Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0258-0015
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-02-15T05:00Z

Page
1
of
241
Cl
O
N
O
N
N
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
CHAPTER
Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
For
TRIADIMEFON
(
CAS#:
43121­
43­
3)
1­(
4­
chlorophenoxy)­
3,3­
dimethyl­
1­(
1,2,4­
triazol­
1­
yl)­
2­
butanone
USEPA
PC
Code:
109901
Reregistration
January
19,
2006
ERB
II
Team:

Jonathan
Angier,
Ph.
D.

Michelle
Embry,
Ph.
D.

Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Secondary
Review:

Dana
Spatz,
RAPL
Branch
Chief:

Tom
Bailey,
Ph.
D.

Environmental
Risk
Branch
II
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Page
2
of
241
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
4
of
236
A.
Nature
of
the
Chemical
Stressor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
4
of
236
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
4
of
236
C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
10
of
236
D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
10
of
236
E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
10
of
236
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
12
of
236
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
12
of
236
1.
Source
and
Intensity
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
12
of
236
2.
Physical
and
Chemical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
13
of
236
3.
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
14
of
236
4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
14
of
236
B.
Receptors
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
14
of
236
1.
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
14
of
236
2.
Ecosystems
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
15
of
236
C.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
16
of
236
1.
Terrestrial
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
16
of
236
2.
Aquatic
Environment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
18
of
236
D.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
18
of
236
1.
Preliminary
Identification
of
Data
Gaps
and
Methods
.
.
.
Page
19
of
236
2.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
19
of
236
3.
Risk
Quotients
and
Levels
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
25
of
236
III.
ANALYSIS
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
28
of
236
A.
Expanded
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
28
of
236
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
30
of
236
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
30
of
236
2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
34
of
236
3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
38
of
236
4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
42
of
236
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
43
of
236
1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
47
of
236
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
49
of
236
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
54
of
236
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
Page
54
of
236
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
54
of
236
Page
3
of
241
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
59
of
236
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
66
of
236
B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
66
of
236
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
67
of
236
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
69
of
236
3.
Incident
Data
Review
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
75
of
236
4.
Federally
Threatened
and
Endangered
(
Listed)
Species
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
75
of
236
C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
86
of
236
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
All
Taxa
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
86
of
236
2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
86
of
236
3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
88
of
236
4.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
92
of
236
5.
Assumptions
Associated
with
the
Acute
LOCs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
93
of
236
LITERATURE
CITED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
95
of
236
APPENDICES
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
97
of
236
APPENDIX
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
Assessment
­
PRZM­
EXAMS
Outputs
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
104
of
236
APPENDIX
C.
Triadimefon
and
Triadimenol
Toxicity
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
168
of
236
APPENDIX
D:
Terrestrial
Organism
RQ
Calculations
Based
on
Mean
Kenaga
Residue
Values
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
179
of
236
APPENDIX
E.
Endangered
Species
Associated
with
Triadimefon
Use
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
183
of
236
APPENDIX
F.
Triadimefon
Papers
Accepted
by
ECOTOX
and
OPP/
EFED
.
.
Page
208
of
236
APPENDIX
G.
Triadimefon
Papers
Accepted
by
ECOTOX
and
Rejected
by
OPP/
EFED
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
213
of
236
APPENDIX
H.
Triadimefon
Papers
Rejected
by
ECOTOX
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Page
216
of
236
APPENDIX
I:
Fugacity
Approach
for
Earthworm
Pesticide
Residue
Modeling
Page
235
of
236
Page
4
of
241
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The
purpose
of
the
ecological
risk
assessment
(
ERA)
of
triadimefon
(
Bayleton
®
)
is
to
assist
the
Agency
in
evaluating
the
actions
needed,
if
any,
to
address
ecological
risks
from
currently
registered
uses
of
triadimefon.
The
goal
of
reregistration
is
to
update
labeling
and
use
requirements
and
to
reduce
potential
risks
associated
with
older
pesticide
active
ingredients.

A.
Nature
of
the
Chemical
Stressor
Triadimefon
(
Bayleton
®
)
is
a
broad
spectrum,
systemic
fungicide
that
is
used
for
the
systemic
control
of
various
fungal
diseases
in
fruits,
turf,
pine
seedlings,
Christmas
trees,
and
ornamentals.
Triadimefon
is
classified
as
a
demethylation
inhibitor
(
DMI)
that
inhibits
fungal
sterol
biosynthesis.
Current
triadimefon
formulations
include
granular,
wettable
powder,
water
soluble
packets,
liquid
concentrate,
and
ready­
to
use
(
i.
e.,
refined
oil
solution).
Based
on
current
label
information,
triadimefon
is
applied
via
ground
spray,
aerial
spray,
chemigation,
and
broadcast
(
granular
only)
to
apples,
pears,
raspberries,
grapes,
Christmas
trees,
ornamentals,
pine
seedlings,
and
turf
(
golf
course,
residential,
commercial,
and
recreational).
Additionally,
triadimefon
is
used
as
a
post­
harvest
dip
fungicide
for
pineapples
and
as
a
seed­
piece
treatment
prior
to
planting.
The
post­
harvest
dip
use
does
not
lead
to
environmental
exposure
and
is
therefore
not
addressed
in
this
assessment.
The
Agency
currently
does
not
have
methods
to
address
potential
exposure
to
seed
piece
treatment
and
this
use
is
not
covered
in
this
assessment.
The
major
degradate,
triadimenol
(
which
is
also
a
registered
seed­
treatment
fungicide
active
ingredient),
is
formed
via
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
subsurface
as
well
as
within
plants
following
systemic
uptake
as
a
result
of
plant
metabolism.
Both
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
are
evaluated
in
this
assessment.
1,2,4­
triazole
is
also
formed
as
a
degradate
of
triadimefon;
however,
this
compound
is
not
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
and
will
be
examined
in
a
future
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.

B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
This
is
a
national
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessment
for
all
labeled
uses
of
triadimefon
as
per
the
Agency
Use
Closure
Memo
(
26
July,
2004).
The
aquatic
assessment
involved
Tier
II
modeling
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)
for
scenarios
representing
all
proposed
triadimefon
uses.
Monitoring
data
were
not
considered
in
characterizing
exposure
and
risk
because
national­
scale
monitoring
studies
were
not
identified.
Foliar
residue
levels
were
used
to
characterize
terrestrial
exposure
using
T­
REX
(
v
1.1.2,
USEPA,
2005).
Tables
1
and
2
summarize
the
major
conclusions
and
uncertainties
of
this
assessment
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
receptors,
respectively.
The
results
of
this
screening­
level
risk
assessment
suggest
the
potential
for
direct
adverse
chronic
effects
to
birds
and
mammals
at
all
application
rates,
scenarios,
number
of
applications,
and
application
intervals.

A
one­
time
application
of
0.08
lb
ai/
A
for
all
crops
(
e.
g.,
only
one
application
per
year
at
this
rate)
would
be
required
to
achieve
chronic
dietary
RQ
values
for
birds
that
are
lower
than
the
Agency
LOC
of
1.0.
This
value
is
approximately
34
times
lower
than
the
maximum
application
rate
for
golf
course
turf
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A.
The
2.7
lb
ai/
A
one­
time
application
rate
would
have
to
be
reduced
by
approximately
97%
in
order
to
achieve
an
RQ
value
below
the
LOC.
For
mammals,
the
same
single
application
rate
would
have
to
be
reduced
by
99%
to
0.025
lb
ai/
A
for
the
chronic
RQ
values
to
be
below
the
Agency
LOC.
Page
5
of
241
Additionally,
application
of
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf
(
26
applications
per
year,
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
suggests
the
potential
for
acute
risk
to
birds,
and
acute
risk
to
mammals
may
occur
with
application
of
triadimefon
to
all
types
of
turf
(
golf
course,
residential,
commercial,
and
recreational)
at
all
application
rates,
as
well
as
Christmas
trees.
Acute
effects
to
freshwater
invertebrates
may
occur
based
on
maximum
application
rates
and
number
of
applications
to
golf
course
turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A).
The
results
also
suggest
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
and
listed
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
based
on
triadimefon
application
to
golf
course
turf
(
maximum
application
rate,
26
applications
per
year),
which
is
representative
of
a
12­
month
growing
season.

For
aquatic
risks,
it
should
be
noted
that
there
remains
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
invertebrates
with
only
6
golf
course
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
Florida
year­
round
season
scenario,
and
11
applications
per
year
based
on
the
Pennsylvania
6­
month
season
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval).
Acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
with
only
7
applications
using
the
FL
turf
scenario.
Potential
for
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
occurs
with
only
3
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
FL
scenario,
and
6
applications
per
year
based
on
the
PA
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval),
and
there
remains
potential
for
acute
endangered
species
risk
to
aquatic
non­
vascular
plants
with
only
11
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
FL
scenario,
and
5
applications
per
year
based
on
the
PA
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval).

Risks
to
estuarine/
marine
species,
vascular
aquatic
plants,
and
terrestrial
plants
could
not
be
determined
due
to
the
lack
of
toxicity
data.
The
Endangered
Species
assessment
is
preliminary
and
is
not
complete,
due
to
the
identified
data
gaps
as
well
as
potential
risk
from
exposure
to
the
triadimefon
degradate
1,2,4­
triazole,
which
will
be
evaluated
in
a
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.
Page
6
of
241
Table
1
Summary
of
Agency
Level
of
Concern
Exceedances
for
Terrestrial
Organisms
and
Plants
Risk
Category
Use:
Application
Rate
Summarized
Risk
Characterization
and
Important
Uncertainties
Acute
Risk
to
Birds
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval
(
Florida)***
(
maximum
use
rate)

Golf
course
turf:
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval
(
average
use
rate)
Acute
restricted
use,
endangered
species,
and/
or
acute
risk
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
12­
month
growing
season
golf
course
turf
uses
of
triadimefon
based
on
dietary­
based
toxicity
endpoints.
Exposure
concentrations
based
on
application
to
golf
course
turf
with
a
6­

month
growing
season
(
same
maximum
application
rate,
13
applications)
did
not
result
in
exceedances.
Additionally,
a
single
application
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
of
triadimefon
to
12­
month
season
golf
course
turf
did
not
result
in
any
exceedances.
The
golf
course
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
year­
round
growing
season,
and
26
applications
represents
the
maximum
possible
labeled
use
(
there
are
no
labeling
limitations
on
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year).

Chronic
Risk
to
Birds
Apples
&
Pears:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval
Raspberries:
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval
Grapes:
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application,
14d
interval
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval
Residential/
Commercial/
Recreational
Turf:
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval
Christmas
Trees:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
interval
The
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
triadimefon
uses,
based
on
reproductive
effects,

specifically,
increase
in
eggs
cracked
and
reductions
in
fertile
eggs,
eggs
set,
viable
embryos,
hatchlings,
and
14­
day
old
chick
survivors
Acute
Risk
to
Mammals
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval***

Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
1
application,

14d
interval**

Apples
&
Pears:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval
Residential/
Commercial/
Recreational
Turf:
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval**

Christmas
Trees:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
interval*
Acute
restricted
use,
listed
species,
and/
or
acute
risk
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
across
most
weight
classes
for
all
triadimefon
uses
except
raspberries
based
on
a
dose­
based
malespecific
toxicity
endpoint
for
triadimenol.
Acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
even
when
nonconservative
predicted
mean
residue
values
(
exposure
concentrations)
are
used
to
assess
risk.
Table
1
Summary
of
Agency
Level
of
Concern
Exceedances
for
Terrestrial
Organisms
and
Plants
Risk
Category
Use:
Application
Rate
Summarized
Risk
Characterization
and
Important
Uncertainties
Page
7
of
241
Chronic
Risk
to
Mammals
Apples:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval
Raspberries:
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval
Grapes:
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
1
application,

14d
interval
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval
Residential/
Commercial/
Recreational
Turf:
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval
Christmas
Trees:
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
interval
Based
on
dose­
based
toxicity
endpoints,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
use
rates,
for
wild
mammals
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects,

and
in
some
cases
fruits,
pods,
large
insects,
and
seeds.
Additionally,
the
LOC
is
exceeded
based
on
dietary­
based
toxicity
endpoints
at
all
use
rates
for
wild
mammals
that
consume
short
grass,
and
for
all
uses
except
raspberries
and
grapes
for
species
that
consume
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
Risk
estimates
are
based
on
deleterious
effects
of
triadimefon
on
pup
weight
and
viability.

Terrestrial
Plants
Unknown
There
are
no
available
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data;
this
is
a
major
data
gap
and
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.
Risk
to
terrestrial
plants
can
not
be
precluded.
A
single
study
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
suggests
potential
toxicity
to
terrestrial
plants.

Non­
target
Insects
None
Based
on
acute
contact
toxicity
studies
on
honeybees,
triadimefon
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
these
receptors.

*
Exceeds
acute
listed
species
LOC
for
terrestrial
animals.

**
Exceeds
acute
listed
species
and
acute
restricted
use
LOC
for
terrestrial
animals.

***
Exceeds
acute
listed
species,
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
LOC
for
terrestrial
animals.
Page
8
of
241
Table
2
Summary
of
Agency
Level
of
Concern
Exceedances
for
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Plants
Risk
Category
Use:
Application
Rate
Summarized
Risk
Characterization
and
Important
Uncertainties
Acute
Risk
to
Freshwater
Fish
None
The
available
data
suggest
that
triadimefon
is
not
likely
to
pose
risk
above
LOCs
to
freshwater
fish
based
on
modeled
acute
exposure
estimates
for
all
uses.

Chronic
Risk
to
Freshwater
Fish
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,

14d
interval
(
Florida)
The
chronic
RQs
based
on
ground
spray
applications
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
golf
course
turf
exceeds
the
LOC.
Exposure
concentrations
based
on
application
to
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
(
same
application
rate,
13
applications)
did
not
result
in
exceedances.

Additionally,
a
single
application
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
golf
course
turf
did
not
result
in
any
exceedances.
The
Florida
golf
course
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
year­
round
growing
season,
and
26
applications
represents
the
maximum
possible
labeled
use
(
there
are
no
labeling
limitations
on
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year).

Acute
Risk
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval**

Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
13
applications,
14d
interval*
The
acute
RQs
based
on
ground
spray
applications
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
and
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
exceeds
the
LOC.
Single
applications
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
or
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
did
not
result
in
any
exceedances.

The
Florida
golf
course
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
year­
round
growing
season,

whereas
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
more
temperate
climate
with
a
6
month
season.
The
number
of
applications
represents
the
maximum
possible
labeled
use
(
there
are
no
labeling
limitations
on
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year).

Chronic
Risk
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval
(
Florida)
The
chronic
RQs
based
on
ground
spray
applications
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
golf
course
turf
exceeds
the
LOC.
Exposure
concentrations
based
on
application
to
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
(
same
application
rate,
13
applications)
did
not
result
in
exceedances.

Additionally,
a
single
application
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
golf
course
turf
did
not
result
in
any
exceedances.
The
Florida
golf
course
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
year­
round
growing
season,
and
26
applications
represents
the
maximum
possible
labeled
use
(
there
are
no
labeling
limitations
on
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year).

Acute
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Unknown
Acute
endpoints
for
esturaine/
marine
fish
can
not
be
derived
because
toxicity
data
was
not
available.
Risk
to
esturaine/
marine
fish
from
acute
exposure
to
triadimefon
can
not
be
precluded.
This
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

Chronic
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Unknown
Chronic
endpoints
for
esturaine/
marine
fish
can
not
be
derived
because
toxicity
data
was
not
available.
Risk
to
esturaine/
marine
fish
from
chronic
exposure
of
triadimefon
can
not
be
precluded.
This
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.
Table
2
Summary
of
Agency
Level
of
Concern
Exceedances
for
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Plants
Risk
Category
Use:
Application
Rate
Summarized
Risk
Characterization
and
Important
Uncertainties
Page
9
of
241
Acute
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Unknown
Acute
endpoints
for
esturaine/
marine
invertebrates
can
not
be
derived
because
toxicity
data
was
not
available.
Risk
to
esturaine/
marine
fish
from
acute
exposure
to
triadimefon
can
not
be
precluded.
This
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

Chronic
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Unknown
Chronic
endpoints
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
can
not
be
derived
because
toxicity
data
are
not
available.
Risk
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
from
chronic
exposure
of
triadimefon
can
not
be
precluded.
This
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

Acute
Risk
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Molluscs
Unknown
Acute
endpoints
for
estuarine/
marine
molluscs
can
not
be
derived
because
toxicity
data
was
not
available.
Risk
to
esturaine/
marine
molluscs
from
acute
exposure
to
triadimefon
can
not
be
precluded.
This
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

Risk
to
Aquatic
Vascular
Plants
Unknown
There
are
no
available
aquatic
vascular
plant
toxicity
data;
this
is
a
major
data
gap
and
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.
Risk
to
aquatic
vascular
plants
can
not
be
precluded.

Risk
to
Aquatic
Nonvascular
Plants
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,

14d
interval
Golf
course
turf:
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
applications,

14d
interval
The
RQs
based
on
ground
spray
applications
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
and
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
exceeds
the
endangered
aquatic
plant
LOC.
Single
applications
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
of
triadimefon
to
Florida
or
Pennsylvania
golf
course
turf
did
not
result
in
any
exceedances.
The
Florida
golf
course
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
year­
round
growing
season,
whereas
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario
is
representative
of
a
more
temperate
climate
with
a
6
month
season.
The
number
of
applications
represents
the
maximum
possible
labeled
use
(
there
are
no
labeling
limitations
on
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year).

*
Exceeds
acute
listed
species
LOC
for
aquatics.

**
Exceeds
acute
listed
species
and
acute
restricted
use
LOC
for
aquatics.

***
Exceeds
acute
listed
species,
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
LOC
for
aquatics
Page
10
of
241
C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
Triadimefon
applied
to
an
agricultural
field
or
turf
will
likely
be
exported
off­
site
to
some
extent,
due
to
the
moderate
solubility,
mobility,
and
persistence
of
this
compound.
In
addition,
the
primary
degradate,
triadimenol,
has
characteristics
that
enable
it
to
leach
into
the
soil
profile
and
into
ground
water.
Thus,
there
are
several
routes
by
which
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
may
be
transported,
the
principle
mechanisms
being:
runoff
of
dissolved
triadimefon
into
nearby
surface
water
bodies,
erosion
of
particulate­
bound
triadimefon
from
the
application
areas
into
surface
waters,
and
leaching
of
the
degradation
product
triadimenol
into
ground
water
(
which
can
ultimately
be
discharged
into
surface
waters
as
baseflow).
There
may
also
be
exposure
to
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
due
to
spray
drift
resulting
from
ground
and
aerial
application
of
liquid
triadimefon.
Due
to
the
mechanism
of
formation
of
triadimenol
(
microbial
soil
degradation
and
plant
metabolism),
organisms
may
be
exposed
to
this
degradate
through
incidental
soil
ingestion
and/
or
plant
consumption.

D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
Triadimefon
and
its
degradate
triadimenol
are
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees,
birds,
and
mammals
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Triadimefon
and
triadimenol
are
moderately
to
slightly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.

Triadimefon
demonstrates
chronic
toxicity
in
mammals
and
birds.
Chronic
effects
in
bobwhite
quail
included
an
increase
in
number
of
eggs
cracked
and
a
decrease
in
fertile
eggs,
viable
embryos,
viable
hatchlings,
and
14­
day
old
chicks.
For
mammals,
chronic
effects
were
limited
to
reductions
in
pup
weight
and
pup
viability.
Triadimenol
is
considerably
less
toxic
on
a
chronic
basis
than
the
parent
triadimefon.

E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
The
major
data
gap
is
the
lack
of
estuarine/
marine
organism,
aquatic
vascular
plant,
and
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
studies
for
both
triadimefon
and
triadimenol.
For
triadimefon,
the
only
registrantsubmitted
plant
study
was
on
green
alga
(
Selanastrum
capricornutum).
Due
to
the
estimated
risk
to
listed
non­
vascular
plants
based
on
this
toxicity
information,
data
on
other
aquatic
plant
species
is
necessary.
Evaluation
of
the
open
literature
through
ECOTOX
provided
several
terrestrial
plant
studies;
however,
the
studies
were
not
deemed
acceptable
for
quantitative
use
in
this
risk
assessment.
One
study
from
the
ECOTOX
database
provided
data
that
did
suggest
the
potential
for
adverse
effects
of
triadimefon
exposure
to
non­
target
terrestrial
plants,
but
this
data
could
not
be
used
quantitatively.
Registrant­
submitted
data
is
required
to
further
elucidate
this
potential
risk.

The
largest
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
risk
assessment
concerns
the
major
degradate
of
triadimefon,
triadimenol.
Although
this
degradate
is
significantly
less
toxic
to
aquatic
organisms
than
the
parent,
it
is
equally
toxic
to
mammals
and
only
slightly
less
toxic
to
birds.
Therefore,
terrestrial
risk
associated
with
both
the
parent
and
degradate
must
be
considered.
Current
Agency
methods
to
assess
terrestrial
exposure
examine
dietary
ingestion
foliar
residues.
Triadimenol
is
formed
in
the
soil
subsurface
through
microbial
degradation
and
within
the
plant
following
vascular
uptake,
and
these
exposure
routes
are
not
quantitatively
considered
in
this
assessment.
Therefore,
it
is
possible
that
risk
calculations
are
underestimated
in
that
they
do
not
account
for
exposure
to
triadimenol.
Page
11
of
241
It
must
be
noted
that
the
risk
assessment
for
listed
species
was
conducted
only
for
the
parent
compound
and
not
any
of
the
degradates
of
triadimefon.
Until
risk
assessments
are
completed
for
triadimefon
degradates
of
concern,
the
listed
species
risk
assessment
should
be
considered
incomplete.

Although
it
is
known
from
several
studies
that
triadimenol
is
formed
in
plants
as
well
as
the
soil
subsurface,
additional
data
is
needed
on
the
specific
rates
of
formation,
conditions
under
which
triadimenol
is
most
likely
to
form,
and
formation
pathways.
Page
12
of
241
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
The
purpose
of
the
ecological
risk
assessment
(
ERA)
of
triadimefon
is
to
assist
the
Agency
in
evaluating
the
actions
needed,
if
any,
to
address
ecological
risks
from
currently
registered
labeled
uses
of
triadimefon.
The
objectives
of
the
current
ERA
were
to
identify
current
registered
uses
of
triadimefon,
identify
potential
exposure
pathways
and
ecological
receptors
that
are
appropriate
to
consider
for
these
uses,
estimate
exposure
concentrations
based
on
labeled
uses,
identify
ecological
effect
endpoint
values,
and
calculate
and
characterize
risks
to
ecological
receptors
from
the
labeled
uses.
This
screening­
level
ERA
follows
the
Agency's
ecological
risk
assessment
guidelines
(
USEPA
1986,
2000a,
b,
c).

A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Source
and
Intensity
The
source
and
intensity
of
triadimefon
analyzed
in
this
assessment
is
based
on
current
Section3
labels
as
defined
in
the
Agency's
Use
Closure
Memo
(
26
July,
2004).
These
uses
and
labels
are
discussed
in
detail
in
Section
III.
A.
Expanded
Use
Characterization.

Triadimefon
(
Bayleton
®
)
is
a
broad
spectrum,
systemic
fungicide
that
is
used
for
the
control
of
various
fungal
diseases
in
fruits,
turf,
pine
seedlings,
Christmas
trees,
and
ornamentals.
Formulations
include
granular
(
0.5%,
1.0%),
wettable
powder
(
25%,
50%),
water
soluble
packets
(
25%,
50%),
liquid
concentrate,
and
ready­
to­
use.
Triadimefon
is
applied
to
fruit
crops
and
Christmas
trees
via
ground
spray
and
aerial
spray.
Additionally,
triadimefon
is
used
as
a
postharvest
dip
fungicide
for
pineapples
and
a
seed
piece
pre­
plant
dip
treatment.
The
post­
harvest
use
does
not
lead
to
environmental
exposure
and
is
therefore
not
addressed
in
this
assessment.
Treatment
of
seed
pieces
could
result
in
ecological
exposure;
however,
the
Agency
currently
does
not
have
a
method
to
address
this
exposure
and
it
is
therefore
not
considered
quantitatively
in
this
assessment.
Liquid
triadimefon
formulations
are
applied
to
turf
(
residential,
commercial,
and
residential),
ornamentals
(
landscape
and
nursery),
and
golf
course
lawns
by
ground
spray
and
chemigation.
Granular
triadimefon
is
only
used
for
consumer
residential
lawns
via
broadcast
application.
The
highest
use
rates
for
triadimefon
occur
on
golf
course
turf,
with
an
application
rate
of
2.7
lbs
ai/
A,
an
application
interval
of
14­
28
days,
and
no
maximum
number
of
applications.
Average
golf
course
use
rates
are
1.36
lb
ai/
A
with
the
same
application
interval
(
14­
28
days).
Triadimefon
is
used
on
food
crops
(
apples,
pears,
grapes,
and
raspberries)
at
considerably
lower
rates
(
maximum
application
rate
of
0.25
lb
ai/
A;
maximum
yearly
application
of
0.88
lb
ai/
A).
The
major
triadimefon
metabolite
of
concern
is
triadimenol,
which
is
formed
in
the
soil
and
within
plant
tissues
and
comprises
~
75%
of
total
soil
residues
60
days
following
application.
Triadimenol
and
triadimefon
have
approximately
equal
toxicities
to
terrestrial
organisms,
and
triadimenol
is
significantly
less
toxic
than
triadimefon
to
aquatic
species
(
fish
and
invertebrates).
1,2,4­
triazole
is
also
formed
as
a
degradate
of
triadimefon;
however,
this
compound
is
not
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
and
will
be
examined
in
a
future
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.

The
main
focus
of
this
assessment
is
on
the
turf
uses
of
triadimefon,
since
the
largest
LOC
exceedances
occurred
with
this
use.
Additionally,
aquatic
environment
exposure
is
a
major
focus,
due
to
the
large
runoff
potential
resulting
from
triadimefon
use
on
golf
courses,
residential
lawns,
and
other
large
turf
areas.
Page
13
of
241
Cl
O
N
O
N
N
Cl
O
N
N
N
OH
Triadimefon
Triadimenol
microbial
degradation
plant
metabolism
2.
Physical
and
Chemical
Properties
Bayer
Corporation
is
seeking
reregistration
for
the
use
of
triadimefon
(
CAS
No.
43121­
43­
3).
A
brief
summary
of
the
physical
and
chemical
properties
of
triadimefon
and
known
major
degradates
is
provided
here
to
support
the
decision
on
what
exposure
pathways
were
considered
in
this
assessment,
which
are
described
in
Section
II.
C.
Conceptual
Model.
Fate
properties
needed
for
the
assessment
and
the
sources
which
were
examined
for
this
data
are
described
in
Section
II.
E.
Analysis
Plan
with
the
detailed
analysis
of
fate
properties
provided
in
Section
III.
B
Exposure
Characterization.

The
chemical
structure
of
triadimefon
is
provided
in
Figure
1.
Physical
and
chemical
properties
of
triadimefon
are
listed
in
tabular
format
below.
The
physical
properties
of
triadimefon
are
characterized
by
its
moderate
solubility,
moderate
mobility,
and
relative
persistence
(
especially
of
the
degradation
product
triadimenol).
The
primary
metabolites
of
triadimefon
are
triadimenol
and
triazole,
which
make
up
approximately
75
and
15
percent
(
respectively)
of
total
residues
after
60
days.
Triadimenol
is
formed
via
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
subsurface
and
within
the
plant
(
via
plant
metabolism)
following
systemic
uptake.

Figure
1.
Chemical
structure
of
triadimefon
and
its
major
degradate
triadimenol
Common
Name:
Bayleton
®

Chemical
Name:
1­(
4­
chlorophenoxy)­
3,3­
dimethyl­
1­(
1,2,4­
triazol­
1­
yl)­
2­
butanone
CAS
No.:
43121­
43­
3
PC
Code:
109901
Molecular
Formula:
C
14
H
16
ClN
3
O
2
Molecular
Weight:
293.7
Melting
Point:
82
N
C
Vapor
Pressure:
7.6
x
10­
7
mm
Hg
Water
Solubility:
70
ppm
Henry's
Law
Constant:
1.15
x
10­
7
atm­
m3/
mol
Octanol­
Water
Partition
Coefficient:
2.77
Formulations:
granular
(
0.5%,
1.0%),
wettable
powder
(
25%,
50%),
water
soluble
packets
(
25%,
50%),
liquid
concentrate,
and
ready­
to­
use
Page
14
of
241
3.
Mode
of
Action
Triadimefon
belongs
to
the
class
of
demethylation
inhibitory
fungicides
(
DMI),
which
inhibit
the
C14
demethylation
step
within
fungal
sterol
biosynthesis.
It
is
a
broad
spectrum,
systemic
fungicide
that
is
used
to
control
brown
patch,
dollarspot,
snow
mold,
summer
patch,
powdery
mildew,
rust,
anthracnose,
and
red
thread
diseases
on
a
variety
of
crops.

4.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Triadimefon
is
intended
for
use
as
a
fungicide
on
pears,
apples,
raspberries,
pinepples,
and
grapes,
as
well
as
pine
(
seedlings
and
nurseries),
Christmas
trees,
turf
(
golf
course,
residential,
commercial,
and
recreational),
and
ornamentals.
The
maximum
use
rates
for
triadimefon
liquid
formulations
applied
via
ground
spray
range
from
0.25
lb
ai/
A
(
3
applications/
year,
7
day
intervals)
for
apples
and
pears
to
2.7
lb
ai/
A
(
14­
28
day
interval,
no
maximum
number
of
applications)
for
golf
course
turf.
Triadimefon
is
also
applied
via
aerial
spray
to
Christmas
trees
at
a
rate
of
0.25
lb
ai/
A
(
8
applications,
14
day
intervals)
ornamentals
at
a
rate
of
0.5
lb
ai/
A
(
4
applications,
14
day
intervals).
Triadimefon
is
also
applied
to
apples,
pears,
and
grapes
via
aerial
spray
at
the
same
rates
mentioned
above
for
ground
spray.
Granular
triadimefon
is
applied
to
lawns
and
turf
(
excluding
golf
courses)
at
a
rate
of
1.3
lb
ai/
A
(
30
day
intervals,
2
applications).
The
common
use
rate
for
triadimefon
on
golf
course
turf
is
1.36
lb
ai/
A
(
14­
28
day
interval,
no
maximum
number
of
applications).
No
further
information
on
average
triadimefon
use
rates
is
available
at
this
time,
and
therefore
maximum
labeled
use
rates
were
used
in
this
risk
assessment
for
all
other
applications.
For
a
complete
list
of
specific
uses
and
use
rates,
refer
to
Table
6.

B.
Receptors
1.
Ecological
Effects
Each
assessment
endpoint
requires
one
or
more
"
measures
of
ecological
effect,"
which
are
defined
as
changes
in
the
attributes
of
an
assessment
endpoint
itself
or
changes
in
a
surrogate
entity
or
attribute
in
response
to
pesticide
exposure.
Ecological
measurement
endpoints
for
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies.

Toxicity
studies
used
in
the
risk
assessment
are
usually
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
in
the
following
broad
groupings:

°
Birds
(
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail)
used
as
surrogate
species
for
terrestrialphase
amphibians
and
reptiles
°
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat)
°
Freshwater
fish
(
bluegill
sunfish
and
rainbow
trout)
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians
°
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
water
flea
­
Daphnia
magna)
°
Estuarine/
marine
fish
(
sheepshead
minnow)
°
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
(
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp)
°
Terrestrial
plants
(
corn,
onion,
ryegrass,
wheat,
buckwheat,
cucumber,
soybean,
sunflower,
tomato,
and
turnip)
°
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
(
algae,
diatoms,
and
duckweed)
Page
15
of
241
°
Pollinators
(
honeybee
­
Apis
mellifera)

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and/
or
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data.
Additional
ecological
effects
data
are
available
for
the
major
metabolite
of
triadimefon,
triadimenol.
Toxicity
data
for
the
are
available
for
the
1,2,4­
triazole
degradate;
however,
this
compound
is
not
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
and
will
be
examined
in
a
future
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.

