chronic
studies
failed
to
provide
the
NOEC
values
requiring
the
studies
to
be
repeated
(
Table
3).
Page
14
of
72
Table
3.
Summary
of
acute
and
chronic
aquatic
toxicity
estimates
using
technical
grade
diuron
Species
Acute
Toxicity
Chronic
Toxicity
96­
hr
LC50
(
ppm)
48­
h
EC
50
(
ppm)
Acute
Toxicity
(
MRID)
NOEC/
LOEC
(
ppm)
Affected
Endpoint
(
MRID)

Rainbow
trout
Oncorynchus
mykiss
1.
95
 
Moderately
toxic
(
STODIV04)
 
­
­

Bluegill
sunfish
Lepomis
microchirus
2.
8
 
Moderately
toxic
(
40098001)
­­
­­

Fathead
minnows
Pimephales
promelas
14.
2
 
Slightly
toxic
(
00141636)
NOEC
=
0.
0264
LOEC
=
0.0618
#
of
survivor
(
00141636)

Cutthroat
trout
Oncerynchus
clarki
0.71
 
Highly
toxic
(
40098001)
 
­
­

Scud
(
Gammmarus
fasciatus)
 
0.16
Highly
toxic
(
40094602)
 
­
­

Water
flea
Daphnia
magna
 
1.4
Moderately
toxic
(
40094602)
NOEC
=<
0.
2
LOEC
=
0.
2
No
effect
(
STODIV05)

Striped
mullet
Mugil
cephalus
6.3
 
Moderately
toxic
(
40228401)
 
­
­

Sheepshead
minnow
Cypprinoden
varieggatus
6.7
 
Moderately
toxic
(
41418805)
NOEC
=
<
0.
44
LOEC
=
0.44
Reduced
growth,
survival
(
42312901)

Eastern
oyster
Crassostrea
virginica
 
4.9
Moderately
toxic
(
42217201)
 
­
­

Mysid
shrimp
Americamysis
bahia
­­
 
 
NOEC
=
0.
27
LOEC
=
0.
56
Growth
Reproduction
Brown
shrimp
Penaeus
aztecus
 
>
1
Moderately
toxic
(
40228401)
 
 
Tier
II
terrestrial
plant
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
toxicity
studies
were
conducted
by
the
registrant
with
four
species
of
monocotyledonous
plants
(
including
corn)
and
six
species
of
dicotyledonous
plants
(
including
soybean).
The
crops
selected
were
corn,
onion,
sorghum,
and
wheat
for
monocotyledonous
plants;
and
pea,
soybean,
rape,
cucumber,
sugar
beet,
and
tomato
for
dicotyledonous
plants.
The
results
showed
that
onion
and
tomato
were
most
sensitive
species
for
seedling
emergence;
and
wheat
and
tomato
were
most
sensitive
species
for
plant
vegetative
vigor,
representing
monocotyledonous
and
dicotyledonous
family,
respectively.
Terrestrial
plants
were
more
sensitive
to
vegetative
vigor
testing
and
tomato
is
more
sensitive
than
its
monocotyledonous
counterparts.
Page
15
of
72
For
Tier
II
nontarget
aquatic
plant
toxicity
testing,
the
registrant
tested
fifteen
species
of
nonvascular
plant
including
aquatic
algae
and
diatom.
However,
only
one
study
with
green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum;
EC50
=
2.4
ppb)
is
acceptable
and
the
remaining
studies
are
supplemental
(
Table
4).

Table
4.
Summary
of
nontarget
terrestrial
plant
seedling
emergence/
vegetative
vigor
toxicity
estimates
using
formulated
diuron
(
Endpoint
affected
=
Shoot
dry
weight)

Species
Seedling
emergence
toxicity
Vegetative
vigor
toxicity
Crop
Crop
EC50/
EC05
(
lbs.
ai/
A)
EC50/
EC05
(
lbs.
ai/
A)

Monocot
Onion
Wheat
0.099/
0.089
0.021/
0.002
Dicot
Tomato
Tomato
0.08
/
0.047
0.002/
0.001
AQUATIC
EXPOSURE
ASSESSMENT
Aquatic
exposure
assessment
Diuron
aquatic
EECs
were
estimated
using
EFED's
Tier
I
surface
water
model
GENEEC
II.
The
EEC
values
of
various
crops
and
durations
using
aerial
or
ground
application
rates
are
summarized
in
Table
5.
These
values
will
be
used
for
an
aquatic
risk
assessment
by
calculating
acute
and
chronic
RQ
values
for
various
aquatic
organisms.
The
values
are
conservative
high­
end
EECs.

Table
5.
Diuron
EECs
for
various
crops
using
GENEEC
(
ppb)

End­
uses
Aerial
Ground
Agricultural
Peak
21
d.
avg
60
d.
avg
Peak
21
d.
avg
60
d..
avg
grape
­
­
­
329.85
266.38
186.93
citrus
­
­
­
219.9
177.58
124.62
Alfalfa
116.40
94.00
65.97
109.95
88.79
62.31
Fruits
(
Peach,
Apple,
Pear)
­
­
­
137.44
110.99
77.89
Sugarcane
116.4
94.00
65.97
109.95
88.79
62.31
Cotton
58.2
47.00
32.98
54.97
44.40
31.15
Page
16
of
72
Non­
Agricultural
Peak
21
d.
avg
60
d.
avg
Peak
21
d.
avg
60
d..
avg
Railroad
436.54
352.99
248.16
412.31
332.97
233.66
Roadside,
utilities,
irrigation,
drainage
ditch
­
­
­
412.31
332.97
233.66
The
Tier
II
surface
water
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
was
used
to
obtain
more
realistic
EECs
with
grape
(
CA),
citrus
(
FL)
and
apple
(
NY)
scenarios.
These
scenarios
were
chosen
to
reflect
a
wide
range
of
application
rates
and
weather
conditions.
PRZM­
EXAMS
and
GENEEC2
EECs
are
listed
in
Table
6.
GENEEC's
EECs
are
generally
greater
than
those
of
PRZM/
EXAMS
and
also
depend
on
regional
vulnerability.
For
the
use
of
diuron
on
grapes
in
CA
at
9.6
lbs
ai/
A,
GENEEC's
EECs
were
5.2­
8.4
times
higher
than
those
from
PRZM/
EXAMS.
For
Fl
citrus
and
NY
apples,
GENEEC
2
EEC's
were
0.95­
1.6
and
1.6­
2.6
times
those
for
PRZM­
EXAMS,
respectively.

Table
6.
GENEEC
VS.
PRZM/
EXAMS
EEC's
FOR
DIURON
ON
VARIOUS
CROP
Crop
Scenario
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
Method
of
Appl.
No.
of
Appl.
EEC
(
ppm)

GENEEC
PRZM/
EXAMS
peak
21
d.
60
d.
peak
21
d.
60
d.

CA­
Grape
9.6
Ground
1
0.329
0.266
0.186
0.039
0.038
0.036
FL­
Citrus
6.4
Ground
1
0.219
0.177
0.125
0.138
0.133
0.130
NY­
Apple
4.0
Ground
1
0.137
0.111
0.080
0.053
0.052
0.051
ECOLOGICAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
To
evaluate
the
potential
ecological
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
from
the
use
of
diuron
products,
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
from
the
ratio
of
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EEC)
to
ecotoxicity
values.
RQs
are
then
compared
to
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
risk
management
action.
When
available,
field
studies
and
incident
data
are
used
to
substantiate
EFED's
concern
of
diuron's
risk
to
nontarget
organisms.

Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EEC)
values
used
for
terrestrial
exposure
are
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomograph,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994),
based
on
a
large
set
of
actual
field
residue
data.
The
upper
limit
values
from
the
nomograph
represent
the
95th
percentile
of
residues
from
actual
field
measurements
(
Hoerger,
1972).
The
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
modification
to
the
Kenaga
nomograph
are
based
on
measured
field
residues
from
249
published
research
papers,
including
118
various
species
of
plants,
121
pesticides,
and
17
chemical
classes
.
These
modifications
represent
the
95th
percentile
of
the
expanded
data
set.
Risk
quotients
are
based
on
the
most
sensitive
LC50
and
NOAEC
for
birds
(
in
this
Page
17
of
72
instance,
mallard
ducks
and
bobwhite
quail)
and
LD50
for
mammals
(
based
on
lab
rat
studies)
as
shown
in
Table
7.

Acute,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
short
and
tall
grasses
and
broad
leaf
plant/
insects
at
the
sites
with
high
application
rates.
Their
rates
range
from
6.4
to
12
lbs
ai/
a
(
i.
e.,
at
non­
agricultural,
grape
and
citrus
sites
with
one
or
two
applications
of
4.8
lbs
ai/
A)
and
calculations
based
on
maximum
EECs.
However,
RQ
values
do
not
exceeded
LOCs
if
calculations
are
based
on
average
EECs.
The
acute
endangered
species
LOC
was
exceeded
for
birds
feeding
on
every
food
items
except
seeds
based
on
maximum
EECs.
Avian
chronic
RQ's
are
not
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
acceptable
data
(
Table
7).

Table
7.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotients
for
Single
and
Multiple
Application
of
Nongranular
Products
(
Broadcast)
Based
on
a
mallard
duck
LC50
of
1730
ppm.

Site/
Application
Method
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
(#
of
appl.)
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
RQ
Average
Acute
RQ
Single
application
Railroad/
right
of
way
Aerial/
Ground
appl..

12
Short
grass
1.66
a
0.19
c
Tall
grass
0.76
a
0.07
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.94
a
0.08
Seeds
0.10
c
0.01
Grape
/
Ground
app
9.6
Short
grass
1.33
a
0.15
c
Tall
grass
0.61
a
0.06
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.75
a
0.06
Seeds
0.08
0.01
Citrus
Ground
app.

6.4
Short
grass
0.89
a
0.10
c
Tall
grass
0.41
b
0.04
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.50
a
0.04
Seeds
0.06
0.00
Fruits
Ground
app.

4.0
Short
grass
0.55
a
0.06
c
Tall
grass
0.25
b
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.31
0.03
Seeds
0.03
0.00
Table
7.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotients
for
Single
and
Multiple
Application
of
Nongranular
Products
(
Broadcast)
Based
on
a
mallard
duck
LC50
of
1730
ppm.

Site/
Application
Method
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
(#
of
appl.)
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
RQ
Average
Acute
RQ
Single
application
Page
18
of
72
Alfalfa
Sugar
cane
Grass
seeds
Aerial/
Ground
appl.

3.2
Short
grass
0.44
b
0.05
Tall
grass
0.20
b
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.25
b
0.02
Seeds
0.03
0.0
Cotton
Aerial/
Ground
app.

1.6
Short
grass
0.22
b
0.02
Tall
grass
0.10
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
Insects
0.12
0.01
Seeds
0.01
0.00
a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOC's
b
exceeds
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOC's.
c
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOC's.

Table
7
(
cont.).
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotients
for
Single
and
Multiple
Application
of
Nongranular
Products
(
Broadcast)
Based
on
a
mallard
duck
LC50
of
1730
ppm
Multiple
application
Site/
App.
Method
App.
Rate
(
lbs
ai/
A)
(#
of
appl.)
Food
Items
Maximum
Acute
RQ
Average
Acute
RQ
Citrus
4.8
(
2)
Short
grass
1.26
a
0.14
c
Tall
grass
0.58
a
0.05
Brad
leaf
plant
/
Insects
0.71
a
0.06
Seeds
0.08
0.01
Sugarcane
3.2
(
3)
Shortgrass
0.84
a
0.09
Tall
grass
0.39
b
0.04
Brad
leaf/
plant
insects
0.47
b
0.04
Seeds
0.05
0.00
Cotton
1.2
(
2)
Shortgrass
0.32
b
0.04
Tall
grass
0.14
0.01
Brad
leaf
plant/
Insects
0.18
0.01
Seeds
0.02
0.00
a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
b
exceeds
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
c
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
Page
19
of
72
Acute,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
was
exceeded
for
small
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass
(
Table
8).
The
majority
of
chronic
RQ
values
for
mammals
feeding
on
short
and
tall
grasses,
and
broadleaf
plants/
insects
exceeded
chronic
LOC
regardless
of
which
EECs
are
used
(
Table
9).
Page
20
of
72
Table
8.
Acute
RQ
values
for
small
(
15g),
intermediate
(
35
g)
and
large
(
1,000
g)
mammals
feeding
on
short
or
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
seeds
exposed
to
diuron
following
single
and
multiple
applications.

Site
Appl.
rate
(
ai
lbs)
(#
of
appl)
Body
weight
(
g)
RQ
Short
Grass
RQ
Tall
Grass
RQ
Broad
leaf
Plants/
Insects
RQ
Seeds
Non­
agriculture
12
(
1)
15
0.55
a
0.31
b
0.03
0.01
35
0.38
b
0.22
b
0.02
0.01
1000
0.09
c
0.05
0.01
<
0.01
Grape/
ground
9.6
(
1)
15
0.44
b
0.25
b
0.03
<
0.01
35
0.31
b
0.17
c
0.02
<
0.01
1000
0.07
c
0.04
<
0.01
<
0.01
Citrus/
ground
6.4
(
1)
15
0.29
b
0.17
c
0.02
<
0.01
35
0.20
b
0.11
c
0.01
<
0.01
1000
0.05
0.03
<
0.01
<
0.01
Fruits/
ground
4.0
(
1)
15
0.18
c
0.10
c
0.01
<
0.01
35
0.13
c
0.07
0.01
<
0.01
1000
0.03
0.02
<
0.01
<
0.01
Alfalfa/
sugarcane/
gras
s
seeds
3.2
(
1)
15
0.15
c
0.08
0.01
<
0.01
35
0.10
c
0.06
0.01
<
0.01
1000
0.02
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
Cotton
/
aerial
1.6
(
1)
15
0.07
0.04
<
0.01
<
0.01
35
0.05
0.03
<
0.01
<
0.01
1000
0.01
0.01
<
0.01
<
0.01
Citrus/
Ground
4.8
(
2)
15
0.44
b
0.25
b
0.03
<
0.01
35
0.31
b
0.17
c
0.02
<
0.01
1000
0.07
0.04
<
0.01
<
0.01
Sugarcane/
aerial
3.2
(
3)
15
0.44
b
0.25
b
0.03
<
0.01
35
0.31
b
0.17
c
0.02
<
0.01
1000
0.07
0.04
<
0.01
<
0.01
Cotton/
aerial
1.2
(
2)
15
0.11
c
0.06
c
0.01
<
0.01
35
0.08
0.04
0.00
<
0.01
1000
0.02
0.01
<
0.00
a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
b
exceeds
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
c
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
Page
21
of
72
Page
22
of
72
Table
9.
Chronic
RQ
values
for
mammals
feeding
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants/
insects,
and
seeds
exposed
to
diuron
following
multiple
applications.