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

A
complete
discussion
of
all
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measurement
endpoints
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
included
in
Appendix
C.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
triadimefon
and
its
metabolites
is
provided
in
Table
3.

2.
Ecosystems
at
Risk
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival,
and
reproduction
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species.
Aquatic
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
Terrestrial
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians,
beneficial
insects,
and
earthworms.
For
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species,
direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
exposures
are
considered.
In
order
to
protect
threatened
and
endangered
species,
all
assessment
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level.
Although
all
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
they
provide
insight
about
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
e.
g.
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
have
important
implications
for
both
population
rates
of
increase
and
habitat
carrying
capacity.

For
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
the
screening
assessment
endpoint
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species).
Existing
testing
requirements
have
the
capacity
to
evaluate
emergence
of
seedlings
and
vegetative
vigor.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
endpoints
of
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
may
not
address
all
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
in
active
growth
have
the
potential
to
affect
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.
Page
16
of
241
For
aquatic
plants,
the
assessment
endpoint
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measurement
endpoints
for
this
assessment
endpoint
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

The
ecological
relevance
of
selecting
the
above­
mentioned
assessment
endpoints
is
as
follows:
1)
complete
exposure
pathways
exist
for
these
receptors;
2)
the
receptors
may
be
potentially
sensitive
to
pesticides
in
affected
media
and
in
residues
on
plants,
seeds,
and
insects;
and
3)
the
receptors
could
potentially
inhabit
areas
where
pesticides
are
applied,
or
areas
where
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift
may
impact
the
sites
because
suitable
habitat
is
available.

C.
Conceptual
Model
A
conceptual
model
(
CM),
which
summarizes
graphically
the
results
of
the
problem
formulation
for
evaluating
risks
to
ecological
receptors
following
application
either
liquid
or
granular
triadimefon
(
via
aerial
and
ground
application)
to
agricultural
fields,
Christmas
tree
farms,
turf,
and
ornamentals
is
provided
in
Figures
2
and
3.
The
CMs
are
working
hypotheses
about
how
triadimefon
and
its
metabolites
are
likely
to
reach
(
i.
e.,
exposure
pathways)
and
affect
ecological
entities
(
i.
e.,
attribute
changes)
of
concern
on
and
adjacent
to
a
treated
area.
In
order
for
a
pesticide
stressor
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
an
ecological
receptor
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
The
CMs
outline
specifically
which
measures
of
exposure,
ecological
receptors,
and
measures
of
effects
or
measurement
endpoints
will
be
used
to
estimate
risks
from
proposed
reregistration
uses
of
triadimefon.

Triadimefon
is
used
on
agricultural
lands
located
in
a
wide
diversity
of
eAcceptablegions
and
habitats
spanning
the
continental
United
States.
The
wide
diversity
of
land
forms
and
vegetation
types
across
triadimefon
use
areas
also
provides
for
a
large
diversity
of
mammals,
birds,
reptiles,
amphibians,
terrestrial
invertebrates,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants
that
could
potentially
be
exposed.

1.
Terrestrial
Environment
a.
Liquid
Applications
Following
spray
(
ground
or
aerial)
application
of
liquid
triadimefon,
terrestrial
wildlife
(
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
and
terrestrial
phase
amphibians)
may
be
exposed
via
ingestion
of
residues
present
on
food
items
(
Figure
2).
Wildlife
exposure
could
also
result
from
a
number
of
other
exposure
pathways
and
wildlife
actions
or
behaviors
including
dermal
uptake
via
direct
contact
of
skin
with
the
soil
residues,
contact
with
residues
in
puddles
present
on
the
field
at
the
time
of
application
or
formed
after
a
rain
event,
or
ingestion
of
water
from
residues
in
puddles.
Triadimefon
is
expected
to
be
readily
absorbed
by
plant
roots
from
the
soil
and
transported
through
a
plant
via
plant
fluids
following
application
based
on
physicochemical
properties
and
mechanism
of
action.
Triadimenol
is
formed
within
the
plant
tissues
as
a
result
of
plant
metabolism,
as
well
as
within
the
soil
subsurface
as
a
result
of
microbial
degradation.
Spray
drift
resulting
from
aerial
application
of
triadimefon
may
result
in
upland
vegetation
exposure
and
subsequent
uptake
by
these
plant
species.
Exposure
to
the
major
triadimefon
degradate,
triadimenol,
may
also
occur
via
the
same
basic
exposure
pathways.
However,
since
triadimenol
is
Page
17
of
241
formed
mostly
in
the
shallow
soil
subsurface
and
within
the
plant
itself,
surface
exposure
to
triadimenol
is
probably
less
frequent
than
surface
exposure
to
parent.
Nevertheless,
rooting
within
shallow
soil
and
plant
consumption
may
still
lead
to
significant
triadimenol
exposure.

b.
Granular
Applications
Immediately
following
granular
application
of
triadimefon
to
lawns
and
turf,
granules
are
expected
to
be
available
at
the
surface.
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
could
result
from
mistakenly
ingesting
granules
as
seeds,
ingesting
them
as
part
of
incidental
soil
ingestion
while
foraging
for
food,
or
ingesting
food
items
with
granular
residue
(
either
soil
or
actual
granules),
such
as
earthworms.
Further
exposure
may
also
occur
via
ingestion
of
residues
(
as
a
result
of
foliar
uptake),
inhalation
of
granular
dust
particulates,
dermal
uptake
via
direct
contact
of
skin
with
the
granules
or
soil
residues,
or
contact
with
residues
in
puddles
present
on
the
area
at
the
time
of
application.
Currently,
terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
is
estimated
via
the
amount
of
toxicant
per
unit
area
in
a
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
granular
pesticides
(
LD
50
/
ft2
index).
This
index
was
developed
considering
these
other
routes
of
exposure;
however,
they
are
not
separately
accounted
for
in
the
index
calculations.
Following
the
dissolution
of
the
triadimefon
granules,
exposure
could
also
occur
via
the
pathways
described
for
liquid
application
above
(
Figure
3).
As
with
the
liquid
applications,
exposure
to
the
degradate,
triadimenol,
could
also
occur.
c.
Receptors
of
Concern
Ecological
receptors
of
concern
identified
for
consideration
in
the
terrestrial
environment
include
primary
producers,
represented
by
both
upland
and
wetland/
riparian
vegetation,
and
primary
and
secondary
consumers,
both
vertebrates
and
invertebrates,
representing
common
ecological
functional
feeding
groups
(
i.
e.,
herbivores
and
insectivores).
Herbivores
as
used
here
include
animals
that
feed
on
foliage
(
stems
and
leaves),
seeds,
and/
or
fruit;
the
term
granivore
is
sometimes
used
to
identify
animals
that
feed
primarily
on
seeds.
Omnivores
(
i.
e.,
consumers
that
feed
on
a
mixed
diet
of
animals
and
plants)
are
also
potentially
exposed
but
are
not
specifically
included
in
the
receptor
list
for
a
screening
level
risk
assessment
because
exposure
concentrations
and
risk
levels
will
fall
between
the
exclusive
feeding
groups.
Food
chain
transfer
through
biomagnification
or
bioaccumulation
of
triadimefon
to
higher
trophic
level
predators
(
e.
g.,
carnivores)
is
not
considered
as
a
viable
significant
exposure
pathway
since
triadimefon's
octanolwater
partition
coefficient
and
bioconcentration
factors
are
low.
A
low
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
indicates
that
the
chemical
has
low
affinity
for
fatty
tissues
and
is
therefore
unlikely
to
bioconcentrate
in
organisms
(
e.
g.,
has
a
low
bioconcentration
factor,
BCF).

d.
Risk
Hypotheses
Based
on
the
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
are
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
triadimefon
application
to
terrestrial
organisms.

Birds
and
mammals
are
subject
to
reduced
survival
or
reduced
reproductive
ability
when
exposed
to
triadimefon
and/
or
its
metabolites
as
a
result
of
labeled
uses.

Upland
and
riparian/
wetland
plants
are
subject
to
adverse
effects
(
reduced
survival)
when
Page
18
of
241
exposed
to
triadimefon
and/
or
its
metabolites
as
a
result
of
labeled
uses.

2.
Aquatic
Environment
a.
Liquid
Applications
Following
spray
(
ground
or
aerial)
application
of
liquid
triadimefon,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
aquatic
phase
amphibians,
and
aquatic
plants
may
be
exposed
through
runoff
from
agricultural
fields
and
spray
drift.
Additionally,
the
leaching
of
triadimefon
into
the
groundwater
may
subsequently
lead
to
aquatic
organism
exposure.
Exposure
to
the
triadimefon
degradate
triadimenol
may
occur
via
the
same
mechanisms
described
above
(
Figure
2).
In
particular,
exposure
to
triadimenol
via
groundwater
discharge
into
streams
and
other
surface
water
bodies
may
be
substantial,
in
light
of
its
greater
persistence
in
anaerobic
environments
(
common
to
groundwater)
relative
to
the
parent
and
its
higher
overall
propensity
to
infiltrate
the
subsurface
(
and
reach
groundwater).

b.
Granular
Applications
Direct
application
of
triadimefon
to
streams,
lakes,
and
ponds
is
forbidden
by
product
labels.
However,
following
a
rain
event,
granular
triadimefon
may
reach
aquatic
environments
from
areas
of
application
(
turf)
in
sheet
and
channel
flow
runoff
since
it
is
readily
water
soluble
and
moderately
persistent
in
terrestrial
environments.
Freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
aquatic
phase
amphibians,
and
aquatic
plants
may
be
exposed
to
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
through
runoff
following
granular
application
(
Figure
3).

c.
Receptors
of
Concern
For
the
aquatic
ecosystem
ecological
receptors
include
all
aquatic
life
(
fish,
amphibians,
invertebrates,
plants)
and
those
terrestrial
animals
(
e.
g.,
birds
and
mammals)
that
consume
aquatic
organisms.
d.
Risk
Hypotheses
Based
on
the
sources/
transport
pathways,
exposure
media,
and
potential
receptors
of
concern,
specific
questions
or
risk
hypotheses
are
formulated
to
characterize
direct
effects
of
triadimefon
application
to
aquatic
organisms.

Aquatic
fish
and
invertebrates
are
subject
to
adverse
effects
such
as
reduced
survival
and
reduced
reproduction
when
exposed
to
triadimefon
and/
or
its
metabolites
as
a
result
of
labeled
use.

Aquatic
plants
are
subject
to
adverse
effects
(
reduced
survival)
when
exposed
to
triadimefon
and/
or
its
metabolites
as
a
result
of
labeled
use.

D.
Analysis
Plan
This
document
includes
an
assessment
of
risks
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants
resulting
from
the
use
of
liquid
triadimefon
on
apples,
pears,
grapes,
raspberries,
turf
(
residential,
commercial,
and
residential),
ornamentals
(
landscape
and
nursery),
and
golf
course
lawns.
Risks
Page
19
of
241
resulting
from
the
use
of
granular
triadimefon
on
residential
lawns
is
also
examined.

1.
Preliminary
Identification
of
Data
Gaps
and
Uncertainties
The
major
data
gap
is
the
lack
of
estuarine/
marine
organisms,
aquatic
vascular
plant,
and
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
studies.
For
triadimefon,
the
only
registrant­
submitted
plant
study
was
on
green
alga
(
Selanastrum
capricornutum).
Due
to
the
estimated
risk
to
listed
non­
vascular
plants
based
on
this
toxicity
information,
data
on
other
aquatic
plant
species
is
necessary.
Evaluation
of
the
open
literature
through
ECOTOX
provided
several
terrestrial
plant
studies;
however,
the
studies
were
not
deemed
acceptable
for
use
in
this
risk
assessment,
either
quantitatively
or
qualitatively
(
see
Table
19).

Major
data
gaps
include:
°
§
123­
2:
Aquatic
vascular
plant
growth
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)
°
§
72­
3a:
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC
50
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)
°
§
72­
3b:
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
EC
50
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)
°
§
72­
3c:
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
EC
50
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)
°
§
123­
1a:
Seedling
Emergence
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)
°
§
123­
1b:
Vegetative
Vigor
(
triadimefon
and
triadimenol)

°
Information
regarding
the
formation
of
the
degradate
triadimenol
(
rate,
conditions,
and
pathways
of
formation)

Although
it
is
known
from
several
studies
that
triadimenol
is
formed
in
plants
as
well
as
the
soil
subsurface,
additional
data
is
needed
on
the
specific
rates
of
formation,
conditions
under
which
triadimenol
is
most
likely
to
form,
and
formation
pathways.
1,2,4­
triazole
is
also
formed
as
a
degradate
of
triadimefon;
however,
this
compound
is
not
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
and
will
be
examined
in
a
future
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.

2.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
a.
Measures
of
Exposure
i.
Terrestrial
Environment
Due
to
the
approximate
equal
toxicity
of
triadimefon
and
its
major
metabolite,
triadimenol,
to
terrestrial
organisms,
this
assessment
assumes
exposure
to
both
the
parent
triadimefon
as
well
as
triadimenol.
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
the
uptake
of
pesticide
active
ingredients.
These
exposures
are
considered
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
For
terrestrial
wildlife
exposure,
OPP
primarily
looks
at
the
residues
of
pesticides
on
food
items
and
assumes
that
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
The
residue
estimates
are
based
on
a
nomogram
that
relates
food
item
residues
to
pesticide
application
rate
(
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994).
The
first
tier
of
the
nomogram
uses
the
maximum
predicted
residues.
Subsequent
refinements
may
consider
the
mean
residue
values.
However,
maximum
body
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
fractions
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
from
mammalian
allometric
relationships
in
EPA's
Wildlife
Exposure
Page
20
of
241
Factors
Handbook.
In
all
screening­
level
assessments,
the
organisms
are
assumed
to
consume
100%
of
their
diet
as
one
food
type.

Triadimenol
is
formed
via
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
subsurface
and
through
plant
metabolism
following
uptake.
Our
current
estimation
of
pesticide
concentrations
in
wildlife
food
items
following
spray
applications
focuses
on
quantifying
possible
dietary
ingestion
of
residues
on
vegetative
matter
and
insects
and
not
on
ingestion
of
residues
within
the
plant
material.
Therefore,
terrestrial
exposure
to
triadimenol
is
not
quantitatively
evaluated
in
this
assessment.
However,
terrestrial
organism
exposure
to
triadimenol
is
likely,
and
although
not
quantitatively
evaluated,
must
be
considered
in
the
overall
determination
of
risk.

Terrestrial
plant
exposure
is
calculated
based
on
spray
drift
resulting
from
ground
or
aerial
spray
application,
assuming
1%
and
5%
drift,
respectively.
Additionally,
wetland
plant
exposure
is
determined
via
both
spray
drift
and
runoff
calculations.

Granular
applications
of
pesticides
require
different
estimation
methods
to
assess
exposure.
Triadimefon
is
applied
in
granular
form
to
residential
turf
and
is
not
incorporated
into
the
soil.
Ingestion
of
the
granules
left
on
the
soil/
turf
surface
is
considered
the
major
route
of
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms,
and
risk
is
calculated
using
the
LD
50
/
ft2
index
(
Felthousen
et
al.,
1977).
Terrestrial
plant
exposure
following
granular
application
can
occur
through
uptake
of
the
pesticide;
however,
this
exposure
route
is
not
quantitatively
considered
in
this
assessment.

ii.
Aquatic
Environment
This
assessment
assumes
exposure
to
both
the
parent
triadimefon
as
well
as
triadimenol
for
aquatic
organisms.
OPP
generally
uses
computer
simulation
models
to
estimate
exposure
of
aquatic
organisms,
such
as
plants,
fish,
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
and
invertebrates,
to
a
pesticide.
These
models
calculate
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
surface
water
using
laboratory
data
that
describe
the
rate
at
which
the
pesticide
breaks
down
and
how
it
moves
into
the
environment.
The
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model
and
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
PRZM­
EXAMS)
model
is
initially
used
to
calculate
high­
end
estimates
of
surface
water
concentrations
of
pesticide
in
a
generic
pond.
This
model
was
used
to
generate
EECs
of
total
triadimefon
(
parent
+
triadimenol)
in
surface
water.
The
User's
Manual
and
PRZM­
EXAMS
model
description
can
be
consulted
for
additional
information
at:
www.
epa.
gov/
offefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm.
No
EECs
are
generated
in
instances
where
no
toxicity
was
observed
at
concentrations
above
the
active
ingredient's
water
solubility
or
at
or
above
the
recommended
limit
concentration
for
a
particular
type
of
study.

Aquatic
exposure
resulting
from
food
crop
triadimefon
use
was
modeled
using
the
following
scenarios:
PA,
NC,
and
OR
apple,
OR
berry,
CA
and
NY
grape,
CA
fruit,
OR
Christmas
tree,
FL
turf,
and
PA
turf.
The
three
apple
scenarios
are
representative
of
both
apple
and
pear
triadimefon
application
in
three
different
geographical
regions
of
the
country
where
the
chemical
may
be
applied.
The
CA
fruit
scenario
is
representative
of
all
non­
citrus
crops
grown
in
the
Central
Valley.
Based
on
use
information
from
BEAD
(
Table
7),
the
majority
of
triadimefon
use
on
Page
21
of
241
pears
occurs
in
CA,
WA,
and
OR.
The
OR
berry
scenario
is
representative
of
the
use
of
triadimefon
on
raspberry
crops,
although
it
is
noted,
based
on
BEAD
information
(
Table
7)
that
100%
of
the
triadimefon
use
on
raspberries
occurs
in
California.
Oregon
is
probably
the
best
surrogate
scenario
for
Northern
California
raspberry
production
because
of
similarities
in
weather
conditions
and
soil
types.
The
CA
and
NY
grape
scenarios
are
limited
to
two
regions,
whereas
grapes
are
grown
in
the
midwest
(
IN,
MO,
MI,
OH),
south
(
AR,
NC,
TN,
VA),
northeast
(
NY,
PA),
and
west
(
CA,
OR,
WA).
The
same
limitations
exist
for
the
OR
Christmas
tree
scenario,
with
potential
triadimefon
use
on
this
commodity
occurring
in
numerous
geographical
regions
of
the
country.
Despite
these
modeling
limitations,
the
scenarios
chosen
to
model
potential
triadimefon
exposure
in
the
aquatic
environment
are
considered
adequately
representative
of
the
potential
uses.
Seasonal
application
timing
varied
depending
on
climate
and
pest
season.

The
two
turf
scenarios
represent
a
temperate
climate
with
a
single
growing
season
(
May­
September;
PA),
as
well
as
a
warm,
humid
climate
with
a
year­
round
growing
season
(
FL).
These
two
scenarios
generally
cover
the
climatological
range
under
which
triadimefon
may
be
used
on
turf.
It
is
important
to
note
that
triadimefon
turf
use
includes
golf
courses,
as
well
as
other
commercial,
residential,
and
recreational
applications,
and
therefore
the
PRZM­
EXAMS
turf
scenarios
may
over
or
under
represent
potential
aquatic
triadimefon
exposure
from
these
other
applications.
Page
22
of
241
Spray
(
ground
or
aerial)
Application
of
Triademifon
Leaching
(
infiltration/
percolation)

Upland
Soil/
Foliage
Riparian/

Wetland
Soil/
Foliage
Water
Body
Groundwater
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Aquatic
invertebrates
Aquatic
vertebrates
Aquatic
plants
Individual
vertebrates/

Invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Individual
plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Runoff/
Erosion
Terrestrial
Food
Residues
Direct
Deposition
Spray
Drift
Triadimenol
Degradate
Figure
2.
Ecological
conceptual
exposure
model
for
spray
(
ground
or
aerial)
application
of
liquid
triadimefon
Page
23
of
241
Direct
Granular
Triadimefon
Application
to
Turf
Leaching
(
infiltration/
percolation)

Upland
soil
Riparian/

Wetland
Soil
Water
Body
Groundwater
Ingestion
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Direct
contact/

Root
Uptake
Gill/
Integument
Uptake
Terrestrial
Vertebrates
Birds,
Mammals,

Reptiles,
Terrestrial
Phase
Amphibians
Plant
population
Reduced
population
growth
Terrestrial
Upland
Plants
Wetland/

Riparian
Plants
Aquatic
invertebrates
Aquatic
vertebrates
Aquatic
plants
Individual
vertebrates/

Invertebrates
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Individual
plants
Seedling
emergence
Vegetative
vigor
Individual
animals
Reduced
survival
Reduced
growth
Reduced
reproduction
Triadimenol
Degradate
Runoff/
Erosion
Figure
3.
Ecological
conceptual
exposure
model
for
granular
application
of
triadimefon
to
turf
Page
24
of
241
b.
Measures
of
Effect
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected."
Two
criteria
are
used
to
select
the
appropriate
ecological
assessment
endpoints:
1)
identification
of
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
the
operational
definition
of
assessment
endpoints
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
the
selection
of
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.

Aquatic
and
terrestrial
non­
target
toxicity
endpoints
(
animals
and
plants)
are
provided
by
the
acute
and,
where
appropriate,
chronic
toxicity
data.
These
toxicity
endpoints
are
compared
with
the
environmental
concentrations
of
triadimefon,
based
on
fate
properties,
exposure
method,
etc.
For
this
assessment,
the
most
sensitive
toxicity
endpoints
for
each
surrogate
taxa
(
ie.
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
aquatic
plants,
terrestrial
plants,
birds,
and
mammals)
for
both
the
parent
(
triadimefon)
and
its
major
metabolite
(
triadimenol)
will
be
used
in
Risk
Quotient
(
RQ)
calculation
with
various
exposure
values
(
see
above).
Terrestrial
risk
quotients
for
granular
use
will
be
calculated
using
the
LD
50
per
square
foot
index
as
per
Felthousen
(
1977)
and
Urban
and
Cook
(
1986).

An
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.
Additional
ecological
effects
data
were
available
for
triadimefon
and
its
major
metabolite,
triadimenol,
and
were
incorporated
into
the
risk
characterization
as
other
lines
of
evidence.
Endpoints
used
in
this
assessment
are
listed
in
Table
3.
Page
25
of
241
Table
3.
Summary
of
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
used
in
calculations
Assessment
Endpoint
Chemical
Measurement
Endpoint
1.
Survival,
reproduction,
and
growth
of
birds
Triadimefon
Acute
oral
bobwhite
quail
LD50
>
2000=
mg/
kg
Subacute
dietary
bobwhite
quail
LC50
=
8392
ppm
Reproductive
toxicity
bobquite
quail
NOAEL
=
20
ppm
Triadimenol
Acute
oral
bobwhite
quail
LD50
>
2000
mg/
kg
Reproductive
toxicity
mallard
duck
NOAEL
=
100
ppm
2.
Survival,
reproduction,
and
growth
of
mammals
Triadimefon
Acute
oral
rat
LD50
=
1090
mg/
kg
(
females)
Chronic
2­
generation
rat
reproduction
NOAEL
=
50
ppm
Triadimenol
Acute
oral
rat
LD50
=
689
mg/
kg
(
males)
Chronic
2­
generation
rat
reproduction
NOAEL
=
100
ppm
3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
Triadimefon
Acute
rainbow
trout
LC50
=
4.1
ppm
Chronic
rainbow
trout
NOAEL
=
0.041
ppm
Acute
daphnid
LC50
=
1.6
ppm
Chronic
daphid
NOAEL
=
0.052
ppm
Triadimenol
Acute
rainbow
trout
LC50
=
14
ppm
Acute
daphnid
LC50
­
2.5
ppm
Chronic
daphnid
NOAEL
=
0.1
ppm
4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
Triadimefon
NO
DATA
Triadimenol
NO
DATA
5.
Perpetuation
of
nontarget
terrestrial
plants
(
crops
and
non­
crop
species)
Triadimefon
NO
DATA
Triadimenol
NO
DATA
6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations
Triadimefon
Honey
bee
(
acute
contact
basis)
LD50
>
25
ug/
bee
7.
Maintenance
and
growth
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass
Triadimefon
Green
algae
EC50
=
1.71
ppm
Triadimenol
Green
algae
EC50
=
3.7
ppm
LD
50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
test
population
NOAEC
=
No
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LOAEC
=
Lowest
observed
adverse
effect
concentration
LC
50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population
EC
50
/
EC
25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50%/
25%
of
the
test
population
3.
Risk
Quotients
and
Levels
of
Concern
Risk
characterization
integrates
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
effects.
For
ecological
effects,
the
Agency
accomplishes
this
integration
using
the
quotient
risk
method.
Risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
acute
and
chronic
ecotoxicity
values.

RQ
=
EXPOSURE
/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Program's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
to
assess
Page
26
of
241
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Calculation
of
an
RQ
that
exceeds
the
LOC
indicates
that
a
particular
pesticide
use
poses
a
presumed
risk
to
non­
target
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
categories
of
presumed
risk:
°
acute
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
beyond
restricted
use
classification
may
be
warranted
°
acute
restricted
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
°
acute
endangered
species
­
threatened
and
endangered
species
may
be
adversely
affected
°
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
The
ecotoxicity
values
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
endpoints
derived
from
required
laboratory
toxicity
studies.
Ecotoxicity
endpoints
derived
from
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:
°
LC
50
­
fish
and
birds
°
LD
50
­
birds
and
mammals
°
EC
50
­
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates
°
EC
25
­
terrestrial
plants
The
NOAEC
(
No
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration)
is
the
endpoint
used
to
assess
chronic
effects.
Table
4
lists
LOCs
and
gives
formulas
for
calculating
RQs
and
LOCs
for
various
risk
presumptions.

Table
4.
Formulas
for
RQ
calculations
and
LOC
used
for
risk
assessment
of
triadimefon
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
and
Wild
Mammals
Acute
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2*
or
LD50/
day2
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC5
1.0
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1.0
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Page
27
of
241
Terrestrial
and
Plants
Inhabiting
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
Acute
Risk
EEC4/
EC25
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Use
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC3/
EC50
1.0
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1.0
*
mg/
ft2
1Abbreviation
for
Estimate
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
3
EEC
=
ppm
or
ppb
in
water
4
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
5
No
chronic
risk
was
calculated
for
terrestrial
animals
based
on
the
LD50/
ft2
index
for
granular
uses
Page
28
of
241
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Expanded
Use
Characterization
Triadimefon
is
a
broad­
spectrum
fungicide
used
to
treat
such
diseases
as
powdery
mildew,
dollar
spot,
copper
spot,
rusts,
black
rot,
bunch
rot,
and
downy
mildew
(
for
complete
crop/
disease
list,
see
Table
5).
It
is
applied
to
pears,
apples,
raspberries,
and
grapes,
as
well
as
pine
(
seedlings
and
nurseries),
Christmas
trees,
turf
(
golf
course,
residential,
commercial,
and
recreational),
and
ornamentals.
Additionally,
it
is
used
as
a
post­
harvest
dip
treatment
and
a
pre­
plant
seed
piece
treatment
on
pineapples.

Triadimefon
is
sold
as
granular
(
0.5%,
1.0%),
wettable
powder
(
25%,
50%),
water
soluble
packets
(
25%,
50%),
liquid
concentrate,
and
ready­
to­
use
formulations.
Liquid
formulations
are
applied
via
ground
spray,
aerial
spray,
and
chemigation.
Granular
triadimefon
is
specified
for
use
only
on
residential
turf,
and
is
applied
via
broadcast
without
soil
incorporation.
Diseases
targeted
by
triadimefon
are
presented
in
Table
5.
A
list
of
current
EPA
registration
numbers,
uses,
maximum
application
rates,
and
application
methods
based
on
the
Agency
Use
Closure
Memo
(
26
July,
2004)
is
available
in
Table
6.
Risks
were
not
calculated
for
pineapple
(
seed
piece
treatment
and
post­
harvest
dip),
pine
seedlings,
and
ornamentals.
There
is
currently
no
Agency
method
of
quantitatively
assessing
exposure
to
seed
pieces
treated
with
pesticide,
and
no
ecological
exposure
is
likely
to
result
from
post­
harvest
pineapple
dip
treatment.
Pine
seedling
and
ornamental
uses
of
triadimefon
are
also
not
assessed
individually
because
the
application
rates
to
these
crops
fall
within
the
current
range
of
assessed
uses.
Additionally,
there
are
no
currently
available
aquatic
exposure
model
scenarios
available
for
these
uses.

Of
the
triadimefon
uses,
the
highest
number
of
pounds
of
triadimefon
used
per
year
is
on
turf
and
ornamentals
followed
by
grapes
and
apples
(
Table
6).
Based
on
the
rate
and
quantitative
use
analysis,
it
was
decided
to
focus
the
risk
analysis
on
the
maximum
labeled
rates
for
all
crop
uses
except
for
pineapple
post­
harvest
and
seed­
piece
treatment,
pine
seedling
and
nursery
uses,
and
ornamentals
(
landscape
and
nurseries).
Because
a
single
application
rate
on
turf
use
is
approximately
10x
higher
than
for
food­
use
crops
and
the
number
of
applications
in
a
year
is
only
limited
by
the
requirement
of
a
two
week
interval
between
applications,
additional
focus
was
placed
on
determining
risk
for
alternative
turf
applications.