Site
Appl.
rate
(
ai
lbs)
(#
of
appl)
Source
of
EEC
RQ
Short
Grass
RQ
Tall
Grass
RQ
Broad
leaf
Plants/
Insects
RQ
Seeds
Citrus/
Ground
4.8
(
2)
Max.
Chronic
1/
9.22
d
4.22
d
5.18
d
0.58
Max.
Chronic
2/
8.73
d
4.00
d
4.91
d
0.55
Average
chronic
2/
3.09
d
1.31
d
1.64
d
0.25
Sugarcane/
aerial
3.2
(
3)
Max.
Chronic
1/
9.22
d
4.22
d
5.18
d
0.58
Max.
Chronic
2/
5.82
d
2.67
d
3.27
d
0.36
Average
chronic
2/
2.06
d
0.87
1.09
d
0.17
Cotton/
aerial
1.2
(
2)
Max.
Chronic
1/
2.11
d
0.97
1.19
d
0.13
Max.
Chronic
2/
2.18
d
1.00
d
1.23
d
0.14
Average
chronic
2/
0.77
0.33
0.41
0.06
1/
From
Hoerger
&
Kenaga
nomograph
2/
Estimation
of
maximum
chronic
value
using
Fate
model
d
exceeds
chronic
LOCs
Nontarget
Aquatic
Animals
For
freshwater
fish
exposed
to
EECs
based
on
GENEEC,
the
proposed
major
uses
of
diuron
(
except
non­
agricultural
uses)
will
not
exceed
acute
LOCs,
but
will
exceed
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOCs.
However,
all
freshwater
fish
chronic
RQ
values
(
except
on
cotton
with
two
applications
of
1.2
lbs
ai/
A)
exceed
both
endangered
and
non­
endangered
species
chronic
level
of
concern.
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
all
acute
RQ
values
exceeded
LOCs
for
both
endangered
and
non­
endangered
species
(
except
cotton
and
sugarcane
uses).
However,
chronic
freshwater
invertebrate
RQs
were
exceeded
for
both
endangered
and
non­
endangered
species
only
with
non­
agricultural,
grape
and
citrus
uses
between
4.8
and
12
lbs
ai/
A.

EFED
also
calculated
risk
quotients
using
the
toxicity
levels
of
concern
and
EEC's
from
the
Tier
II
surface­
water
runoff
model
PRZM/
EXAMS
for
grape,
citrus,
and
apple
sites.
For
freshwater
fish,
the
RQ
values
ranged
from
0.19
to
0.46
and
1.36
to
4.92
for
acute
and
chronic
risks,
respectively.
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
they
were
0.24
to
0.86
and
0.19
to
0.67
for
acute
and
chronic
effects,
respectively.
Among
these
high
rate
use
sites,
the
RQ's
that
exceeded
the
LOC's
for
freshwater
invertebrates
was
reduced
from
3
to
1
and
from
1
to
0
for
acute
and
chronic
effects,
respectively.

There
was
no
change
in
the
number
of
exceedences
of
LOC's
for
freshwater
fish
chronic
effects
(
Table
10).
Page
23
of
72
Table
10.
Acute
and
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
for
Freshwater
Fish
and
Invertebrate
Exposed
to
Diuron
Crop/
Appl
method
Application
rate,
lbs
(#
of
appl.
)
EECs
(
ppm)

Peak
21­
day
average
60­
day
average
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Freshwater
Fish
Cutthroat
trout
LC50
=
0.71
ppm.
Freshwater
Invert.
Scuds
LC50
=
0.16
ppm
Freshwater
Fish
Fathead
minnow
NOEC
=
0.0264
Freshwater
Invert.
Water
flea
NOEC
=
0.2
ppm
Non­
agriculture
12
(
1)
0.
412
0.
353
0.234
0.
58
a
 
 
2.
58
a
 
 
 
 
9.
00
d
 
1.77
*
d
­­

Grape/
ground
9.6
(
1)
0.
330
(
0.039)
1/

0.
266
(
0.038)
1/

0.187
(
0.036)
1/
0.46
b
(
0.05)
2/

 
 
2.
06
a
(
0.24)
2/

 
­
­
 
 
7.
19
d
(
1.36
d
)

2/
 
1.33
*
d
(
0.19)
2/

­­

Citrus/
ground
6.4
(
1)
0.
220
(
0.138)
1/

0.178
(
0.133)
1/

0.125
(
0.130)
1/
0.31
b
(
0.19)
2/

 
­
­
1.38
a
(
0.86
a
)
2/

 
­
­
 
 
4.81
d
(
4.92
d
)
2/
 
0.89
(
0.67)
2/

­­

Fruits/
ground
4.0
(
1)
0.137
(
0.053)
1/

0.094
(
0.052)
1/

0.078
(
0.051)
1/
0.19
b
(
0.07)
2/

 
­
­
0.86
a
(
0.33)
2/

 
­
­
 
 
3.00
d
(
1.93
d
)
2/
 
0.47
(
0.26)
­­

Alfalfa/
sugarcane/
gr
ass
seeds
3.2
(
1)
0116
0.111
0.066
0.16
b
 
 
0.73
a
 
 
 
­
­

2.54
d
 
0.56
­­

Cotton
/
aerial
1.6
(
1)
0.058
0.047
0.033
0.08
c
 
 
0.36
b
 
­
­
 
 
1.27
d
 
0.24
­­

Citrus/
Ground
4.8
(
2)
0.091
0.247
0.052
0.13
b
 
 
0.57
a
 
­
­
 
 
2.00
d
 
1.24
­­

Sugarcane/
aerial
3.2
(
3)
0.061
0.163
0.035
0.09
c
 
 
0.38
b
 
 
 
 
1.35
*
d
 
0.82
­­

Cotton/
aerial
1.2
(
2)
0.022
0.061
0.031
0.03
 
 
0.14
b
 
 
 
 
0.50
 
0.31
­­

a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
1/
EEC
based
on
PRZM/
EXAMS
run.
2/
RQ
based
on
PRZM/
EXAMS
run.

b
exceeds
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
Page
24
of
72
c
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
d
exceeds
chronic
LOCs.

Neither
acute
nor
chronic
RQ
s
for
estuarine/
marine
animals
exceeds
acute
or
chronic
level
of
concerns
except
for
chronic
RQ
of
invertebrates
at
non­
agricultural
sites.
However,
restricted
use
or
endangered
species
LOC's
were
exceeded
for
esturarine
invertebrates
and
endangered
species
LOC's
only
for
estuarine
fish
with
both
non­
agricultural
and
grape
uses
(
Table
11).

Table
11.
Acute
and
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
for
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
and
Invertebrate
Exposed
to
Diuron
Crop/
Appl
method
Application
rate
lbs
(#
of
appl.
)
EECs
(
ppm)

Peak
21­
day
average
60­
day
average
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Estuarine
Fish
Striped
mullet
LC50
=
6.
3
ppm.
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Brown
shrimp
LC50
=
6.
3
ppm
Estuarine
Fish
Sheepshead
minnow
NOEC
=
0.44
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Mysid
shrimp
NOEC
=
0.27
ppm
Non­
agriculture
12
(
1)
0.
412
0.
353
0.234
0.
07
c
 
 
0.412
b
 
 
 
 
0.53
 
1.31a
­­

Grape/
ground
9.6
(
1)
0.330
(
0.039)
1/

0.
266
(
0.038)
1/

0.187
(
0.036)
1/
0.05
c
(
0.006)
 
 
0.330
b
(
0.039)
 
­
­
 
 
0.43
(
0.08)
 
0.99
(
0.14)
­­

Citrus/
ground
6.4
(
1)
0.
220
(
0.138)
1/

0.178
(
0.133)
1/

0.125
(
0.130)
1/
0.03
(
0.022)
 
­
­
0.220
b
(
0.138)
 
­
­
 
 
0.28
(
0.30)
 
0.06
(
0.49)
­­

Fruits/
ground
4.0
(
1)
0.137
(
0.053)
1/

0.094
(
0.052)
1/

0.078
(
0.051)
1/
0.02
(
0.008)
 
­
­
0.137
b
(
0.053)
 
­
­
 
 
0.18
(
0.12)
 
0.35
(
0.15)
­­

Alfalfa/
sugarcane/
grass
seeds
3.2
(
1)
0116
0.111
0.066
0.02
 
 
0.116
b
 
 
 
 
0.15
 
0.41
­­

Cotton
/
aerial
1.6
(
1)
0.058
0.047
0.033
0.01
 
 
0.058
c
 
­
­
 
 
0.08
 
0.17
­­

Citrus/
Ground
4.8
(
2)
0.091
0.247
0.052
0.01
 
 
0.091
c
 
­
­
 
 
0.12
 
0.91
­­
Page
25
of
72
Sugarcane/
aerial
3.2
(
3)
0.061
0.163
0.035
0.01
 
 
0.061
c
 
 
 
 
0.08
 
0.6
­­

Cotton/
aerial
1.2
(
2)
0.022
0.061
0.031
0.01
 
 
0.
023
 
 
0.03
 
 
 
 
0.23
a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
1/
EEC
based
on
PRZM/
EXAMS
run.
b
exceeds
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
c
exceeds
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
d
exceeds
chronic
LOCs.
Page
26
of
72
Nontarget
Plants
Table
12.
Seedlings
Emergence
and
Vegetative
vigor
Risk
Quotients
from
a
Single
Application
for
Terrestrial
Plants
in
Dry
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Area
Based
on
a
Tomato
Emergence
EC25
of
0.08
lbs/
A
and
a
Tomato
Vegetative
Vigor
EC05
of
0.002
lbs
ai/
A.

Site
Acute
Risk
Acute
Endangered
Species
Risk
App.
Rate
(#
ai/
A)
Emergence
RQ
Dry
Area
1/
Emergence
RQ
Semi­
aquatic
2/
Vegetative
Vigor
RQ
Dry
+
Semi
aquatic3/
Emergence
RQ
Dry
Area
4/
Emergence
RQ
Semi­
aquatic
5/
Vegetative
vigor
RQ
Dry
+
Semi
aquatic
6
Ground
Application
Nonagriculture
12
9.00
a
76.50
a
5.00
a
36.00
a
306.00
a
20.00
a
Grape
9.6
7.25
a
61.25
a
5.00
a
29.00
a
245.00
a
20.00
a
Citrus
6.4
4.75
a
40.75
a
5.00
a
19.00
a
163.00
a
20.00
a
Alfalfa/
Sugarc
ane/
Grass
seeds
3.2
2.38
a
20.38
a
5.00
a
9.50
a
81.50
a
20.00
a
Cotton
1.6
1.25
a
10.25
a
5.00
a
5.00
a
41.00
a
20.00
a
Aerial
Application
Nonagriculture
12
12.00
a
52.50
a
25.00
a
48.00
a
210.00
a
100.00
a
Citrus
9.6
9.63
a
42.25
a
25.00
a
38.50
a
169.00
a
100.00
a
Alfalfa/
Sugarcane
3.2
3.25
a
14.50
a
25.00
a
13.00
a
58.00
a
100.00
a
Cotton
1.6
1.63
a
7.25
a
25.00
a
6.50
a
29.00
a
100.00
a
1/
(
Dry
area
EEC)
÷
(
Emergency
EC25)
2/
(
Semi­
aq
area
EEC)
÷
(
Emergency
EC25
)
3/
(
Dry
+
Semi­
aq
area
EEC)
÷
(
Vegetative
vigor
EC25)
4/
(
Dry
area
EEC)
÷
(
Emergency
EC05)
5/
(
Semi­
aq
area
EEC)
÷
(
Emergency
EC05
)
6/
(
Dry
+
Semi­
aq
area
EEC)
÷
(
Vegetative
vigor
EC05)
a
exceeds
acute
high,
acute
restricted
and
acute
endangered
species
LOC's
Runoff
RQs(
from
both
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
areas)
and
drift
RQs
(
from
both
areas),
based
on
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
EC25
and
EC05,
exceeded
acute
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs.
The
RQs
ranged
from
1.25
to
76.5
for
acute
risk
and
5
to
306
for
risk
to
endangered
species
(
Table
12).
Page
27
of
72
Table
13.
Acute
Risk
Quotients
for
Aquatic
Plants
based
upon
a
nonvascular
plant
(
Skeletonema
costatum)
EC50
of
0.0024
ppm
ai.

Site/
Application
Method/
Rate
of
Application
(
lbs
ai/
A)
EEC
(
ppm)
Non­
target
plant
RQ
(
EEC/
EC
50)

Railroad/
right
of
way
aerial/
ground
12
(
1)
0.412
171.67
a
Grape/
Ground
9.6
(
1)
0.330
137.50
a
Citrus/
Ground
6.4
(
1)
0.220
91.67
a
Fruits/
ground
4.0
(
1)
0.137
57.08
a
Alfalfa/
sugarcane/
grass
seeds/
sugarcane
aerial
3.2
(
1)
0.116
48.33
a
Cotton/
aerial
1.6
(
1)
0.058
24.17
a
Citrus/
Ground
4.8
(
2)
0.091
37.92
a
Sugarcane/
aerial
3.2
(
3)
0.061
25.42
a
Cotton/
aerial
1.2
(
2)
0.023
9.58
a
a
exceeds
acute
high
LOCs
Fifteen
aquatic
plant
Tier
II
toxicity
studies
were
submitted
by
the
registrant.
However,
14
studies
used
non­
standard
plant
species.
EFED's
standard
procedure
is
to
conduct
an
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
using
the
most
sensitive
specie
of
the
five
required
species.
However,
only
the
green
algae
(
Skeletonema
costatum)
EC50
study
is
core.
The
green
algae
study
is
being
used
for
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
because
it
is
the
only
standard
specie,
and
was
the
most
sensitive
specie
of
the
15
tested
plants.
Due
to
lack
of
data,
EFED
does
not
know
if
green
algae
will
be
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
plant
specie.
Therefore,
the
EC50
value
for
the
most
sensitive
nonvascular
species
is
still
undetermined.
The
acute
EC50
study
for
the
vascular
aquatic
plant
duckweed,
remains
a
data
gap.
The
results
of
green
algae
Tier
II
toxicity
study
shows
that
its
RQs
exceeded
acute
LOCs
for
all
sites.
Their
RQ
values
range
from
9.58
to
171.67
(
Table
13).