Table
5.
Triadimefon
target
diseases
Crop
Disease(
s)

Apple
cedar­
apple
rust
powdery
mildew
Pear
powdery
mildew
Grapes
powdery
mildew
black
rot
bunch
rot
dead
arm
downy
mildew
Crop
Disease(
s)

Page
29
of
241
Pineapple
(
pre­
plant
seed
piece
treatment
and
post­
harvest)
pineapple
butt
rot
fresh
fruit
rot
Raspberries
powdery
mildew
Pine
(
seedlings
and
nursery)
pine
rust
fusiform
rust
Christmas
trees
needlecast
rusts
(
fusiform,
gall)
stem
and
cone
tip
blight
Turf
dollar
spot
copper
spot
powdery
mildew
corticium
red
thread
rusts
(
Puccinia
spp.)
brown
patch
anthracnose
southern
blight
stripe
smut
fusarium
blight
summer
patch
zoysia
patch
gray
snow
mold
pink
snow
mold
Ornamentals
flower
blight
leaf
blight/
spots
powdery
mildew
rusts
tip
blight
Table
6.
Triadimefon
Maximum
Labeled
Use
Rates
Used
in
this
Assessment
CROP
EPA
LABEL
#
FORM
MAX
APP
RATE
(
lb
ai/
A)
MAX
#
OF
APPS
MIN
APP
INTERVAL
(
days)
MAX
TOTAL
APP/
SEASON
(
lb
ai/
A)
APP
METHOD(
S)

Apple
&
Pear
264­
737
432­
1294
50%
WP
0.25
3
7
0.75
ground
spray
aircraft
Grapes
264­
737
432­
1294
50%
WP
0.1875
3
14
0.5625
ground
spray
aircraft
Raspberries
264­
737
432­
1294
50%
WP
0.125
7
28
0.88
ground
spray
Christmas
Trees
264­
737
50%
WP
0.25
8
14
2.0
ground
spray
aircraft
Golf
Course
Turf*
829­
289
0.88%
FlC
2.7
NS
60
NS
ground
spray
Page
30
of
241
432­
1293
25%
WP
2.7
NS
14
NS
chemigation
Ornamental
s
432­
1367
50%
WP
0.5
4/
yr
14
2.0
chemigation
aerial
spray
Lawns
and
Turf
432­
1360
432­
1367
50%
WP
1.36
2
30
NS
chemigation
ground
spray
28293­
278
1%
G
1.31
2
30
NS
broadcast
*
Common
use
rates
for
golf
course
turf
based
on
Use
Closure
Memo
indicate
an
application
of
1.36
lb
ai/
A
(
same
interval
and
number
of
applications)
WP
=
wettable
powder
FlC
=
flowable
concentrate
G
=
granular
NS
=
not
specified
Table
7.
Triadimefon
typical
state
and
crop
use
information
(
BEAD
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis,
April
8,
2002)

Crop
Acres
Treated
(
max)
Total
lbs
applied/
yr
(
max)
Highest
use
states
(%)

Raspberries
2000
2000
CA
(
100%)

Apples
38,000
8000
WA
MI
VA
NY
UT
CA
(
70%)

Pears
8000
2000
OR
WA
CA
(
89%)

Grapes
(
raisin)
3000
2000
CA
(
100%)

Grapes
(
table)
10,000
3000
CA
MI
(
95%)

Grapes
(
wine)
17,000
3000
CA
MI
(
92%)

Turf
&
Ornamentals
NA
320,000
NA
Pine,
Christmas
Trees,
Pineapple
NA
NA
NA
TOTAL
78,000*
340,000
­­­­­­­­­­

*
not
including
turf
and
ornamental,
pine,
Christmas
tree,
or
pineapple
acreage
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Acceptable
studies
for
triadimefon
are
available
for
all
fate
and
transport
guideline
requirements;
however,
there
are
few
studies
on
the
triadimefon
degradate
triadimenol.
Further
studies
must
be
performed
on
this
toxic
degradate
to
fully
characterize
total
residue
exposure.
The
status
of
the
data
requirements
is
described
in
Appendix
A.
Selected
fate
properties
for
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
are
summarized
in
Tables
8
and
9,
respectively.
Page
31
of
241
Table
8.
Triadimefon
fate
and
transport
properties
Property
Value
Reference
Hydrolysis
half­
life
pH
4
pH
7
pH
9
stable
stable
stable
MRID#
41922101
Aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
7.6
hours
MRID#
42112901
&
41933601
Soil
photolysis
half­
life
30
days
MRID#
42820401
Anaerobic
soil
half­
life
23.1
days
MRID#
41686101
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
All
studies
conducted
at
20
degrees
Celsius)*
5.6
days
(
laboratory),
multiplied
by
3
(
single
data
source)
=
16.8
days
MRID#
41686102*
&
42224104*

*(
This
study
conducted
at
25
B
C)

Aerobic
aquatic
half­
life
33.6
days
(
in
the
absence
of
data,
2X
aerobic
soil
value)
MRID#
41686102
Anaerobic
aquatic
half­
life
217
days
MRID#
42401201
Field
dissipation
half­
life
417
days
MRID#
42242701
Adsorption
coefficient
Koc
387
L/
kg
oc
MRID#
41616008
Bioconcentration
factor
(
BCF)
40x
(
edible
tissue)
134x
(
non­
edible
tissue)
77x
(
whole
organism)
MRID#
41619901
Page
32
of
241
Table
9.
Triadimenol
fate
and
transport
properties
Property
Value
Reference
Hydrolysis
half­
life
pH
4
pH
7
pH
9
stable
stable
stable
EFGWB
#
295,
296
Aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
1.5
days
EFGWB
#
295,
296
Soil
photolysis
half­
life
stable
EFGWB
#
295,
296
Anaerobic
soil
half­
life
stable
MRID
#
41686101
&
42401201
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
All
studies
conducted
at
20
degrees
Celsius)*
744
days
(
3
x
248
days)
MRID#
41686102*
&
42224104*

*(
This
study
conducted
at
25
B
C)

Aerobic
aquatic
half­
life
1488
days
(
2
x
aerobic
soil
value)
MRID
#
41686102
Anaerobic
aquatic
half­
life
stable
MRID
#
42401201
Adsorption
coefficient
Koc
365
L/
kg
oc
MRID
#
41616008
(
averaged
from
4
soils)

a.
Persistence
Triadimefon
would
seem
to
be
capable
of
persisting
and
accumulating
in
a
variety
of
environmental
conditions.
Moderate
mobility
and
adsorption
characteristics
may
allow
it
to
leach
to
shallow
soil
depths,
where
it
can
persist
for
long
periods
under
aerobic
soil
conditions
typical
of
the
vadose
zone.
Repeated
annual
treatments
create
the
potential
for
accumulation
within
the
shallow
vadose
zone.
In
addition,
it
is
sufficiently
mobile
that
it
can
enter
groundwater
(
especially
via
preferential
flow),
where
it
can
remain
fairly
stable,
particularly
in
shallow,
oxic,
unconfined
aquifers.
Overall,
triadimefon
is
likely
to
be
of
greater
concern
for
surface
runoff
issues,
presenting
less
of
a
potential
groundwater
contamination
problem
because
it
typically
does
not
penetrate
deeply
enough
into
the
soil
profile.

Triadimefon
appears
to
undergo
slow
degradation
in
aerobic
soil,
with
a
field­
measured
half­
life
of
417
days
for
California
soils
(
MRID
#
42242701).
However,
lab
studies
yielded
a
much
shorter
half­
life
of
5.6
days.
Nevertheless,
detection
of
applied
triadimefon
in
aerobic
soils
nearly
2
orders
of
magnitude
longer
than
predicted
from
lab
studies
indicates
that
the
lab
studies
failed
to
account
for
real­
world
behavior
of
triadimefon.
Typically,
field
dissipation
rates
in
aerobic
soil
should
be
faster
than
lab
rates
for
aerobic
soil
because
presumably
multiple
degradation
pathways
are
available
in
the
field,
whereas
in
lab
studies
single
processes
are
isolated.
Thus,
long­
term
contamination
of
the
vadose
zone
is
likely
under
repeated
(
annual)
applications,
since
the
field
(
aerobic)
half­
life
is
greater
than
one
year,
allowing
potential
accumulation
of
contaminant
to
occur.
Page
33
of
241
Considering
the
overall
similarities
in
chemical
characteristics,
it
might
be
expected
that
triadimenol
would
behave
in
a
similar
fashion
to
triadimefon,
especially
in
regard
to
persistence.
The
most
notable
difference
is
that
triadimenol
appears
to
be
more
stable
under
anaerobic
conditions.
Once
introduced
into
the
saturated
zone
(
especially
deep,
confined
aquifers)
or
other
anaerobic
environments
(
e.
g.,
wetlands)
there
is
great
potential
for
this
compound
to
persist
and
accumulate.
Combined
with
its
formation
primarily
in
the
subsurface,
the
degradation
product
triadimenol
is
more
likely
to
be
of
concern
for
groundwater
than
the
parent
triadimefon.
Greater
persistence
in
anaerobic
conditions,
greater
leaching
potential
within
the
soil
column,
and
consequently
higher
propensity
for
transmission
into
and
through
groundwater
make
triadimenol
more
likely
to
be
transported
long
distances
(
as
groundwater
can
be
discharged
into
surface
water
at
some
distance
from
the
areas
of
application)
and
over
longer
time
periods
(
groundwater
generally
moves
much
more
slowly
than
surface
runoff
and
discharge
is
not
limited
to
storm
events).
Thus,
triadimenol
is
apt
to
be
more
persistent
than
parent
triadimefon
in
most
settings.

b.
Mobility
Both
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
are
moderately
soluble
(­
70
ppm),
and
are
therefore
capable
of
being
transported
dissolved
in
water
as
surface
runoff
or
as
leachate
to
groundwater.
Most
triadimefon
applications
are
already
in
liquid
form,
as
aerial
spray,
ground
spray,
or
chemigation.
Broadcast
granular
applications
are
also
allowed
for
residential
turf
applications.
In
all
of
these
cases
there
is
the
potential
for
transport
into
groundwater
(
via
leaching
through
soil)
and
surface
water
(
as
runoff
or
as
baseflow
contributions
to
stream
water).
Soil
column
leaching
studies
(
MRID
#
41616008
&
42356601)
indicated
that
triadimefon
did
move
down
through
the
soil
profile;
parent
compound
was
detected
up
to
a
depth
of
20
cm
in
sand
and
silt­
loam
soils
and
>
30
cm
in
sandy­
loam
and
clay­
loam.
Triadimefon
field
dissipation
studies
(
MRID
#
42242701,
41686104,
&
41686103)
revealed
detectable
levels
of
triadimefon
in
the
soil
at
depths
up
to
24
inches
following
single
and
multiple
turfgrass
applications.
Triadimenol
appears
to
be
even
more
prone
to
leaching;
it
was
detected
at
depths
up
to
48
inches.
This
may
be
due
partly
to
its
formation
in
the
aerobic
subsurface,
where
subsequent
rain
or
irrigation
events
can
leach
it
deeper
into
the
soil.
None
of
these
studies,
which
evaluated
constituents
in
soil
porewater,
measured
or
accounted
for
the
likelihood
of
preferential
flow
(
into
groundwater).
Once
within
the
saturated
zone,
there
is
little
possibility
of
triadimenol
degradation
because
of
the
persistence
of
the
compound
under
these
environmental
conditions
(
see
Table
9
above).

Surface
runoff
issues
are
particularly
salient
to
triadimefon
usage
for
turf
grass.
Repeat
applications
(
as
many
as
26
per
year
according
to
label
usage
for
golf
course
applications)
of
fairly
large
amounts
create
conditions
where
significant
runoff
into
streams
and
ponds
can
occur.
Although
aqueous
photolysis
is
relatively
rapid
(
half­
life
=
7.6
hours)
for
triadimefon,
runoff
water
is
usually
very
turbid;
therefore
photolysis
would
be
severely
inhibited
by
the
water's
opacity
(
in
runoff,
stream
water
receiving
runoff,
and
other
water
bodies
fed
by
storm
flow).
The
impact
of
the
toxic
degradate
triadimenol
should
be
less
important
for
runoff
water,
since
it
is
primarily
formed
in
the
subsurface
where
there
is
less
risk
of
influence
on
runoff.
Page
34
of
241
2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
Tier
II
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
EECs)
for
triadimefon
were
estimated
using
EFED's
aquatic
models
PRZM­
EXAMS
(
EXposure
Analysis
Modeling
System).
PRZM
is
used
to
simulate
pesticide
transport
as
a
result
of
runoff
and
erosion
from
an
10­
ha
agricultural
field,
and
EXAMS
considers
environmental
fate
and
transport
of
pesticides
in
surface
water
and
predicts
EECs
in
a
standard
pond
(
10,000­
m2
pond,
2­
m
deep),
with
the
assumption
that
the
small
field
is
cropped
at
100%.
Calculations
are
carried
out
with
the
linkage
program
shell
­
PE4VO1.
pl
­
which
incorporates
the
standard
scenarios
developed
by
EFED.
Additional
information
on
these
models
can
be
found
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm
and
in
Table
10.

The
crops
for
which
triadimefon
is
registered
include
apples,
pears,
raspberries,
turf
(
commercial
and
residential),
Christmas
trees,
and
ornamentals.
To
simulate
these
uses,
representative
scenarios
from
several
geographical
regions
(
when
available)
were
run
using
the
maximum
labeled
use
rates,
maximum
number
of
applications
per
season
(
where
specified),
and
minimum
application
interval.
These
parameters
were
chosen
in
order
to
be
representative
of
the
legal
labeled
allowable
maximum
use.
The
crop
scenarios
used
and
the
associated
monitoring
stations
and
meteorological
files
are
summarized
in
Table
10.

Table
10.
Summary
of
Crop
Scenarios
Used
in
Estimating
EECs
Triadimefon
Uses
(
EPA
Reg.
#)
Crop
Scenario
MLRA/
Met
Station
Scenario
Characterization
Apple
(
264­
737
&
432­
1294)
OR
apple:
Marion
County,
Cornelius
silt
loam
MLRA
A2;
W24229
Selected
based
on
geographical
location,
agricultural
practices,
and
use
patterns.

PA
apple:
Lancaster
County,
Elioak
silt
loam
MLRA
148;
W14737
NC
apple:
Henderson
County,
Hayesville
loam
MLRA
130;
W03812
Grapes
(
264­
737
&
432­
1294)
CA
grape:
San
Joaquin
County,
San
Joaquin
loam
MLRA
17;
W23155,
W23232
Selected
based
on
geographical
location,
agricultural
practices,
and
use
patterns.

NY
grape:
Chautauqua
County;
Lordstown
Channery
silt
loam
MLRA
100/
140;
W14860
Pears
(
264­
737
&
432­
1294)
CA
fruit:
Central
Valley,
Exeter
fine
sandy
loam
MLRA
17;
W93193
CA
fruit
scenario
represents
all
non­
citrus
fruit
grown
in
Central
Valley
CA.
Selected
based
on
label
information.

Raspberries
(
264­
737
&
432­
1294)
OR
berries:
Marion
County,
Woodburn
silt
loam
MLRA
A2;
W24232
OR
berry
scenario
represents
blackberries,
which
is
representative
of
caneberries
(
including
raspberries)
Triadimefon
Uses
(
EPA
Reg.
#)
Crop
Scenario
MLRA/
Met
Station
Scenario
Characterization
Page
35
of
241
Christmas
Trees
(
264­
737)
OR
Christmas
Tree:
Benton
County;
Pilchuck
fine
sand
MLRA
A2;
W24232
Selected
based
on
geographical
location,
agricultural
practices,
and
use
patterns.

Turf
(
829­
289,
432­
1293,
432­
1360,
432­
1367,
28293­
278)
FL
Turf:
Osceola
County;
Adamsville
sand
MLRA
156A;
W12834
These
turf
scenarios
are
considered
to
be
essentially
generic,
with
no
distinction
made
between
sod
farms,
golf
course
fairways,
greens
and
tees,
or
residential
lawns.
PA
Turf:
York
County;
Glenville
silt
loam
MLRA
418;
W14737
a.
PRZM­
EXAMS
Input
Parameters
Runoff
and
erosion
output
values
as
modeled
by
PRZM­
EXAMS
take
into
account
only
that
which
is
in
the
top
2
cm
of
soil.
In
reality,
what
is
on
the
surface
is
paramount,
with
influence
decreasing
rapidly
within
the
top
2
cm.
Since
the
primary
degradation
product
of
concern,
triadimenol,
is
formed
mostly
in
the
shallow
subsurface,
it
is
assumed
that
most
of
what
becomes
available
for
runoff/
erosion
would
be
the
parent
compound
triadimefon.
However,
some
triadimenol
is
formed
at
or
very
near
the
surface,
and
some
may
even
be
formed
on
or
within
the
vegetation.
Since
the
dominant
degradate
formed
will
be
triadimenol
(
which
is
the
principle
degradate
of
concern),
and
this
degradate
is
both
more
persistent
and
potentially
more
mobile
than
the
parent,
it
must
be
considered
along
with
the
parent
triadimefon.
Therefore,
it
is
necessary
to
model
`
total'
residues
(
parent
+
degradate),
since
some
portion
of
the
total
potential
runoff
should
be
assumed
to
be
degradate.
This
was
accomplished
by
calculating
the
half­
life
of
total
residues,
based
on
a
364­
day
soil
study
(
MRID
#
42224104).
Triadimefon
degraded
to
triadimenol
fairly
quickly
(
half­
life
=
5.6
days),
but
triadimenol
degraded
much
more
slowly.
Triadimenol
continued
to
form
for
at
least
the
first
60
days,
reaching
a
peak
of
76.8%
of
total
applied
parent.
The
half­
life
for
combined
residues
was
determined
by
summing
the
percentage
of
total
residues
of
concern
(
traidimenol
+
tridimefon)
over
the
course
of
the
study,
plotting
this
over
time,
and
calculating
the
half­
life
of
the
summed
residues
from
a
2­
parameter
exponential
decay
curve
fitted
to
the
data
(
r2
=
0.99).
This
value
(
half­
life
of
total
residues
of
concern),
used
in
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
modeling,
was
determined
to
be
240
days.

For
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
model,
some
initial
assumptions/
simplifications
were
made:
1)
Treated
total
residues
(
parent
triadimefon
plus
the
degradate
triadimenol)
as
a
single
component,
in
terms
of
fate
properties
(
half­
lives,
etc.).
Most
of
the
parent
converts
to
the
degradate
of
concern,
triadimenol,
which
is
generally
more
persistent
in
the
environment
and
thus
cannot
be
ignored.
2)
Assigned
an
application
depth
for
the
total
residues
of
0
cm
to
reflect
surface
applications.
3)
Set
the
input
parameters
that
are
most
relevant
to
processes
that
occur
at
or
near
time
of
application
(
molecular
weight,
vapor
pressure,
solubility,
K
oc
,
and
photolysis)
to
reflect
the
characteristics
of
the
parent
alone,
because
that
is
what
is
applied
to
the
field.
These
values
are
very
close
to
those
for
triadimenol;
there
is
little
or
no
impact
on
the
overall
risk
assessment
if
the
Page
36
of
241
input
values
for
the
degradate
are
used
instead.
Other
inputs
that
are
relevant
to
transport,
fate,
and
persistence
of
compound
(
soil
and
water
half­
lives)
are
derived
from
characteristics
of
total
residues
(
parent
+
triadimenol,
as
determined
from
MRID
#
42224104
&
42401201)
since
the
degradate
starts
to
form
soon
after
application.
4)
The
aerobic
soil
half­
life
for
total
residues
(
triadimefon
+
triadimenol)
was
determined
to
be
240
days
(
MRID
#
42224104),
calculated
by
combining
radioactivity
of
both
compounds
for
the
duration
of
the
study
(
364
days)
and
applying
a
2­
parameter
exponential
decay
function
(
r2
=
0.99,
p
<
0.0001).
The
aerobic
aquatic
half­
life
for
total
residues
of
concern
is
then
480
days
(
MRID
#
42224104),
which,
in
the
absence
of
data,
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
aerobic
soil
value
by
a
factor
of
2.

Input
Parameters.
The
following
values
were
used
as
inputs
for
the
Tier
2
model
PRZM­
EXAMS
with
the
Pond
scenario.
The
values
were
chosen
in
accordance
with
the
Input
Parameter
Guidance,
and
are
intended
to
represent
the
combined
residues
of
parent
triadimefon
and
the
degradate
triadimenol
(
Tables
11
and
12).
Resulting
aquatic
EEC
values
are
presented
in
Table
13.

Table
11.
PRZM­
EXAMS
Input
Parameters
­
Fate
Properties
Input
Parameter
Value
Reference/
Comment
Molecular
Weight
293.7
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Constant
1.15
x
10­
7
atm­
m3/
mol
CAS
#
43121433
Vapor
Pressure
7.6
x
10­
7
mm
Hg
CAS
#
43121433
Solubility
70
mg/
L
RED
#
D275423
Koc
387
MRID
#
41616008
Chemical
Application
Method
1
Indicates
soil
applied,
uniform
depth,
user
defined
incorporation
depth
Incorporation
Depth
0
cm
spray
application
(
or
broadcast
granular)

Application
efficiency
0.95
0.99
0.99
Indicates
aerial
spray
application
Indicates
ground
spray
application
Indicates
granular
broadcast
application
Spray
Drift
Fraction
0.05
0.01
0
Aerial
spray
application
only
Ground
spray
application
only
Granular
broadcast
application
only
Hydrolysis
stable
MRID
#
41922101
Aqueous
Photolysis
Half­
life
0.32
days
MRID
#
42112901
&
41933601
Water
Half­
life
480
days
In
absence
of
data,
2X
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
of
240
days
­
MRID
42224104
Benthic
Half­
life
217
days
MRID
#
41686101
Page
37
of
241
Soil
Half­
life
240
days
MRID
42224104
­
sum
of
parent
+
triadimenol,
r2
=
0.99,
p
<
0.0001
FILTRA,
UPTKF,
PLVKRT,
PLDKRT
0
Default
values
FEXTRC
0.5
Default
value
Table
12.
PRZM­
EXAMS
Scenario­
Specific
Input
Parameters
Scenario
Application
Rate
(
kg
ai/
ha)
#
of
applications
Application
interval
Application
date(
s)

OR
apple
PA
apple
NC
apple
0.2801
3
7
days
April
1,
April
8,
April
15
CA
grape
NY
grape
0.21
3
14
days
May
1,
May
15,
May
29
CA
fruit
0.2801
3
7
days
April
1,
April
8,
April
15
OR
berry
0.14
7
28
days
May
1;
28
day
intervals
OR
Xmas
tree
0.2801
8
14
days
May
1;
14
day
intervals
FL
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
max
FL
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
max*
PA
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
max
FL
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
ave
FL
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
ave*
PA
Turf
(
spray)
­
golf
ave
FL
Turf
(
spray)
­
lawn
PA
Turf
(
spray)
­
lawn
FL
Turf
(
granular)
PA
Turf
(
granular)
3.03
3.03
3.03
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.47
1.47
26
6
13
26
6
13
2
2
2
2
14
days
60
days
14
days
14
days
60
days
14
days
30
days
30
days
30
days
30
days
Jan
1;
14
day
intervals
Jan
1;
60
day
intervals
Apr
1;
14
day
intervals
Jan
1;
14
day
intervals
Jan
1;
60
day
intervals
Apr
1;
14
day
intervals
May
1,
June
1
May
1,
June
1
May
1,
June
1
May
1,
June
1
*
6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
Table
13.
Surface
water
EECs
for
triadimefon
Scenario
(
application)
Application
Method
Peak
concentration
(
ppb)
21­
day
concentration
(
ppb)
60­
day
concentration
(
ppb)

NC
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
3.3
2.9
2.3
aerial
spray
4.3
3.6
3.1
OR
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
1.6
1.3
1.0
aerial
spray
3.0
2.6
2.0
PA
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
4.4
3.7
3.2
aerial
spray
5.5
4.7
4.0
Scenario
(
application)
Application
Method
Peak
concentration
(
ppb)
21­
day
concentration
(
ppb)
60­
day
concentration
(
ppb)

Page
38
of
241
CA
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
1.0
0.7
0.5
aerial
spray
1.3
1.1
0.9
NY
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
2.4
2.0
aerial
spray
3.5
3.1
2.7
CA
fruit
(
represents
pears)
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
0.5
0.5
0.3
aerial
spray
2.0
1.7
1.3
OR
berries
­
ground
spray
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
apps,
28d
interval)
ground
spray
1.7
1.5
1.3
OR
Xmas
Tree
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
2.2
1.8
aerial
spray
4.1
3.5
3.2
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
max)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
150.6
127.5
108.3
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
max)*
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
54.4
45.5
34.2
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
ave)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
75.6
64.2
54.3
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
ave)*
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
27.3
22.8
17.1
FL
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
16.2
13.3
9.9
FL
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
14.9
12.2
9.1
PA
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
max)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
110.3
93.2
74.1
PA
turf
(
golf
course
application
­
ave)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
55.2
46.8
37.2
PA
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
11.0
9.1
6.9
PA
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
(
no
incorporation)
9.8
8.1
6.1
*
6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
Terrestrial
wildlife
exposure
estimates
are
typically
calculated
for
birds
and
mammals,
emphasizing
a
dietary
exposure
route
for
uptake
of
the
pesticide.
These
exposures
are
considered
surrogates
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
as
well
as
reptiles.
Pesticide
residues
on
food
items
are
estimated
based
on
the
assumption
that
terrestrial
organisms
are
exposed
to
a
single
pesticide
residue
in
a
given
exposure
scenario.
Application
methods
for
liquid
triadimefon
formulations
include
ground
spray,
aerial
spray,
and
chemigation.
Additionally,
granular
triadimefon
is
broadcast
on
residential
lawns
and
turf
(
no
soil
incorporation).
Page
39
of
241
Exposure
of
free­
ranging
receptors
is
a
function
of
the
timing
and
extent
of
pesticide
application
with
respect
to
the
location
and
behavior
of
identified
receptors.
EFED's
terrestrial
exposure
model
generates
exposure
estimates
assuming
that
the
receptor
is
present
on
the
use
site
at
the
time
that
pesticide
levels
are
their
highest.
The
maximum
pesticide
residue
concentration
on
food
items
is
calculated
from
both
initial
applications
and
any
additional
applications
taking
into
account
pesticide
degradation
between
applications.
Although
this
is
a
conservative
approach,
it
is
not
outside
the
realm
of
possibility,
particularly
when
evaluating
acute
risks.
Longer
term
exposure
estimates
used
in
generating
chronic
risk
estimates
also
assume
that
a
receptor
is
present
when
pesticide
residue
levels
are
highest,
and
furthermore
assume
the
receptor
uses
the
site
to
forage
on
a
repeated
basis
although
the
exact
frequency
and
duration
of
foraging
events
on
the
use
site
is
not
specified.

The
duration
of
the
exposure
for
estimates
of
acute
risks
is
a
single
day
and
occurs
when
pesticide
residues
on
food
items
are
highest.
The
acute
exposure
level
is
the
quantity
of
residues
consumed
in
a
single
day
associated
with
food
requirements
for
that
day.

The
current
approach
to
screening­
level
terrestrial
exposure
estimation
does
not
directly
relate
the
timing
of
exposure
to
critical
or
sensitive
population,
community,
or
ecosystem
processes.
Given
that
for
triadimefon,
application
timing
and
location
are
crop
dependent,
it
is
difficult
to
address
the
temporal
and
spatial
co­
occurrence
of
triadimefon
use
and
sensitive
ecological
processes.
However,
it
is
worth
noting
that
pesticides
are
frequently
used
on
agricultural
crops
from
spring
through
fall,
which
are
times
of
active
migrating,
feeding,
and
reproduction
for
many
wildlife
species.
Triadimefon
use
of
turf
may
encompass
the
entire
year,
thereby
allowing
for
potential
year­
round
exposure
to
organisms.
The
increased
energy
demands
associated
with
these
activities
(
as
opposed
to
hibernation,
for
example)
can
increase
the
potential
for
exposure
to
pesticide
contaminated
food
items
since
agricultural
areas
can
represent
a
concentrated
source
of
relatively
easily
obtained,
high­
energy
food
items.
In
this
assessment,
the
spatial
extent
of
exposure
for
terrestrial
animal
species
is
limited
to
the
use
area
only.
The
majority
of
applied
triadimefon
will
likely
be
limited
to
the
use
area
although
some
spray
drift
is
possible,
particularly
for
aerial
spray
applications.

Currently,
the
Agency
does
not
require
toxicity
studies
on
reptiles
and
amphibians
in
support
of
pesticide
registrations.
To
accommodate
this
data
gap,
birds
are
used
as
surrogates
for
terrestrialphase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
It
is
assumed
that
given
the
typically
lower
metabolic
demands
of
reptiles
and
amphibians
compared
to
birds,
exposure
to
birds
would
be
greater
due
to
higher
relative
food
consumption.
While
this
assumption
is
likely
true,
there
are
no
supported
relationships
regarding
the
relative
toxicity
of
a
compound
to
birds
and
herpetofauna.
The
lack
of
toxicity
data
on
reptiles
and
amphibians
represents
an
important
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

a.
Spray
Applications
and
Residues
Estimated
exposure
concentrations
for
terrestrial
receptors
were
determined
using
the
standard
screening­
level
exposure
model,
TREX
(
v.
1.2)
(
US
EPA,
2005).
Maximum
exposure
levels
were
calculated
for
spray
applications
of
triadimefon
using
maximum
proposed
application
rates,
Page
40
of
241
maximum
number
of
applications,
and
minimum
application
intervals
for
all
proposed
uses
(
Table
14).
Additionally,
average
golf
course
use
rates
and
application
intervals
were
used,
based
on
information
provided
in
the
Use
Closure
Memo.
These
exposure
estimates
are
based
on
a
database
of
pesticide
residues
on
wildlife
food
sources
associated
with
a
specified
application
rate.
Essentially,
for
a
single
application,
there
is
a
linear
relationship
between
the
amount
of
pesticide
applied
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
residue
present
on
a
given
food
item.
These
relationships
for
the
various
food
items
are
determined
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram
as
modified
by
Fletcher
(
Hoerger
and
Kenaga,
1972;
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994).
TREX
(
v.
1.2)
is
a
simulation
model
that,
in
addition
to
incorporating
the
nomogram
relationship,
also
includes
pesticide
degradation
in
the
estimation
of
EECs.

TREX
calculates
pesticide
residues
on
each
type
of
food
item
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.
A
first
order
decay
function
is
used
to
calculate
the
residue
concentration
at
each
day
based
on
the
concentrations
present
from
both
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
first­
order
rate
equation
is:

C
t
=
C
i
e­
kt
Where
C
t
is
concentration
at
time
t
(
days;
t=
0
initially),
C
i
is
initial
concentration
after
application,
k
is
the
foliar
dissipation
half­
life,
and
t
is
time
in
days.
The
initial
concentration,
C
i
,
is
determined
by
multiplying
the
application
rate
by
a
constant
specific
to
a
food
item.
For
1.0
lb
a.
i.
of
pesticide
per
acre
the
upper­
bound,
food
item
concentration
(
ppm)
is:
240
for
short
grass,
110
for
tall
grass,
135
for
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
and
15
for
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects.
In
many
cases,
an
empirically
determined
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
value
is
not
available,
in
which
case
the
default
value
of
35
days
is
used
(
Willis
and
McDowell,
1987).
The
food
item
concentration
on
any
given
day
is
the
sum
of
all
concentrations
up
to
that
day
taking
into
account
the
first­
order
degradation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0
(
t
=
0)
and
runs
for
365
days.
Over
the
365
day
run,
the
highest
residue
concentration
is
used
in
calculations
of
the
RQ.

The
EECs
on
food
items
may
be
compared
directly
with
dietary
toxicity
data
or
converted
to
an
oral
dose,
as
is
the
case
for
small
mammals.
This
triadimefon
screening­
level
risk
assessment
uses
upper
bound
predicted
residues
as
the
measure
of
exposure.
The
predicted
upper
bound
and
mean
residues
of
triadimefon
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian
or
mammalian
food
items
immediately
following
application
of
the
liquid
formulation
on
apples,
raspberries,
grapes,
golf
course
turf,
residential/
commercial
and
recreational
turf,
and
Christmas
trees
are
presented
in
Table
14.
For
mammals,
the
residue
concentration
is
converted
to
daily
oral
dose
based
on
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
daily
as
estimated
through
mammalian
allometric
relationships.

Importantly,
TREX
considers
exposure
only
in
the
area
where
triadimefon
is
applied.
The
underlying
assumption
is
that
most,
if
not
all,
of
the
applied
pesticide
will
settle
in
the
use
area.
However,
depending
on
weather
conditions
and
type
of
application,
spray
drift
of
pesticides
may
occur,
increasing
the
likelihood
of
wildlife
exposure
outside
the
use
area.
Since
triadimefon
is
applied
via
spray
methods,
spray
drift
in
some
cases
is
likely.
Page
41
of
241
Page
42
of
241
Table
14.
Triadimefon
EECs
on
avian
and
mammalian
food
items
following
application
Use
Food
items
Max
EEC
(
ppm)
Mean
EEC
(
ppm)

Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
Short
grass
157.7
55.9
Tall
grass
72.3
23.7
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
88.7
29.6
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
9.9
4.6
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
Short
grass
69.0
24.5
Tall
grass
31.6
10.4
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
38.8
12.9
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
4.3
2.0
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
104.9
37.2
Tall
grass
48.1
15.7
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
59.0
19.7
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
6.6
3.1
Golf
Course
Turf
­
maximum
rate
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
2703.9
957.6
Tall
grass
1239.3
405.6
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
1520.9
507.0
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
169.0
78.9
Golf
Course
Turf
­
average
rate
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
1347.0
477.1
Tall
grass
617.4
202.1
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
757.7
252.6
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
84.2
39.3
Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
573.8
203.2
Tall
grass
263.0
86.1
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
322.7
107.6
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
35.9
16.7
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
Short
grass
220.8
78.2
Tall
grass
101.2
33.1
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
124.2
41.4
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
13.8
6.4
b.
Granular
Applications
Triadimefon
is
applied
in
granular
form
to
residential
turf
and
is
not
incorporated
into
the
soil.
Birds
and
mammals
in
the
field
may
be
exposed
to
triadimefon
by
ingesting
dietary
material
(
e.
g.,
granules,
plants,
earthworms).
They
also
may
be
exposed
via
other
routes,
such
as
incidental
soil
ingestion,
dermal
contact,
preening
activities,
and
ingestion
of
drinking
water.
Although
the
Page
43
of
241
habitat
of
a
bird
or
mammal
is
not
limited
to
a
square
foot,
there
is
presumably
a
direct
correlation
between
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
in
the
environment
(
mg/
ft2)
and
the
chance
that
an
animal
will
be
exposed
to
a
concentration
that
could
adversely
affects
its
survival.
Further
description
of
the
mg/
ft2
index
is
provided
in
US
EPA,
2004a
and
US
EPA,
1992.