ENDANGERED
SPECIES
Endangered
species
LOCs
for
diuron
are
exceeded
for
terrestrial
plants
for
all
uses,
herbivorous
mammals,
and
herbivorous
and
insectivorous
birds
from
all
uses;
freshwater
fish
and
crustaceans
from
all
uses
but
cotton;
and
mollusks
and
estuarine
fish
from
the
uses
on
grapes
and
non­
agricultural
sites.
The
Agency
consulted
with
the
US
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
(
FWS
or
the
Service)
on
the
agricultural
uses
of
diuron
in
the
"
reinitiation"
of
the
cluster
assessments
in
1988.
The
resulting
1989
opinion
found
jeopardy
to
the
Wyoming
toad
(
extirpated
in
the
wild
except
on
FWS
refuges).
The
Service
proposed
a
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Alternative
(
RPA)
(
no
spray
zone
within
100
yards
of
occupied
habitat
for
ground
applications
and
1/
4
mile
for
aerial
application)
to
avoid
the
likelihood
of
jeopardizing
the
continued
Page
28
of
72
existence
of
this
species.
In
addition,
the
Service
had
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Measures
(
RPM)
to
reduce
incidental
take
of
20
fish
and
two
aquatic
invertebrate
species.
The
details
of
the
RPM
recommendations
are
provided
in
the
FWS
1989
biological
opinion.

Many
additional
species,
especially
aquatic
species,
have
been
federally
listed
as
endangered/
threatened
since
the
biological
opinion
of
1989
was
written,
and
determination
of
potential
effect
to
these
species
has
not
been
assessed
for
diuron.
In
addition,
endangered
plants,
birds
and
mammals
were
not
considered
in
the
1989
opinion
and
need
to
be
addressed.
The
biological
opinion
only
covered
the
crops
applications
of
diuron.
The
nonagricultural
uses
such
as
rights­
of
ways,
ditch
banks,
railroads
were
not
addressed.
As
the
highest
application
rates
occur
on
these
non­
agricultural
sites,
these
uses
also
need
to
be
considered
in
any
reinitiation.
Finally,
not
only
are
more
refined
methods
to
define
ecological
risks
of
pesticides
being
used
but
also
new
data,
such
as
that
for
spray
drift,
are
now
available
that
did
not
exist
in
1989.
The
RPMs
in
the
1989
opinion
may
need
to
be
reassessed
and
modified
based
on
these
new
approaches.

The
Agency
is
currently
engaged
in
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review
with
FWS
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
under
section
7(
a)(
1)
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
to
clarify
and
develop
consistent
processes
for
endangered
species
risk
assessments
and
consultations.
Subsequent
to
the
completion
of
this
process,
the
Agency
will
reassess
both
those
species
listed
since
the
completion
of
the
biological
opinion
and
those
not
considered
in
the
opinion.
The
nonagricultural
uses
will
also
be
considered
at
this
time.
The
Agency
will
also
consider
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
the
RED
when
we
undertake
this
reassessment.

The
Agency
has
developed
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
identify
pesticides
whose
use
may
cause
adverse
impacts
on
endangered
and
threatened
species,
and
to
implement
mitigation
measures
that
address
these
impacts.
The
Endangered
Species
Act
requires
federal
agencies
to
ensure
that
their
actions
are
not
likely
to
jeopardize
listed
species
or
adversely
modify
designated
critical
habitat.
To
analyze
the
potential
of
registered
pesticide
uses
to
affect
any
particular
species,
EPA
puts
basic
toxicity
and
exposure
data
developed
for
REDs
into
context
for
individual
listed
species
and
their
locations
by
evaluating
important
ecological
parameters,
pesticide
use
information,
the
geographic
relationship
between
specific
pesticides
uses
and
species
locations,
and
biological
requirements
and
behavioral
aspects
of
the
particular
species.
This
analysis
will
include
consideration
of
the
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
this
RED.
A
determination
that
there
is
a
likelihood
of
potential
impact
to
a
listed
species
may
result
in
limitations
on
use
of
the
pesticide,
other
measures
to
mitigate
any
potential
impact,
or
consultations
with
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service
and/
or
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
as
necessary.

At
present,
the
program
is
being
implemented
on
an
interim
basis
as
described
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
(
54
FR
27984­
28008,
July
3,
1989).
A
final
program,
which
may
be
altered
from
the
interim
program,
will
be
proposed
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
scheduled
for
publication
in
autumn
of
2001.
Page
29
of
72
Page
30
of
72
ENVIRONMENTAL
MODELING
AND
MONITORING
REFERENCES
C
Barrett,
M.,
1997,
Proposal
For
a
Method
to
Determine
Screening
Concentration
Estimates
for
Drinking
Water
Derived
from
Groundwater
Studies,
EFED/
OPP.

C
Burns,
L.
A.
March
1997.
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
EXAMS
II)
Users
Guide
for
Version
2.97.5,
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

C
Carsel,
R.
F.,
J.
C.
Imhoff,
P.
R.
Hummel,
J.
M.
Cheplick
and
J.
S.
Donigian,
Jr.
1997.
PRZM­
3,
A
Model
for
Predicting
Pesticide
and
Nitrogen
Fate
in
Crop
Root
and
Unsaturated
Soil
Zones:
Users
Manual
for
Release
3.0;
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

C
Effland,
W.,
N.
Thurman,
I.
Kennedy,
R.
D.
Jones,
J.
Breithaupt,
J.
Lin,
J.
Carleton,
L.
Libelo.
R.
Parker,
and
R.
Matzner.
2000.
"
Guidance
for
use
of
the
index
Reservoir
and
Percent
Crop
Area
Factor
in
drinking
water
exposure
assessment
s.
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.

C
Florida
Department
of
Environmental
Protection,
20001.
Personal
communication
with
Bryan
Baker
at
the
Groundwater
Protection
Section
(
850/
921­
9435).

C
Harris,
Jennifer.
2001.
USGS
Spreadsheet
"
DCA.
xls"
sent
to
James
Breithaupt
of
OPP/
EFED
on
5/
21/
2001
in
Response
to
Data
Request.

C
Jones,
R.
D.,
S.
W.
Abel,
W.
Effland,
R.
Matzner,
and
R.
Parker.
1998.
"
An
Index
Reservoir
for
Use
in
Assessing
Drinking
Water
Exposures.
Chapter
IV
in
Proposed
Methods
for
Basin­
Scale
Estimation
of
Pesticide
Concentrations
in
Flowing
Water
and
Reservoirs
for
Tolerance
Reassessment.,
presented
to
the
FIFRA
Science
Advisory
Panel,
July
1998.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
pesticides/
SAP/
1998/
index.
htm.

C
Powell,
S.,
R.
Neal,
and
J.
Leyva.
1996.
Runoff
and
Leaching
of
Simazine
and
Diuron
used
on
Highway
Rights
of
Way.
CAL
DPR
Report
No.
EH
96­
03.
[
Online].
Available
at
www.
cdpr.
ca.
ca.
gov/
empm/
pubs/
chapreps/
e9603.
htm.

C
Thurman,
E.
M.,
K.
C.
Bastian,
and
T.
Mollhagen.
Occurrence
of
cotton
herbicides
and
insecticides
in
Playa
lakes
of
the
high
plains
of
western
Texas.
[
Online].
Available
at
http://
toxics.
usgs.
gov/
pubs/
wri99­
4018/
Volume2/
sectionC/
2403Thurman/
pdf/
2403_
Thurman.
pdf,
May,
2001).

C
USEPA.
1992.
Pesticides
in
Ground
Water
Database­
A
compilation
of
Monitoring
Studies:
1971
Page
31
of
72
­
1991.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances,
EPA
734­
12­
92­
001.

C
USGS.
1998.
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
(
NWQA),
Pesticides
National
Synthesis
Project
[
Online]
at
(
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
streamsum/
streamT1.
html).

C
USGS.
1998.
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
(
NAWQA),
Pesticides
National
Synthesis
Project,
[
Online]
at
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
allsum/#
over.

C
Walters,
D.
2001.
USGS
Spreadsheet
"
Breithaupt.
xls"
sent
to
James
Breithaupt
of
OPP/
EFED
on
5/
23/
2001
in
Response
to
Data
Request.
Page
32
of
72
APPENDIX
1
SUMMARY
OF
SUBMITTED
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
STUDIES
Degradation
Satisfied:

161­
1
Hydrolysis
;
MRID#
41418804.
Diuron
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
in
buffered,
sterilized
solutions
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9
after
30
days
at
25
±
1
oC
in
the
dark.
The
very
small
amount
of
degradation
that
occurred
(
less
than
4%
of
applied
radioactivity)
yielded
extremely
extrapolated
half­
lives
of
>
500
days
in
each
test
solution.
A
minor
degradate
(
0.5%
of
applied
radioactivity)
in
all
test
solutions
was
identified
as
3,4­
dichloroaniline
(
3,4­
DCA).

161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water;
MRID#
41418805.
Diuron
photodegrades
in
water
with
a
half­
life
of
9
days
(
about
43
days
under
natural
sunlight)
after
exposure
for
15
days
(
continuos
irradiation;
equivalent
to
70
days
of
discontinuous
irradiation
[
12
hours
light
and
12
hours
dark]
to
Xenon
light.
Degradates
were
CO2
and
at
least
13
minor
(
each
is
<
9%
of
applied
radioactivity)
polar
products.
There
was
no
degradation
in
the
dark
controls.

161­
3
Photodegradation
in
Soil;
MRID#
41719302.
Uniformly
ring­
labeled
14C­
diuron
degraded
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
173
days
on
silt
loam
soil
irradiated
on
a
12­
hour
photoperiod
with
a
Xenon
arc
lamp
at
25
oC
for
30
days.
The
major
degradate
was
N'­(
3,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
N­
methylurea
(
DCPMU).
The
minor
degradates
demethylated
DCPMU
(
DCPU),
dichloroaniline
(
DCA),
and
3,3',
4,4'­
tetrachlorobenzene
(
TCAB)
were
also
identified.
Diuron
did
not
degrade
in
the
dark
control
samples.

Metabolism
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism;
MRID#
4179303.
14C­
Diuron
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
372
days
in
a
non­
sterilized
aerobic
silt
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
in
darkness
at
25
oC
for
one
year.
The
half­
life
in
the
sterilized
soil
was
1920
days.
The
degradates
identified
were
N'­(
3,4
dichlorophenyl)­
N­
methylurea
(
DCPMU)
and
N'­(
3,4­
dichlorophenyl)
urea
(
DCPU).
DCPMU
reached
20.9­
22.5
%
of
the
applied
by
the
end
of
the
study
(
365
days)
and
was
the
only
significant
degradate.
14CO2
comprised
3.36%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
by
365
days
posttreatment.

162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism;
MRID#
41418806.
14C­
Diuron
(
at
8.27
ppm
equivalent
to
maximum
field
application
rate
of
10
lb
ai/
A)
degraded
very
slowly
under
anaerobic
conditions
(
t1/
2
=
1000
days)
in
Page
33
of
72
silt
loam
soil.
The
only
degradate
identified
was
DCPMU,
which
accounted
for
a
maximum
of
10.3%
of
applied
radioactivity
after
45
days
of
anaerobic
incubation;
diuron
was
89.7%
at
this
time.
The
half
life
under
aerobic
conditions
was
not
calculated,
but
DCPMU
was
present
at
13%
after
30
days;
the
parent
was
87%
at
this
time.

162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism;
MRID#
44221001.
Diuron
degraded
with
a
calculated
half­
life
of
5
days
in
a
clay
loam
sediment:
water
system
that
was
incubated
under
anaerobic
conditions
at
25
+
2
oC
in
darkness
for
up
to
370
days.
Three
degradates
were
identified:
N'­(
3­
chlorophenyl)­
N,
N­
dimethylurea
(
mCPDMU);
1,1­
dimethyl­
3­
phenylurea
(
PDMU);
and
N­(
3­
chlorophenyl)­
N'­
methylurea
(
mCPMU).
Parent
diuron
was
mainly
associated
with
the
soil,
and
the
predominant
degradate
mCPDMU
was
mainly
associated
with
the
aqueous
phase.
PDMU
and
mCPMU
were
minor
degradates
162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism;
MRID#
44221002.
Diuron
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
33
days
in
a
an
aerobic
non­
sterile
clay
loam
sediment:
water
system
that
was
incubated
at
25
oC
in
darkness
for
up
to
30
days.
The
predominant
degradate
mCPDMU
reached
25
%
of
the
applied
dose
by
the
end
of
the
study,
and
was
evenly
distributed
between
the
soil
and
aqueous
phase.
The
identified
minor
degradates
were
DCPMU
and
demethylated
mCPDMU
(
CPMU),
and
were
primarily
associated
with
the
soil.

164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation;
MRID#
44654001,
44865001.
Diuron
was
applied
in
a
single
application
at
12
lb
ai/
acre
to
bare
ground
plots
in
FL,
MS,
and
CA
with
sand,
silt
loam,
and
silty
clay
loam
soils,
respectively.
The
reviewer­
calculated
half­
lives
were
73,
139,
and
133
days,
respectively.
The
major
degradate,
DCPMU,
dissipated
in
the
same
plots
with
reviewer­
calculated
half­
lives
of
217,
1733,
and
630
days,
respectively.

164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation;
MRID#
43762901.
Diuron
(
Karmex
®
DF,
80%
a.
i.),
broadcast
applied
once
at
a
nominal
application
rate
of
12.0
lb
a.
i./
A
onto
the
bare
ground
slope
and
berm
of
a
channel
plot
of
clay
soil
in
California,
dissipated
with
reviewer­
calculated
half
life
of
177
days
(
r2
=
0.38).
The
major
degradate
DCPMU
was
detected
in
the
0­
to
15­
cm
depth
of
the
berm
soil
at
0.049
ppm
immediately
following
application.

Aquatic
Field
Dissipation;
MRID#
43978901.
Diuron
(
Karmex
®
DF,
80%
a.
i.),
broadcast
applied
once
at
a
nominal
application
rate
of
12.0
lb.
a.
i./
A
onto
the
bare
ground
berm
and
slope
of
a
drainage
ditch
plot
of
silt
loam
soil,
dissipated
with
a
reviewer­
calculated
half
life
of
115
days
(
r2
=
0.5;
slope
and
berm
soil
combined)
in
berm
and
slope
soil.
In
the
0­
to
15­
cm
soil
berm
depth,
the
major
degradate
DCPMU
was
detected
with
a
maximum
of
0.45
ppm
at
91
days.

Mobility
Page
34
of
72
163­
1
Leaching/
Adsorption/
Desorption;
MRID#
(
MRID
No.
444490501).
Uniformly
phenyl
ring­
labeled
[
14C]
diuron,
at
nominal
concentrations
of
0.1,
0.5,
1.0
and
5.0
F
g/
mL,
was
studied
in
Chino
loam,
Barclay
silty
clay
loam,
and
Keyport
silt
loam
soil:
solution
slurries
that
were
equilibrated
for
>
12
hours
at
22
±
3
E
C.
Freundlich
Kads
values
were
14
for
the
loam
soil
(
1.4%
o.
m.),
7.9
for
the
silty
clay
loam
soil,
and
28
for
the
silt
loam
soil
(
7.7%
o.
m.);
corresponding
Koc
values
were
1666,
468,
and
626
mL/
g.
Material
balances
were
not
reported
for
samples
utilized
in
the
definitive
study.
This
study
could
be
ungraded
upon
the
submission
of
material
balances
information.

APPENDIX
2
SCI­
GROW,
GENEEC2,
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
Inputs
and
Outputs
GENEEC
FOR
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
AND
DRINKING
WATER
ASSESSMENTS
Background
Information
on
SCI­
GROW
The
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
of
USEPA's
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
uses
a
tiered
system
of
pesticide
exposure
modeling
to
assess
risk
of
a
pesticide
product
to
the
environment.
This
tiered
system
is
designed
to
minimize
the
amount
of
analysis
which
is
required
to
register
any
given
chemical.
Each
tier
is
designed
to
screen
out
pesticides
by
requiring
higher,
more
complex
levels
of
investigation
only
for
those
that
have
not
passed
the
next
lower
tier.
Each
tier
screens
out
a
percentage
of
pesticides
from
having
to
undergo
a
more
rigorous
pre­
registration
review.

SCI­
GROW,
the
first
tier
is
designed
as
a
coarse
screen
and
estimates
expected
concentrations
from
a
few
basic
chemical
parameters
and
pesticide
label
application
information.
Tier
1
is
used
to
screen
chemicals
to
determine
which
ones
potentially
pose
sufficient
risk
to
warrant
higher
level
assessment.

The
Tier
1
model
described
here,
the
Screening
Concentration
in
Ground
Water
Program
(
SCI­
GROW),
uses
a
regression
model
that
uses
a
candidate
chemical's
soil/
water
partition
coefficient
and
degradation
half­
life
values
to
estimate
groundwater
concentrations
arising
from
labeled
uses
at
a
highly
vulnerable
agricultural
site.
The
program
assumes
pesticide
application
at
the
maximum
label
rate
to
a
field
that
is
highly
vulnerable
due
to
a
rapidly
permeable
soil
overlying
shallow
groundwater.

SCI­
GROW
MODEL
INPUT
PARAMETERS
Page
35
of
72
Parameter
calculations/
value
source
application
rate
(
lb
ai/
acre)
9.6
label
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
1812­
362).

interval
between
application.
(
day)
N/
A
label
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
1812­
362).

Max
No.
application
1
label
(
EPA
Reg.
No.
1812­
362).

Koc
(
mL/
g)
lowest
in
non­
sand
(
468)
MRID#
44490501;
Input
parameters
guideline*

soil
aerobic
met.
t1/
2
(
d)
372
MRID#
41719303;
Input
parameters
guideline
*:
Guidance
for
Chemistry
and
Management
Practice
Input
Parameters
For
Use
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticide.
USEPA/
OPP/
EFED.
Version
2.
Nov,
7,
2000.

SCI­
GROW
MODEL
OUTPUT
RUN
No.
1
FOR
diuron
INPUT
VALUES
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
APPL
(#/
AC)
APPL.
URATE
SOIL
SOIL
AEROBIC
RATE
NO.
(#/
AC/
YR)
KOC
METABOLISM
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
9.600
1
9.600
468.0
372.0
GROUND­
WATER
SCREENING
CONCENTRATIONS
IN
PPB
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
6.521987
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
A=
367.000
B=
473.000
C=
2.565
D=
2.675
RILP=
3.399
F=
­.
168
G=
.679
URATE=
9.600
GWSC=
6.521987
Background
Information
on
GENEEC2
GENEEC
Version
2.0
is
an
update
of
GENEEC
Version
1.2
(
Parker
et.
al.,
1995)
which
was
issued
by
the
USEPA
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
in
May
1995
for
use
in
tier
1,
screening
level
pesticide
aquatic
ecological
risk
assessments.
Version
2
was
developed
in
response
to
suggestions
by
users
for
improvements,
by
the
desire
to
stay
current
with
the
newer
versions
of
the
PRZM
(
Carousel,
1997)
and
EXAMS
(
Burns,
2000)
programs
upon
which
GENEEC
is
based
and
by
availability
of
much
improved
data
on
spray
drift
and
quantitative
methods
of
estimation
of
offsite
spray
drift
developed
by
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
(
SDTF).
The
main
differences
between
versions
1.2
and
2.0
include:
(
a)
an
entirely
new
binding
curve
to
represent
dissolved
Page
36
of
72
concentration
as
a
function
of
Kd;
(
b)
the
use
of
the
binding
parameter,
Kd
in
preference
to
Koc
to
represent
pesticide
attachment
to
soil,
to
organic
matter
or
to
water­
body
bottom
sediments;
(
c)
changes
in
the
recommendation
for
depth
of
incorporation;
(
d)
a
change
in
the
timing
of
the
single
event
rainstorm
for
chemicals
which
receive
multiple
applications;
(
e)
addition
of
a
subroutine
from
the
SDTF
to
estimate
spray
drift;
and
(
f)
a
change
in
the
time
durations
of
the
output
values
to
better
match
the
durations
of
relevant
toxicity
tests.
For
additional
details
see,
"
Development
and
Use
of
GENEEC
Version
2.0
for
Pesticide
Aquatic
Ecological
Exposure
Assessment".

EFED
uses
a
tiered
system
of
pesticide
exposure
modeling
to
assess
risk
of
a
pesticidal
product
to
the
environment.
This
tiered
system
is
designed
to
minimize
the
amount
of
analysis
which
is
required
to
register
any
given
chemical.
Each
of
the
tiers
is
designed
to
screen
out
pesticides
by
requiring
higher,
more
complex
levels
of
investigation
only
for
those
that
have
not
passed
the
next
lower
tier.
Each
tier
screens
out
a
percentage
of
pesticides
from
having
to
undergo
a
more
rigorous
review
prior
to
registration
or
reregistration.

The
GENEEC
(
GENeric
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration)
model,
the
tier
one
computer
program,
uses
a
the
soil/
water
partition
coefficient
and
degradation
kinetic
data
to
estimate
runoff
from
a
ten
hectare
field
into
a
one
hectare
by
two
meter
deep
"
standard"
pond.
This
first
tier
is
designed
as
a
coarse
screen
and
estimates
conservative
pesticide
concentrations
in
surface
water
from
a
few
basic
chemical
parameters
and
pesticide
label
use
and
application
information.
Tier
1
is
used
to
screen
chemicals
to
determine
which
ones
potentially
pose
sufficient
risk
to
warrant
higher
level
modeling.
Chemicals
failing
to
pass
this
program,
move
on
to
the
tier
two
modeling.
As
a
matter
of
policy,
OPP
does
not
take
significant
adverse
regulatory
action
based
upon
the
results
of
Tier
1
screening
models.

GENEEC
is
a
program
to
calculate
acute
and
long­
term
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
values.
It
considers
reduction
in
dissolved
pesticide
concentration
due
to
adsorption
of
pesticide
to
soil
or
sediment,
incorporation,
degradation
in
soil
before
run
off
to
a
water
body,
direct
deposition
of
spray
drift
into
the
water
body,
and
degradation
of
the
pesticide
within
the
water
body.
It
is
designed
to
mimic
a
PRZM­
EXAMS
simulation
GENEEC
2.0
Runs
for
Diuron
on
various
crops
RUN
No.
1
FOR
diuron
ON
grape
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
9.600(
9.600)
1
1
468.0
42.0
GRHIFI(
6.6)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
Page
37
of
72
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
329.85
316.29
266.38
186.93
147.53
RUN
No.
2
FOR
diuron
ON
citrus
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
6.400(
6.400)
1
1
468.0
42.0
GRHIFI(
6.6)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
219.90
210.86
177.58
124.62
98.35
RUN
No.
3
FOR
diuron
ON
alfalfa
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
3.200(
3.200)
1
1
468.0
42.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
Page
38
of
72
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
116.40
111.62
94.00
65.97
52.06
RUN
No.
4
FOR
diuron
ON
peaches
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
4.000(
4.000)
1
1
468.0
42.0
GRHIFI(
6.6)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
137.44
131.79
110.99
77.89
61.47
RUN
No.
5
FOR
diuron
ON
sugarcane
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
3.200(
3.200)
1
1
468.0
42.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
116.40
111.62
94.00
65.97
52.06
RUN
No.
6
FOR
diuron
ON
cotton
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Page
39
of
72
1.600(
1.600)
1
1
468.0
42.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
58.20
55.81
47.00
32.98
26.03
RUN
No.
7
FOR
diuron
ON
railroads
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
12.000(
12.000)
1
1
468.0
42.0
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
436.51
418.57
352.52
247.38
195.24
RUN
No.
8
FOR
diuron
ON
roadsides
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
12.000(
12.000)
1
1
468.0
42.0
GRHIFI(
6.6)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALF­
LIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
Page
40
of
72
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1116.00
2
N/
A
43.00­
5332.00
33.00
32.80
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
12/
1/
2000
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
412.31
395.36
332.97
233.66
184.41
Background
Information
on
PRZM­
EXAMS
There
are
several
factors
which
may
limit
the
accuracy
and
precision
of
the
PRZM­
EXAMS
modeling.
These
include
the
selection
of
the
typical
exposure
scenarios,
the
quality
of
the
input
data,
the
ability
of
the
models
to
represent
the
real
world
and
the
number
of
years
that
were
modeled.
The
scenarios
that
are
selected
for
use
in
Tier
II
EEC
calculations
are
the
ones
that
are
likely
to
produce
large
concentrations
in
the
aquatic
environment.
Each
scenario
should
represent
a
real
site
to
which
the
pesticide
of
concern
is
likely
to
be
applied.
The
EEC's
in
this
analysis
are
accurate
only
to
the
extent
that
the
site
represents
the
hypothetical
high
exposure
site.
The
most
limiting
part
of
the
site
selection
is
the
use
of
the
standard
pond
with
no
outlet.
A
standard
pond
is
used
because
it
provides
a
basis
for
comparing
pesticides
in
different
regions
of
the
country
on
equal
terms.
The
models
also
have
limitations
in
their
ability
to
represent
some
processes.
The
greatest
limitation
is
the
handling
of
spray
drift.
A
second
major
limitation
is
the
lack
of
validation
at
the
field
level
for
pesticide
runoff.
Page
41
of
72
PRZM/
EXAMS
RUN
INPUT
AND
OUTPUT
IR­
PCA
RUN
FOR
DIURON
ON
CITRUS
INPUT
FILE
PRZM3
Input
File,
flcit.
inp
(
Jan
28
2000)
Location:
Osceola
County,
FL.;
Crop:
citrus;
MLRA
156A
0.77
0.15
0
25.00
1
1
4
0.10
0.13
1.00
172.8
4
1.00
600.0
1
1
0.10
100.00
80.00
3
94
84
89
0.00
100.00
1
3
0101
21
9
2209
0.10
0.10
0.10
.023
.023
.023
36
020148
030148
311248
1
020149
030149
311249
1
020150
030150
311250
1
020151
030151
311251
1
020152
030152
311252
1
020153
030153
311253
1
020154
030154
311254
1
020155
030155
311255
1
020156
030156
311256
1
020157
030157
311257
1
020158
030158
311258
1
020159
030159
311259
1
020160
030160
311260
1
020161
030161
311261
1
020162
030162
311262
1
020163
030163
311263
1
020164
030164
311264
1
020165
030165
311265
1
020166
030166
311266
1
020167
030167
311267
1
020168
030168
311268
1
020169
030169
311269
1
020170
030170
311270
1
020171
030171
311271
1
020172
030172
311272
1
020173
030173
311273
1
020174
030174
311274
1
020175
030175
311275
1
020176
030176
311276
1
020177
030177
311277
1
020178
030178
311278
1
Page
42
of
72
020179
030179
311279
1
020180
030180
311280
1
020181
030181
311281
1
020182
030182
311282
1
020183
030183
311283
1
Application:
Diuron:
One
ground
appl.@
9.6
lb
a.
i./
ac
(
10.7
Kg/
h)
@
99%
eff,
w/
64%
drift
36
1
0
0
Diruon
010748
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010749
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.063
010750
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010751
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010752
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010753
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010754
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010755
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010756
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010757
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010758
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010759
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010760
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010761
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010762
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010763
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010764
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010765
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010766
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010767
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010768
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010769
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010770
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010771
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010772
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010773
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010774
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010775
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010776
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010777
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010778
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010779
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010780
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010781
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010782
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
010783
0
2
0.00
10.7
0.99
0.064
0.00
1
0.00
0.00
0.000
0.50
Soil
Series:
Adamsville
sand;
Hydrogic
Group
C
100.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.00
00.00
3
Page
43
of
72
1
10.000
1.440
0.086
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0009
.0009
0.000
0.100
0.086
0.036
0.580
14.00
2
10.000
1.440
0.086
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0009
.0009
0.000
1.000
0.086
0.036
0.580
14.00
3
80.000
1.580
0.030
0.000
0.000
0.000
.0009
.0009
0.000
5.000
0.030
0.023
0.116
14.00
0
WATR
YEAR
10
PEST
YEAR
10
CONC
YEAR
10
1
6
11
­­­­­
1
DAY
RUNF
TSER
0
0
1.
E0
IR­
PCA
RUN
FOR
DIURON
ON
CITRUS
OUTPUT
FILE
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
158.000
153.000
140.000
130.000
125.000
52.920
1949
101.000
97.610
86.240
82.120
74.800
31.870
1950
143.000
138.000
127.000
119.000
109.000
46.430
1951
304.000
295.000
262.000
207.000
175.000
66.420
1952
474.000
459.000
402.000
315.000
269.000
106.000
1953
203.000
196.000
175.000
159.000
148.000
64.180
1954
254.000
246.000
232.000
184.000
167.000
65.390
1955
140.000
136.000
120.000
102.000
92.510
42.070
1956
172.000
167.000
153.000
127.000
109.000
42.610
1957
396.000
385.000
338.000
304.000
274.000
102.000
1958
133.000
131.000
120.000
102.000
96.790
42.640
1959
181.000
175.000
158.000
149.000
142.000
56.390
1960
295.000
285.000
267.000
218.000
184.000
70.800
1961
96.630
93.500
82.100
73.890
66.550
34.640
1962
154.000
149.000
138.000
116.000
101.000
43.860
1963
205.000
198.000
180.000
144.000
120.000
45.910
1964
344.000
332.000
291.000
236.000
208.000
78.740
1965
170.000
164.000
147.000
126.000
116.000
57.240
1966
122.000
118.000
105.000
89.450
78.750
36.310
1967
226.000
221.000
196.000
175.000
159.000
64.070
1968
163.000
158.000
146.000
118.000
107.000
46.730
1969
210.000
203.000
188.000
158.000
145.000
56.510
1970
126.000
122.000
108.000
83.850
70.660
31.660
1971
117.000
115.000
104.000
88.730
82.850
38.460
1972
208.000
203.000
186.000
166.000
150.000
55.690
Page
44
of
72
1973
137.000
133.000
122.000
103.000
92.350
41.870
1974
148.000
143.000
129.000
104.000
90.740
36.060
1975
124.000
120.000
104.000
93.360
84.230
36.300
1976
192.000
187.000
166.000
134.000
115.000
49.610
1977
121.000
117.000
103.000
96.110
91.580
40.360
1978
36.240
35.350
32.140
27.760
26.250
16.470
1979
172.000
166.000
145.000
128.000
119.000
48.840
1980
194.000
189.000
172.000
165.000
147.000
58.120
1981
328.000
317.000
285.000
246.000
210.000
76.380
1982
65.870
63.990
59.360
48.360
45.370
28.480
1983
283.000
277.000
248.000
195.000
165.000
58.770
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­

PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
.027
474.000
459.000
402.000
315.000
274.000
106.000
.054
396.000
385.000
338.000
304.000
269.000
102.000
.081
344.000
332.000
291.000
246.000
210.000
78.740
.108
328.000
317.000
285.000
236.000
208.000
76.380
.135
304.000
295.000
267.000
218.000
184.000
70.800
.162
295.000
285.000
262.000
207.000
175.000
66.420
.189
283.000
277.000
248.000
195.000
167.000
65.390
.216
254.000
246.000
232.000
184.000
165.000
64.180
.243
226.000
221.000
196.000
175.000
159.000
64.070
.270
210.000
203.000
188.000
166.000
150.000
58.770
.297
208.000
203.000
186.000
165.000
148.000
58.120
.324
205.000
198.000
180.000
159.000
147.000
57.240
.351
203.000
196.000
175.000
158.000
145.000
56.510
.378
194.000
189.000
172.000
149.000
142.000
56.390
.405
192.000
187.000
166.000
144.000
125.000
55.690
.432
181.000
175.000
158.000
134.000
120.000
52.920
.459
172.000
167.000
153.000
130.000
119.000
49.610
.486
172.000
166.000
147.000
128.000
116.000
48.840
.514
170.000
164.000
146.000
127.000
115.000
46.730
.541
163.000
158.000
145.000
126.000
109.000
46.430
.568
158.000
153.000
140.000
119.000
109.000
45.910
.595
154.000
149.000
138.000
118.000
107.000
43.860
.622
148.000
143.000
129.000
116.000
101.000
42.640
.649
143.000
138.000
127.000
104.000
96.790
42.610
.676
140.000
136.000
122.000
103.000
92.510
42.070
.703
137.000
133.000
120.000
102.000
92.350
41.870
.730
133.000
131.000
120.000
102.000
91.580
40.360
.757
126.000
122.000
108.000
96.110
90.740
38.460
.784
124.000
120.000
105.000
93.360
84.230
36.310
.811
122.000
118.000
104.000
89.450
82.850
36.300
.838
121.000
117.000
104.000
88.730
78.750
36.060
.865
117.000
115.000
103.000
83.850
74.800
34.640
Page
45
of
72
.892
101.000
97.610
86.240
82.120
70.660
31.870
.919
96.630
93.500
82.100
73.890
66.550
31.660
.946
65.870
63.990
59.360
48.360
45.370
28.480
.973
36.240
35.350
32.140
27.760
26.250
16.470
1/
10
332.800
321.500
286.800
239.000
208.600
77.088
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
51.967
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
18.884
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
56.627
PRZM/
EXAMS
INPUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
CA­
GRAPES
***
PRZM
3.1
Input
Data
File
converted
from
PRZM
2.3***
***
CaGrape.
INP,
created
22
March
1999;
Stanislaus
county,
CA.***
***
Soil
Hanford,
Hydrologic
Group
B
***
***
Assume
poor
grass
coverage
under
vines
and
overland
flow***
***
Pesticide
is
ground
spray
applied***
***
This
is
intended
to
use
a
modified
metfile,
incorporating
irrigation
***
***
cropping
curve
number
reduced
from
78
to
fit
the
15%
of
flood
irrigation
***
***
water
which
runs
off.
The
15%
number
comes
from
Terry
Pritchard,
***
***
San
Joachin
county
cooperative
extension,
(
209)
468­
2085
***
Diuron
Hanford
fine
sandyloam;
MLRA
L­
17,
Stanislaus
County,
CA,
Grapes
0.852
0.450
0
15.00
1
3
4
0.34
0.15
1.00
10
5.80
1
0.500
354
1
1
0.25
90.00
100.00
3
86
59
82
0.00
150.0
1
3
0101
0110
0111
0.05
0.05
0.05
.023
.023
.023
36
070448
300648
311048
1
070449
300649
311049
1
070450
300650
311050
1
070451
300651
311051
1
070452
300652
311052
1
070453
300653
311053
1
070454
300654
311054
1
070455
300655
311055
1
070456
300656
311056
1
070457
300657
311057
1
Page
46
of
72
070458
300658
311058
1
070459
300659
311059
1
070460
300660
311060
1
070461
300661
311061
1
070462
300662
311062
1
070463
300663
311063
1
070464
300664
311064
1
070465
300665
311065
1
070466
300666
311066
1
070467
300667
311067
1
070468
300668
311068
1
070469
300669
311069
1
070470
300670
311070
1
070471
300671
311071
1
070472
300672
311072
1
070473
300673
311073
1
070474
300674
311074
1
070475
300675
311075
1
070476
300676
311076
1
070477
300677
311077
1
070478
300678
311078
1
070479
300679
311079
1
070480
300680
311080
1
070481
300681
311081
1
070482
300682
311082
1
070483
300683
311083
1
Application
Schedule:
1
ground
spray
app,
9.6
lb
a.
i./
acre,
99%
effic.
w/
1%
drift
36
1
0
0
Diuron
Kd:
14
(
SANDY
LOAM);
ASM:
T1/
2
=
372
days
050148
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050149
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050150
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050151
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050152
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050153
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050154
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050155
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050156
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050157
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050158
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050159
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050160
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050161
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050162
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050163
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050164
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050165
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050166
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050167
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050168
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
Page
47
of
72
050169
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050170
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050171
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050172
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050173
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050174
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050175
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050176
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050177
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050178
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050179
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050180
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050181
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050182
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
050183
0
2
0.0
10.80
0.99
0.01
0.0
3
0.0
0.0
Hanford
fine
sandy
Loam;
Hydrologic
Group
B;
150.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.5
3
1
30.00
1.500
0.222
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.1
0.125
0.050
0.750
14.0
2
60.00
1.500
0.210
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.002
0.002
0.000
1.0
0.120
0.050
0.200
14.0
3
60.00
1.500
0.200
0.000
0.000
0.00
0.002
0.002
0.000
5.0
0.100
0.050
0.125
14.0
0
YEAR
10
YEAR
10
YEAR
10
1
1
1
­­­­­
7
YEAR
PRCP
TCUM
0
0
RUNF
TCUM
0
0
INFL
TCUM
1
1
ESLS
TCUM
0
0
1.0E3
RFLX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
EFLX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
RZFX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
PRZM/
EXAMS
OUTPUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
CA­
GRAPES
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)
Page
48
of
72
YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
5.398
5.320
5.032
4.560
4.310
3.192
1949
7.804
7.724
7.425
6.923
6.647
5.193
1950
9.402
9.320
9.013
8.493
8.200
6.521
1951
10.460
10.380
10.070
9.534
9.230
7.402
1952
12.190
12.110
11.800
11.300
11.030
9.070
1953
13.180
13.090
12.750
12.160
11.810
9.581
1954
19.280
19.110
18.490
17.420
16.810
13.410
1955
17.680
17.570
17.170
16.710
16.390
13.550
1956
16.060
15.970
15.630
15.030
14.670
12.050
1957
14.870
14.790
14.450
13.870
13.520
11.080
1958
15.970
15.880
15.540
14.970
14.560
12.580
1959
15.700
15.610
15.270
14.680
14.320
11.750
1960
19.070
18.910
18.320
16.960
14.350
12.320
1961
21.430
21.300
20.800
19.930
19.410
15.900
1962
39.790
39.430
38.050
35.680
34.510
26.600
1963
35.440
35.230
34.440
33.080
32.240
26.750
1964
26.950
26.850
26.460
25.730
25.250
21.100
1965
22.090
21.990
21.630
20.960
20.660
17.740
1966
23.070
22.940
22.460
21.580
21.020
17.680
1967
20.480
20.370
20.080
19.620
19.210
15.900
1968
18.070
17.980
17.620
16.990
16.610
13.700
1969
17.580
17.520
17.180
16.540
16.110
13.790
1970
18.860
18.760
18.350
17.590
17.120
14.400
1971
17.440
17.340
16.980
16.340
15.950
13.120
1972
15.720
15.630
15.300
14.700
14.340
11.810
1973
22.440
22.250
21.550
20.340
19.800
15.960
1974
22.700
22.550
22.010
21.000
20.360
17.090
1975
21.500
21.400
21.020
20.520
20.270
16.910
1976
18.740
18.650
18.300
18.060
17.780
14.800
1977
17.950
17.860
17.520
16.860
16.400
14.400
1978
94.320
93.150
88.790
81.590
77.600
55.850
1979
51.980
51.860
51.590
50.720
49.980
42.290
1980
39.770
39.650
39.210
38.500
38.080
32.230
1981
31.530
31.430
31.010
30.560
30.160
25.390
1982
25.530
25.430
25.050
24.330
24.030
20.580
1983
28.440
28.270
27.600
26.660
26.070
21.590
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­

PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
0.027
94.320
93.150
88.790
81.590
77.600
55.850
0.054
51.980
51.860
51.590
50.720
49.980
42.290
0.081
39.790
39.650
39.210
38.500
38.080
32.230
0.108
39.770
39.430
38.050
35.680
34.510
26.750
0.135
35.440
35.230
34.440
33.080
32.240
26.600
Page
49
of
72
0.162
31.530
31.430
31.010
30.560
30.160
25.390
0.189
28.440
28.270
27.600
26.660
26.070
21.590
0.216
26.950
26.850
26.460
25.730
25.250
21.100
0.243
25.530
25.430
25.050
24.330
24.030
20.580
0.270
23.070
22.940
22.460
21.580
21.020
17.740
0.297
22.700
22.550
22.010
21.000
20.660
17.680
0.324
22.440
22.250
21.630
20.960
20.360
17.090
0.351
22.090
21.990
21.550
20.520
20.270
16.910
0.378
21.500
21.400
21.020
20.340
19.800
15.960
0.405
21.430
21.300
20.800
19.930
19.410
15.900
0.432
20.480
20.370
20.080
19.620
19.210
15.900
0.459
19.280
19.110
18.490
18.060
17.780
14.800
0.486
19.070
18.910
18.350
17.590
17.120
14.400
0.514
18.860
18.760
18.320
17.420
16.810
14.400
0.541
18.740
18.650
18.300
16.990
16.610
13.790
0.568
18.070
17.980
17.620
16.960
16.400
13.700
0.595
17.950
17.860
17.520
16.860
16.390
13.550
0.622
17.680
17.570
17.180
16.710
16.110
13.410
0.649
17.580
17.520
17.170
16.540
15.950
13.120
0.676
17.440
17.340
16.980
16.340
14.670
12.580
0.703
16.060
15.970
15.630
15.030
14.560
12.320
0.730
15.970
15.880
15.540
14.970
14.350
12.050
0.757
15.720
15.630
15.300
14.700
14.340
11.810
0.784
15.700
15.610
15.270
14.680
14.320
11.750
0.811
14.870
14.790
14.450
13.870
13.520
11.080
0.838
13.180
13.090
12.750
12.160
11.810
9.581
0.865
12.190
12.110
11.800
11.300
11.030
9.070
0.892
10.460
10.380
10.070
9.534
9.230
7.402
0.919
9.402
9.320
9.013
8.493
8.200
6.521
0.946
7.804
7.724
7.425
6.923
6.647
5.193
0.973
5.398
5.320
5.032
4.560
4.310
3.192
1/
10
39.776
39.496
38.398
36.526
35.581
28.394
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
17.036
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
10.111
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
19.531
PRZM/
EXAMS
INPUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
FL­
CITRUS
***
PRZM
3.12
Input
Data
File
***
***
Modeler:
I.
Abdel­
Saheb
***
***
Assume
bare
soil
underneath
the
trees
for
heating
***
***
MET156A.
MET
***
***
2
air
blast
apps
@
0.99
lb
a.
i/
a,
95%
appl
eff,
0.05%
spray
drift
***
Page
50
of
72
MBC
from
benomyl
Adamsville
Sand;
MLRA
U­
156A,
Osceola
County,
FL
0.770
0.150
0
25.00
1
1
4
0.10
0.13
1.00
10.00
3
1.00
345.0
1
1
0.10
100.00
80.00
3
91
74
83
0.0
600
0.00
1
3
0101
21
9
2209
0.10
0.10
0.10
.023
.023
.023
36
020148
030148
310148
1
020149
030149
310149
1
020150
030150
310150
1
020151
030151
310151
1
020152
030152
310152
1
020153
030153
310153
1
020154
030154
310154
1
020155
030155
310155
1
020156
030156
310156
1
020157
030157
310157
1
020158
030158
310158
1
020159
030159
310159
1
020160
030160
310160
1
020161
030161
310161
1
020162
030162
310162
1
020163
030163
310163
1
020164
030164
310164
1
020165
030165
310165
1
020166
030166
310166
1
020167
030167
310167
1
020168
030168
310168
1
020169
030169
310169
1
020170
030170
310170
1
020171
030171
310171
1
020172
030172
310172
1
020173
030173
310173
1
020174
030174
310174
1
020175
030175
310175
1
020176
030176
310176
1
020177
030177
310177
1
020178
030178
310178
1
020179
030179
310179
1
020180
030180
310180
1
020181
030181
310181
1
020182
030182
310182
1
020183
030183
310183
1
Application
schedule:
One
ground
appl.
@
6.4
lb
a.
i/
a,
99%
appl
eff,
0.01
%
spray
drift
36
1
0
Page
51
of
72
Diuron
010748
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010749
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010750
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010751
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010752
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010753
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010754
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010755
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010756
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010757
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010758
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010759
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010760
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010761
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010762
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010763
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010764
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010765
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010766
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010767
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010768
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010769
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010770
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010771
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010772
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010773
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010774
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010775
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010776
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010777
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010778
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010779
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010780
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010781
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010782
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
010783
0
2
0.00
7.20
0.99
0.010
0.
1
0.0
0.072
0.5
Adamsville
Sand;
Hydrologic
Group
C
100.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.0
0.0
0.00
3
1
10.00
1.440
0.086
0.000
0.000
0.00
.002
.002
0.000
0.1
0.086
0.036
0.580
14.00
2
10.00
1.440
0.086
0.000
0.000
0.00
.002
.002
0.000
1.0
0.086
0.036
0.580
14.00
0.00
3
80.00
1.580
0.030
0.000
0.000
Page
52
of
72
.002
.002
0.000
5.0
0.030
0.023
0.116
14.00
0
WATR
YEAR
10
PEST
YEAR
10
CONC
YEAR
10
1
6
11
­­­­­
1
DAY
RUNF
TSER
0
0
1.
E0
PRZM/
EXAMS
OUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
FL­
CITRUS
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
41.250
40.840
39.670
38.640
37.560
17.810
1949
41.700
41.370
40.900
40.150
39.600
32.960
1950
63.180
62.850
61.030
59.980
59.240
45.300
1951
104.000
103.000
99.260
93.290
89.570
65.520
1952
164.000
162.000
155.000
145.000
140.000
101.000
1953
135.000
134.000
130.000
128.000
126.000
115.000
1954
145.000
144.000
141.000
135.000
132.000
113.000
1955
119.000
118.000
115.000
112.000
111.000
105.000
1956
103.000
102.000
100.000
97.490
95.600
89.990
1957
157.000
156.000
150.000
148.000
144.000
108.000
1958
127.000
126.000
124.000
120.000
118.000
111.000
1959
123.000
122.000
119.000
118.000
116.000
103.000
1960
129.000
128.000
127.000
122.000
119.000
101.000
1961
108.000
108.000
107.000
106.000
105.000
94.910
1962
96.570
95.860
94.310
91.250
89.260
82.030
1963
92.100
91.410
89.410
86.390
84.340
75.350
1964
122.000
121.000
116.000
111.000
109.000
83.840
1965
103.000
102.000
100.000
98.080
96.380
91.350
1966
92.950
92.330
90.070
87.540
86.390
82.090
1967
114.000
113.000
110.000
106.000
104.000
84.390
1968
105.000
105.000
102.000
98.400
96.480
87.980
1969
119.000
118.000
115.000
110.000
108.000
90.770
1970
92.750
92.620
92.090
90.860
89.830
83.490
1971
83.970
83.670
82.190
79.930
78.990
74.300
1972
100.000
99.460
96.810
95.270
94.030
76.820
1973
90.170
89.640
88.130
85.390
83.740
78.070
1974
86.120
85.460
83.260
79.970
77.870
71.390
1975
80.250
79.660
77.350
75.820
74.370
67.440
1976
93.180
92.430
89.710
85.900
83.650
69.710
1977
87.530
87.000
84.980
84.010
83.200
74.110
1978
73.590
73.490
73.050
72.050
71.220
63.370
1979
79.980
79.250
76.470
73.670
73.020
60.290
Page
53
of
72
1980
94.500
93.830
91.730
89.700
87.820
71.040
1981
119.000
118.000
115.000
112.000
109.000
83.030
1982
94.780
94.620
93.990
92.570
91.450
81.890
1983
114.000
113.000
109.000
103.000
99.340
78.620
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­

PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
0.027
164.000
162.000
155.000
148.000
144.000
115.000
0.054
157.000
156.000
150.000
145.000
140.000
113.000
0.081
145.000
144.000
141.000
135.000
132.000
111.000
0.108
135.000
134.000
130.000
128.000
126.000
108.000
0.135
129.000
128.000
127.000
122.000
119.000
105.000
0.162
127.000
126.000
124.000
120.000
118.000
103.000
0.189
123.000
122.000
119.000
118.000
116.000
101.000
0.216
122.000
121.000
116.000
112.000
111.000
101.000
0.243
119.000
118.000
115.000
112.000
109.000
94.910
0.270
119.000
118.000
115.000
111.000
109.000
91.350
0.297
119.000
118.000
115.000
110.000
108.000
90.770
0.324
114.000
113.000
110.000
106.000
105.000
89.990
0.351
114.000
113.000
109.000
106.000
104.000
87.980
0.378
108.000
108.000
107.000
103.000
99.340
84.390
0.405
105.000
105.000
102.000
98.400
96.480
83.840
0.432
104.000
103.000
100.000
98.080
96.380
83.490
0.459
103.000
102.000
100.000
97.490
95.600
83.030
0.486
103.000
102.000
99.260
95.270
94.030
82.090
0.514
100.000
99.460
96.810
93.290
91.450
82.030
0.541
96.570
95.860
94.310
92.570
89.830
81.890
0.568
94.780
94.620
93.990
91.250
89.570
78.620
0.595
94.500
93.830
92.090
90.860
89.260
78.070
0.622
93.180
92.620
91.730
89.700
87.820
76.820
0.649
92.950
92.430
90.070
87.540
86.390
75.350
0.676
92.750
92.330
89.710
86.390
84.340
74.300
0.703
92.100
91.410
89.410
85.900
83.740
74.110
0.730
90.170
89.640
88.130
85.390
83.650
71.390
0.757
87.530
87.000
84.980
84.010
83.200
71.040
0.784
86.120
85.460
83.260
79.970
78.990
69.710
0.811
83.970
83.670
82.190
79.930
77.870
67.440
0.838
80.250
79.660
77.350
75.820
74.370
65.520
0.865
79.980
79.250
76.470
73.670
73.020
63.370
0.892
73.590
73.490
73.050
72.050
71.220
60.290
0.919
63.180
62.850
61.030
59.980
59.240
45.300
0.946
41.700
41.370
40.900
40.150
39.600
32.960
0.973
41.250
40.840
39.670
38.640
37.560
17.810
1/
10
138.000
137.000
133.300
130.100
127.800
108.900
Page
54
of
72
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
80.968
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
21.004
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
86.152
PRZM/
EXAMS
INPUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
NY­
APPLES
***
PRZM
3.1
Input
Data
File
converted
from
PRZM
2.3
***
***
NYAPPLE.
INP,
January
15,
1998
***
***
Mannings
N
value
for
sparse
grass
under
trees
***
***
Original
file
used
Sharky
Clay
loam;
changed
to
Cabot
silt
loam;
3%
of
MLRA
***
Diuron
Columbia
Co,
New
York;
MLRA
144B
Apples,
Crab
Apples,
Quince
0.850
0.450
2
20.000
1
3
9.7
10.4
11.8
13.1
14.3
14.8
14.5
14.0
12.3
11.0
9.8
9.1
4
0.01
0.01
1.0
10.0
3.8
3
12.00
354.0
1
1
0.30
60.0
90.000
3
94
84
89
0.00
500.0
3
1
0103
0111
0101
0.74
0.01
0.01
.015
.015
.015
36
010448
150548
151248
1
010449
150549
151249
1
010450
150550
151250
1
010451
150551
151251
1
010452
150552
151252
1
010453
150553
151253
1
010454
150554
151254
1
010455
150555
151255
1
010456
150556
151256
1
010457
150557
151257
1
010458
150558
151258
1
010459
150559
151259
1
010460
150560
151260
1
010461
150561
151261
1
010462
150562
151262
1
010463
150563
151263
1
010464
150564
151264
1
010465
150565
151265
1
010466
150566
151266
1
010467
150567
151267
1
010468
150568
151268
1
010469
150569
151269
1
010470
150570
151270
1
010471
150571
151271
1
Page
55
of
72
010472
150572
151272
1
010473
150573
151273
1
010474
150574
151274
1
010475
150575
151275
1
010476
150576
151276
1
010477
150577
151277
1
010478
150578
151278
1
010479
150579
151279
1
010480
150580
151280
1
010481
150581
151281
1
010482
150582
151282
1
010483
150583
151283
1
Application
Schedule:
One
ground
appl.
@
4.0
lb/
acre,
99%
eff
w/
1%
drift
36
1
0
Diuron
Kd:
7.9;
AeSM:
T1/
2
=
372
d
200448
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200449
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200450
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200451
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200452
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200453
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200454
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200455
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200456
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200457
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200458
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200459
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200460
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200461
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200462
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200463
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200464
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200465
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200466
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200467
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200468
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200469
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200470
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200471
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200472
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200473
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200474
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200475
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200476
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200477
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200478
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200479
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200480
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200481
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
200482
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
Page
56
of
72
200483
0
2
0.00
4.50
0.99
0.01
0.0
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
Cabot
Silt
loam;
Hydrologic
Group
D;
100.0
0.0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3
1
20.0
1.10
0.288
0.0
0.0
0.002
0.002
0.000
0.2
0.288
0.108
6.961
7.90
2
16.0
1.70
0.197
0.0
0.0
0.002
0.002
0.000
2.0
0.197
0.037
0.290
7.90
3
64.0
1.90
0.151
0.0
0.0
0.002
0.0092
0.000
2.0
0.151
0.041
0.174
7.90
0
YEAR
5
YEAR
5
YEAR
5
1
6
1
­­­­­
6
YEAR
PRCP
TCUM
0
0
RUNF
TCUM
0
0
RFLX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
EFLX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
ESLS
TCUM
0
0
1.0E3
RZFX
TCUM
0
0
1.0E5
PRZM/
EXAMS
OUT
FILE
FOR
DIURON
ON
NY
APPLES
WATER
COLUMN
DISSOLVED
CONCENTRATION
(
PPB)

YEAR
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
1948
20.130
19.830
18.960
17.410
16.610
9.222
1949
16.990
16.870
16.470
16.050
15.890
14.100
1950
28.370
28.100
27.080
26.250
25.370
20.060
1951
25.140
24.970
24.330
23.800
23.240
20.870
1952
40.610
40.260
38.960
37.750
36.460
27.980
1953
35.600
35.410
34.780
33.830
33.240
29.980
1954
42.040
41.710
40.470
38.210
37.360
30.960
1955
34.660
34.410
33.870
32.750
32.310
29.720
1956
36.600
36.420
35.780
34.630
33.650
29.940
1957
38.780
38.520
37.820
36.190
36.040
31.240
1958
38.580
38.340
37.400
36.590
35.800
31.750
1959
44.910
44.520
43.030
40.660
39.400
33.030
1960
64.810
64.160
62.230
58.040
55.570
41.840
Page
57
of
72
1961
72.190
71.750
70.450
68.330
67.250
53.580
1962
50.340
50.280
50.050
49.450
48.920
46.260
1963
49.310
49.030
48.280
47.250
46.580
41.810
1964
58.920
58.490
56.830
54.900
54.290
43.970
1965
41.510
41.460
41.310
40.820
40.380
38.450
1966
42.770
42.490
41.430
39.340
38.580
34.600
1967
48.710
48.330
46.940
44.650
43.280
35.700
1968
44.040
43.740
43.050
41.700
40.830
35.150
1969
35.890
35.670
34.830
33.510
32.830
30.710
1970
37.760
37.540
37.040
36.360
35.990
31.250
1971
38.630
38.380
37.430
35.760
35.560
31.660
1972
47.170
46.900
45.610
42.990
41.370
34.660
1973
33.020
32.980
32.820
32.410
32.060
29.380
1974
30.260
30.090
29.420
28.290
28.030
25.250
1975
39.650
39.300
38.110
37.170
36.750
29.450
1976
39.170
38.870
37.800
36.460
35.270
30.900
1977
47.090
46.730
45.380
42.960
41.520
34.310
1978
33.640
33.450
32.600
31.450
31.100
30.080
1979
32.720
32.560
31.830
30.270
29.240
27.540
1980
45.090
44.690
43.710
41.170
39.430
31.470
1981
38.610
38.410
37.660
36.630
36.210
32.130
1982
40.110
39.820
38.660
36.740
35.760
30.630
1983
50.680
50.250
49.290
46.800
45.450
35.840
SORTED
FOR
PLOTTING
­­­­­­
­­­
­­­­­­­­