Terrestrial
EECs
were
calculated
based
on
an
estimation
of
loading
of
pesticide
per
unit
area.
The
labeled
application
rate
for
the
active
ingredient
is
the
basis
for
exposure,
and
the
broadcast
application
method
of
granular
triadimefon
to
turf
assumes
that
100%
of
the
granules
are
unincorporated.

Table
15.
EECs
for
granular
triadimefon
application
to
residential
lawns/
turf
Application
rate
EEC
(
mg
ai/
ft2)

1.31
lb
ai/
A
2
applications,
30d
interval
14
4.
Non­
Target
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
Terrestrial
plant
exposure
characterization
employs
runoff
and
spray
drift
scenarios
contained
in
OPP's
Terrplant
model.
Exposure
calculations
are
based
on
a
pesticide's
water
solubility
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
present
in
the
surface
soil
within
the
first
inch
of
depth.
For
dry
areas,
the
loading
of
pesticide
active
ingredient
from
runoff
to
adjacent
non­
target
area
is
assumed
to
occur
from
one
acre
of
treatment
to
one
acre
of
non­
target
area.
For
terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
semiaquatic
(
wetland)
areas,
runoff
is
considered
to
occur
from
a
larger
source
area
with
active
ingredient
loading
originating
from
10
acres
of
treated
area
to
a
single
acre
of
non­
target
wetland.
Default
spray
drift
assumptions
are
1%
for
ground
applications
and
5%
for
aerial,
airblast,
forced
air,
and
chemigation
applications.
Terrestrial
plant
EECs
for
non­
granular
and
granular
formulations
are
summarized
in
Table
16.
Predicted
EECs
resulting
from
spray
drift
and
aerial
applications
are
derived
for
non­
granular
application
only.

Table
16.
Terrestrial
Plant
EECs
for
spray
and
granular
triadimefon
applications
Crop/
scenario
Application
Adjacent
Area
Runoff
Wetland
Area
Runoff
Spray
Drift
EEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
EEC
(
lb
ai/
A)
EEC
(
lb
ai/
A)

Apples
&
Pears
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.008
0.053
0.003
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.016
0.043
0.013
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.004
0.026
0.001
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.006
0.039
0.002
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.012
0.032
0.009
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.081
0.567
0.027
Page
44
of
241
Residential/
Commercial&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.041
0.286
0.014
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A)
Ground
Unincorp.
0.008
0.053
0.003
Aerial,
Airblast,
Spray
Chemigation
0.016
0.043
0.013
GRANULAR
Residential/
Commercial
&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A)
Unincorporated
0.026
0.262
N/
A
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
In
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessments,
effects
characterization
describes
the
types
of
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
organism
or
plant.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrant­
submitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
Toxicity
data
are
available
for
parent
triadimefon
as
well
as
the
major
metabolite,
triadimenol.
In
addition,
other
sources
of
information,
including
reviews
of
the
open
literature
and
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS),
are
conducted
to
further
refine
the
characterization
of
potential
ecological
effects.

Appendix
C
presents
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies.
Studies
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
are
described
in
Appendices
F,
G,
and
H.
In
addition
to
the
data
submitted
in
support
of
registration
and
the
information
compiled
through
the
Agency
pesticide
review
process,
the
ECOTOX
(
ECOTOXicity)
database
was
used
to
identify
additional
data
from
the
open
literature.

Following
implementation
of
the
Overview
document
(
USEPA,
2004a),
EFED
began
developing
guidelines
for
incorporation
of
open
literature
into
ecological
risk
assessments
(
USEPA,
2004b).
Toxicity
data
from
open
literature
are
identified
via
the
ECOTOX
search
engine
maintained
by
EPA/
ORD.
Open
literature
data
presented
in
this
draft
of
the
risk
assessment
were
obtained
from
the
data
provided
to
EFED
by
ORD
on
July
4,
2005
.
In
order
to
be
included
in
the
ECOTOX
database,
papers
must
meet
the
following
minimum
criteria:

(
1)
the
toxic
effects
are
related
to
a
single
chemical
exposure
(
2)
the
toxic
effects
are
on
an
aquatic
or
terrestrial
plant
or
animal
species
(
3)
there
is
a
biological
effect
on
live,
whole
organisms
(
4)
a
concurrent
environmental
chemical
concentration/
dose
or
application
rate
is
reported
(
5)
there
is
an
explicit
duration
of
exposure
Data
that
passes
the
ECOTOX
screen
are
evaluated
along
with
the
registrant­
submitted
data,
and
may
be
incorporated
qualitatively
or
quantitatively
into
the
risk
assessment.
In
general,
effects
data
in
the
open
literature
that
are
less
than
or
more
conservative
than
the
registrant­
submitted
data
are
considered.
The
degree
to
which
open
literature
data
is
quantitatively
or
qualitatively
Page
45
of
241
characterized
is
dependent
on
whether
the
information
is
relevant
to
the
assessment
endpoints
(
i.
e.,
maintenance
of
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
identified
in
the
problem
formulation.
For
example,
endpoints
such
as
behavior
modifications
cause
a
reduction
in
species
survival,
reproduction,
and/
or
growth.
Specific
open
literature
that
are
considered
include
the
following:

(
1)
the
endpoint
is
more
sensitive
than
those
identified
in
the
registrant
data
(
2)
the
data
is
for
under­
represented
taxa
(
i.
e.,
amphibians)
(
3)
the
data
includes
endpoints
not
normally
evaluated
in
registrant
studies,
but
is
ecologically
relevant
For
detailed
information
regarding
studies
obtained
through
ECOTOX,
see
Appendices
F,
G,
and
H.
Based
on
the
reviewed
registrant­
submitted
studies,
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
are
practically
non­
toxic
to
slightly
toxic
to
birds
and
mammals
and
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
Tables
17
and
18
summarize
the
most
sensitive
ecological
toxicity
endpoints
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
species,
respectively.
These
toxicity
endpoints
are
based
on
an
evaluation
of
both
the
submitted
studies
and
the
open
literature,
as
previously
discussed.
Discussions
of
the
effects
of
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
taxonomic
groups
are
presented
below.
Submitted
studies
are
also
addressed
for
each
taxonomic
group.

Table
17.
Aquatic
Toxicity
profile
for
Triadimefon
and
Triadimenol
Endpoint
Chemical
Environment/
Species
Toxicity
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Comments
Acute
Toxicity
to
Fish
Triadimefon
Freshwater
Rainbow
trout
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
96­
hr
LC50
=
4.1
ppm
No
Data
MRID
43256201
NA
Acceptable
No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
Triadimenol
Freshwater
Rainbow
trout
Bluegill
sunfish
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
96­
hr
LC50
=
14
ppm
No
Data
MRID
071469
NA
Acceptable
No
studies
were
submitted
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Fish
Triadimefon
Freshwater
Rainbow
trout
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
NOAEC
=
0.041
ppm
LOAEC
=
0.116
ppm
No
Data
MRID
251243
NA
Supplemental:
insufficient
reporting
of
replicate
results;
20%
reduction
in
growth
at
0.116
ppm.

No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
Endpoint
Chemical
Environment/
Species
Toxicity
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Comments
Page
46
of
241
Triadimenol
Freshwater
No
data
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
No
Data
No
Data
NA
NA
No
studies
were
submitted
No
studies
were
submitted
Acute
Toxicity
to
Invertebrates
Triadimefon
Freshwater
Daphnia
magna
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
48­
hr
LC50
=
1.6
ppm
No
Data
MRID
231311
NA
Acceptable
No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
Triadimenol
Freshwater
Daphnia
magna
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
48­
hr
LC50
=
2.5
ppm
No
Data
MRID
071469
NA
Acceptable
No
studies
were
submitted
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Invertebrates
Triadimefon
Freshwater
Daphnia
magna
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
NOAEC
=
0.052
ppm
LOAEC
=
0.119
ppm
No
Data
MRID
41922101
NA
Supplemental:
individual
animal
lenths
not
included;
reduction
in
adult
length
No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
Triadimenol
Freshwater
No
data
(
TGAI)

Est/
Marine
No
data
(
TGAI)
No
Data
No
Data
NA
NA
No
studies
were
submitted
No
studies
were
submitted
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Triadimefon
Vascular
No
data
(
TGAI)

Non­
vascular
Green
algae
S.
subspicatus
(
TGAI)
No
Data
EC50
=
1.71
ppm
NOAEC
=
0.1
ppm
NA
MRID
00159558
No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
Supplemental:
not
guideline
test
species
Endpoint
Chemical
Environment/
Species
Toxicity
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Comments
Page
47
of
241
Triadimenol
Vascular
No
data
(
TGAI)

Non­
vascular
Green
algae
S.
subspicatus
(
TGAI)
No
Data
EC50
=
3.7
ppm
NOAEC
=
0.32
ppm
NA
MRID
00159558
No
studies
were
submitted
Supplemental:
not
guideline
test
species
Table
18.
Terrestrial
Toxicity
Profile
for
Triadimefon
and
Triadimenol
Endpoint
Chemical
Environment/
Species
Toxicity
Value
Used
in
Risk
Assessment
Reference
Comments
Acute
Toxicity
to
Birds
Triadimefon
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
=
>
2000
mg
ai/
kg
bw
MRID
41895901
Acceptable:
no
mortalities
or
signs
of
toxicity
at
any
test
concentration
Triadimenol
Bobwhite
quail
LD50
=
>
2000
mg
ai/
kg
bw
MRID
071469
Acceptable:
no
mortalities
or
signs
of
toxicity
at
any
test
concentration
Subacute
Toxicity
to
Birds
Triadimefon
Bobwhite
quail
LC50
=
8392
ppm
MRID
00050066
Acceptable:
reduced
body
weight
gain,
reduced
food
consumption
Triadimenol
Mallard
duck
LC50
>
5000
ppm
MRID
00126277
Acceptable:
no
mortalities
or
signs
of
toxicity
at
any
test
concentration
Reproductive
Toxicity
to
Birds
Triadimefon
Bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
=
20
ppm
LOAEC
=
100
ppm
MRID
110431
Acceptable:
Increase
in
eggs
cracked,
reduction
in
fertile
eggs,
viable
embryos,
hatchlings,
and
14­
day
survival
Triadimenol
Mallard
duck
NOAEC
=
100
ppm
LOAEC
=
500
ppm
MRID
40283102
Acceptable:
Reduction
in
eggs
laid,
viability,
hatchability,
and
14­
day
survivors
Acute
Toxicity
to
Mammals
Triadimefon
Rat
LD50
=
1090
mg/
kg
(
females)
MRID
00264276
Acceptable
Triadimenol
Rat
LD50
=
689
mg/
kg
(
males)
MRID
00125411
Acceptable
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
Triadimefon
Rat
NOAEC
=
50
ppm
LOAEC
=
1800
ppm
MRID
00155075
92188019
92188320
Decreased
pup
weights
and
viability
Triadimenol
Rat
NOAEC
=
100
ppm
LOAEC
=
500
ppm
MRID
00151248
Decreased
pup
weights
Page
48
of
241
Acute
toxicity
to
honey
bees
Triadimefon
Honey
bee
LD50
=
>
25
µ
g
ai/
bee
MRID
42307804
Acceptable
Triadimenol
No
data
No
data
NA
No
studies
were
submitted
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Plants
Triadimefon
No
data
No
data
NA
Not
required;
No
studies
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
that
could
be
used
quantitatively,
Triadimenol
1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
a.
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Animals
i.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Fish
Two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon.
The
preferred
test
species
are
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss
­
a
coldwater
fish)
and
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus
­
a
warmwater
fish).
Toxicity
data
are
available
for
technical
grade
triadimefon
as
well
as
the
formulated
product
50WP,
a
50%
formulation.
Complete
toxicity
results
are
available
in
Appendix
C.
Freshwater
fish
acute
toxicity
values
(
LC
50
)
for
triadimefon
range
from
4.1
­
28
ppm
(
rainbow
trout)
and
10
­
24.7
ppm
(
bluegill
sunfish),
indicating
that
triadimefon
is
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
most
sensitive
species
tested
is
the
rainbow
trout,
with
an
LC
50
of
4.1
ppm,
which
is
categorized
as
moderately
toxic
(
MRID
43256201).
Toxicity
data
for
an
additional
freshwater
fish
species,
the
channel
catfish
(
Ictalurus
punctatus)
were
also
provided,
with
an
LC
50
value
of
15
ppm
(
MRID
231311).

As
with
triadimefon,
two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
the
major
triadimefon
degradate,
triadimenol.
Toxicity
data
are
available
for
rainbow
trout,
bluegill
sunfish,
goldfish
(
Carasium
auratus)
and
golden
orfe
(
Leuciscus
idus
melanotus).
Complete
toxicity
results
are
available
in
Appendix
C.
Freshwater
fish
acute
toxicity
values
(
LC
50
)
for
triadimenol
range
from
14
­
50
ppm,
indicating
that
triadimenol
is
slightly
toxic
on
an
acute
basis.
The
most
sensitive
species
tested
were
the
rainbow
trout
and
bluegill
sunfish,
with
an
LC
50
of
14
ppm,
which
is
characterized
as
slightly
toxic
(
MRID
071469).
The
goldfish
study
(
MRID
071469)
indicated
that
the
triadimenol
LC
50
was
between
10
and
50
ppm,
but
the
actual
LC
50
could
not
be
calculated
because
there
were
too
few
organisms
per
test
level
and
the
test
levels
were
too
far
apart.

No
further
acute
freshwater
fish
studies
were
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
literature
database.

ii.
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Fish
A
freshwater
fish
early
life­
stage
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
triadimefon
because
the
enduse
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
to
water
from
the
intended
use
sites.
Given
its
intended
use,
triadimefon's
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent,
and
it
has
a
long
halflife
in
the
aquatic
environment
(
668
days
for
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism).
Toxicity
data
are
available
for
the
fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
and
rainbow
trout.
The
most
sensitive
Page
49
of
241
species
is
the
rainbow
trout,
with
a
NOAEL
of
41
ppb
based
on
reduction
of
larval
growth
(
MRID
251243).
The
fathead
minnow
study
demonstrated
a
NOAEL
of
170
ppb
based
on
adult
survival
(
MRID
41922103).

There
are
currently
no
chronic
fish
toxicity
studies
submitted
or
in
the
open
literature
(
ECOTOX)
for
the
degradate
triadimenol,
and
no
further
chronic
freshwater
fish
studies
were
obtained
through
ECOTOX
for
either
chemical.

iii.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
Acute
freshwater
invertebrate
data
are
available
for
both
the
TGAI
as
well
as
the
formulated
product
50WP,
a
50%
formulation.
Complete
toxicity
results
are
available
in
Appendix
C.
Freshwater
invertebrate
48­
hour
acute
toxicity
values
(
LC
50
)
for
triadimefon
range
from
1.6
­
11.3
ppm
for
Daphnia
magna,
indicating
that
triadimefon
is
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
The
most
sensitive
study
indicated
an
LC
50
of
1.6
ppm
(
MRID
231311).
Toxicity
data
for
an
additional
species,
the
crayfish
(
Orconectes
neglectus)
indicated
that
triadimefon
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
this
species
(
LC
50
=
104
ppm;
MRID
254693).

Freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
tests
were
also
performed
for
the
degradate
triadimenol.
The
48­
hour
Daphnia
magna
LC
50
for
triadimenol
is
2.5
ppm
(
MRID
071469),
classifying
this
degradate
as
moderately
toxic
to
Daphnia.

No
further
acute
freshwater
invertebrate
studies
were
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
literature
database.

iv.
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
life­
cycle
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
triadimefon
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
to
water
from
the
intended
use
sites
Given
its
intended
use,
triadimefon's
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent,
and
it
has
a
long
half­
life
in
the
aquatic
environment
(>
4
days;
triadimefon
t
1/
2
=
668
days
for
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism).
Toxicity
data
are
available
for
Daphnia
magna,
with
NOAEL
values
of
0.087
ppm
(
decreased
reproduction;
MRID
246736)
and
0.052
ppm
(
decreased
adult
length;
MRID
41922102).

No
chronic
freshwater
invertebrate
toxicity
data
area
available
for
the
degradate
triadimenol.

No
further
chronic
freshwater
invertebrate
studies
were
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
literature
database.

b.
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Animals
No
triadimefon
or
triadimenol
estuarine/
marine
animal
(
fish
and
invertebrate)
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
tests
were
submitted
to
the
Agency.
However,
acute
tests
are
required
because
the
enduse
product
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment
based
on
its
widespread
use
patterns
(
e.
g.
turf).
Page
50
of
241
Estuarine/
marine
animal
chronic
toxicity
tests
are
also
required
for
triadimefon
because
the
enduse
produce
is
expected
to
be
transported
to
the
estuarine/
marine
environment
from
the
intended
use
sites
and
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
the
pesticide
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
the
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
regardless
of
toxicity,
and
(
2)
the
pesticide
is
persistent
in
water
(
t
1/
2
>
4
days).
Triadimefon
has
an
aerobic
aquatic
half­
life
of
668
days.

The
lack
of
any
estuarine/
marine
animal
toxicity
data
represents
a
data
gap,
although
the
relatively
low
toxicity
of
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
to
freshwater
animals
suggests
that
submission
of
new
studies
with
estuarine/
marine
animal
species
may
not
be
crucial
to
this
assessment.
No
estuarine/
marine
toxicity
studies
were
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database.

c.
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Currently,
aquatic
plant
testing
is
not
required
for
pesticides
other
than
herbicides
or
chemicals
applied
directly
to
the
aquatic
environment,
or
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
e.
g.,
phytotoxicity
problems
concerning
the
product
arise
and
open
literature
data
are
not
available
to
address
the
problems).
Aquatic
plant
toxicity
studies
were
performed
for
triadimefon
on
both
TGAI
and
the
50WP
formulated
product
(
50%
formulation)
on
green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum).
EC
50
values
ranged
from
0.91
to
1.71
ppm
(
MRIDs
43401707,
41616007,
&
00159558).
The
EC
50
for
triadimenol
(
TGAI)
was
3.7
ppm
(
MRID
266051).
No
studies
were
performed
on
vascular
aquatic
plant
species.
No
aquatic
plant
toxicity
data
area
available
for
the
degradate
triadimenol.
Additionally,
no
further
aquatic
plant
studies
were
obtained
through
ECOTOX
for
triadimefon
or
triadimenol.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
a.
Acute
and
Subacute
Toxicity
to
Birds
In
order
to
establish
the
acute
and
subacute
toxicity
to
birds,
the
following
tests
are
required
using
triadimefon
TGAI:
one
avian
single­
dose
oral
(
LD
50
)
study
on
one
species
(
preferably
mallard
or
bobwhite
quail),
and
two
subacute
dietary
studies
(
LC
50
)
on
one
species
of
waterfowl
(
preferably
the
mallard
duck)
and
one
species
of
upland
game
bird
(
preferable
bobwhite
quail).

The
acute
oral
toxicity
of
triadimefon
(
TGAI)
to
14­
day
old
mallard
ducks
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
was
assessed
over
8
days
(
MRID
00050070).
The
8­
day
acute
oral
LD
50
exceeded
the
highest
dose
tested
(>
4000
mg
ai/
kg
bw).
There
were
no
mortalities
in
any
treatment
groups,
and
therefore
triadimefon
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
mallard
ducks.
Triadimefon
acute
oral
toxicity
to
adult
bobwhite
quail
was
assessed
over
14
days
(
MRID
41895901).
The
14­
day
oral
LD
50
exceeded
the
highest
dose
tested
(>
2000
mg
ai/
kg
bw).
No
mortality
occurred
at
any
dose
level
throughout
the
study
and
no
clinical
signs
of
toxicity
were
observed,
classifying
triadimefon
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
bobwhite
quail.
An
additional
study
was
performed
on
the
non­
guideline
species
canary,
which
demonstrated
no
mortality
of
signs
of
toxicity
at
any
dose
level.
The
LD
50
value
therefore
exceeded
the
highest
dose
tested
(
LD
50
=
>
1000
mg
ai/
kg
bw;
MRID
126274).

Two
subacute
dietary
studies
using
triadimefon
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
toxicity
to
birds.
Page
51
of
241
Toxicity
tests
performed
on
the
bobwhite
quail
indicate
that
triadimefon
is
practically
non­
toxic
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis
to
this
species.
Dietary
LC
50
values
ranged
from
>
4640
ppm
for
bobwhite
quail
(
MRID
00050066)
to
>
10,000
ppm
for
the
mallard
duck
(
Acc.
#
231311,
1977).
Only
one
dietary
study
(
MRID
0050066)
indicated
any
mortalities,
and
the
bobwhite
quail
LC
50
was
calculated
to
be
8392
ppm
for
this
study.

Avian
single
dose
oral
toxicity
studies
were
also
performed
on
the
major
degradate
triadimenol.
The
acute
oral
(
LD
50
)
toxicity
of
triadimenol
to
bobwhite
quail
exceeded
the
highest
dose
tested
(>
2000
mg
ai/
kg)
(
MRID
126276).
Additionally,
a
triadimenol
subacute
dietary
study
was
performed
with
mallard
ducks,
and
no
mortality
or
signs
of
toxicity
were
seen
at
any
doses
(
LC
50
>
5000
ppm;
MRID
00126277).

No
further
acute
avian
studies
were
obtained
through
ECOTOX
for
triadimefon
or
triadimenol.

b.
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Birds
Chronic
avian
testing
is
required
because
triadimefon
is
persistent
and
has
multiple
applications
per
growing
season.
Four
avian
reproduction
studies,
which
are
summarized
in
Appendix
C,
were
submitted
for
review.

In
the
bobwhite
quail
study
(
MRID
110431),
the
NOAEC
was
determined
to
be
20
ppm
ai,
based
on
an
increase
in
cracked
eggs
and
decreases
in
the
number
of
fertile
eggs,
viable
embryos,
hatchlings,
and
14­
day
old
survivors.
The
primary
effect
of
triadimefon
on
avian
reproduction
seems
to
be
the
number
of
fertile
eggs
and
viable
14­
day
old
survivors.
Both
of
these
endpoints
demonstrated
an
83%
decrease
at
the
highest
dose
of
500
ppm.
The
LOAEC
was
100
ppm
ai.

The
other
bobwhite
quail
study
(
MRID
42342301)
was
classified
as
supplemental
because
of
problems
with
the
incubator
causing
cracked
eggs
in
the
control
dose.
A
mallard
duck
study
(
MRID
42342302)
demonstrated
a
NOAEC
at
the
highest
tested
concentration
of
780
ppm
ai.
There
were
no
effects
of
triadimefon
exposure
on
mortality,
behavior,
or
reproductive
performance
at
this
concentration.
A
second
mallard
duck
study
(
MRID
248117)
was
classified
as
supplemental
because
of
poor
reproductive
success
of
the
control
(
poor
hatchling
survival
rates
in
the
controls).

Avian
reproductive
toxicity
tests
were
also
performed
for
the
degradate
triadimenol.
The
NOAEC
for
mallard
duck
(
MRID
149835)
was
determined
to
be
100
ppm
ai,
based
on
decreases
in
the
number
of
eggs
laid,
viability,
hatchability,
and
14­
day
survivors.
A
study
with
the
bobwhite
quail
was
classified
as
invalid
(
MRID
149834)
because
the
observations
in
the
study
suggest
that
the
controls
may
have
been
less
capable
of
successful
reproduction
than
the
test
organisms,
thereby
diminishing
their
value
as
a
true
control
for
all
reproductive
parameters.

No
further
chronic
avian
studies
were
obtained
through
ECOTOX
for
triadimefon
or
triadimenol.

c.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Mammals
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
Page
52
of
241
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
patterns,
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
most
cases,
rate
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Heath
Effects
Division
(
HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
The
acute
mammalian
toxicity
studies
cited
in
HED's
one­
liners
are
summarized
in
Appendix
C.
Rats
exposed
to
triadimefon
(
TGAI)
showed
LD
50
values
of
1470
mg/
kg
(
males;
95%
C.
I.=
982
­
2192)
and
1090
mg/
kg
(
females;
95%
C.
I.
=
753
­
1549)
(
MRID
00264276),
classifying
triadimefon
as
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
basis.

Mammal
acute
toxicity
tests
were
also
performed
on
laboratory
rats
for
the
degradate
triadimenol.
Rats
exposed
to
triadimenol
(
TGAI)
showed
LD
50
values
of
689
mg/
kg
(
males;
95%
C.
I.
=
571
­
831)
and
752
mg/
kg
(
females;
95%
C.
I.
=
647
­
874)
(
MRID
00125411),
classifying
triadimenol
as
slightly
toxic
to
mammals
on
an
acute
basis.

For
the
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
the
acute
toxicity
value
for
triadimenol
of
689
mg/
kg
will
be
used
to
calculate
risk
quotients
for
both
parent
triadimefon
and
triadimenol.

One
study
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
was
identified
by
the
OPP/
EFED
screen
as
a
more
sensitive
toxicity
endpoint
(
Reference
#
77575).
This
study
was
deemed
supplemental
but
could
not
be
used
quantitatively
because
it
cannot
be
linked
directly
to
the
effects
endpoints
used
by
the
Agency.
Only
male
rats
were
dosed
with
triadimefon,
the
study
only
lasted
15
days,
and
the
endpoint
(
increase
in
liver
weight)
cannot
be
quantitatively
linked
to
fertility,
fecundity,
or
survival.

d.
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Mammals
Similar
to
the
acute
data,
mammalian
chronic
data
obtained
from
the
Agency's
HED
are
substituted
for
wild
mammalian
testing.
HED
reproductive
and
developmental
toxicity
values
are
reported
in
Appendix
C.
These
studies
provide
adequate
toxicity
data
on
chronic
developmental
and
reproductive
effects
of
triadimefon.
Chronic
triadimefon
studies
using
laboratory
rats
show
decreased
pup
weights
and
viability
in
the
F
1
and
F
2
generations
and
decreased
litter
size
in
the
F
2
generation
(
MRID
00155075,
92188019,
92188320),
with
an
offspring
NOAEL
of
50
ppm
ai.

Chronic
toxicity
studies
on
the
degradate
triadimenol
showed
decreased
pup
weights
with
a
NOAEL
of
100
ppm
ai
and
a
LOAEL
of
500
ppm
ai
(
MRID
00151248).

e.
Acute
Toxicity
to
Non­
target
Insects
(
Honeybee)
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
triadimefon
because
its
use
will
result
in
honeybee
exposure.
The
results
of
acute
contact
toxicity
testing
of
triadimefon
on
the
honeybee
(
Apis
mellifera)
are
summarized
in
Appendix
C.
No
mortality
was
observed
after
48
hours
in
the
contact
or
oral
tests
at
exposure
up
to
25
µ
g/
ai
bee.
The
LD
50
for
both
studies
was
determined
to
be
>
25
µ
g
ai/
bee
(
MRID
42307804
&
5001991),
classifying
triadimefon
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees
on
an
acute
basis.
No
data
are
available
for
the
degradate
triadimenol,
and
no
further
studies
were
obtained
from
ECOTOX
for
either
chemical.

f.
Toxicity
to
Non­
target
Plants
Page
53
of
241
Currently,
terrestrial
plant
testing
is
not
required
for
pesticides
other
than
herbicides
except
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis.
No
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
values
were
submitted
for
triadimefon.
Although
several
studies
were
obtained
through
ECOTOX,
none
of
the
identified
studies
were
suitable
for
use
as
quantitative
toxicity
endpoints
in
this
risk
assessment;
however,
several
of
the
studies
can
be
interpreted
qualitatively
to
demonstrate
potential
terrestrial
plant
risk
from
triadimefon
use.
The
following
studies
obtained
from
ECOTOX
provide
valuable
information
on
the
effects
of
triadimefon
to
terrestrial
plant
species:

°
ECOTOX
reference
#
77555:
The
study
demonstrated
that
Kentucky
bluegrass
regrowth
(
measured
as
dry
weight)
following
treatment
with
0.2
lb
ai/
A
triadimefon
was
significantly
inhibited
14
days
after
treatment.
This
same
study
showed
a
height
decrease
in
kidney
bean
plants
treated
with
0.25
mg
triadimefon
per
plant.
Although
the
study
did
not
provide
adequate
information
to
quantitatively
calculate
RQ
values
for
non­
target
terrestrial
plants,
these
results
suggest
that
triadimefon
may
have
negative
effects
on
both
monocot
and
dicot
non­
target
terrestrial
plants.

°
ECOTOX
reference
#
76504:
The
study
demonstrated
a
decrease
in
Easter
lily
plant
height
following
soil
drench
(
300
­
500
mg/
L
ai)
or
bulb
dip
treatment
(
20
­
100
mg/
L
ai).

°
ECOTOX
reference
#
77554:
The
study
showed
a
decrease
in
seed
germination
rate,
root
length,
shoot
length,
and
area
of
primary
and
secondary
leaves
in
barley
treated
with
a
soil
drench
of
250
µ
M
triadimefon.

°
ECOTOX
reference
#
72042:
The
study
demonstrated
a
decrease
in
4­
12
week
old
clover
fresh
weight
and
nitrogen
fixation
exposed
to
50
mg/
kg
triadimefon.

°
ECOTOX
reference
#
77683:
The
study
showed
a
decrease
in
coleoptile
length
in
barley
exposed
to
0.15
g/
kg
seed
triadimefon
(
seed
treatment).

Although
none
of
the
studies
provided
adequate
information
to
quantitatively
calculate
RQ
values
for
non­
target
terrestrial
plants,
these
results
suggest
that
triadimefon
may
have
negative
effects
on
both
monocot
and
dicot
non­
target
terrestrial
plants.

The
following
(
Table
19)
is
a
listing
of
the
other
terrestrial
plant
studies
identified
by
ECOTOX
and
the
reasons
why
they
were
deemed
unsuitable
for
use
(
either
qualitatively
or
quantitatively)
in
this
risk
assessment:

Table
19.
Rationale
for
Exclusion
of
Terrestrial
Plant
ECOTOX
Studies
ECOTOX
Reference
Number
Species
Rational
for
Exclusion
76505
Winter
Wheat
Study
examined
the
effect
of
fungicidal
properties
on
subsequent
crop
yield
77554
Barley
Seed
treatment
Page
54
of
241
77556
Cucumber
Inappropriate
endpoint
Measurement
was
tolerance
to
cold
stress
77577
Spring
Barley
Study
showed
that
application
of
triadimefon
to
barley
controlled
leaf
disease
without
influencing
yield
77591
Wheat
Inappropriate
endpoint
Measurement
was
moisture
stress
tolerance
77669
Wheat
Inappropriate
endpoint
Measurement
was
moisture
stress
tolerance
77672
Cowpea
Triadimefon
treatment
lead
to
increased
yield
(
due
to
disease
control)

77613
Kidney
bean
Inappropriate
endpoint
Measurement
was
cold
and
heat
tolerance
77687
Mung
bean
Inappropriate
endpoint
Measurement
was
alleviation
of
UV
stress
by
triadimefon
77572
Chickpea
Triadimefon
treatment
increased
reproductive
efficiency
as
a
result
of
disease
control
3.
Endocrine
Effects
EPA
is
required
under
the
FFDCA,
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally
occurring
estrogen
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
has
the
authority
to
require
wildlife
evaluations.
As
the
science
develops
and
resources
allow,
screening
of
additional
hormone
systems
may
be
added
to
the
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
(
EDSP).
When
the
appropriate
screening
and/
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
EDSP
have
been
developed,
triadimefon,
triadimenol,
and
their
degradates
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.
Page
55
of
241
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Risk
characterization
is
the
integration
of
exposure
and
effects
characterization
to
determine
the
ecological
risk
from
the
use
of
triadimefon
and
the
likelihood
of
effects
on
aquatic
life,
wildlife,
and
plants
based
on
varying
pesticide­
use
scenarios.
The
risk
characterization
provides
an
estimation
and
a
description
of
the
risk;
articulates
risk
assessment
assumptions,
limitations,
and
uncertainties;
synthesizes
an
overall
conclusion;
and
provides
the
risk
managers
with
information
to
make
regulatory
decisions.