PROB
PEAK
96
HOUR
21
DAY
60
DAY
90
DAY
YEARLY
­­­­
­­­­
­­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
­­­­­­
0.027
72.190
71.750
70.450
68.330
67.250
53.580
0.054
64.810
64.160
62.230
58.040
55.570
46.260
0.081
58.920
58.490
56.830
54.900
54.290
43.970
0.108
50.680
50.280
50.050
49.450
48.920
41.840
0.135
50.340
50.250
49.290
47.250
46.580
41.810
0.162
49.310
49.030
48.280
46.800
45.450
38.450
0.189
48.710
48.330
46.940
44.650
43.280
35.840
0.216
47.170
46.900
45.610
42.990
41.520
35.700
0.243
47.090
46.730
45.380
42.960
41.370
35.150
0.270
45.090
44.690
43.710
41.700
40.830
34.660
0.297
44.910
44.520
43.050
41.170
40.380
34.600
0.324
44.040
43.740
43.030
40.820
39.430
34.310
0.351
42.770
42.490
41.430
40.660
39.400
33.030
0.378
42.040
41.710
41.310
39.340
38.580
32.130
0.405
41.510
41.460
40.470
38.210
37.360
31.750
0.432
40.610
40.260
38.960
37.750
36.750
31.660
0.459
40.110
39.820
38.660
37.170
36.460
31.470
0.486
39.650
39.300
38.110
36.740
36.210
31.250
0.514
39.170
38.870
37.820
36.630
36.040
31.240
0.541
38.780
38.520
37.800
36.590
35.990
30.960
Page
58
of
72
0.568
38.630
38.410
37.660
36.460
35.800
30.900
0.595
38.610
38.380
37.430
36.360
35.760
30.710
0.622
38.580
38.340
37.400
36.190
35.560
30.630
0.649
37.760
37.540
37.040
35.760
35.270
30.080
0.676
36.600
36.420
35.780
34.630
33.650
29.980
0.703
35.890
35.670
34.830
33.830
33.240
29.940
0.730
35.600
35.410
34.780
33.510
32.830
29.720
0.757
34.660
34.410
33.870
32.750
32.310
29.450
0.784
33.640
33.450
32.820
32.410
32.060
29.380
0.811
33.020
32.980
32.600
31.450
31.100
27.980
0.838
32.720
32.560
31.830
30.270
29.240
27.540
0.865
30.260
30.090
29.420
28.290
28.030
25.250
0.892
28.370
28.100
27.080
26.250
25.370
20.870
0.919
25.140
24.970
24.330
23.800
23.240
20.060
0.946
20.130
19.830
18.960
17.410
16.610
14.100
0.973
16.990
16.870
16.470
16.050
15.890
9.222
1/
10
53.152
52.743
52.084
51.085
50.531
42.479
MEAN
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
31.819
STANDARD
DEVIATION
OF
ANNUAL
VALUES
=
8.159
UPPER
90%
CONFIDENCE
LIMIT
ON
MEAN
=
33.832
APPENDIX
3
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
CHARACTERIZATION
TERRESTRIAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
I.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Page
59
of
72
i.
Birds
acute
and
subacute
Diuron
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
slightly
toxic
to
birds
in
terms
of
acute
toxicity
(
LD50
range
of
900­
>
2000
mg/
kg)
and
subacute
toxicity
(
LC50
range
of
1730­
5000
ppm..
Chronic
avian
reproduction
study
was
not
submitted
by
the
registrant.
However,
avian
chronic
study
is
required
because
of
diuron's
persistency,
especially
there
is
some
concern
regarding
the
endocrine
disruption
effects
of
this
compound.
(
Table
E1,
E2)

Table
E1.
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
LD50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
92.8
940
Slightly
toxic
50150170,
Wildlife
International,
1985
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95
>
2000
Practical
nontoxic
00160000,
Hudson,
R.
H.
et
al,
1970
Core
1
Core
(
study
satisfies
guideline).
Supplemental
(
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline)

.

Table
E2.
Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
5­
Day
LC50
(
ppm)
1
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
>
95
>
5000
Practically
nontoxic
00022923,
Hill
E.
.
R.
et
al.
1975
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
>
95
1730
Slightly
toxic
00022923,
Hill
ER
et
al.
1975
Core
Red­
neck
Pheasant
>
95
>
5000
Practically
nontoxic
00022923,
Hill
ER
et
al.
1975
Core
Japanese
quail
>
95
>
5000
Practically
nontoxic
00022923,
Hill
ER
et
al.
1975
Supplemental
1
Test
organisms
observed
an
additional
three
days
while
on
untreated
feed.

II.
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Animals
For
pesticides
applied
as
a
nongranular
product
(
e.
g.,
liquid,
dust),
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC50
values
to
assess
risk.
The
predicted
0­
day
maximum
and
mean
residues
of
a
pesticide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
a
direct
single
application
at
1
lb
ai/
A
are
tabulated
below.
Page
60
of
72
Table.
E3.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
on
Avian
and
Mammalian
Food
Items
(
ppm)
Following
a
Single
Application
at
1
lb
ai/
A)

Food
Items
EEC
(
ppm)
Predicted
Maximum
Residue1
EEC
(
ppm)
Predicted
Mean
Residue1
Short
grass
240
85
Tall
grass
110
36
Broadleaf/
forage
plants
and
small
insects
135
45
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
15
7
1
Predicted
maximum
and
mean
residues
are
for
a
1
lb
ai/
a
application
rate
and
are
based
on
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994).

iii.
Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
pattern
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
most
cases,
rat
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
These
toxicity
values
are
reported
below.

Table
E4.
Table
Mammalian
Toxicity
Species/
Study
Duration
%
ai
Test
Type
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.

laboratory
rat
or
mouse
(
Rattus
norvegicus
or
Mus
musculus)
98
Acute
oral
LD
50
LD
50(
M/
F)=
5000
/
10000
mg/
kg
mortality
00146145
Laboratory
rat
or
mouse
(
Rattus
norvegicus
or
Mus
musculus)
97.1
Reproduction
study
2­
generation
NOEL/
LOEL=
250
/
1750
ppm
pup
body
weight
41957301
The
results
indicate
that
diuron
is
in
Toxicity
Category
III
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis.

iv.
Insects
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
diuron
because
its
use
on
blooming
crops
such
as
cotton
and
tomato
will
result
in
honey
bee
exposure.
Results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below.
Page
61
of
72
Table
E15.
Non­
target
Insect
Acute
Contact
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
LD50
(
F
g/
bee)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author
/
Year
Study
Classification
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Technical
145
Relative
non­
toxic
00036935
Atkins
&
Anderson
/
1975
core
The
results
indicate
that
diuron
is
relative
non­
toxic
to
bees
on
an
acute
contact
basis.
The
guideline
(
141­
1)
is
fulfilled
(
MRID
00036935
).
A
honey
bee
toxicity
of
residues
on
foliage
study
using
the
typical
end­
use
product
is
not
required
for
diuron
because
its
LD50
is
greater
than
0.11
ug/
bee.

AQUATIC
RISK
ASSESSMENT
i.
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Animals
Freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates'
toxicities
are
listed
below
(
Table
E14).
Diuron
is
moderately
to
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
with
LC50
values
range
0.71
­
14.2
mg/
l.
.
Cutthroat
trout
was
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
(
LC50
=
0.71
mg/
l
).
Studies
conducted
with
formulated
products
(
28
%
to
80
%
active
ingredient)
suggested
that
formulated
end
product
is
less
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
than
technical
end
product.
Freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
testing
showed
that
diuron
is
moderately
to
highly
toxic
with
LC50
values
range
0.16
to
8.4
ppm.
The
amphipod
scud
is
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
invertebrate
tested
(
LC50
=
0.16
ppm).
Chronic
testing
of
freshwater
fish
establishes
NOEC
and
LOEC
(
affected
endpoint
=
reduced
average
number
of
scurvier)
of
26.4
and
61.8
F
g/
l
,
respectively.
However,
no
effect
is
observed
for
daphnid
up
to
0.2
mg/
l
(
the
highest
concentration
tested).
.
Page
62
of
72
Table
E16.
Freshwater
organisms
Acute/
chronic
Toxicity
Species/
(
Flow­
through
or
Static)
%
ai
Acute
LC50/
EC5
(
ppm)
Chronic
LOEC/
NOEC
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
static
95
1.
95
Moderately
toxic
STODIU04
EPA
/
1976
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
static
80
16
Slightly
toxic
40094602
Johnson
&
Finley/
1980
Supplemental
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus
95
3.
2
Moderately
toxic
STODIV03
EPA
/
1976
Core
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus
80
>
300
Practically
nontoxic
42046001
Baer,
K.
N.
/
1992
Core
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus
95
2.
8
Moderately
toxic
40098001
Mayer
&
Ellersech/
1986
Core
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
98.
6
14.
2
Slightly
toxic
00141636
Brook
&
Kent/
1975
Supplemental
Cutthroat
trout
(
Oncerynchus
clarki)
95
1.
4
Moderately
toxic
40094602
Johnson
&
Finley
/
1980
Core
Cutthroat
trout
(
Oncerynchus
clarki)
95
0.
71
Highly
toxic
40098001
Mayer
&
Ellersech/
1986
Core
Lake
trout
(
Salvelinus
namaycush)
95
2.
7
Moderately
toxic
40094602
Johnson
&
Finley
/
1980
Core
Lake
trout
(
Oncerynchus
clarki)
95
1.
2
Moderately
toxic
40098001
Mayer
&
Ellersech/
1986
Core
Cohe
salmon
(
Oncorrhynchus
kisutch)
95
<
2.4
Moderately
toxic
40098001/
1986
Mayer
&
Ellersech
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
static
28
23.
8
Slightly
toxic
STODIU04
EPA
1976
Core
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus
28
84.
0
Slightly
toxic
STODIU04
EPA/
1976
Core
..
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
98.6
0
61.8/
26.4
Reduction
of
adult
survival
00141636
EPA/
1975
(
Duluth
lab.)
Core
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
80
8
.4
Moderately
toxic
42046003
Baer,
K.
N.
1991
Core
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
duplex)
95
1.4
Moderately
toxic
40094602
Johnson
and
Finley/
1980
Core
Simocephalus
sp.
95
2.
0
Moderately
toxic
40094602
Johnson
and
Finley/
1980
Core
Scud
(
Gammarus
fasciatus)
95
0.16
Highly
toxic
40094602
Johnson
and
Finley/
1980
Core
Stonefly
95
1.
2
Moderately
toxic
40094602
Johnson
Core
Table
E16.
Freshwater
organisms
Acute/
chronic
Toxicity
Species/
(
Flow­
through
or
Static)
%
ai
Acute
LC50/
EC5
(
ppm)
Chronic
LOEC/
NOEC
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
1
0.44
mg/
l
is
the
lowest
concentration
tested.

2
Reproduction
effect
observed
at
1.9
mg/
l
Page
63
of
72
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
98.2
>
0.
2/
0.2
No
effect
STODIV05
EPA/
1979
Supplemental
ii.
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Animals
Estuarine
and
marine
fish
and
invertebrates'
toxicities
are
listed
below
(
Table
E15
).
Diuron
is
moderately
toxic
to
both
estuarine
and
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Their
LC50
values
range
6.3
to
6.7
mg/
l
and
1
to
4.9
mg/
l
for
estuarine
and
marine
fish
and
invertebrate,
respectively.
Chronically,
growth
effects
were
observed
for
fish
at
0.44
mg/
l,
and
growth
and
reproduction
reduced
effects
were
noticed
at
0.27
mg/
l
for
mysids.

Table
E17.
Estuarine/
Marine
Organisms
Acute
Toxicity
Species/(
Static
or
Flow­
through)
%
ai
Acut
e
LC50
/
LC50
Chronic
LOEC/
NOE
C
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
99
6.
7
Moderately
toxic
41418805/
Drottar,
K.
R./
1986
Core
Striped
mullet
(
Mugil
cephalus)
95
6.3
Moderately
toxic
40228401
F.
L.
Mayer
1986
Supplemental
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
96.
8
0.44/<
0.441
Weight
and
survival
42312901/
Ward
&
Boeri
/
1992
Supplemental
Eastern
oyster
(
shell
deposition
or
embryo­
larvae)
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
96.
8
4.
9
Moderately
toxic
42217201Ward
&
Boer/
1991
Core
Brown
shrimp
(
Penaeus
aztecus)
95
>
1
Moderately
toxic
40228401
F.
L.
Mayer
/
1986
Supplemental
Mysid
(
Americamysis
bahia)
96.
8
0.56/
0.272
Length,
#
of
youngs
produced
42500601
Ward
&
Boeri
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
Page
64
of
72
Page
65
of
72
NON­
TARGET
PLANT
RISK
ASSESSMENT
i.
Terrestrial
Terrestrial
plant
testing
(
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor)
is
required
for
herbicides
that
have
terrestrial
non­
residential
outdoor
use
patterns
and
that
may
move
off
the
application
site
through
volatilization
(
vapor
pressure
>
1.0
x
10­
5mm
Hg
at
25oC)
or
drift
(
aerial
or
irrigation)
and/
or
that
may
have
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
associated
with
the
application
site.

For
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
testing
the
following
plant
species
and
groups
should
be
tested:
(
1)
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicotyledonous
families,
one
species
of
which
is
soybean
(
Glycine
max),
and
the
second
of
which
is
a
root
crop,
and
(
2)
four
species
of
at
least
two
monocotyledonous
families,
one
of
which
is
corn
(
Zea
mays).

The
registrant
has
conducted
the
terrestrial
Tier
II
plant
study
and
submitted
their
results.
Tier
II
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
and
five
or
more
test
concentrations.
Results
of
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical
material
are
tabulated
below.

Table
E
1.
Nontarget
terrestrial
plant
seedling
emergence
toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC25/
EC05
(
lbs
ai/
A)
EndpointAffecte
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
Corn
96.8
5.7
/
0.75
Shoot
height
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Monocot­
sorghum
96.8
0.81
/
0.75
Shoot
height
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Monocot­
onion
97.3
0.099
/
0.089
Shoot
dry
weight
44114301/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey
Core
Monocot­
wheat
97.3
1.05
/
0.38
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Root
Crop
(
pea)
96.8
>
12
/
12
Shoot
height
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Soybean
96.8
<
12
/
12
Shoot
height
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Cucmber
96.8
0.34
/
0.19
Shoot
height
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Rape
97.3
0.094
/
0.047
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Sugar
beet
97.3
0.092
/
0.047
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Tomato
97.3
0.08
/
0.047
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
For
Tier
II
seedling
emergence
tomato
is
the
most
sensitive
dicot
and
onion
is
the
most
sensitive
monocot.
The
guideline
(
123­
1)
is
fulfilled/
not
fulfilled
(
MRID
44113401,
42398501).
Page
66
of
72
Table
E2.
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Plant
Vegetative
Vigor
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC25/
EC05
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Endpoint
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Monocot­
Corn
96.8
0.39
/
0.19
Shoot
dry
weight
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Monocot­
Onion
97.3
0.148
/
0.094
Shoot
dry
weigh
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Monocot­
Sorghum
97.3
0.075
/
0.012
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Wheat
0.021
/
0.002
Sho1ot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Root
Crop
(
Pea)
97.3
0.014
/
0.003
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Soybean
96.8
0.012
/
0.002
Shoot
dry
weight
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Rape
97.3
0.033
/
0.012
Shoot
dry
weight
44113401/
Heldreth
&
McKelvey/
1996
Core
Dicot­
Cucumber
96.8
0.005
/
0.005
Shoot
dry
weight
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Sugar
beet
96.8
0.009
/
0.005
Shoot
dry
weight
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
Dicot­
Tomato
96.8
0.002
/
0.001
Shoot
dry
weight
42398501/
McKelvey
&
Kuratle/
1992
Core
For
Tier
II
vegetative
vigor
tomato
is
the
most
sensitive
dicot
and
wheat
is
the
most
sensitive
monocot.
The
guideline
(
123­
1)
is
fulfilled/
not
fulfilled
(
MRID
42398501,
44113401
).