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

Based
on
the
toxicity
data
presented
in
the
ecological
effects
assessment,
the
toxicity
of
triadimenol
is
equivalent
to
the
toxicity
of
the
parent
triadimefon
for
aquatic
species.
Therefore,
toxicity
values
for
the
parent
triadimefon
were
used
to
calculate
RQ
values.
In
terrestrial
environments,
the
degradate
triadimenol
is
formed
through
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
subsurface
and
following
plant
uptake
through
plant
metabolism.
Our
current
exposure
models
only
calculates
surface
residue
values.
Therefore,
terrestrial
organism
RQ
values
were
derived
for
triadimefon
and
not
the
degradate.

1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
Triadimefon
surface
water
concentrations
were
predicted
with
the
Tier
II
models
PRZMEXAMS
Five
scenarios
that
consider
food­
use
application
of
liquid
triadimefon
(
via
ground
and
aerial
spray)
were
examined:
apples
(
Pennsylvania,
North
Carolina,
and
Oregon),
berries
(
Oregon),
fruit
(
California;
used
to
model
pear
use)
and
grapes
(
California).
Non­
food
use
was
modeled
using
the
turf
(
Pennsylvania
and
Florida)
and
Christmas
tree
(
Oregon)
models.
There
are
currently
no
PRZM­
EXAMS
models
to
examine
ornamental
use.

One­
in­
ten
year
peak
EECs
were
compared
to
acute
toxicity
endpoints
to
derive
acute
RQs
and
1­
in­
ten
year
21­
day
and
60­
day
average
EECs
were
compared
to
chronic
toxicity
endpoints
to
derive
chronic
RQs
for
fish
and
invertebrates,
respectively.
Acute
and
chronic
RQs
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
are
summarized
in
Tables
20
and
21,
respectively.
RQ
values
could
not
be
derived
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates
because
of
the
lack
of
data.
Due
to
the
lack
to
toxicity
data
on
vascular
aquatic
plants,
no
RQ
values
could
be
calculated
for
these
species.
However,
RQs
were
calculated
for
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
using
1­
in­
ten
year
peak
EECs
and
EC
50
values.
In
addition,
peak
EECs
were
also
compared
to
NOAEC
values
for
non­
vascular
plants
to
derive
listed
species
RQs
for
this
taxonomic
group.
RQ
values
for
non­
vascular
aquatic
Page
56
of
241
plants
are
presented
in
Table
22.

a.
Freshwater
Fish
and
Invertebrates
Table
20
lists
the
acute
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
triadimefon/
triadimenol.
For
freshwater
fish
and
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
the
acute
RQ
values
associated
with
all
modeled
use
scenarios
are
less
than
the
acute
risk
LOC
(
RQ<
0.01).
For
freshwater
invertebrates,
the
acute
RQs
for
FL
and
PA
turf
(
maximum
#
of
applications)
exceed
acute
endangered
species
LOC,
with
values
of
0.09
and
0.07,
respectively.
Additionally,
the
acute
RQ
for
freshwater
invertebrates
exceeds
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
average
golf
course
turf
application
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval),
with
an
RQ
of
0.05.

Table
21
presents
the
chronic
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
triadimefon/
triadimenol.
For
freshwater
fish,
aquatic­
phase
amphibians,
and
invertebrates,
the
chronic
RQs
for
FL
and
PA
turf
(
golf
course,
maximum
application
rates,
maximum
#
of
applications)
exceed
the
Agency
chronic
LOC
of
1.
Additionally,
the
chronic
LOC
was
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
for
application
of
triadimefon
to
FL
golf
course
turf
at
the
average
application
rate
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,,
maximum
#
of
applications).
The
freshwater
fish
LOC
was
exceeded
for
the
average
application
rate
PA
golf
course
turf
scenario
(
maximum
#
of
applications)
and
for
the
FL
golf
course
turf
average
application
rate
scenario
with
only
6
applications
(
60d
interval).
RQ
values
ranged
from
1.0
­
3.1.

Table
20.
Acute
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
triadimefon/
triadimenol
Crop
Application
rate
(
number
of
apps)
Application
method
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotients
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
=
4100
ppb
Freshwater
Invertebrate
LC50
=
1600
ppb
NC
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
3.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
4.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
1.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
4.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
5.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
1.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
1.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
NY
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
fruit
(
represents
pears)
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
0.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
2.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
Page
57
of
241
OR
berries
­
ground
spray
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
apps,
28d
interval)
ground
spray
1.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Xmas
Tree
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
4.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
150.6
<
LOC
0.09*

FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
75.6
<
LOC
0.05*

FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
a
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
54.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
a
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
27.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
16.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
14.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
110.3
<
LOC
0.07*

PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
55.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
11.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
(
no
incorporation)
9.8
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
=
below
all
Agency
LOC
(<
0.01)
*
exceeds
Agency
acute
endangered
species
LOC
of
0.05
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
Table
21.
Chronic
risk
quotients
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
exposed
to
triadimefon/
triadimenol
Crop
Application
rate
(
number
of
apps)
Application
method
21­
day
EEC
(
ppb)
60­
day
EEC
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotients
FW
Fish
NOAEC
=
41
ppb
FW
Invert
NOAEC
=
52
ppb
NC
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
2.9
2.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.6
3.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
1.3
1.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
2.6
2.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
3.7
3.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
Page
58
of
241
aerial
spray
4.7
4.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
0.7
0.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
1.1
0.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
NY
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.4
2.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.1
2.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
fruit
(
represents
pears)
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
0.5
0.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
1.7
1.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
berries
­
ground
spray
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
apps,
28d
interval)
ground
spray
1.5
1.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Xmas
Tree
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.2
1.8
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.5
3.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
127.5
108.3
3.1*
2.1*

FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
64.2
54.3
1.6*
1.0*

FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
MAXa
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
45.5
34.2
1.1*
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
AVEa
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
22.8
17.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
13.3
9.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
12.2
9.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
93.2
74.1
2.3*
1.4*

PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
46.8
37.2
1.1*
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
9.1
6.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
(
no
incorporation)
8.1
6.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
=
below
all
Agency
LOC
(<
1.0)
*
Exceeds
Agency
chronic
LOC
of
1.0
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
Page
59
of
241
b.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
and
Invertebrates
No
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
because
no
toxicity
data
was
submitted
to
the
Agency.

c.
Aquatic
Plants
Table
22
lists
the
RQs
for
aquatic,
non­
vascular
plants
potentially
exposed
to
triadimefon/
triadimenol.
For
non­
listed
non­
vascular
plants,
no
acute
RQs
exceeded
the
Agency's
LOC
(
RQ<
1).
For
listed
non­
vascular
plants,
the
Agency's
LOC
was
exceeded
for
the
FL
and
PA
turf
scenarios
(
golf
course,
maximum
#
of
applications),
with
RQ
values
of
1.5
and
1.1,
respectively.

Table
22.
Acute
non­
endangered
and
endangered
species
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
non­
vascular
plants
exposed
to
triadimefon
Crop
Application
rate
(
number
of
apps)
Application
method
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotients
Non­
endangered
EC50
=
1710
ppb
Endangered
NOAEC
=
100
ppb
NC
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
3.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
4.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
1.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
Apple
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
4.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
5.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
1.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
1.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
NY
Grape
(
0.1875,
3
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
3.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
CA
fruit
(
represents
pears)
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
apps,
7d
interval)
ground
spray
0.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
2.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
berries
­
ground
spray
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
apps,
28d
interval)
ground
spray
1.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
OR
Xmas
Tree
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
apps,
14d
interval)
ground
spray
2.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
aerial
spray
4.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
150.6
<
LOC
1.5
Crop
Application
rate
(
number
of
apps)
Application
method
Peak
EEC
(
ppb)
Risk
Quotients
Non­
endangered
EC50
=
1710
ppb
Endangered
NOAEC
=
100
ppb
Page
60
of
241
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
75.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
MAXa
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
54.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
6
apps,
60d
interval)
AVEa
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
27.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
16.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
FL
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
14.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
MAX
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
110.3
<
LOC
1.1*

PA
turf
(
golf
course
application)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
AVE
ground
spray
(
no
incorporation)
55.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
(
lawn
&
landscape)
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
ground
spray
11.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
PA
turf
­
granules
(
consumer
use)
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
2
apps,
30d
interval)
broadcast
(
no
incorporation)
9.8
<
LOC
<
LOC
*
Exceeds
Agency
LOC
of
1.0
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
The
EEC
values
for
terrestrial
exposure
for
spray
applications
were
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.,
(
1994),
based
on
a
large
set
of
actual
field
residue
data.
For
spray
applications,
EECs
were
calculated
for
six
different
crop
scenarios
(
apples/
pears,
raspberries,
grapes,
golf
course
turf,
residential/
commercial
turf,
and
Christmas
trees)
with
application
rates
ranging
from
0.125
lb
ai/
A
to
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
varying
number
of
applications
and
application
intervals.
Typically,
risk
quotients
are
based
on
the
most
sensitive
LC
50
and
NOAEC
values
for
birds
and
LD
50
and
NOAEL
for
mammals
(
based
on
laboratory
rat
studies).
For
granular
applications,
the
mg
ai/
ft2
values
are
compared
to
LD
50
values
to
estimate
the
potential
for
mortality.
However,
definitive
avian
LD
50
values
were
not
available
for
triadimefon
(
no
mortalities
or
signs
of
toxicity
were
seen
in
the
study
at
the
highest
exposure
level),
so
dose­
based
RQ
values
were
not
calculated.
However,
an
subacute
dietary
study
demonstrated
an
LC
50
of
8392
ppm,
which
was
used
to
calculate
acute
dietary­
based
RQ
values
for
birds.
Page
61
of
241
a.
Birds
­
Spray
Application
Table
23
summarizes
the
acute
and
chronic
avian
dietary­
based
RQs
for
various
triadimefon
uses.
Agency
acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
only
for
golf
course
turf
with
the
maximum
application
rate
(
26
applications,
14d
interval
and
6
applications,
60d
interval)
as
well
as
the
average
application
rate
(
26
applications,
14d
interval).
The
acute
restricted
use,
and
endangered
species
LOC
are
exceeded
for
birds
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.

Avian
dietary­
based
chronic
RQ
values
exceed
the
Agency
LOC
of
1
for
birds
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
all
modeled
scenarios
and
application
rates.
RQ
values
range
from
1.6
­
133.7.
Additionally,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
birds
that
feed
on
fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
for
all
golf
course
scenarios
(
26
applications,
6
applications,
1
application
at
both
maximum
and
average
use
rates)
and
residential/
commercial/
recreational
turf
scenarios.

Table
23.
Avian
dietary­
based
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
nongranular
triadimefon
(
based
on
LC
50
of
8392
mg/
kg
diet
and
NOAEC
of
50
mg/
kg
diet)
based
on
upper­
bound
Kenaga
values.

Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Apples
&
Pears
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
Short
grass
157.7
<
LOC
7.9****

Tall
grass
72.28
<
LOC
3.6****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
88.71
<
LOC
4.4****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
9.86
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
Short
grass
69.03
<
LOC
3.5****

Tall
grass
31.64
<
LOC
1.6****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
38.83
<
LOC
1.9****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
4.31
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
104.95
<
LOC
5.2****

Tall
grass
48.10
<
LOC
2.4****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
59.03
<
LOC
2.9****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
6.56
<
LOC
<
LOC
Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Page
62
of
241
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
MAX
use
rate
Short
grass
2674.1
0.3**
133.7****

Tall
grass
1225.6
0.2**
61.3****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
1504.2
0.2**
75.2****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
167.1
<
LOC
8.4****

Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
MAX
use
rate
Short
grass
648.0
<
LOC
32.4****

Tall
grass
297.0
<
LOC
14.9****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
364.5
<
LOC
18.2****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
40.5
<
LOC
2.0****

Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
applications,
60d
interval)
a
MAX
use
rate
Short
grass
931.3
0.1*
46.6****

Tall
grass
426.8
0.1*
21.3****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
523.9
0.1*
26.2****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
58.2
<
LOC
2.9****

Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
AVE
use
rate
Short
grass
1347.0
0.2**
67.4****

Tall
grass
617.4
0.1*
30.9****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
757.7
0.1*
37.9****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
84.2
<
LOC
4.2****

Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
AVE
use
rate
Short
grass
326.4
<
LOC
16.3****

Tall
grass
149.6
<
LOC
7.5****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
183.6
<
LOC
9.2****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
20.4
<
LOC
1.0****

Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
573.8
<
LOC
28.7****

Tall
grass
263.0
<
LOC
13.1****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
322.7
<
LOC
16.1****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
35.9
<
LOC
1.8****
Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Page
63
of
241
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
Short
grass
220.8
<
LOC
11.0****

Tall
grass
101.2
<
LOC
5.1****

Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
124.2
<
LOC
6.2****

Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
13.8
<
LOC
<
LOC
1Kenaga
EEC
(
mg/
kg
food
item)
/
LC50
(
mg/
kg
diet)
2Kenaga
EEC
(
mg/
kg
food
item)
/
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg
diet)
*
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
(
RQ
$
0.1)
**
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
and
restricted
use
(
RQ
$
0.2)
***
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species,
restricted
use,
and
acute
risk
(
RQ
$
0.5)
****
exceeds
LOC
for
chronic
risk
(
RQ
=
1.0)
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
b.
Mammals
­
Spray
Application
Table
24
summarizes
the
mammalian
dose­
based
acute
RQs
for
all
uses
of
triadimefon.
Acute,
acute
restricted
use
and/
or
listed
species
acute
risk
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
turf
(
golf
course
and
residential/
commercial/
recreation)
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
The
acute
listed
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
all
sizes
of
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
15
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
and
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass
for
triadimefon
use
on
apples
and
pears.
Use
of
triadimefon
on
grapes
leads
to
exceedances
of
the
acute
listed
species
LOC
for
15
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass.
Additionally,
the
acute
listed
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
for
Christmas
tree
triadimefon
application.
RQ
values
range
from
0.1
to
1.7.

Table
25
presents
the
mammalian
dose­
based
chronic
RQs
for
triadimefon
use.
Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
all
sizes
of
mammals
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
all
modeled
scenarios
and
application
rates.
Additionally,
Agency
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
for
all
scenarios
except
raspberries.
Turf
use
results
in
exceedances
for
mammals
that
feed
on
seeds.
Chronic
RQ
values
range
from
1.1
­
464.0.

Table
26
summarizes
the
mammalian
dietary­
based
chronic
RQs
for
triadimefon
uses.
Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
uses
on
apples,
turf
(
golf
course
and
residential/
commercial/
recreational),
and
Christmas
trees,
with
chronic
RQs
ranging
from
1.4
­
53.5.
Risk
quotients
based
on
dietary
exposure
levels
are
provided
for
comparison
purposes.

Table
24.
Mammalian
dose­
based
acute
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
triadimenol
LD
50
of
689
mg/
kg
in
rats)
based
on
upper­
bound
Kenaga
values.
Page
64
of
241
Use
Body
Weight
(
g)
Adjusted
LD50
Mammalian
Dose­
based
Acute
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Seeds
Apples
&
Pears
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
15
1514.3
0.1
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.1
<
LOC
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
15
1514.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
15
1514.3
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
MAX
rate
15
1514.3
1.7***
0.8***
1.0***
0.1*
<
LOC
35
1225.2
1.4***
0.7***
0.8***
0.1*
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.8***
0.4**
0.4**
0.1*
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
MAX
rate
15
1514.3
0.4**
0.2**
0.2**
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.4**
0.2**
0.2*
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.2**
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
applications,
60d
interval)
a
MAX
rate
15
1514.3
0.6***
0.3**
0.3**
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.5***
0.2**
0.3**
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.3**
0.1*
0.2**
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
AVE
rate
15
1514.3
0.9***
0.4**
0.5***
0.1*
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.7***
0.3**
0.4**
0.1*
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.4**
0.2**
0.2**
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
AVE
rate
15
1514.3
0.2**
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.2**
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.1*
<
LOC
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/
&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
15
1514.3
0.4**
0.2**
0.2**
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.3**
0.1*
0.2**
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.2**
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Page
65
of
241
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
15
1514.3
0.1*
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
1225.2
0.1*
0.1*
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
530.0
0.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1Acute
daily
exposure
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
/
adjusted
LD50
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
*
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
(
RQ
$
0.1)
**
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
and
restricted
use
(
RQ
$
0.2)
***
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species,
restricted
use,
and
acute
risk
(
RQ
$
0.5)
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
Table
25.
Mammalian
dose­
based
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
rat
NOAEL
of
2.5
mg/
kg
body
weight
and
upper­
bound
Kenaga
values).

Use
Body
Weight
(
g)
Adjusted
NOAEL
Dose­
based
Chronic
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
p
ods/
large
insects
Seeds
Apples
&
Pears
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
15
5.5
27.4*
12.5*
15.4*
1.7*
<
LOC
35
4.5
23.4*
10.7*
13.2*
1.5*
<
LOC
1000
1.9
12.5*
5.7*
7.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
15
5.5
12.0*
5.5*
6.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
4.5
10.2*
4.7*
5.8*
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
1.9
5.5*
2.5*
3.1*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
15
5.5
18.2*
8.4*
10.2*
1.1*
<
LOC
35
4.5
15.6*
7.1*
8.8*
1.0*
<
LOC
1000
1.9
8.3*
3.8*
4.7*
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
MAX
rate
15
5.5
464.0*
212.7*
261.0*
29.0*
6.4*

35
4.5
396.4*
181.7*
223.0*
24.8*
5.5*

1000
1.9
212.5*
97.4*
119.5*
13.3*
3.0*

Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
MAX
rate
15
5.5
112.4*
51.5*
63.3*
7.0*
1.6*

35
4.5
96.1*
44.0*
54.0*
6.0*
1.3*

1000
1.9
51.5*
23.6*
29.0*
3.2*
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
applications,
60d
interval)
a
MAX
rate
15
5.5
161.6*
74.1*
90.9*
10.1*
2.2*

35
4.5
138.0*
63.3*
77.7*
8.6*
1.9*

1000
1.9
74.0*
33.9*
41.6*
4.6*
1.0*
Use
Body
Weight
(
g)
Adjusted
NOAEL
Dose­
based
Chronic
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
p
ods/
large
insects
Seeds
Page
66
of
241
Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
AVE
rate
15
5.5
233.7*
107.1*
131.5*
14.6*
3.3*

35
4.5
199.7*
91.5*
112.3*
12.5*
2.8*

1000
1.9
107.0*
49.1*
60.2*
6.7*
1.5*

Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
AVE
rate
15
5.5
56.6*
26.0*
31.9*
3.5*
<
LOC
35
4.5
48.4*
22.2*
27.2*
3.0*
<
LOC
1000
1.9
25.9*
11.9*
14.6*
1.6*
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercia
l/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
15
5.5
99.6*
45.6*
56.0*
6.2*
1.4*

35
4.5
85.0*
39.0*
47.8*
5.3*
1.2*

1000
1.9
45.6*
20.9*
25.6*
2.9*
<
LOC
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
15
5.5
38.3*
17.6*
21.6*
2.4*
<
LOC
35
4.5
32.7*
15.0*
18.4*
2.1*
<
LOC
1000
1.9
17.5*
8.0*
9.9*
1.1*
<
LOC
1EEC
(
mg/
kg­
bw)/
NOAEL
(
mg/
kg­
bw)
*
Exceeds
the
Agency
chronic
LOC
of
1.0
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
Page
67
of
241
Table
26.
Mammalian
dietary­
based
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
rat
NOAEC
of
50mg/
kg
diet
and
upper
bound
Kenaga
values).

Use
Dietary­
based
Chronic
Risk
Quotients1
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
3.2*
1.5*
1.8*
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
1.4*
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
2.1*
<
LOC
1.2*
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
53.5*
24.5*
30.1*
3.3*

Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
13.0*
5.9*
7.3*
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
6
applications,
60d
interval)
a
18.6*
8.5*
10.5*
1.2*

Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
26.9*
12.4*
15.2*
1.7*

Golf
Course
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
6.5*
3.0*
3.7*
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
11.5*
5.3*
6.5*
<
LOC
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
4.4*
2.0*
2.5*
<
LOC
1EEC
(
mg/
kg
food
item)
/
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
*
Exceeds
the
Agency
chronic
LOC
of
1.0
a6
application,
60d
interval
scenario
modeled
for
comparative
purposes
only
c.
Granular
Application
The
predicted
triadimefon
granular
EEC
value
resulting
from
residential
application
at
a
rate
of
1.31
lb
ai/
A
(
30
day
interval,
2
applications
per
year)
is
14
mg
ai/
ft2.
Definitive
RQ
values
for
birds
could
not
be
derived
because
LD
50
values
were
set
as
greater
than
the
highest
triadimefon
concentration
tested,
and
there
were
to
mortalities
at
any
test
level.
Mammalian
acute
risk
quotients
based
on
granular
triadimefon
application
are
presented
in
Table
27.
Page
68
of
241
Table
27.
Mammalian
risk
quotients
resulting
from
use
of
granular
triadimefon
on
residential/
commercial
turf
(
1.31
lb
ai/
A,
30d
interval,
2
applications)

Mammal
size
EEC
(
mg
ai/
ft2)
LD50
(
mg/
kg
body
weight)
Adjusted
LD50
(
mg/
kg
body
weight)
RQ
15g
14
689
1514.3
0.6***

35g
14
689
1225.2
0.3**

1000g
14
689
530.0
<
LOC
*
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
(
RQ
$
0.1)
**
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species
and
restricted
use
(
RQ
$
0.2)
***
exceeds
LOC
for
acute
risk
to
listed
species,
restricted
use,
and
acute
risk
(
RQ
$
0.5)

d.
RQs
Based
on
Mean
Kenaga
Residues
Appendix
D
presents
acute
and
chronic
avian
and
mammalian
RQs
using
mean
Kenaga
residue
values.
These
RQs
do
not
for
the
basis
of
risk
conclusion
for
birds
and
mammals
but
are
provided
for
comparison
purposes.
Using
the
mean
Kenaga
residue
values
for
calculating
Rqs
would
not
protect
birds
and
mammals
that
consume
food
items
that
have
residues
on
the
higher
end
of
the
residue
distribution.
An
analysis
of
the
residue
distribution
for
the
different
food
items
using
input
values
from
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
and
assuming
a
log­
normal
distribution
of
residues
on
food
items
was
conducted.
The
analysis
shows
that
the
mean
Kenaga
values
range
from
about
the
62
­
87th
percentile,
indicating
that
up
to
38%
of
the
higher­
end
food
item
estimates
are
not
captured
by
using
the
mean
Kenaga
values.
Importantly,
if
the
actual
distribution
differed
from
log­
normal,
these
estimates
could
change
substantially.
The
implications
and
utility
of
these
values
is
described
further
in
the
Risk
Description
Section
below.

3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
No
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
data
were
submitted
to
the
Agency.
Several
studies
(
see
Section
III.
C.
2.
f)
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
demonstrated
that
triadimefon
may
have
negative
effects
on
both
monocot
and
dicot
non­
target
terrestrial
plants.
Although
the
studies
did
not
provide
adequate
information
to
quantitatively
calculate
RQ
values
for
non­
target
terrestrial
plants,
further
terrestrial
plant
studies
must
be
performed
and
submitted
to
the
Agency
as
part
of
the
data
requirements.

B.
Risk
Description
­
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
The
results
of
this
screening­
level
risk
assessment
suggest
the
potential
for
direct
adverse
acute
effects
to
freshwater
invertebrates
and
listed
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
at
the
maximum
and
average
application
rates
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
golf­
course
turf,
2.7
lb
ai/
A
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A)
and
maximum
number
of
yearly
applications
(
26,
14
day
interval).
Additionally,
there
are
potential
direct
adverse
acute
effects
to
listed
and
non­
listed
birds
based
on
dietary
exposure
at
this
same
application
rates
(
26
applications,
14
day
interval),
as
well
as
for
the
maximum
rate
with
6
applications
(
60
day
interval).
Acute
effects
may
also
occur
in
mammals
(
listed
and
non­
listed)
exposed
to
non­
granular
triadimefon
applied
to
apples,
pears,
grapes,
golf
course
turf,
Christmas
trees,
and
residential/
commercial/
recreational
turf,
as
well
as
granular
triadimefon
applied
to
residential/
commercial
turf.
Chronic
effects
may
occur
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
at
the
Page
69
of
241
highest
application
rates
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
see
above),
and
to
birds
and
mammals
at
all
application
rates
and
scenarios.
A
description
of
the
potential
direct
effects
associated
with
exposure
to
triadimefon
is
discussed
for
each
of
the
taxonomic
groups
below.
Table
28
provides
a
summary
of
the
direct
effects
for
Federally
listed
species
of
concern,
including
the
range
of
RQ
values
and
the
acute
dose­
response
slopes
used
for
probit
analysis,
as
applicable.

Table
28.
Summary
of
Direct
Effects
for
Federally
Listed
Species
Listed
Species
Taxonomic
Group
of
Concern
Direct
Effects
Slope
RQ
range
Freshwater
fish
Acute:
none
Chronic:
reduced
growth1
4.3
(
95%
CI:
2.8
­
5.8)
NA
<
LOC
<
LOC
­
3.1
Freshwater
invertebrates
Acute:
mortality/
immobilization1
Chronic:
reduced
adult
length1
4.3
(
95%
CI:
2.2
­
6.4)
NA
<
LOC
­
0.1
<
LOC
­
2.1
Non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
Acute:
reduced
cell
density
NA
<
LOC
­
1.5
Birds
Acute:
reduced
survival
3
Chronic:
reduced
egg
viability,
viable
embryos,
14­
d
survivors
4.52
(
95%
CI:
2
­
9)
NA
<
LOC
­
0.3
<
LOC
­
133.7
Mammals
Acute:
reduced
survival
Chronic:
reduced
pup
weight
4.5
(
95%
CI:
2
­
9)
NA
<
LOC
­
1.7
<
LOC
­
464.0
1Exceedances
for
FL
and
PA
turf
scenarios,
maximum
and
average
use
rates
2Default
slope
value
and
95%
confidence
intervals
were
used
(
Urban
and
Cook,
1986)
3Exceedances
for
golf
course
turf
scenario,
maximum
and
average
use
rate,
26
and
6
applications
<
LOC
=
below
all
Agency
LOC
(<
0.1)

1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Plants
The
risk
assessment
for
aquatic
species
is
based
on
data
from
both
triadimefon
and
its
major
degradate,
triadimenol.
Input
parameters
used
to
derive
aquatic
EEC
values
reflect
total
residues
(
parent
+
triadimenol).
Review
of
triadimenol
aquatic
toxicity
values
indicate
that
this
degradate
is
unlikely
to
cause
significant
toxic
effects.
Therefore,
risk
quotients
for
aquatic
organisms
were
calculated
using
triadimefon
toxicity
values.

a.
Freshwater
Fish
Risk
quotients
indicate
that
there
is
a
potential
for
chronic,
but
not
acute,
effects
to
freshwater
fish
at
the
Agency's
level
of
concern.
Chronic
LOC
exceedances
occur
for
the
2.7
lb
ai/
A
(
maximum)
and
1.36
lb
ai/
A
(
average)
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf,
for
both
the
Florida
turf
(
26
applications,
14
day
intervals)
and
Pennsylvania
turf
(
13
applications,
14
day
intervals)
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Additionally,
there
are
chronic
exceedances
for
the
maximum
use
rate
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A)
with
6
applications
(
60
day
interval)
for
the
FL
turf
scenario.
No
exceedances
occurred
based
on
granular
triadimefon
application.

The
high
number
of
applications
modeled
for
triadimefon
golf
course
use
were
based
on
the
lack
of
language
specifying
the
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year;
the
only
label
specification
is
an
application
interval
of
14
days.
States
with
a
year­
round
growing
season
for
turf,
represented
by
the
Florida
turf
scenario,
have
26
potential
applications
per
year
according
to
the
Page
70
of
241
label,
whereas
more
temperate
climates
(
represented
by
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario)
with
shorter
turf
growing
seasons
could
potentially
apply
triadimefon
approximately
13
times.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
remains
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
with
only
3
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
FL
scenario,
and
6
applications
per
year
based
on
the
PA
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval).

b.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Acute
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
is
unlikely,
based
on
the
results
of
the
screening
level
assessment
demonstrating
no
acute
risks
to
freshwater
fish.
However,
no
data
were
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
estuarine/
marine
fish,
and
therefore
risk
to
these
species
cannot
be
precluded.
No
chronic
estuarine/
marine
fish
toxicity
data
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
for
triadimefon;
therefore,
chronic
risks
associated
with
estuarine/
marine
fish
exposure
are
unknown.

c.
Freshwater
Invertebrates
As
detailed
above,
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates
based
on
the
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf,
for
both
the
Florida
turf
(
26
applications,
14
day
intervals)
and
Pennsylvania
turf
(
13
applications,
14
day
intervals)
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS
at
the
maximum
use
rate
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A.
Additionally,
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
based
on
the
average
use
rate
of
1.36
lb
ai/
A
and
the
Florida
turf
scenario
(
16
applications,
14
day
intervals).
Chronic
LOCs
are
also
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates
based
on
these
same
golf
course
scenarios.
No
exceedances
occurred
based
on
granular
triadimefon
application.

The
high
number
of
applications
modeled
for
triadimefon
golf
course
use
were
based
on
the
lack
of
language
specifying
the
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year;
the
only
label
specification
is
an
application
interval
of
14
days.
States
with
a
year­
round
growing
season
for
turf,
represented
by
the
Florida
turf
scenario,
have
26
potential
applications
per
year
according
to
the
label,
whereas
more
temperate
climates
(
represented
by
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario)
with
shorter
turf
growing
seasons
could
potentially
apply
triadimefon
approximately
13
times.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
remains
potential
for
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
invertebrates
with
only
6
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
FL
scenario,
and
11
applications
per
year
based
on
the
PA
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval).
Acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
with
only
7
applications
using
the
FL
turf
scenario.

d.
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
No
acute
or
chronic
estuarine/
marine
toxicity
data
were
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
for
triadimefon;
therefore,
the
risks
associated
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
exposure
to
this
chemical
are
unknown.

e.
Aquatic
Plants
Based
on
the
predicted
EECs
for
triadimefon
use
on
golf
course
turf
(
Florida
and
Pennsylvania
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS)
and
available
toxicity
data,
the
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants.
No
aquatic
vascular
plant
toxicity
data
was
submitted
or
located
in
the
open
literature
for
triadimefon;
therefore,
the
potential
risk
associated
with
non
Page
71
of
241
vascular
aquatic
plant
exposure
to
this
chemical
are
unknown.
No
exceedances
for
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
occurred
based
on
granular
triadimefon
application.

The
high
number
of
applications
modeled
for
triadimefon
golf
course
use
were
based
on
the
lack
of
language
specifying
the
maximum
number
of
applications
per
year;
the
only
label
specification
is
an
application
interval
of
14
days.
States
with
a
year­
round
growing
season
for
turf,
represented
by
the
Florida
turf
scenario,
have
26
potential
applications
per
year
according
to
the
label,
whereas
more
temperate
climates
(
represented
by
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario)
with
shorter
turf
growing
seasons
could
potentially
apply
triadimefon
approximately
13
times.
It
should
be
noted
that
there
remains
potential
for
acute
endangered
species
risk
to
aquatic
nonvascular
plants
with
only
11
applications
of
triadimefon
per
year
based
on
the
FL
scenario,
and
5
applications
per
year
based
on
the
PA
scenario
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A;
14
day
interval).

2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
and
Plants
a.
Birds
i.
Discussion
of
Potential
Risks
Avian
mortality,
based
on
acute
exposure
to
both
non­
granular
and
granular
applications
of
triadimefon
is
unlikely
based
on
acute
toxicity
tests
showing
no
mortality
to
both
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail
at
the
highest
doses
tested
(
5000
and
2000
mg/
kg
bw,
respectively)
(
MRID
071469).
Therefore,
dose­
based
RQ
values
could
not
be
calculated
for
birds.
However,
subacute
dietary
studies
demonstrated
an
LC
50
of
8392
ppm
diet
in
bobwhite
quail.
Based
on
this
endpoint,
the
dietary­
based
acute
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
golf
course
application
(
maximum
and
average
application
rates,
26
applications
and
6
applications)
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
on
all
food
items,
and
the
restricted
use
LOC
is
exceeded
on
short
grass.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
avian
dietary
acute
LOC
is
still
exceeded
with
only
two
golf
course
applications
of
triadimefon
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
14
day
interval).