II.
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Plants
i.
Dry
and
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff,
spray
drift
or
volatilization.
Semi­
aquatic
areas
are
those
low­
lying
wet
areas
that
may
be
dry
at
certain
times
of
the
year.
EFED's
runoff
scenario
is:
(
1)
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
and
its
top
one
inch,
(
2)
characterized
as
"
sheet
runoff"
(
one
treated
acre
to
an
adjacent
acre)
for
dry
areas,
(
3)
characterized
as
"
channelized
runoff"
(
10
treated
acres
to
a
distant
low­
lying
acre)
for
semi­
aquatic
areas,
and
(
4)
based
on
%
runoff
values
of
0.01,
0.02,
and
0.05
for
water
solubility
of
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
and
>
100
ppm,
respectively.

Spray
drift
exposure
from
ground
application
is
assumed
to
be
1%
of
the
application
rate.
Spray
drift
from
aerial,
airblast,
forced­
air,
and
chemigation
applications
is
assumed
to
be
5%
of
the
application
rate.

EECs
are
calculated
for
the
following
application
methods:
(
1)
unincorporated
ground
applications,,
and
(
2)
aerial,
airblast,
forced­
air,
and
chemigation
applications.
Formulas
for
calculating
EECs
for
dry
areas
adjacent
to
treatment
sites
and
EECs
for
semi­
aquatic
areas
are
in
an
addendum.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
for
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
areas
are
tabulated
below.
Page
67
of
72
Table
E
3.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
lbs
ai/
A)
For
Dry
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
for
a
Single
Application
Site/
Application
Method/
Rate
of
Application
in
lbs
ai/
A
Minimum
Incorporatio
n
Depth
(
cm)
Runoff
Value
Sheet
Runoff
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Channelized
Runoff
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Drift
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
(
Sheet
Runoff
Drift)
1/
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Area
(
Channel
Run­
off+
Drift)
2/

Railroad
Unincorporated
Ground
12
0
0.05
0.60
6.00
0.12
0.72
6.12
Grape
Unincorporated
Ground
9.6
0
0.05
0.48
4.80
0.10
0.58
4.90
Citrus
Unincorporated
Ground
6.4
0
0.05
0.32
3.20
0.06
0.38
3.26
Alfalfa/
Sugarcane/
Grass
seeds
Unincorporated
Ground
3.2
0
0.05
0.16
1.60
0.03
0.19
1.63
Cotton
Unincorporated
Ground
1.6
0
0.05
0.08
0.80
0.02
0.10
0.82
Railroad/
Right
of
way
Aerial,

12
0
0.05
0.36
3.60
0.60
0.96
4.20
Citrus
Airblast
9.6
0
0.05
0.29
2.90
0.48
0.77
3.38
Alfalfa/
Sugarccane
Aerial,

3.2
0.05
0.10
1.00
0.16
0.26
1.16
Cotton
Aerial
1.6
0
0.05
0.05
0.50
0.08
0.13
0.58
Table
E
3.
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
lbs
ai/
A)
For
Dry
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
for
a
Single
Application
Site/
Application
Method/
Rate
of
Application
in
lbs
ai/
A
Minimum
Incorporatio
n
Depth
(
cm)
Runoff
Value
Sheet
Runoff
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Channelized
Runoff
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Drift
(
lbs
ai/
A)
Total
Loading
to
Adjacent
Area
(
Sheet
Runoff
Drift)
1/
Total
Loading
to
Semi­
aquatic
Area
(
Channel
Run­
off+
Drift)
2/

Page
68
of
72
1/
Dry
area
EEC
/
Seeding
Emergence
EC25,
2/
Semi­
aquatic
EEC
/
Seeding
Emergence
EC25
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
is
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
risk
quotient
(
EEC/
toxicity
value).
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
is
compared
to
the
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
acute
risk
quotient.

The
NOEC
or
EC05
(
if
NOEC
is
unavailable)
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
is
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
endangered
species
risk
quotient.
The
NOEC
or
EC05
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
is
compared
to
the
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
endangered
species
risk
quotient.

EECs
and
acute
(
endangered
species)
risk
quotients
for
terrestrial
plants
based
on
a
single
application
are
tabulated
below.
Risk
quotients
based
on
seedling
emergence
on
NOEC
or
EC05
ranged
from
5
to
48
for
dry
area
and
from
29
to
306
for
semi
aquatic
areas.
RQ
values
were
20
and
100
for
ground
application
and
aerial
application,
respectively
(
Table
9).

Thus
a
single
application,
plant
acute
high
risk
and
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
terrestrial
plants
in
dry
areas
and
semi­
aquatic
area
at
a
registered
maximum
single
application
rate
equal
to
or
above
1.6
lb/
A.
The
results
also
implicate
that
for
multiple
applications,
plant
acute
high
risk
and
endangered
species
levels
of
concerns
will
exceeded
for
terrestrial
plants
in
both
dry
and
semiaquatic
areas
at
a
registered
minimum
label
rate.
Currently,
EFED
does
not
perform
chronic
risk
assessments
for
terrestrial
plants
ii.
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
is
required
for
diuron
that
has
outdoor
non­
residential
terrestrial
uses
that
may
move
off­
site
by
runoff
(
solubility
>
10
ppm
in
water),
by
drift
(
aerial),
or
that
is
applied
directly
to
aquatic
use
sites
(
except
residential).
The
registrant
has
chose
to
conduct
Aquatic
Tier
II
studies.
For
Aquatic
Tier
II
studies,
the
following
species
should
be
tested
at
Tier
II:
Pseudokirchneria
subcapitata,
Lemna
gibba,
Skeletonema
costatum,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae,
and
freshwater
diatom.

Results
of
Tier
II
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical
material
are
tabulated
below.

Table
E
4.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC50/
(
ppb)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Vascular
Plants
Table
E
4.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC50/
(
ppb)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Page
69
of
72
Duckweed
Lemna
gibba
­
­
­
­

­
Nonvascular
Plants
Green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
96.8
2.4
42218401/
Blasberg
&
Hicks/
1991
Core
Green
algae
Dunaliella
tertiolecta
95
20
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Green
algae
Chlamydomonas
sp.
95
37
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Green
algae
Chlorococcum
sp.
95
10
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Green
algae
Chlorella
sp.
95
19
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Green
algae
Neochloris
sp.
95
28
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Marine
diatom
Skeletonema
costatum
_
_
_
_

Marine
diatom
Phaeodactylum
tricornutum
95
10
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Freshwater
diatom
Navicula
pelliculosa
_
_
_
_

Freshwater
diatom
Thallssiosira
fluviatilus
95
95
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Blue­
green
algae
Anabaena
flos­
aquae
_
_
_
_

Algae
Monochrysis
lutheri
95
18
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Algae
Isochrysis
galbana
95
10
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Algae
Cyclotella
nana
_
_
_
_

Algae
Achnanthes
brevipes
95
24
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Algae
Navicula
incerta
95
93
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Algae
Stauroneis
amphoroides
95
31
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Algae
Amphora
exigua
95
31
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
Table
E
4.
Nontarget
Aquatic
Plant
Toxicity
(
Tier
II)

Species
%
ai
EC50/
(
ppb)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Page
70
of
72
Algae
Nitzschia
closterium
sp
95
50
40228401/
Mayer,
F.
L./
1986
Supplemental
The
Tier
II
results
indicate
that
only
the
study
with
Green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
toxicity
study
is
acceptable.
All
other
studies
submitted
is
not
acceptable
because
the
plant
species
not
recommended
species
(
Table
E4).

ii.
Aquatic
Plants
Exposure
to
nontarget
aquatic
plants
may
occur
through
runoff
or
spray
drift
from
adjacent
treated
sites
or
directly
from
such
uses
as
aquatic
weed
or
mosquito
larvae
control.
An
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
for
acute
high
risk
is
usually
made
for
aquatic
vascular
plants
from
the
surrogate
duckweed
Lemna
gibba.
Non­
vascular
acute
high
aquatic
plant
risk
assessments
are
performed
using
either
algae
or
a
diatom,
whichever
is
the
most
sensitive
species.
An
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
for
acute­
endangered
species
is
usually
made
for
aquatic
vascular
plants
from
the
surrogate
duckweed
Lemna
gibba.
To
date
there
are
no
known
non­
vascular
plant
species
on
the
endangered
species
list.
Runoff
and
drift
exposure
is
computed
from
either
GENEEC
or
PRIZM3/
EXAMS
2.95
(
GENEEC
II
used).
The
risk
quotient
is
determined
by
dividing
the
pesticide's
initial
or
peak
concentration
in
water
by
the
plant
EC50
value.

Based
on
an
EC50
value
for
green
algae
(
EC50
=
0.0021
ppm)
and
EEC
value
ranged
from
0.022
mg/
l
to
0.412
ppm,
acute
risk
quotients
for
non­
vascular
plants
are
from
9.58
to
171.67.
Based
on
these
RQ
values,
the
results
indicate
that
plant
acute
high
risk
and
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
nonvascular
plants
at
registered
minimum
label
rate
of
1.6
lbs.
ai/
A.(
Table
10).
However,
acute
RQ
for
vascular
aquatic
plant
and
endanger
species
ane
not
calculated
because
lack
of
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
toxicity
data.
Currently,
EFED
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
aquatic
plants.

Appendix
4
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Studies
Reviewed
(
4)
MRID
No.
41418804
(
161­
1)
Hawkins,
D.
R.
et
al.
1988.
The
hydrolytic
stability
of
14C­
diuron,
21
April
1988.
Huntingdon
Research
Center,
Report
No.
HRC/
DPT
177/
88698.
EFGWB
90­
0737.

(
5)
MRID
No.
41418805
(
161­
2)
Hawkins,
D.
R.
et
al.
1988.
The
photodegradation
of
14C­
diuron
in
water,
30
August
1988.
Huntingdon
Research
Center,
Report
No.
HRC/
DPT
177/
881179.
EFGWB
90­
0737.

(
6)
MRID
No.
41719302
(
161­
3)
Stevenson,
I.
E.
1990b.
Photodegradation
of
[
phenyl(
U)­
14C]
diuron
on
soil
under
artificial
sunlight.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
AMR­
771­
87.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Biospherics,
Inc.,
Rockville,
MD,
and
Cambridge
Analytical
Associates,
Boston,
MA,
and
submitted
by
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE.
Page
71
of
72
(
7)
MRID
No.
4179303
(
162­
1)
Hawkins,
D.
R.,
D.
Kirkpatrick,
D.
Shaw,
and
S.
C.
Chan.
1990.
The
metabolism
of
[
phenyl(
U)­
14C]
diuron
in
Keyport
silt
loam
soil
under
aerobic
conditions.
Du
Pont
Report
No.
AMR­
1202­
88.
Huntingdon
Research
Center
Report
No.
HRC/
DPT
189/
891860.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Huntingdon
Research
Centre,
Huntingdon,
Cambridgeshire,
England,
and
submitted
by
E.
I
du
Pont
de
Nemours
&
Company,
Inc.,
Wilmington,
DE.

(
8)
MRID
No.
41418806
(
162­
2)
Yu,
W.
C.
1988.
Anaerobic
soil
metabolism
of
[
phenyl(
U)­
14C]
diuron,
30
August
1988.
Cambridge
Analytical
Associates.

(
9)
MRID
No.
44221001
(
162­
3)
Hausmann,
S.
M.
1992.
Anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
of
[
phenyl(
U)­
14C]
diuron.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
AMR
2067­
91.
Unpublished
study
performed
and
submitted
by
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE.

(
10)
MRID
No:
44221002
(
162­
4)
Hausmann,
S.
M.,
and
G.
M.
Kraut.
1992.
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
of
[
phenyl(
U)­
14C]
diuron.
Laboratory
Project
ID:
AMR
2066­
91.
Unpublished
study
performed
and
submitted
by
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE.

(
11)
MRID
No.
444490501
(
163­
1)
Bramble,
F.
Q.,
F.
D.
Behmke,
and
G.
I.
Norwood.
1998.
Batch
equilibrium
(
adsorption/
desorption)
of
14C­
diuron,
fenuron,
and
N'­(
3­
chlorophenyl)­
N,
N­
dimethylurea
on
soil.
DuPont
Project
ID:
AMR
4584­
97.
Unpublished
study
performed
and
submitted
by
E.
I.
du
Pont
de
Nemours
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE.

(
12)
MRID
No.
444865001
(
164­
1)
Bramble,
F.
Q.
Jr.,
F.
D.
Behmke,
R.
S.
Frizzel.,
and
G.
I.
Norwwod.
July
2,
1998.
Field
soil
dissipation
of
diuron
following
application
of
Karmex
DF
herbicide.
Performed
by
E.
I.
du
pont
de
Nemorous
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE
19880­
0402.
Sponsored
by
E.
I.
du
pont
de
Nemorous
and
Company,
Wilmington,
DE
19898.
Report
No.
AMR
4383­
97.

(
10)
MRID
No.
44865001
(
164­
1)
Tweedy,
B.
G.
June
28,
1999.
Field
soil
dissipation
of
diuron
following
application
of
Karmex
DF
herbicide.
Performed
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Columbia,
MO.
Sponsored
by
Griffin
LLC,
P.
O.
Box
1847,
Valdosta,
GA
31603­
1847.
Project
Identification
No.
GP98­
084
(
7B)
MRID
No:
44386701
Page
72
of
72