Chronic
risks
to
birds
from
non­
granular
triadimefon
application
were
evaluated
using
a
bobwhite
quail
NOAEC
of
20
ppm,
based
on
an
increase
in
eggs
cracked,
reduction
in
fertile
eggs,
viable
embryos,
hatchlings,
and
14­
day
survival.
Based
on
this
value,
dietary­
based
chronic
RQ
values
exceed
the
Agency
LOC
of
1
for
birds
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
all
modeled
scenarios
and
application
rates.
RQ
values
range
from
1.6
­
133.7.
Additionally,
the
chronic
LOC
is
exceeded
for
birds
that
feed
on
fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
large
insects
for
all
golf
course
scenarios
(
26
applications,
6
applications,
1
application
at
both
maximum
and
average
use
rates)
and
residential/
commercial/
recreational
turf
scenarios.
A
onetime
application
of
0.08
lb
ai/
A
would
be
required
to
achieve
chronic
dietary
RQ
values
for
birds
that
are
lower
than
the
Agency
LOC
of
1.0.
This
value
is
approximately
34
times
lower
than
the
maximum
application
rate
for
golf
course
turf
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A.
The
2.7
lb
ai/
A
one­
time
application
rate
would
have
to
be
reduced
by
approximately
97%
in
order
to
achieve
an
RQ
value
below
the
LOC.
Page
72
of
241
ii.
Spray
Drift
The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
calculate
the
distance
from
the
edge
of
a
field
required
to
bring
spray
drift
deposition
below
the
LOC
of
1
for
chronic
risk
to
birds.
Spray
drift
distances
were
calculated
based
on
short
grass
Kenaga
EEC
values
using
an
adjusted
application
rate
to
account
for
the
limitations
of
the
AgDrift
model.
Spray
drift
distances
are
presented
in
Table
29
below.
Spray
drift
area
ranges
from
16
­
108
feet
for
aerial
application
and
3.3
­
144
for
ground
spray.

Table
29.
Avian
Spray
Drift
Calculations
Use
Adjusted
Application
Rate1
Short
grass
upper
bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Fraction
of
applied2
Buffer
distance
(
feet)

Aerial
Spray
Ground
Spray
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
0.66
lb
ai/
A
157.7
0.127
75.5
9.8
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
0.29
lb
ai/
A
69.0
0.29
16.4
3.3
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
0.44
lb
ai/
A
105.0
0.19
36.1
6.6
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
11.3
lb
ai/
A
2703.9
0.007
NA
144.4
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
2.7
lb
ai/
A
648.0
0.03
NA
29.5
Residential,
Commercial,
&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
2.4
lb
ai/
A
573.8
0.03
NA
29.5
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
interval)
0.92
lb
ai/
A
220.8
0.09
108.3
13.1
1Adjusted
rate
is
short
grass
EEC/
240
to
account
for
the
ability
of
AgDrift
to
only
make
calculations
based
on
a
single
application
2
Fraction
of
EEC
needed
to
generate
an
RQ
=
1.0
(
LOC);
[
EEC
of
20
mg/
kg]

b.
Mammals
i.
Discussion
of
Potential
Risks
The
following
dose­
based
acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
mammals
following
the
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon:

Golf
course
turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications)
°
acute
risk,
acute
restricted
use,
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
all­
sized
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass,
and
15g
Page
73
of
241
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
°
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
35g
and
1000g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass
and
1000g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
Golf
course
turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
°
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
and
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
°
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
1000g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass,
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
Residential/
Commercial
&
Recreational
turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
°
acute
restricted
use
and
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
°
acute
endangered
species
LOCs
for
1000g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
and
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
intervals)
°
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
and
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects.
Apples
&
Pears
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
°
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
15g,
35g,
and
1000g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects,
and
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
°
acute
endangered
species
LOC
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
Acute
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOCs
were
also
exceeded
for
the
use
of
granular
triadimefon
on
residential/
commercial
turf
at
an
application
of
1.31
lb
ai/
A
(
2
applications,
30d
interval)
based
on
the
LD
50
/
ft2
calculation
for
15g
and
35g
mammals.

Both
dietary­
based
and
dose­
based
chronic
RQ
values
were
calculated
for
mammals
exposed
to
triadimefon.
Dietary
RQ
values
were
calculated
by
directly
comparing
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
administered
orally
to
laboratory
rats
in
a
dietary
study
to
the
concentration
of
a
pesticide
on
potential
food
items.
Dietary
RQs
do
not
account
for
the
fact
that
smaller­
sized
animals
need
to
consume
more
food
in
terms
of
body
weight
than
to
larger­
sized
animals,
or
that
differential
amounts
of
food
may
be
consumed
based
on
nutritional
value
and
water
percentage
of
the
feed.
Dose­
based
RQs
incorporate
the
ingestion
rate­
adjusted
exposure
from
the
various
food
items
to
the
different
weight
classes
of
animals
(
for
mammals,
15g,
35g,
and
1000g)
and
the
weight
class­
scaled
toxicity
endpoints.

Dose­
based
chronic
risks
to
mammals
from
non­
granular
triadimefon
application
were
evaluated
using
a
laboratory
rat
offspring
NOAEL
of
50
ppm
ai
based
on
decreased
pup
weights
and
viability
in
the
F
1
and
F
2
generations
and
decreased
litter
size
in
the
F
2
generation
(
MRID
00155075,
92188019,
92188320).
Based
on
this
value,
a
NOAEC
of
2.5
mg/
kg
body
weight
Page
74
of
241
was
calculated
to
adjust
for
rat
food
intake
and
used
in
the
RQ
calculations.
Chronic
dose­
based
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
all
sizes
of
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
all
crops
and
at
all
application
rates.
Additionally,
the
LOC
is
exceeded
for
mammals
that
also
feed
on
fruits,
pods,
large
insects,
and
seeds
for
turf
applications
(
golf
course
and
residential/
commercial
&
recreational)
at
all
application
rates.
The
mammalian
dose­
based
chronic
RQ
values
range
from
<
LOC
to
464.
A
one­
time
application
of
0.025
lb
ai/
A
would
be
required
to
achieve
chronic
dose­
based
RQ
values
for
mammals
that
are
lower
than
the
Agency
LOC
of
1.0.
This
value
is
approximately
108
times
lower
than
the
maximum
application
rate
for
golf
course
turf
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A.
The
2.7
lb
ai/
A
one­
time
application
rate
would
have
to
be
reduced
by
approximately
99%
in
order
to
achieve
an
RQ
value
below
the
LOC.

Dietary­
based
chronic
risks
to
mammals
from
non­
granular
triadimefon
application
were
evaluated
using
the
laboratory
rat
NOAEC
of
50
ppm
ai.
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
all
applications
at
all
rates
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass.
LOCs
were
also
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
the
apple,
golf
course
turf,
residential/
commercial
&
recreational
turf,
and
Christmas
tree
scenarios.
Additionally,
the
chronic
LOC
was
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
based
on
the
26­
application
golf
course
turf
scenario.

ii.
Spray
Drift
The
AgDrift
model
was
used
to
calculate
the
distance
from
the
edge
of
a
field
required
to
bring
spray
drift
deposition
below
the
LOC
of
1
for
chronic
risk
to
mammals.
Spray
drift
distances
were
calculated
based
on
short
grass
Kenaga
EEC
values
using
an
adjusted
application
rate
to
account
for
the
limitations
of
the
AgDrift
model.
Spray
drift
distances
are
presented
in
Table
30
below.
Spray
drift
areas
range
from
121.4
­
311.7
feet
for
aerial
spray
and
13
­
521
for
ground
spray.

Table
30.
Mammalian
spray
drift
buffer
calculations
Use
Adjusted
Application
Rate1
Short
grass
upper
bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Short
grass
15g
mammal
adjusted
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Fraction
of
applied2
(
adjusted
for
15g
mammal)
Buffer
distance
(
feet)

Aerial
Spray
Ground
Spray
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
0.66
lb
ai/
A
157.7
150.0
0.04
236.2
23.0
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
0.29
lb
ai/
A
69.0
65.6
0.08
121.4
13.1
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
0.44
lb
ai/
A
105.0
100.0
0.06
160.8
16.4
Page
75
of
241
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
11.3
lb
ai/
A
2703.9
2568.7
0.002
NA
521.7
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
2.7
lb
ai/
A
648.0
615.6
0.009
NA
108.3
Residential,
Commercial,
&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
2.4
lb
ai/
A
573.8
545.1
0.01
NA
95.1
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14d
interval)
0.92
lb
ai/
A
220.8
209.8
0.03
311.7
29.5
1Adjusted
rate
is
short
grass
EEC/
240
to
account
for
the
ability
of
AgDrift
to
only
make
calculations
based
on
a
single
application
2
Fraction
of
EEC
needed
to
generate
an
RQ
=
1.0
(
LOC);
[
EEC
of
2.5
mg/
kg]

c.
Non­
Target
Insects
EFED
currently
does
not
calculate
risk
quotients
for
terrestrial
non­
target
insects.
However,
and
appropriate
label
statement
is
required
to
protect
foraging
honeybees
when
the
LD
50
is
<
11
µ
g/
bee.
Based
on
the
acute
contact
toxicity
study
to
honeybees,
the
LD
50
for
triadimefon
is
>
25
µ
g/
bee.
This
classifies
triadimefon
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
honeybees.

d.
Earthworms
Although
there
are
no
data
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
or
triadimenol
to
earthworms,
an
estimation
of
the
concentration
of
the
chemical
within
earthworms
was
calculated
in
order
to
determine
the
possible
contribution
of
earthworm
(
and
other
terrestrial
invertebrate)
consumption
to
mammal
and
avian
risk.
This
estimation
of
earthworm
concentration
was
calculated
using
a
fugacity­
based
(
equilibrium
partitioning)
approach
based
on
the
work
of
Trapp
and
McFarlane
(
1995)
and
Mackay
and
Paterson
(
1981).
Earthworms
dwelling
within
the
soil
are
exposed
to
contaminants
in
both
soil
pore
water
and
via
the
ingestion
of
soil
(
Belfroid
et
al.
1994).
The
concentrations
of
triadimefon
and
its
degradates
in
earthworms
were
calculated
as
a
combination
of
uptake
from
soil
pore
water
and
gastrointestinal
absorption
from
ingested
soil:

C
earthworm
=
[(
C
soil
)(
Z
earthworm
/
Z
soil
)]+[(
C
soil
water
)(
Z
earthworm
/
Z
water
)]

where:
C
soil
is
the
concentration
of
chemical
in
bulk
soil
(
note:
a
chemical
concentration
averaged
over
a
15
cm
soil
depth
was
used
to
reflect
a
concentration
across
the
earthworm
occupied
area
of
soil)
Z
earthworm
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
earthworms
=
(
lipid)(
K
ow
)(
Dearthworm
)/
H
Page
76
of
241
Z
soil
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
soil
=
(
K
d
)(
Dsoil
)/
H
Z
water
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
water
=
1/
H
C
soil
water
is
the
concentration
of
chemical
in
soil
water
=
C
soil
/
K
bw
K
bw
is
the
bulk
soil­
to­
water
partitioning
coefficient
=
(
Dsoil
)(
K
d
)+
2
+(,­
2)(
K
aw
)
K
aw
is
the
air­
to­
water
partitioning
coefficient
=
H/
RT
H
=
Henry's
Constant
specific
to
triadimefon
R
=
universal
gas
constant,
8.31
Joules­
m3/
mol­
oK
T
=
temperature
oK,
assumed
to
be
298
oK
K
d
=
soil
partitioning
coefficient
=
(
chemical
K
oc
)(
0.02
assumed
fraction
of
soil
organic
carbon)
Dsoil
=
bulk
density
of
soil,
assumed
to
be
1.3
g/
cm3
2
=
volumetric
fraction
of
the
soil,
assumed
to
be
0.30
,
=
volumetric
total
porosity
of
the
soil,
assumed
to
be
0.50
lipid
=
fraction
of
lipid
in
organism
0.01
(
Cobb
et
al.
1995)
K
ow
=
fipronil
or
degradate
octanol
to
water
partitioning
coefficient
Dearthworm
=
the
density
of
the
organism
g/
cm3,
assumed
to
be
1
g/
cm3
Assuming
the
maximum
application
rate
of
triadimefon
of
2.7
lb/
acre
(
3.1
kg/
ha)
to
a
bare,
very
low
density
soil
(
1.3
g/
cm3)
incorporated
to
1­
cm
depth
(
it
should
be
noted
that
triadimefon
is
applied
without
incorporation),
the
following
soil
concentrations
can
be
calculated
for
a
depth
of
1
cm:

triadimefon
soil
concentration
=

3.1
kg
1x106
mg
1
ha
1
cm3
ha
X
kg
X
1x108
cm2
X
1
cm
X
0.0013
kg
=
23.8
mg/
kg
Based
on
this
soil
concentration
calculation
of
23.8
mg/
kg,
the
concentration
of
triadimefon
in
an
earthworm
based
on
the
above
earthworm
fugacity
model
equation
(
using
the
maximum
application
rate)
would
be
0.13
mg/
kg
(
for
detailed
calculations,
see
Appendix
H).

The
calculated
earthworm
tissue
concentrations
of
triadimefon/
triadimenol
suggest
that
ingestion
of
earthworms
by
birds
and
mammals
based
on
dietary
dose
(
triadimefon
NOAEC
=
20
mg/
kg
diet
and
NOAEL
=
2.5
mg/
kg
bw,
respectively)
could
be
another
exposure
pathway
contributing
to
chronic
risk,
although
the
low
earthworm
concentrations
would
necessitate
consumption
of
a
large
number
of
worms.

e.
Non­
target
Plants
No
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
studies
were
submitted
to
the
Agency
by
the
registrant.
In
addition,
studies
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
did
not
provide
information
to
quantitatively
assess
the
potential
risks
associated
with
triadimefon
use
to
terrestrial
non­
target
plants.
Information
from
several
studies
obtained
through
ECOTOX
suggest
potential
deleterious
effects
of
triadimefon
exposure
to
both
monocot
and
dicot
plants,
but
this
information
could
not
be
used
Page
77
of
241
quantitatively
for
the
purposes
of
this
assessment.
However,
this
study
underscores
the
need
for
registrant­
submitted
terrestrial
plant
toxicity
studies,
which
represent
a
major
data
gap.

3.
Incident
Data
Review
A
review
of
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS)
was
completed
on
April
21,
2005.
No
incidents
involving
triadimefon
or
its
metabolite
triadimenol
were
reported.

4.
Federally
Threatened
and
Endangered
(
Listed)
Species
of
Concern
Section
7
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act,
16
U.
S.
C.
Section
1536(
a)(
2),
requires
all
federal
agencies
to
consult
with
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
(
NMFS)
for
marine
and
anadromous
listed
species,
or
the
United
States
Fish
and
Wildlife
Services
(
FWS)
for
listed
wildlife
and
freshwater
organisms,
if
they
are
proposing
an
"
action"
that
may
affect
listed
species
or
their
designated
habitat.
Each
federal
agency
is
required
under
the
Act
to
insure
that
any
action
they
authorize,
fund,
or
carry
out
is
not
likely
to
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
or
result
in
the
destruction
or
adverse
modification
of
designated
critical
habitat.
To
jeopardize
the
continued
existence
of
a
listed
species
means
"
to
engage
in
an
action
that
reasonably
would
be
expected,
directly
or
indirectly,
to
reduce
appreciably
the
likelihood
of
both
the
survival
and
recovery
of
a
listed
species
in
the
wild
by
reducing
the
reproduction,
numbers,
or
distribution
of
the
species."
50
C.
F.
R.
§
402.02.

To
facilitate
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act
subsection
(
a)(
2)
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
has
established
procedures
to
evaluate
whether
a
proposed
registration
action
may
directly
or
indirectly
reduce
appreciably
the
likelihood
of
both
the
survival
and
recovery
of
a
listed
species
in
the
wild
by
reducing
the
reproduction,
numbers,
or
distribution
of
any
listed
species
(
U.
S.
EPA
2004).
After
the
Agency's
screening
level
risk
assessment
is
conducted,
if
any
of
the
Agency's
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
either
direct
or
indirect
effects,
an
analysis
is
conducted
to
determine
if
any
listed
or
candidate
species
may
co­
occur
in
the
area
of
the
proposed
pesticide
use
or
areas
downstream
or
downwind
that
could
be
contaminated
from
drift
or
runoff/
erosion.
If
determined
that
listed
or
candidate
species
may
be
present
in
the
proposed
action
areas,
further
biological
assessment
is
undertaken.
The
extent
to
which
listed
species
may
be
at
risk
then
determines
the
need
for
the
development
of
a
more
comprehensive
consultation
package
as
required
by
the
Endangered
Species
Act.

The
federal
action
addressed
herein
is
the
proposed
re­
registration
of
pesticide
products
that
contain
the
active
ingredient
triadimefon.
Triadimefon
uses
proposed
for
re­
registration
are
identified
in
Section
II.
Growing
areas
for
these
uses
encompasses
most
of
the
United
States
due
to
its
extensive
use
on
turf.

It
must
be
noted
that
the
risk
assessment
for
listed
species
was
conducted
only
for
the
parent
compound
and
not
any
of
the
degradates
of
triadimefon.
Until
risk
assessments
are
completed
for
triadimefon
degradates
of
concern,
the
listed
species
risk
assessment
should
be
considered
incomplete.
Page
78
of
241
a.
Action
Area
For
listed
species
assessment
purposes,
the
action
area
is
considered
to
be
the
area
affected
directly
or
indirectly
by
the
Federal
action
and
not
merely
the
immediate
area
involved
in
the
action.
This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
considers
broadly
described
taxonomic
groups
and
so
conservatively
assumes
that
listed
species
within
those
broad
groups
are
co­
located
with
the
pesticide
treatment
area.
For
example,
terrestrial
plants
and
wildlife
are
assumed
to
be
located
on
or
adjacent
to
the
treated
site
and
aquatic
organisms
are
assumed
to
be
located
in
a
surface
water
body
adjacent
to
the
treated
site.
This
assessment
also
assumes
that
the
listed
species
are
located
within
an
assumed
area
which
has
the
relatively
highest
potential
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
and
that
exposures
are
likely
to
decrease
with
distance
from
the
treatment
area.
Section
II
of
this
risk
assessment
presents
the
triadimefon
use
sites
that
are
used
to
establish
initial
co­
location
of
species
within
treatment
areas.
Due
to
the
use
of
triadimefon
on
turf,
it
must
be
assumed
that
the
species
co­
occurrence
could
occur
in
most
areas
of
the
United
States.
The
Agency
does
not
currently
have
a
method
to
determine
which
areas
are
covered
with
turf.

b.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
If
the
assumptions
associated
with
the
screening­
level
action
area
result
in
RQs
that
are
below
the
listed
species
LOCs,
a
"
no
effect"
determination
conclusion
is
made
with
respect
to
listed
species
in
that
taxa,
and
no
further
refinement
of
the
action
area
is
necessary.
Furthermore,
RQs
below
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
a
given
taxonomic
group
indicate
no
concern
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
that
depend
upon
the
taxonomic
group
for
which
the
RQ
was
calculated.
However,
in
situations
where
the
screening
assumptions
lead
to
RQs
in
excess
of
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
a
given
taxonomic
group,
a
potential
for
a
"
may
affect"
conclusion
exists
and
may
be
associated
with
direct
effects
on
listed
species
belonging
to
that
taxonomic
group
or
may
extend
to
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
depend
upon
that
taxonomic
group
as
a
resource.
In
such
cases,
additional
information
on
the
biology
of
listed
species,
the
locations
of
these
species,
and
the
locations
of
use
sites
are
considered
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
screening
assumptions
regarding
an
action
area
apply
to
a
particular
listed
organism.
These
subsequent
refinement
steps
will
consider
how
this
information
would
impact
the
action
area
for
a
particular
listed
organism
and
potentially
include
areas
of
exposure
that
are
downwind
and
downstream
of
the
pesticide
use
site.

Assessment
endpoints,
exposure
pathways,
and
the
conceptual
model
addressing
proposed
triadimefon
re­
registration
uses,
and
the
associated
exposure
and
effects
analyses
conducted
for
the
triadimefon
screening­
level
risk
assessment
are
in
Section
III.
The
assessment
endpoints
used
in
the
screening­
level
risk
assessment
include
those
defined
operationally
as
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species
and
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plant
species
from
both
direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
exposures.
These
assessment
endpoints
address
the
standard
set
forth
in
the
Endangered
Species
Act
requiring
federal
agencies
to
ensure
that
any
action
they
authorize
does
not
reduce
appreciably
the
likelihood
of
both
the
survival
and
recovery
of
a
listed
species
in
the
wild
by
reducing
the
reproduction,
numbers,
or
distribution
of
broad­
based
taxa
groups.

Both
acute
endangered
species
and
chronic
risk
LOCs
are
considered
in
the
screening­
level
risk
Page
79
of
241
assessment
to
identify
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
taxa
of
listed
species.
This
section
identifies
direct
effect
concerns,
by
taxa,
triggered
by
exceeding
endangered
LOCs
in
the
screening
level
risk
assessment
with
an
evaluation
of
the
potential
probability
of
individual
effects
for
exposures
that
may
occur
at
the
established
endangered
species
LOC.
Data
on
exposure
and
effects
collected
under
field
conditions
are
evaluated
to
make
determinations
on
the
predictive
utility
of
the
direct
effect
screening
assessment
findings
to
listed
species.
Additionally,
the
results
of
a
screen
for
indirect
effects
to
listed
species,
using
direct
effect
acute
and
chronic
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group,
is
presented
and
evaluated.

i.
Listed
Species
Risk
Quotients
The
Agency's
levels
of
concern
for
Federally­
listed
freshwater
fish,
freshwater
invertebrates,
aquatic
non­
vascular
plants,
birds,
and
mammals
are
exceeded
for
the
use
of
triadimefon.
The
preliminary
risk
assessment
for
Federally­
listed
species
indicates
that
triadimefon
exceeds
the
endangered
species
LOCs
for
the
following
combinations
of
analyzed
uses,
application
rates,
and
species:
°
Freshwater
fish:
Chronic
LOC
exceedance
is
for
the
2.7
lb
ai/
A
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf,
for
both
the
Florida
turf
(
26
applications,
14
day
intervals)
and
Pennsylvania
turf
(
13
applications,
14
day
intervals)
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.

°
Freshwater
invertebrates:
Acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
based
on
the
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf,
for
both
the
Florida
turf
(
26
applications,
14
day
intervals)
and
Pennsylvania
turf
(
13
applications,
14
day
intervals)
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.
Chronic
LOCs
are
also
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates
based
on
these
two
golf
course
scenarios.

°
Non­
vascular
aquatic
plants:
LOCs
are
exceeded
based
on
the
application
of
nongranular
triadimefon
to
golf
course
turf,
for
both
the
Florida
turf
(
26
applications,
14
day
intervals)
and
Pennsylvania
turf
(
13
applications,
14
day
intervals)
scenarios
in
PRZM­
EXAMS.

°
Birds:
Dietary­
based
acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
golf
course
application
(
26
applications)
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
on
all
food
items.
Dietary­
based
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds
that
consume
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
all
modeled
scenarios
and
application
rates
(
0.125
­
2.7
lb
ai/
A).
Additionally,
the
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds
that
consume
the
aforementioned
food
items
plus
fruits,
pods,
seeds,
and
small
large
insects
based
on
all
turf
applications
(
golf
course
and
residential/
commercial).

°
Mammals:
Listed
species
dose­
based
acute
risk
LOCs
(
RQ$
0.1)
for
direct
effects
of
triadimefon
on
mammals
were
exceeded
for
apples,
pears,
grapes,
golf
course
turf
(
26
and
1
application),
residential/
commercial
&
recreational
turf,
and
christmas
tree
applications
for
several
combinations
of
body
size
and
food
item.
In
addition,
for
uses
of
triadimefon
on
golf
course
turf
(
one
application),
Page
80
of
241
residential/
commercial
&
recreational
turf,
and
Christmas
trees,
there
were
less
exceedances
for
some
food
types
and
larger
mammals
compared
to
other
uses.
Listed
species
dose­
based
chronic
LOCs
(
RQ
$
1.0)
were
exceeded
for
all
triadimefon
uses
for
all
mammals
that
feed
on
grasses,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
There
were
also
exceedances
for
mammals
that
consume
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
for
the
apple,
grape,
turf
(
all),
and
Christmas
tree
applications.
Additionally,
there
were
exceedances
for
seed­
consuming
mammals
for
all
turf
scenarios.

ii.
Probit
Dose­
Response
Analysis
The
Agency
uses
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern.
Acute
listed
species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.5
are
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively.
As
part
of
the
risk
characterization,
an
interpretation
of
acute
LOCs
for
listed
species
is
discussed.
This
interpretation
is
presented
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
i.
e.,
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
triadimefon
or
triadimenol
on
par
with
the
acute
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
uses
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measures
of
effect
for
each
taxonomic
group.
The
individual
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOC
is
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
the
slope
and
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition
to
the
single
effects
probability
estimate
based
on
the
mean,
upper,
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
are
also
provided
to
account
for
variance
in
the
slope.
The
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
effects
probability
are
based
on
available
information
on
the
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
slope.
A
statement
regarding
the
confidence
in
the
estimated
event
probabilities
is
also
included.
Studies
with
good
probit
fit
characteristics
(
i.
e.,
statistically
appropriate
for
the
data
set)
are
associated
with
a
high
degree
of
confidence.
Conversely,
a
low
degree
of
confidence
is
associated
with
data
from
studies
that
do
not
statistically
support
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition,
confidence
in
the
data
set
may
be
reduced
by
high
variance
in
the
slope
(
i.
e.,
large
95%
confidence
intervals),
despite
good
probit
fit
characteristics.

Individual
effect
probabilities
are
calculated
based
on
an
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECC1.1
(
Individual
Effect
Chance
Model
Version
1.1)
developed
by
the
USEPA,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
June
22,
2004).
The
model
allows
for
such
calculations
by
entering
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
and
the
95%
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate)
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.
In
addition,
the
LOC
(
0.1
for
terrestrial
animals
and
0.05
for
aquatic
animals)
is
entered
as
the
desired
threshold.

Aquatic
Listed
Species
The
probability
of
individual
effects
at
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
(
RQ
=
0.05
which
is
equivalent
to
1/
20
of
the
LC
50
or
EC50)
for
each
major
listed
species
taxonomic
group
and
the
probability
of
individual
effects
at
estimated
acute
RQs
above
the
endangered
species
acute
risk
LOC
is
provided
in
Table
31.
In
addition,
extrapolation
of
low
probability
events
such
as
those
occurring
at
the
LOC,
are
associated
with
a
high
degree
of
uncertainty.
To
address
this
Page
81
of
241
uncertainty,
analyses
of
individual
effects
are
also
conducted
at
the
upper
and
lower
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
probit
slope
for
each
taxa.
The
probit
slopes
used
in
this
analysis
were
obtained
from
dose­
response
relationships
used
in
calculating
RQs.

°
Freshwater
Fish:
An
event
probability
was
calculated
for
the
listed
species
LOC
for
application
of
non­
granular
triadimefon,
based
on
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
slope
of
4.3
(
95%
CI:
2.8
­
5.8)
obtained
from
the
rainbow
trout
triadimefon
acute
toxicity
study
(
MRID
43256201).
The
corresponding
estimate
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
(
0.05)
of
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
freshwater
fish
is
1
in
9x107.
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
In
order
to
explore
the
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
slope
estimate
(
95%
CI:
2.8
­
5.8)
were
used
to
calculate
the
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
The
respective
lower
and
upper
effects
probability
estimates
are
1
in
7400
and
1
in
4.4x1013.
The
uncertainty
in
estimated
event
probabilities
for
this
taxonomic
group
is
increased
by
the
large
confidence
intervals
associated
with
the
slope.

°
Freshwater
Invertebrates:
Acute
RQ
values
were
derived
based
on
toxicity
data
from
Daphnia
magna
demonstrating
an
LC50
of
1.6
ppm
(
MRID
231311).
An
event
probability
was
calculated
for
the
listed
species
LOC
based
on
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
slope
of
4.3
(
95%
CI
=
2.2
­
6.4).
The
corresponding
estimate
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
(
0.05)
of
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
freshwater
invertebrates
is
1
in
9x107.
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
In
order
to
explore
the
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
slope
estimate
(
95%
CI:
2.2
­
6.4)
were
used
to
calculate
the
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
The
respective
lower
and
upper
effects
probability
estimates
are
1
in
475
and
1
in
1.0x1016.
The
uncertainty
in
estimated
event
probabilities
for
this
taxonomic
group
is
increased
by
the
large
confidence
intervals
associated
with
the
slope.

Table
31.
Probability
of
Direct
Individual
Effects
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Associated
with
Triadimefon
Use.

Crop
Site
(
application
rate)
Fish
and
Amphibian
Probit
Slope
=
4.3
Invertebrate
Probit
Slope
=
4.3
Agency
LOC
=
0.05
1
in
9x107
1
in
9x107
FL
turf
(
golf
course)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14d
interval)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
a
RQ
=
0.1
1
in
1.17
x
105
PA
turf
(
golf
course)
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
13
apps,
14d
interval)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
a
RQ
­
0.08
1
in
8.33
x
105
a­­­­­­­­­
=
endangered
species
acute
LOC
is
not
exceeded
and
the
probability
of
an
individual
effects
is
less
than
the
value
listed
for
the
endangered
species
LOC.
Page
82
of
241
Terrestrial
Listed
Species
The
probability
of
individual
effects
at
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
(
RQ
=
0.1
which
is
equivalent
to
1/
10
of
the
LD
50
)
for
each
major
listed
species
taxonomic
group
and
the
probability
of
individual
effects
at
estimated
acute
RQs
above
the
endangered
species
acute
risk
LOC
is
provided
in
Table
32.
In
addition,
extrapolation
of
low
probability
events
such
as
those
occurring
at
the
LOC,
are
associated
with
a
high
degree
of
uncertainty.
To
address
this
uncertainty,
analyses
of
individual
effects
are
also
conducted
at
the
upper
and
lower
95%
confidence
interval
of
the
probit
slope
for
each
taxa.
The
probit
slopes
used
in
this
analysis
were
obtained
from
doseresponse
relationships
used
in
calculating
RQs.

°
Birds:
Based
on
the
raw
data
available
from
the
bobwhite
quail
subacute
dietary
toxicity
study,
the
probit
method
could
not
be
used
to
examine
the
dose­
response
relationship
because
there
were
less
than
two
test
concentrations
at
which
the
percent
mortality
was
between
zero
and
100%.
Therefore,
the
default
probit
dose­
response
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
probability
of
effects
on
individual
birds
exposed
to
triadimefon.
The
lower
and
upper
confidence
limits
are
assumed
to
be
2
and
9,
respectively.
Based
on
these
assumptions,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
is
1
in
294,000.
At
the
lower
and
upper
confidence
limits,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
is
1
in
44
and
1
in
1
x
1016,
respectively.
For
birds
exposed
to
triadimefon
at
the
highest
registered
use
rate,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
ranges
from
1
in
1,210
to
1
in
11.4.

°
Mammals:
Based
on
the
raw
data
available
from
the
rat
acute
toxicity
study
demonstrating
a
male
rat
triadimenol
LD
50
of
689
mg/
kg
bw
(
MRID
00125411),
the
data
does
not
fit
a
probit
dose­
response
relationship.
Therefore,
the
default
probit
doseresponse
slope
of
4.5
was
used
to
calculate
the
probability
of
effects
on
individual
mammals
exposed
to
triadimefon.
The
lower
and
upper
confidence
limits
are
assumed
to
be
2
and
9,
respectively.
Based
on
these
assumptions,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
is
1
in
294,000.
At
the
lower
and
upper
confidence
limits,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
is
1
in
44
and
1
in
1
x
1016,
respectively.
For
mammals
exposed
to
triadimefon
at
the
highest
registered
use
rate,
the
probability
of
individual
effects
ranges
from
1
in
1210
to
1
in
1.74.

Table
32.
Probability
of
Acute
Mortality
of
an
Individual,
by
Taxa
Group
and
Body
Weight,
Exposed
at
the
Endangered
Species
LOC
(
0.1)
at
the
highest
registered
use
rate
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14
day
interval)
for
Triadimefon
Taxa
Body
weight
(
g)
Dietary
Food
Source
LOC
=
0.1
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
apps,
14day
interval
Probability
of
effect
at
LOC
(
1
in
_)
EEC
(
ppm)
RQ
Probability
of
effect
at
RQ
(
1
in
_)

Birds
(
slope
=
4.5)
NA
short
grass
2.94
x
105
2704
0.5
11.4
tall
grass
2.94
x
105
1239
0.3
107
Page
83
of
241
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
2.94
x
105
1521
0.2
1210
Mammals
(
slope
=
4.5)
15
short
grass
2.94
x
105
2704
1.1
1.74
35
short
grass
2.94
x
105
2704
0.9
2.39
1000
short
grass
2.94
x
105
2704
0.5
11.4
15
tall
grass
2.94
x
105
1239
0.5
11.4
35
tall
grass
2.94
x
105
1239
0.4
27.3
1000
tall
grass
2.94
x
105
1239
0.2
1210
15
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
2.94
x
105
1521
0.6
6.29
35
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
2.94
x
105
1521
0.5
11.4
1000
broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
2.94
x
105
1521
0.3
107
c.
Indirect
Effects
Pesticides
have
the
potential
to
cause
indirect
effects
to
endangered
or
threatened
species
by,
for
example,
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability,
altering
the
extent
of
nesting
habitat,
etc.
The
potential
for
indirect
effects
is
determined
by
comparing
RQs
to
the
LOCs.
If
the
RQ
exceeds
the
LOC,
then
there
is
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
to
listed
species
dependent
on
those
taxa
for
which
the
RQ
values
exceed
the
LOC.

For
aquatic
species
potentially
exposed
to
triadimefon,
RQs
exceeded
the
listed
species
acute
risk
LOC
for
freshwater
invertebrates
and
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants.
The
listed
species
LOC
was
only
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates
and
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
for
triadimefon
applications
to
golf
course
turf
(
FL
and
PA
scenarios).

Based
on
the
aquatic
LOC
exceedances
for
triadimefon,
indirect
effects
to
listed
species
would
be
expected
most
for
species
dependent
on
freshwater
invertebrates
and
freshwater
non­
vascular
plants
based
on
the
above
analysis.
Given
that
both
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
and
freshwater
invertebrates
are
important
components
of
any
aquatic
ecosystem,
indirect
effects
on
a
number
of
aquatic
and
terrestrial
listed
species
is
possible.
The
most
obvious
indirect
effects
would
likely
relate
directly
to
reductions
in
food
availability
or
habitat
alterations
associated
with
reduced
aquatic
plant
and
invertebrate
biomass.
Other,
less
obvious
indirect
effects
might
include
disruptions
of
listed
species
life
cycles
if
certain
life­
cycle
components
are
dependent
on
particular
plant
or
invertebrate
species.
It
is
important
to
note
that
for
most
applications
of
triadimefon,
there
were
no
listed
species
RQ
exceedances,
and
that
the
FL
and
PA
golf
course
turf
scenarios
assume
a
high
number
of
repeated
applications
(
26
and
13,
respectively).
Page
84
of
241
For
terrestrial
species,
the
screening­
level
analysis
indicated
that,
for
most
uses,
triadimefon
may
cause
deleterious
effects
in
exposed
bird
and
mammal
populations
(
i.
e.,
acute
and
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
birds
and
mammals).
This
suggests
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
organisms
dependent
upon
vertebrate
species
(
birds,
mammals,
reptiles,
amphibians)
as
prey
items.
A
potential
drop
in
vertebrate
biomass
associated
with
triadimefon
use
may
reduce
a
significant
potion
of
the
prey
base.
While
it
is
likely
that
fields
can
be
repopulated
by
immigrants
and
living
breeders
after
the
use
of
pesticides,
if
the
prey
base
is
removed
at
a
critical
life­
cycle
juncture,
over
a
large
area,
or
if
it
is
removed
for
a
long
enough
duration,
some
species
may
have
difficulty
meeting
energy
needs.
Also,
some
species
may
be
particularly
sensitive
during
reproductive
or
developmental
periods.
A
starting
point
for
evaluating
the
potential
risk
of
such
a
scenario
would
be
to
first
identify
listed
species
likely
to
occur
in
triadimefon
use
areas,
compare
the
life
histories
of
listed
species
in
known
use
areas,
and
determine
if
this
use
is
likely
to
overlap
with
a
sensitive
life­
cycle
component.

Because
of
the
likelihood
of
direct
impacts
to
birds
and
mammals
under
numerous
uses
of
triadimefon,
there
is
also
a
potential
for
indirect
effects
to
some
listed
plant
species
through
effects
on
pollinators.
For
example,
if
avian
pollinators
are
negatively
impacted
by
triadimefon,
use
during
the
reproductive
period
of
a
particular
plant
could
reduce
successful
pollination.
This
particular
indirect
effect
is
dependent
both
on
pollinator
species
affected
and
on
the
timing
and
manner
of
triadimefon
use.
A
preliminary
analysis
could
include
first,
identifying
plants
that
could
be
at
risk
based
on
location
and
timing
of
pollination.
Second,
identifying
potential
pollinators
and
whether
they
would
be
affected
by
the
intended
use
of
triadimefon
as
not
all
uses
may
cause
risk
to
all
pollinators.

The
information
presented
on
indirect
effects
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analyses
that
may
be
performed
using
Services­
provided
"
species
profiles"
as
well
as
evaluations
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
to
ascertain
if
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
affect"
determination
can
be
made.
The
degree
to
which
additional
analyses
are
performed
is
commensurate
with
the
predicted
probability
of
adverse
effects
from
the
comparison
of
the
dose­
response
information
with
the
EECs.
The
greater
the
probability
that
exposures
will
produce
effects
on
a
taxa,
the
greater
the
concern
for
potential
indirect
effects
for
listed
species
dependant
upon
that
taxa,
and
therefore,
the
more
intensive
the
analysis
on
the
potential
listed
species
of
concern,
their
locations
relative
to
the
use
sites,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).

d.
Critical
Habitat
for
Listed
Species
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening­
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.
Page
85
of
241
The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
birds,
reptiles,
terrestrial
phase
amphibians,
freshwater
invertebrates,
and
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants.
In
light
of
the
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.

Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constituent
elements
that
fall
into
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
presently
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
the
following
birds,
reptiles,
terrestrial
phase
amphibians,
and
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
Agency
recognizes
that
there
are
no
listed
non­
vascular
aquatic
plant
species.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary.

Table
33.
Tabulation
by
Taxonomic
Group
and
Crop
of
Listed
Species
that
Occur
in
Proposed
Triadimefon
Re­
registration
Use
Areas.

Crop
Taxonomic
Group
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Crustaceans
Arachnids
Insects
Snails
Clams
Plants
Total
Apples
57
56
26
17
108
18
11
44
27
69
498
931
Pears
31
44
22
15
70
11
11
33
12
41
276
566
Raspberries
19
31
8
6
25
9
0
21
2
14
188
323
Grapes
35
46
23
16
75
15
9
37
13
60
318
647
Christmas
Trees
33
42
22
15
56
13
11
35
14
59
285
585
Turf
90
78
36
21
114
21
12
44
32
70
746
1264
Total
Unique
Species
90
78
36
21
114
21
12
44
32
70
746
1264
Total
States/
Territories
55
50
23
12
41
13
2
27
16
28
54
­­­­
Page
86
of
241
Table
34.
Tabulation
by
State/
Territory
and
Taxonomic
Group
of
Listed
Species
that
Occur
in
Proposed
Triadimefon
Re­
registration
Use
Areas
State
Taxonomic
Group
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Crustaceans
Arachnids
Insects
Snails
Clams
Plants
Total
Alabama
4
4
5
2
15
1
0
0
10
21
17
88
Alaska
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
4
Am.
Samoa
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
Arizona
8
8
2
2
16
0
0
0
2
0
18
56
Arkansas
3
3
0
0
3
2
0
1
1
6
4
23
California
16
22
8
6
28
8
0
22
1
0
180
291
Colorado
3
2
0
0
6
0
0
2
0
0
13
26
Connecticut
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1
2
10
Delaware
2
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
3
7
District
of
Columbia
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
Florida
10
16
10
0
4
1
0
1
1
7
55
105
Georgia
5
4
2
1
11
0
0
1
0
16
21
61
Guam
6
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
11
Hawaii
32
2
2
0
0
1
0
1
1
0
271
309
Idaho
2
4
0
0
7
0
0
0
6
0
3
22
Illinois
3
2
0
0
1
1
0
2
1
6
8
24
Indiana
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
10
2
20
Iowa
3
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
1
2
6
15
Kansas
4
2
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
0
2
13
Kentucky
3
3
0
0
5
1
0
0
0
21
10
43
Louisiana
6
2
3
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
2
17
Maine
3
2
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
10
Maryland
2
3
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
1
6
16
Massachusetts
3
2
1
0
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
13
Michigan
3
2
1
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
7
18
Minnesota
2
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
2
4
10
State
Taxonomic
Group
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Crustaceans
Arachnids
Insects
Snails
Clams
Plants
Total
Page
87
of
241
Mississippi
6
1
5
1
3
0
0
0
0
3
2
21
Missouri
3
2
0
0
7
0
0
1
1
5
8
27
Montana
4
3
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
2
13
Nebraska
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
1
3
11
Nevada
2
0
1
0
23
0
0
2
0
0
9
37
New
Hampshire
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
2
6
New
Jersey
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
5
11
New
Mexico
6
5
1
1
12
1
0
0
2
0
13
41
New
York
3
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
6
15
North
Carolina
5
6
1
0
4
0
0
1
1
5
28
51
North
Dakota
4
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
N.
Mariana
Islands
6
2
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
10
Ohio
2
1
2
0
1
0
0
1
0
6
4
17
Oklahoma
7
3
0
0
4
0
0
1
0
2
2
19
Oregon
5
1
0
0
24
1
0
2
0
0
13
46
Pennsylvania
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
8
Puerto
Rico
9
1
8
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
49
70
Rhode
Island
1
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
2
7
South
Carolina
4
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
19
31
South
Dakota
4
1
0
0
2
0
0
1
0
0
1
9
Tennessee
3
4
0
0
14
1
1
0
3
29
19
74
Texas
12
5
3
4
9
1
10
8
0
0
27
79
Utah
2
2
1
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
24
37
Vermont
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
5
Virgin
Islands
3
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
12
Virginia
3
6
1
1
5
2
0
1
1
18
13
51
State
Taxonomic
Group
Birds
Mammals
Reptiles
Amphibians
Fish
Crustaceans
Arachnids
Insects
Snails
Clams
Plants
Total
Page
88
of
241
Washington
5
5
0
0
17
0
0
1
0
0
6
34
West
Virginia
1
5
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
5
5
18
Wisconsin
3
1
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
2
6
14
Wyoming
1
4
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
2
10
Total
Unique
Species
90
78
36
21
114
21
12
44
32
70
746
1264
C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Data
Gaps
1.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
All
Taxa
This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
relies
on
proposed
label
statements
and
the
use
closure
memo
for
the
maximum
rates
of
triadimefon
application,
the
maximum
number
of
applications,
and
the
shortest
interval
between
applications.
The
frequency
at
which
actual
uses
approach
these
levels
is
dependent
on
agricultural
conditions
and
market
forces.
Moreover,
conditions
may
change
on
a
yearly
basis,
affecting
disease
rates
and
therefore
application
rates
and
frequency.

2.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Aquatic
Species
°
This
assessment
attempts
to
examine
potential
aquatic
exposure
to
both
triadimefon
and
its
major
degradate,
triadimenol.
The
principle
triadimefon
toxic
degradate
of
concern,
triadimenol,
primarily
forms
within
soil
as
a
result
of
microbial
activity.
Lab
soil
column
studies
indicate
that
little
or
no
parent
triadimefon
is
found
in
leachate;
field
studies
typically
do
not
detect
triadimefon
below
depths
of
12
­
24
inches
(
depending
on
soil
type).
Therefore,
triadimefon
is
unlikely
to
be
a
major
concern
for
groundwater
contamination
unless
groundwater
is
very
shallow.
In
addition,
triadimefon
is
less
stable
in
anaerobic
(
soil
and
water)
conditions
than
in
aerobic
conditions.
However,
the
degradate
triadimenol
is
more
likely
to
be
of
concern
for
groundwater
contamination
because
of
its
greater
propensity
for
leaching
(
typically
detected
at
depths
2x
greater
than
the
parent)
and
longer
persistence
in
anaerobic
conditions;
triadimenol
appears
stable
under
anaerobic
soil
conditions.
Thus,
a
likely
sequence
of
events
is
that
triadimefon
degrades
to
triadimenol
mostly
in
the
shallow
(
aerobic)
subsurface,
where
it
can
then
be
leached
deeper
into
the
soil,
eventually
reaching
the
groundwater
and
anoxic/
suboxic
conditions.
In
this
environment
triadimenol
may
persist
indefinitely,
eventually
being
discharged
as
baseflow.
Triadimenol
is
of
less
concern
for
runoff,
as
it
forms
within
the
soil
some
time
after
application.
Conversely,
parent
triadimefon
is
more
likely
to
be
transported
via
surface
runoff,
as
it
has
moderately
low
solubility
and
is
usually
applied
in
spray
or
granular
form
at
or
above
the
surface;
the
field
dissipation
half­
life
of
417
days
allows
a
Page
89
of
241
relatively
long
period
of
time
during
which
the
compound
may
be
transported
off­
site
either
dissolved
in
runoff
water
or
sorbed
onto
soil
particles
eroded
from
the
application
area.

°
There
are
some
uncertainties
associated
with
the
use
of
the
PRZM/
EXAMS
standard
runoff
scenario.
Major
uncertainties
associated
with
the
standard
runoff
scenario
include
the
physical
construct
of
the
watershed
and
representation
of
vulnerable
aquatic
environments
for
different
geographic
regions.
The
physicochemical
properties
(
pH,
redox
conditions,
etc.)
of
the
standard
farm
pond
are
based
on
a
Georgia
farm
pond.
These
properties
are
likely
to
be
regionally
specific
because
of
local
hydrogeological
conditions.
Any
alteration
in
water
quality
parameters
may
impact
the
environmental
behavior
of
a
pesticide.
The
farm
pond
represents
a
well
mixed,
static
water
body.
Because
the
farm
pond
is
a
static
water
body
(
no
flow
through),
it
does
not
account
for
pesticide
removal
through
flow
through
or
water
releases.
The
lack
of
flow
through
the
farm
pond
provides
an
environmental
condition
for
accumulation
of
persistent
pesticides.
The
assumption
of
uniform
mixing
does
not
account
for
stratification
due
to
thermoclines
(
e.
g.,
seasonal
stratification
in
deep
water
bodies).
Additionally,
the
dimensions
of
the
standard
runoff
scenario
assumes
a
watershed
area
to
water
body
volume
ratio
of
10
ha:
20,000m3.
This
ratio
is
recommended
to
maintain
a
sustainable
constructed
pond
in
the
Southeastern
United
States.
The
use
of
higher
watershed
area
to
water
body
volume
ratios
(
as
recommended
for
sustainable
ponds
in
drier
regions
of
the
United
States)
may
lead
to
higher
pesticide
concentrations
when
compared
to
the
standard
watershed
area
to
water
body
volume
ratio.

The
standard
runoff
scenario
assumes
uniform
soils
and
agronomic
management
practices
across
the
standard
10
hectare
field.
Soils
can
vary
substantially
across
even
small
areas;
this
variation
is
not
reflected
in
the
model
simulations.
Additionally,
the
impact
of
unique
soil
characteristics
and
soil
management
practices
(
e.
g.,
tile
drainage)
are
not
considered
in
the
standard
runoff
scenario.
The
assumption
of
uniform
site
and
management
conditions
is
not
expected
to
represent
some
site­
specific
conditions.
Extrapolating
the
risk
conclusions
from
the
standard
pond
scenario
to
other
aquatic
habitats
(
e.
g.,
marshes,
streams,
creeks,
and
shallow
rivers,
intermittent
aquatic
areas)
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
the
potential
risks
in
those
habitats.

°
The
Oregon
berry
scenario
is
intended
to
be
used
as
a
surrogate
for
raspberries
that
are
grown
in
California
only.
EFED
does
not
have
a
PRZM­
EXAMS
scenario
for
raspberries
grown
in
California;
however,
Oregon
is
probably
the
best
surrogate
scenario
for
Northern
California
because
of
similarities
in
weather
conditions
and
soil
types.
It
is
expected
that
EECs
from
Oregon
and
Northern
California
would
be
comparable.

°
For
the
golf
course
turf
applications
(
FL
turf
and
PA
turf
scenarios),
the
label
does
not
specify
the
specific
maximum
number
of
applications
that
can
be
made
per
year.
In
the
case
of
Florida
turf,
a
year­
round
golf
course
season
was
assumed
due
to
the
climate.
Based
on
current
label
specifications
that
indicate
a
14­
day
application
interval,
it
was
assumed
that
up
to
26
applications
at
the
maximum
rate
could
be
made
per
year
to
a
Florida
golf­
course.
This
high
number
of
applications
may
overestimate
risk.
Therefore,
EFED
also
calculated
aquatic
Page
90
of
241
EEC
values
assuming
a
single
application
at
the
maximum
application
rate.
For
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario,
a
shorter
golf
course
"
growing"
season
was
assumed,
and
EEC
values
were
calculated
based
on
13
applications
at
the
maximum
rate.
As
with
the
Florida
scenario,
EFED
also
calculated
aquatic
EEC
values
assuming
a
single
application
at
the
maximum
application
rate.
These
two
calculations
for
each
scenario
represent
the
upper
and
lower
bounds
of
the
aquatic
EECs
for
triadimefon
application
to
golf
course
turf.

°
The
Florida
and
Pennsylvania
turf
PRZM­
EXAMS
scenarios
may
underestimate
aquatic
EEC
values
for
triadimefon
golf
course
turf
use.
The
standard
PRZM­
EXAMS
turf
scenarios
are
not
specific
to
golf
courses.
Golf
courses
are
commonly
built
near
water,
and
many
are
near
wetland
areas.
Golf
courses
are
typically
designed
to
drain
water,
and
they
incorporate
mixed
areas
with
depressions,
higher
slopes,
and
tile
drainage
systems.
The
drainage
systems
rapidly
transport
water
that
can
infiltrate
to
discharge
points
in
nearby
surface
water
bodies.

°
The
label
does
not
specify
different
application
rates
for
particular
golf
course
playing
areas
(
e.
g.,
greens,
tees,
rough,
fairways).
Due
to
the
lack
of
label
language,
no
golf
course
adjustment
factors
were
applied
to
the
EEC
calculations.
Therefore,
it
was
assumed
that
triadimefon
could
be
applied
to
the
entire
golf
course
area
at
the
maximum
application
rate.

3.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Exposure
for
Terrestrial
Species
a.
Location
of
wildlife
species
In
screening
terrestrial
risk
assessments
for
listed
species,
a
generic
bird
or
mammal
is
assumed
to
occupy
either
the
treated
field
or
adjacent
areas
receiving
pesticide
at
a
rate
similar
to
the
treatment
rate
on
the
field.
This
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
to
species
that
do
not
occupy
the
treated
field.
For
screening­
level
risk
assessment
purposes,
the
actual
habitat
requirements
of
any
particular
terrestrial
species
are
not
considered,
and
it
is
assumed
that
species
occupy,
exclusively
and
permanently,
the
treated
area
being
modeled.
This
assumption
leads
to
an
overestimation
of
exposure
in
the
risk
estimates
of
a
proportion
of
individuals
of
the
exposed
population.
Although
this
estimate
represents
higher
levels
of
exposure,
it
is
within
the
range
of
possibility
as
some
species
may
occupy
habitats
near
the
use
site
and
use
it
to
forage.
Gorging
can
be
a
common
opportunistic
behavior
in
some
animals
whereby
food
items
are
consumed
in
excess
of
daily
requirements
due
to
availability.
This
example
is
more
likely
to
support
an
acute
exposure
scenario.
Chronic
exposure
is
more
difficult
to
ascertain
since
it
occurs
over
a
longer
duration,
thereby
providing
more
opportunity
for
animals
to
move
and
seek
forage
elsewhere.
Nontheless,
many
animals
do
forage
over
a
range
that
would
be
included
in
triadimefon
application
areas;
all
prey
items
for
these
species
may
come
from
use
areas.

b.
Routes
of
exposure
Screening­
level
risk
assessments
for
applications
of
pesticides
consider
dietary
exposure
alone.
Other
routes
of
exposure,
not
considered
in
this
assessment,
are
discussed
below.
Page
91
of
241
i.
Incidental
soil
ingestion
This
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
incidental
soil
ingestion.
Available
data
suggests
that
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
can
consist
of
incidentally
ingested
soil,
depending
on
the
species
and
feeding
strategy
(
Beyer
et
al.,
1994).
In
the
case
of
triadimefon,
its
major
degradate,
triadimenol,
is
formed
mainly
through
aerobic
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
subsurface.
This
degradate
is
also
toxic
to
terrestrial
species,
and
therefore
current
estimates
of
exposure
that
only
examine
exposure
to
the
parent
triadimefon
may
underestimate
risk.
A
simple
first
approximation
of
soil
concentration
of
a
pesticide
resulting
from
spray
application
shows
the
effect
of
not
considering
soil
ingestion:

Assuming
the
maximum
application
rate
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A
(
3.1
kg/
ha)
to
a
bare,
very
low
density
soil
(
1.3
g/
cm3)
incorporated
to
a
1­
cm
depth
(
actual
incorporation
depths
may
vary),
the
following
soil
concentrations
can
be
calculated
for
a
depth
of
1
cm:

soil
concentration
=
(((
3.1
kg/
ha)(
1
x
106
mg/
kg))
/
(
1.3
x
108
cm3/
ha)))(
1cm3/
0.001kg)
=
31
mg/
kg
Including
this
concentration
into
the
standard
screening­
level
method
and
assumptions
for
food
item
pesticide
residues
(
e.
g.,
2703
mg/
kg
residue
assumption
for
short
grass)
shows
that
ingestion
of
soil
at
an
incidental
rate
of
up
to
15%
of
the
diet
would
not
significantly
increase
dietary
exposure.
For
example,
a
20g
bird
consumes
approximately
22.8g
of
food
daily.
The
amount
of
triadimefon
ingested
as
a
result
of
feeding
on
short
grass
is
approximately
61
mg
(
22.8g
food
consumed
x
2703
mg/
kg
in
food).
The
amount
of
triadimefon/
triadimenol
ingested
as
a
result
of
incidental
soil
ingestion
is
approximately
0.1
mg
(
15%
x
22.8g
x
31
mg/
kg),
which
represents
0.2%
of
the
total
exposure
due
to
eating
triadimefon/
triadimenol­
contaminated
food
items.

ii.
Ingestion
of
plant
food
items
The
current
model
used
by
EFED
to
estimate
ingestion
of
pesticide­
contaminated
food
items
uses
the
Kenaga
nomogram
to
calculate
foliar
residue
value
EECs
resulting
from
application.
This
method
examines
residue
levels
only
and
does
not
take
into
account
ingestion
of
pesticide
residues
and/
or
degradates
that
are
taken
up
by
the
plant
from
the
soil
(
e.
g.,
the
pesticide
inside
the
plant
itself).
Triadimenol,
the
major
triadimefon
degradate,
is
formed
through
both
microbial
degradation
in
the
soil
and
within
the
plant
once
it
is
systemically
absorbed.
Therefore,
the
terrestrial
organism
exposure
to
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
may
be
underestimated.

iii.
Inhalation
exposure
This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
does
not
consider
inhalation
exposure.
Such
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
spray
material
in
the
form
of
droplets
at
the
time
of
application,
(
2)
vapor­
phase
pesticide
volatilizing
from
treated
surfaces,
and
(
3)
airborne
particulate
(
soil,
vegetative
material,
and
pesticide
dusts).

Available
data
suggest
that
inhalation
exposure
at
the
time
of
application
is
not
an
appreciable
route
of
exposure
for
birds.
According
to
research
on
mallard
ducks
and
bobwhite
quail,
respirable
particle
size
in
birds
(
e.
g.,
particles
reaching
the
lungs)
is
limited
to
a
maximum
diameter
of
2
to
5
micros
(
EPA,
1990).
The
spray
droplet
spectra
covering
the
majority
of
Page
92
of
241
pesticide
application
situations
(
AgDrift
model
scenarios
for
very­
fine
to
coarse
droplet
sizes)
suggests
that
less
than
1%
of
the
applied
material
is
within
the
respirable
particle
size.
However,
the
particles
may
still
be
ingested,
and
the
model
does
not
address
this
concern.

Theoretically,
inhalation
of
a
pesticide
active
ingredient
in
the
vapor
phase
may
be
another
source
of
exposure
for
some
pesticides
under
certain
exposure
situations.
Considering
the
low
vapor
pressure
of
triadimefon,
it
is
unlikely
that
it
will
exist
in
the
gaseous
phase
at
any
considerable
amount
to
cause
adverse
effects
via
inhalation.

The
impact
from
exposure
to
dusts
contaminated
with
the
pesticide
cannot
be
assessed
generically
as
partitioning
issues
related
to
application
site
soils
and
chemical
properties
render
the
exposure
potential
from
this
route
highly
situation­
specific.

iv.
Dermal
exposure
The
screening­
level
assessment
does
not
consider
dermal
exposure,
except
as
it
is
indirectly
included
in
calculations
of
RQs
based
on
lethal
doses
per
unit
of
pesticide
treated
area
(
for
granular
applications).
Dermal
exposure
may
occur
through
three
potential
sources:
(
1)
direct
application
of
spray
to
terrestrial
wildlife
in
the
treated
area
or
within
the
drift
footprint,
(
2)
incidental
contact
with
contaminated
vegetation,
or
(
3)
contact
with
contaminated
water
or
soil.

The
available
measured
data
related
to
wildlife
dermal
contact
with
pesticides
are
extremely
limited.
The
Agency
is
actively
pursuing
modeling
techniques
to
account
for
dermal
exposure
via
direct
application
of
spray
and
by
incidental
contact
with
vegetation.

c.
Foliar
Dissipation
Half­
life
Due
to
the
lack
of
available
foliar
disspiation
half­
life
studies,
a
default
value
of
35
days
was
used
as
an
input
into
T­
REX
to
calculate
foliar
residue
levels
for
terrestrial
exposure.
It
is
therefore
possible
that
terrestrial
exposure
via
food
item
residues
could
be
overestimated.
However,
chronic
LOC
exceedances
for
birds
and
mammals
still
occur
when
the
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
set
to
one
day.
Therefore,
although
the
EEC
values
may
be
overestimated
by
using
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
35
days,
the
overall
potential
risk
to
terrestrial
species
is
not
altered
by
using
a
lower
value.

d.
Incidental
Pesticide
Releases
Associated
with
Use
This
risk
assessment
is
based
on
the
assumption
that
the
entire
treatment
area
is
subject
to
triadimefon
application
at
the
rates
specified
on
the
label.
In
reality,
there
is
the
potential
for
uneven
application
of
triadimefon
through
such
plausible
incidents
as
changes
in
calibration
of
application
equipment,
spillage,
and
localized
releases
at
specific
areas
of
the
treated
field
that
are
associated
with
specifics
of
the
type
of
application
equipment
used.

e.
Residue
Levels
Selection
As
discussed
earlier
in
the
exposure
section
of
this
document,
the
Agency
relies
on
the
work
of
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
et
al
(
1994)
for
setting
the
assumed
pesticide
residues
in
wildlife
dietary
food
items.
The
Agency
believes
that
these
residue
assumptions
reflect
a
realistic
upper­
bound
residue
Page
93
of
241
estimate,
although
the
degree
to
which
this
assumption
reflects
a
specific
percentile
estimate
is
difficult
to
quantify.
It
is
important
to
note
that
the
field
measurement
efforts
used
to
develop
the
Fletcher
estimates
of
exposure
involve
highly
varied
sampling
techniques.
It
is
entirely
possible
that
much
of
these
data
reflect
residues
averaged
over
entirely
above­
ground
plants
in
the
case
of
grass
and
forage
sampling.
Depending
upon
a
specific
wildlife
species'
foraging
habits,
whole
above­
ground
plant
samples
may
either
underestimate
or
overestimate
actual
exposure.

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

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

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

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

In
contrast,
there
is
the
potential
for
avoidance,
operationally
defined
as
animals
responding
to
the
presence
of
noxious
chemicals
in
their
food
by
reducing
consumption
of
treated
dietary
elements.
This
response
is
seen
in
nature
where
herbivores
avoid
plant
secondary
compounds.
However,
reduced
food
intake,
particularly
over
an
extended
period,
could
result
in
reduced
survival
or
Page
94
of
241
reproductive
output.

g.
Exposure
to
Triadimefon
Degradates
The
current
assessment
does
not
quantitatively
evaluate
the
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
that
may
occur
to
the
triadimefon
degradates,
triadimenol
and
triazole.
Triadimenol
has
approximately
equal
toxicity
to
mammalian
species
as
the
parent
triadimefon,
and
is
slightly
less
toxic
to
avian
species.
Exposure
to
triadimenol
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
assessment.
It
is
formed
within
plant
tissues
following
uptake,
as
well
as
in
the
soil
subsurface.
The
Agency's
current
methods
of
assessing
terrestrial
exposure
deal
with
foliar
residue
levels,
and
do
not
account
(
see
above)
for
these
alternate
exposure
pathways.
It
is
necessary
to
consider
total
terrestrial
organism
exposure
would
include
parent
and
degradate,
and
that
current
estimations
of
risk
based
solely
on
parent
triadimefon
could
therefore
be
underestimated.
1,2,4­
triazole
is
not
addressed
in
this
risk
assessment
and
will
be
examined
in
a
future
separate
risk
assessment
by
the
Agency.

4.
Assumptions
and
Limitations
Related
to
Effects
Assessment
a.
Age
Class
and
Sensitivity
of
Effects
Thresholds
It
is
generally
recognized
that
test
organism
age
may
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
observed
sensitivity
to
a
toxicant.
The
screening
risk
assessment
acute
toxicity
data
for
fish
are
collected
on
juvenile
fish
between
0.1
and
5
grams.
Aquatic
invertebrate
acute
testing
is
performed
on
recommended
immature
age
classes
(
e.
g.,
first
instar
for
daphnids,
second
instar
for
amphipods,
stoneflies
and
mayflies,
and
third
instar
for
midges).
Similarly,
acute
dietary
testing
with
birds
is
also
performed
on
juveniles,
with
mallard
being
5­
10
days
old
and
quail
10­
14
days
old.
The
screening
risk
assessment
has
no
current
provisions
for
a
generally
applied
method
that
accounts
for
uncertainty
associated
with
study
organism
age.
In
so
far
as
the
available
toxicity
data
may
provide
ranges
of
sensitivity
information
with
respect
to
age
class,
the
risk
assessment
uses
the
most
sensitive
life­
stage
information
as
the
screening
endpoint.

b.
Lack
of
Effects
Data
for
Amphibians
and
Reptiles
Currently,
toxicity
studies
on
amphibians
and
reptiles
are
not
required
for
pesticide
registration.
Since
these
data
are
lacking,
the
Agency
uses
fish
as
surrogates
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians
and
birds
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles.
These
surrogates
are
thought
to
be
reflective
of
or
protective
of
(
more
sensitive)
herpetofauna.
Amphibians
are
characterized
by
a
permeable
skin.
The
most
important
route
of
exposure
for
aquatic
amphibians
would
likely
be
the
dermal
route.
Using
freshwater
fish
may
be
suitable
surrogates
since
exposure
would
likely
be
surface
area
dependent
and
the
gill
surface
of
many
fish
is
a
fairly
large
surface
area.
Also,
both
fish
and
amphibians
are
ectothermic
so
metabolic
rates
and
demands
would
likely
be
similar.
For
terrestrial
species,
however,
the
difference
between
amphibians
and
birds
and
reptiles
and
birds
is
quite
large.
Terrestrial
amphibians
and
reptiles
are
both
ectothermic
while
birds
are
endothermic;
birds
have
a
higher
basal
metabolic
rate
to
required
to
maintain
constant
body
temperature.
The
higher
metabolic
demands
of
birds
may
be
predispose
birds
to
higher
relative
exposures.
However,
this
does
not
address
any
potential
differences
in
toxicity.
To
date,
there
are
few
controlled
studies
on
reptile
species
that
could
be
used
to
compare
to
similar
studies
on
birds.
A
priori,
there
is
no
strong
reason
to
think
that
one
taxa
is
more
or
less
sensitive
than
another.
Further
research
is
required
to
determine
whether,
in
general,
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
Page
95
of
241
amphibians
are
suitably
represented
by
birds
species
in
assessing
risks.

c.
Use
of
the
Most
Sensitive
Species
Tested
Although
the
screening
risk
assessment
relies
on
a
selected
toxicity
endpoint
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested,
it
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
selected
toxicity
endpoints
reflect
sensitivity
of
the
most
sensitive
species
existing
in
a
given
environment.
The
relative
position
of
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
in
the
distribution
of
all
possible
species
is
a
function
of
the
overall
variability
among
species
to
a
particular
chemical.
The
relationship
between
the
sensitivity
of
the
most
tested
species
versus
wild
species
(
including
listed
species)
is
unknown
and
a
source
of
significant
uncertainty.
The
use
of
laboratory
species
has
historically
been
driven
by
availability
and
ease
of
maintenance.
A
widespread
comparison
of
species
is
lacking,
however,
even
variation
within
a
species
can
be
quite
high.

d.
Data
Gaps
The
major
data
gap
is
the
lack
of
terrestrial
and
aquatic
vascular
plant
toxicity
studies.
For
triadimefon,
the
only
registrant­
submitted
plant
study
was
on
green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum).
Results
from
this
study
indicate
that
triadimefon
is
toxic
to
green
alga
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum),
however,
there
is
insufficient
data
to
generate
a
suitable
understanding
of
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
aquatic
plants.
There
are
no
registrant
submitted
data
for
the
effects
of
triadimefon
on
terrestrial
plants,
and
none
of
the
plant
toxicity
studies
obtained
through
the
ECOTOX
database
were
suitable
to
quantitatively
assess
risk,
although
one
of
the
studies
suggests
potential
negative
effects
of
triadimefon
exposure
on
both
monocot
and
dicot
terrestrial
plants.
However,
it
is
impossible
to
quantitatively
assess
risks
to
terrestrial
plants
from
the
use
of
triadimefon.
This
is
particularly
important
in
assessing
risks
to
federally
listed
species.
The
lack
of
toxicity
data
on
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
represents
a
serious
data
gap
in
the
toxicity
profile
of
triadimefon.
Given
the
importance
of
plants
to
ecosystem
function
and
to
the
sustainability
of
numerous
animal
communities
and
populations
of
listed
species,
a
complete
dataset
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
plants
is
required.

Another
important
data
gap
is
the
lack
of
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
studies
on
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Risk
estimates
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
indicate
a
low
potential
for
risks,
even
at
the
highest
use
rates
of
triadimefon.
This
result
may
suggest
a
low
potential
for
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
species
as
well;
however,
in
order
to
generate
robust
estimates
of
risk
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
toxicity
studies
on
representative
species
from
these
taxa
are
required.

5.
Assumptions
Associated
with
the
Acute
LOCs
The
risk
characterization
section
of
the
assessment
document
includes
an
evaluation
of
the
potential
for
individual
effects
to
listed
species
at
an
exposure
level
equivalent
to
the
LOC.
This
evaluation
is
based
on
the
median
lethal
dose
estimate
and
dose/
response
relationship
established
for
the
effects
study
corresponding
to
each
taxonomic
group
for
which
the
LOCs
are
exceeded.
The
slope
of
the
probit­
dose
response
is
used
to
generate
a
probability
of
individual
effects
near
the
low
end
tail
of
the
curve.
Predictions
based
on
low
probability
events
are
by
nature
highly
uncertain.
Moreover,
for
this
assessment
the
dose­
response
curve
representing
a
given
taxa
is
Page
96
of
241
generated
from
one
study
using
one
species.
It
is
likely
that
the
resulting
dose­
response
relationship
does
not
represent
the
response
of
all
species
within
a
taxa.
Calculating
the
probability
of
individual
effects
at
the
lower
and
upper
bounds
of
the
slope
is
designed
to
address
this
source
of
uncertainty
but
the
extent
to
which
this
captures
the
variability
within
a
taxa
is
unknown.
In
some
cases,
a
probit
dose­
response
relationship
cannot
be
calculated,
as
was
the
case
with
mammals
in
this
assessment
(
data
was
unavailable).
Here,
event
probabilities
for
mammalian
species
were
calculated
based
on
a
default
slope
assumption
of
4.5
with
upper
and
lower
confidence
intervals
of
2
and
9
(
Urban
and
Cook,
1986).
Given
the
large
uncertainty
associated
with
the
probability
estimates,
it
is
not
possible
to
accurately
predict
the
chance
of
an
individual
mortality
event
for
listed
mammalian
species.
Page
97
of
241
LITERATURE
CITED
Belfroid,
A.,
M.
Sikkenk,
W.
Seinen,
K.
V.
Gestel,
J.
Hermens.
1994.
The
toxicokinetic
behavior
of
chlorobenzenes
in
earthworm
(
Eisenia
andrei)
experiments
in
soil.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
13:
93­
99
Beyer,
W.
N.,
E.
E.
Connor,
and
S.
Gerould.
1994.
Estimates
of
soil
ingestion
by
wildlife.
J.
Wildl.
Manage.
58(
2):
375­
382.

Cobb,
G.
P.,
E.
H.
Hol,
P.
W.
Allen,
J.
A
Gagne,
R.
J.
Kendall.
1995.
Uptake,
metabolism,
and
toxicity
of
terbufos
in
the
earthworm
(
Lumbricus
terrestris)
exposed
to
COUNTER­
15G
in
artificial
soils.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
14(
2):
279­
285.

Felthousen,
R.
1977.
Classification
of
Granulated
Formulations.
USEPA,
September
9,
1977
Fletcher,
J.
S.,
J.
E.
Nellessen,
and
T.
G.
Pfleeger.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
EPA
foodchain
(
Kenaga)
nomogram,
and
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
13
(
9):
1383­
1391.

Hoerger,
F.,
and
E.
E.
Kenaga.
1972.
Pesticide
residues
on
plants:
Correlation
of
representative
data
as
a
basis
for
estimation
of
their
magnitude
in
the
environment.
In
F.
Coulston
and
F.
Korte,
eds.,
Environmental
Quality
and
Safety:
Chemistry,
Toxicology,
and
Technology,
Georg
Thieme
Publ,
Stuttgart,
West
Germany,
pp.
9­
28.

Kirkwood,
J.
H.
1983.
A
limit
to
metabolizable
energy
intake
in
mammals
and
birds.
Comp.
Biochem.
Physiol.
75A:
1­
3.

Mackay,
D.
and
S.
Paterson.
1981.
Calculating
fugacity.
Environ.
Sci.
Technol.
15:
1006­
1014.

Trapp,
S.
And
J.
C
McFarlane
(
eds.).
1995.
Plant
Contamination
Modeling
and
Simulation
of
Organic
Chemical
Processes.
Lewis
Publishers.
Boca
Raton,
Florida.

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

U.
S.
EPA.
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides
and
Toxic
Substances.
Office
of
Pesticides
Programs.
Washington,
DC.
January
23,
2004.

U.
S.
EPA.
1993.
Wildlife
Exposure
Factors
Handbook.
EPA/
600/
R­
13/
187a,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
Washington,
D.
C.

U.
S.
EPA.
1990.
Laboratory
Test
Methods
of
Exposure
to
Microbial
Pest
Control
Agents
by
the
Respiratory
Route
to
Nontarget
Avian
Species.
Environmental
Research
Laboratory,
Corvalis,
OR.
EPA/
600/
3­
90/
070.
Page
98
of
241
Willis,
G.
H.,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
Persistence
on
Foliage
in
Reviews
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology.
100:
23­
73.
Page
99
of
241
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
FATE
STUDIES
FOR
TRIADIMEFON:
SUMMARIES
AND
REVIEWS
Solubility
Somewhat
soluble
(~
70ppm
­
RED
#
D27523),
Triadimefon
is
capable
of
being
transported
dissolved
in
water
(
as
surface
runoff
or
as
leachate
to
groundwater).
Most
applications
are
already
in
liquid
form:
as
aerial
spray,
ground
spray,
pestigation,
or
broadcast.
Granular
applications
are
also
allowed
for
turf
treatments.
In
all
these
cases
there
is
the
potential
for
transport
into
groundwater
(
via
leaching
through
soil)
and
surface
water
(
in
runoff,
or
as
baseflow
contributions
to
stream
water).
Soil
column
leaching
studies
(
MRID
#
41616008
&
42356601)
indicated
that
triadimefon
did
move
down
through
the
soil
profile;
parent
compound
was
detected
up
to
a
depth
of
20
cm
in
sand
and
silt­
loam
soils
and
>
30
cm
(
height
of
column
used
in
experiment)
in
sandy­
loam
and
clay­
loam.
Field
dissipation
studies
(
MRID
#
42242701,
41686104
&
41686103)
revealed
detectable
levels
of
triadimefon
in
the
soil
at
depths
up
to
24
inches
following
single
and
multiple
turfgrass
applications
(
total
5.44
lb
a.
i./
A).
Triadimenol
(
the
most
common
degradate
found
in
most
studies)
appears
to
be
even
more
prone
to
leaching;
it
was
detected
at
depths
up
to
48
inches.
This
may
partly
be
due
to
it's
formation
in
the
(
aerobic)
subsurface,
where
subsequent
rain
or
irrigation
events
can
leach
it
deeper
into
the
soil.
None
of
these
studies,
which
evaluate
constituents
in
soil
porewater,
measure
or
account
for
the
likelihood
of
preferential
flow
(
e.
g.,
macropores)
and
potentially
efficient
delivery
to
the
saturated
zone
(
and
thus
into
groundwater).
Once
within
the
saturated
zone,
there
is
little
possibility
of
degradation
because
of
the
physico­
chemical
properties
of
the
compound
(
see
below).

Vapor
Pressure
/
Henry's
Law
Constant
Triadimefon
has
moderate
to
low
volatility
(
vapor
pressure
=
7.6E­
7
mm
Hg,
Henry'
law
const.
=
1.15E­
7
atm­
m3/
mol;
CAS
#
43121433),
and
is
less
volatile
than
water.
In
any
event,
airborne
triadimefon
is
not
likely
to
be
a
major
source
of
contamination,
whether
from
spray
drift,
volatilization,
or
other
mechanisms.
Estimated
half­
life
of
airborne
triadimefon
is
~
14
hours,
primarily
by
photochemical
degradation
(
CAS
#
43121433).
Wet
or
dry
deposition
onto
surfaces
(
e.
g.,
vegetation)
will
be
subject
to
degradation,
mostly
by
photolysis.

Hydrolysis
Triadimefon
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
in
acidic
(
pH
4),
neutral,
and
basic
(
pH
9)
environments
(
MRID
#
41922101).

Aqueous
Photolysis
Triadimefon
should
degrade
fairly
rapidly
in
water
exposed
to
direct
sunlight
(
half­
life
=
7.6
hours
­
MRID
#
42112901
&
41933601).

Soil
Photolysis
Triadimefon
is
somewhat
more
stable
to
photolysis
on
soil,
with
a
half­
life
of
30
days
(
MRID
#
42820401).
Page
100
of
241
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Triadimefon
appears
to
undergo
slow
degradation
in
aerobic
soil,
with
a
field­
measured
half­
life
of
417
days
(
MRID
#
42242701).
However,
lab
studies
yielded
a
much
shorter
half­
life
of
5.6
days
(
MRID
#
42224104
&
41686102).
Nevertheless,
detection
of
applied
triadimefon
in
aerobic
soils
nearly
2
orders
of
magnitude
longer
than
predicted
from
lab
studies
indicates
that
the
lab
studies
failed
to
account
for
real­
world
behavior
of
triadimefon.
Thus,
long­
term
contamination
of
the
vadose
zone
is
likely
under
repeated
(
annual)
applications,
since
the
field
(
aerobic)
half­
life
is
greater
than
one
year,
allowing
potential
accumulation
of
contaminant
to
occur.
The
half­
life
for
total
residues
(
triadimefon
+
triadimenol)
is
240
days
(
MRID
#
42224104),
calculated
by
combining
radioactivity
of
both
compounds
for
the
duration
of
the
study
(
364
days)
and
applying
a
2­
parameter
exponential
decay
function
(
r2
=
0.99,
p
<
0.0001)

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Triadimefon
may
be
somewhat
less
stable
in
anaerobic
soils
(
half­
life
=
23.1
days,
MRID
#
41686101).
However,
anaerobic
aquatic
studies
(
see
below),
which
supersede
anaerobic
soil
studies,
indicate
a
much
longer
half­
life,
albeit
still
shorter
than
under
aerobic
conditions.

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Triadimefon
is
very
stable
in
aerobic
aquatic
environments,
with
a
half­
life
for
total
residues
of
concern
(
triadimefon
+
triadimenol)
of
480
days
(
MRID
#
42224104),
which,
in
the
absence
of
data,
was
derived
by
multiplying
the
aerobic
soil
value
by
a
factor
of
two.
Thus,
triademifon
residues
are
expected
to
remain
for
long
periods
in
surface
waters
(
e.
g.,
streams
and
lakes)
and
in
oxic
unconfined
aquifers
(
notably,
shallow
groundwater).

Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Triadimefon
appears
to
be
less
stable
in
anaerobic
aquatic
conditions
than
in
aerobic
conditions.
Nevertheless,
the
half­
life
of
217
days
(
MRID
#
42401201)
still
allows
for
some
accumulation
over
time
with
repeated
applications.

Field
Dissipation
Triadimefon
dissipated
slowly
in
the
field
(
aerobic
soil
conditions),
with
a
half­
life
of
417
days
(
MRID
#
42242701).
Although
lab
studies
indicate
an
aerobic
soil
half­
life
of
5.6
days,
this
is
almost
certainly
an
underestimation.
Typically,
field
dissipation
rates
in
aerobic
soil
should
be
faster
than
lab
rates
for
aerobic
soil
because
presumably
multiple
degradation
pathways
are
available
in
the
field,
whereas
in
lab
studies
single
processes
are
isolated.
If
the
aerobic
soil
halflife
were
truly
5.6
days,
triadimefon
would
not
be
detected
in
field
studies
at
the
concentrations
noted.

Adsorption
(
Koc)
Triadimefon
is
considered
moderately
mobile,
with
a
Koc
of
387
L/
kgoc
(
MRID
#
41616008).
Combined
with
it's
solubility
and
degradation
characteristics,
triadimefon
presents
a
significant
potential
for
long­
term
contamination
of
both
surface
and
ground
water.
In
addition,
shallow
soil
depths
(<
30
cm)
are
also
likely
at
risk.
Page
101
of
241
Triadimefon
would
appear
to
be
capable
of
persisting
and
accumulating
in
a
variety
of
environmental
conditions.
Moderate
mobility
and
adsorption
characteristics
can
allow
it
to
leach
to
shallow
soil
depths,
where
it
may
persist
for
long
periods
under
aerobic
soil
conditions
typical
of
the
vadose
zone.
Repeated
annual
treatments
(
in
some
cases
twice
yearly,
or
more)
create
the
potential
for
accumulation
within
the
shallow
vadose
zone.
In
addition,
it
is
sufficiently
mobile
that
it
can
enter
groundwater
(
especially
via
preferential
flow),
where
it
can
remain
fairly
stable,
particularly
in
shallow,
oxic,
unconfined
aquifers
(
which
may
be
used
as
drinking
water
sources
in
rural
areas).
Likewise,
surface
water
bodies
(
rivers,
ponds,
and
other
sources
that
often
serve
as
drinking
water
supplies,
and
that
provide
habitat
for
many
endangered
species)
can
receive
loads
from
surface
runoff
(
as
this
chemical
is
often
applied
onto
the
land
surface)
as
well
as
from
groundwater
contributions
during
baseflow.
Contamination
via
atmosphere
is
much
less
likely.
Page
102
of
241
FATE
STUDIES
FOR
TRIADIMENOL:
SUMMARIES
AND
REVIEWS
Solubility
64
(
Bayleton,
http://
www.
cdms.
net/
ldat/
mp239005.
pdf)

Vapor
Pressure
/
Henry's
Law
Constant
?
[
N/
A
­
subsurface]

Hydrolysis
Stable
(
EFGWB
#
295,296)

Aqueous
Photolysis
1.5
days
(
EFGWB
#
295,296)

Soil
Photolysis
Stable
(
EFGWB
#
295,296)

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
744
days
[
248
days
(
MRID
#
41686102
&
42224104)
*
3]

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Stable
(
MRID
#
41686101,
42401201)

Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
1488
days
(
2x
aerobic
soil)

Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Stable
Adsorption
(
Koc)
365
(
MRID
#
41616008
­
averaged
from
4
soils)

Kd
3.5
(
average)

Considering
the
overall
similarities
in
chemical
characteristics
to
Triadimefon,
it
might
be
expected
that
triadimenol
would
behave
in
a
similar
fashion,
especially
as
regards
persistence.
The
most
notable
difference
is
that
triadimenol
appears
to
be
more
stable
under
anaerobic
conditions.
Once
introduced
into
the
saturated
zone
(
especially
deep,
confined
aquifers)
or
other
anaerobic
environments,
there
is
great
potential
for
this
compound
to
persist
and
accumulate.
Thus,
groundwater
should
be
most
vulnerable.
Page
103
of
241
OVERVIEW
OF
GUIDELINE
STUDIES
MRID
#
423566­
01
Column
Leaching
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
163­
1):

Sandy
loam
soil
was
incubated
for
30
days
with
the
equivalent
of
5.44
lb.
a.
i./
A
(
highest
single
application
rate)
of
14C­
triadimefon
under
aerobic
conditions.
Samples
of
this
aged
soil
were
applied
to
the
tops
of
soil
columns
containing
either
sandy
loam
(
1.0%
organic
matter),
sand
(
3.7%
organic
matter),
silt
loam
(
2.9%
organic
matter),
or
clay
loam
(
2.2%
organic
matter).
Columns
were
then
leached
with
the
equivalent
of
20
inches
of
rainfall
delivered
over
a
1­
2
day
period.
Less
than
12%
of
triadimefon
residues
leached
through
the
45cm
soil
columns.
Most
of
the
residues
(
37.5­
60%)
remained
within
the
top
6cm.
Average
amount
found
in
leachate
was
<
3%.
In
the
columns
of
sandy
loam
and
clay
loam,
triadimefon
and
the
degradate
triadimenol
were
found
throughout
the
columns
and
in
the
leachate.
The
greatest
mobility
was
observed
in
the
clay
loam
column,
and
the
least
in
the
sand
column.
The
study
author
ascribes
this
result
to
differences
in
organic
matter
content
among
the
columns.

MRID
#
416160­
08
Adsorption­
Desorption
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
163­
1):

Adsorption
and
desorption
values
were
evaluated
using
4
soils.
These
soil
types
and
corresponding
organic
carbon
(
OC)
percentages
were:
Sand
(
0.53%
OC),
Sandy
loam
(
0.58%
OC),
Silt
loam
(
1.5%
OC),
and
Clay
loam
(
1.2%
OC).
K
oc
values
were
224
for
the
Clay
loam,
320
for
Sandy
loam,
454
for
Silt
loam,
and
460
for
Sand.
The
average
K
oc
value
was
365.

MRID
#
416861­
02
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
162­
1):

Triadimefon
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
5.6
days
in
sandy
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
aerobically
in
darkness
at
25oC
and
75%
of
0.33
bar
moisture.
Approximately
75%
of
triadimefon
in
soil
had
converted
to
the
degradate
triadimenol
within
60
days
under
aerobic
conditions.
After
180
days,
this
had
dropped
to
<
60%
triadimenol.
Specifically,
after
60
days
in
aerobic
soil
there
was
detected:
7.3%
remained
of
total
parent
triadimefon
added
at
beginning
of
experiment
76.8%
had
converted
to
triadimenol
At
183
days:
4.6%
of
triadimefon
remained
50.2%
was
triadimenol
19.5%
had
become
triazole
­
most
of
the
triazole
(
except
1.5%
of
parent)
formed
within
the
last
90
days
of
the
experiment
and
was
tightly
bound
to
soil
particles;
since
formation
occurred
in
the
subsurface
and
triazole
forms
from
triadimenol,
it
is
unlikely
that
surface­
dwelling
land
animal
would
come
into
much
contact
via
this
degradation
pathway.
Page
104
of
241
MRID
#
422241­
04
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
162­
1):

Revised
version
of
MRID
416861­
02,
with
additional
data
(
extended
from
183
days
to
364
days)
reported.
After
364
days:
8.1%
of
initial
application
consisted
of
triadimefon
32.4%
of
initial
application
consisted
of
triadimenol
30.7%
of
initial
application
consisted
of
triazole.

MRID
#
419221­
01
Hydrolysis
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
161­
1):

Triadimefon
was
essentially
stable
(<
3
%
degradation)
in
sterile,
aqueous
solutions
that
were
buffered
(
pH's
5,
7,
and
9)
and
incubated
in
darkness
at
25oC
for
30
days.

MRID
#
42112901
&
41933601
Aqueous
Photolysis
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
161­
2):

Triadimefon
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
7.6
hours
in
sterile
non­
buffered
water
that
was
continuously
irradiated
using
a
xenon
lamp,
at
approximately
25oC.
Triadimefon
did
not
degrade
in
the
dark
control.
Six
degradates
were
isolated;
however,
only
p­
chlorophenol
was
conclusively
identified.

MRID
#
428204­
01
Soil
Photolysis
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
161­
3):

Triadimefon
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
30
days
(
720
hours
of
irradiation)
on
sandy
loam
soil
that
was
continuously
irradiated
for
15
days
using
a
UV­
filtered
xenon
light
source
at
22­
43oC.
The
only
significant
degradate
in
the
irradiated
soil
was
p­
chlorophenol.

MRID
#
416861­
01
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
162­
2):

Triadimefon
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
23.1
days
in
sandy
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
under
anaerobic
conditions
(
nitrogen
atmosphere)
in
darkness
at
25oC
and
75%
of
0.33
bar
moisture.
The
major
degradate
identified
was
triadimenol.
Page
105
of
241
MRID
#
416861­
01
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Study
(
satisfies
EPA
FIFRA
Guideline
162­
3):

Triadimefon
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
217
days
in
a
sediment:
pond
water
system
that
was
incubated
under
anaerobic
conditions
(
nitrogen
atmosphere)
for
up
to
one
year
in
the
dark
at
25oC.
Triadimefon
that
was
initially
in
the
water
phase
consistently
moved
to
the
soil
phase
of
the
system
by
the
end
of
the
study.
The
only
degradate
identified
was
triadimenol.
Page
106
of
241
APPENDIX
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
Assessment
­
PRZM­
EXAMS
Outputs
NC
Apple
Ground
Application
stored
as
NCapple­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
1.043
1.005
0.8758
0.7771
0.6859
0.2743
1966
1.751
1.687
1.471
1.14
0.9545
0.3888
1967
1.135
1.095
0.9868
0.8488
0.73
0.3221
1968
0.6103
0.5896
0.5462
0.4637
0.4543
0.2223
1969
2.928
2.813
2.398
1.844
1.54
0.5715
1970
1.164
1.121
1.09
0.8698
0.7378
0.3165
1971
1.026
0.9888
0.881
0.7016
0.6182
0.2743
1972
3.417
3.29
2.951
2.227
1.849
0.6982
1973
6.238
6.004
5.293
4.065
3.409
1.309
1974
3.249
3.135
2.777
2.437
2.2
0.9405
1975
2.927
2.837
2.545
1.961
1.646
0.6712
1976
2.337
2.257
1.983
1.638
1.391
0.5717
1977
2.503
2.406
2.216
1.821
1.548
0.6152
1978
1.458
1.402
1.306
1.017
0.8501
0.3625
1979
3.08
2.964
2.589
2.145
1.885
0.7405
1980
3.282
3.196
2.825
2.123
1.98
0.8134
1981
0.667
0.645
0.5814
0.5127
0.4689
0.2417
1982
1.089
1.048
0.9213
0.7151
0.6076
0.2552
1983
2.678
2.58
2.262
2.002
1.734
0.6495
1984
2.096
2.02
1.803
1.63
1.412
0.571
1985
1.193
1.145
0.9742
0.7574
0.6464
0.2897
1986
0.8544
0.8235
0.723
0.5411
0.4504
0.213
1987
2.078
1.996
1.702
1.467
1.399
0.5672
1988
1.571
1.51
1.348
1.003
0.8442
0.3723
1989
1.488
1.431
1.237
0.9542
0.8095
0.3433
1990
1.567
1.51
1.348
1.053
0.8893
0.3695
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
6.238
6.004
5.293
4.065
3.409
1.309
0.0740740740740741
3.417
3.29
2.951
2.437
2.2
0.9405
0.111111111111111
3.282
3.196
2.825
2.227
1.98
0.8134
0.148148148148148
3.249
3.135
2.777
2.145
1.885
0.7405
Page
107
of
241
0.185185185185185
3.08
2.964
2.589
2.123
1.849
0.6982
0.222222222222222
2.928
2.837
2.545
2.002
1.734
0.6712
0.259259259259259
2.927
2.813
2.398
1.961
1.646
0.6495
0.296296296296296
2.678
2.58
2.262
1.844
1.548
0.6152
0.333333333333333
2.503
2.406
2.216
1.821
1.54
0.5717
0.37037037037037
2.337
2.257
1.983
1.638
1.412
0.5715
0.407407407407407
2.096
2.02
1.803
1.63
1.399
0.571
0.444444444444444
2.078
1.996
1.702
1.467
1.391
0.5672
0.481481481481481
1.751
1.687
1.471
1.14
0.9545
0.3888
0.518518518518518
1.571
1.51
1.348
1.053
0.8893
0.3723
0.555555555555556
1.567
1.51
1.348
1.017
0.8501
0.3695
0.592592592592593
1.488
1.431
1.306
1.003
0.8442
0.3625
0.62962962962963
1.458
1.402
1.237
0.9542
0.8095
0.3433
0.666666666666667
1.193
1.145
1.09
0.8698
0.7378
0.3221
0.703703703703704
1.164
1.121
0.9868
0.8488
0.73
0.3165
0.740740740740741
1.135
1.095
0.9742
0.7771
0.6859
0.2897
0.777777777777778
1.089
1.048
0.9213
0.7574
0.6464
0.2743
0.814814814814815
1.043
1.005
0.881
0.7151
0.6182
0.2743
0.851851851851852
1.026
0.9888
0.8758
0.7016
0.6076
0.2552
0.888888888888889
0.8544
0.8235
0.723
0.5411
0.4689
0.2417
0.925925925925926
0.667
0.645
0.5814
0.5127
0.4543
0.2223
0.962962962962963
0.6103
0.5896
0.5462
0.4637
0.4504
0.213
0.1
3.3225
3.2242
2.8628
2.29
2.046
0.85153
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.498630769230769
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
NCapple­
grnd
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Page
108
of
241
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NC
Apple
Aerial
Application
stored
as
NCapple­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
NCappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
09:
36
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
05:
50
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1965
2.054
2.003
1.766
1.588
1.424
0.5653
1966
2.864
2.764
2.447
1.988
1.739
0.7224
1967
2.098
2.027
1.808
1.638
1.491
0.6518
1968
2.06
1.985
1.714
1.431
1.288
0.555
1969
4.248
4.083
3.533
2.702
2.264
0.8746
1970
2.648
2.55
2.248
1.818
1.551
0.6371
1971
1.89
1.813
1.646
1.535
1.383
0.5917
1972
4.367
4.211
3.758
2.852
2.439
1.005
1973
7.245
6.977
6.132
4.702
3.949
1.595
1974
4.141
3.999
3.532
3.305
2.937
1.231
1975
3.652
3.553
3.199
2.497
2.187
0.9732
1976
2.922
2.836
2.503
2.141
1.911
0.8638
1977
3.723
3.585
3.263
2.736
2.324
0.9203
Page
109
of
241
1978
2.632
2.533
2.283
1.877
1.63
0.677
1979
4.183
4.027
3.571
3.046
2.647
1.042
1980
4
3.891
3.437
2.981
2.693
1.098
1981
1.965
1.89
1.619
1.427
1.264
0.5512
1982
2.261
2.209
1.935
1.627
1.408
0.5813
1983
3.882
3.74
3.433
2.905
2.505
0.9478
1984
3.309
3.193
2.868
2.557
2.191
0.8774
1985
2.662
2.553
2.168
1.693
1.439
0.6091
1986
1.886
1.808
1.532
1.322
1.223
0.5213
1987
3.518
3.38
2.889
2.351
2.129
0.8704
1988
3.03
2.912
2.533
1.935
1.627
0.6743
1989
2.48
2.389
2.087
1.783
1.586
0.6648
1990
2.485
2.398
2.197
1.859
1.644
0.6864
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.037037037037037
7.245
6.977
6.132
4.702
3.949
1.595
0.0740740740740741
4.367
4.211
3.758
3.305
2.937
1.231
0.111111111111111
4.248
4.083
3.571
3.046
2.693
1.098
0.148148148148148
4.183
4.027
3.533
2.981
2.647
1.042
0.185185185185185
4.141
3.999
3.532
2.905
2.505
1.005
0.222222222222222
4
3.891
3.437
2.852
2.439
0.9732
0.259259259259259
3.882
3.74
3.433
2.736
2.324
0.9478
0.296296296296296
3.723
3.585
3.263
2.702
2.264
0.9203
0.333333333333333
3.652
3.553
3.199
2.557
2.191
0.8774
0.37037037037037
3.518
3.38
2.889
2.497
2.187
0.8746
0.407407407407407
3.309
3.193
2.868
2.351
2.129
0.8704
0.444444444444444
3.03
2.912
2.533
2.141
1.911
0.8638
0.481481481481481
2.922
2.836
2.503
1.988
1.739
0.7224
0.518518518518518
2.864
2.764
2.447
1.935
1.644
0.6864
0.555555555555556
2.662
2.553
2.283
1.877
1.63
0.677
0.592592592592593
2.648
2.55
2.248
1.859
1.627
0.6743
0.62962962962963
2.632
2.533
2.197
1.818
1.586
0.6648
0.666666666666667
2.485
2.398
2.168
1.783
1.551
0.6518
0.703703703703704
2.48
2.389
2.087
1.693
1.491
0.6371
0.740740740740741
2.261
2.209
1.935
1.638
1.439
0.6091
0.777777777777778
2.098
2.027
1.808
1.627
1.424
0.5917
0.814814814814815
2.06
2.003
1.766
1.588
1.408
0.5813
0.851851851851852
2.054
1.985
1.714
1.535
1.383
0.5653
0.888888888888889
1.965
1.89
1.646
1.431
1.288
0.555
0.925925925925926
1.89
1.813
1.619
1.427
1.264
0.5512
0.962962962962963
1.886
1.808
1.532
1.322
1.223
0.5213
0.1
4.2837
4.1214
3.6271
3.1237
2.7662
1.1379
Page
110
of
241
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.8072
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
NCapple­
aer
Metfile:
w03812.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
Apple
Aerial
Application
stored
as
ORapple­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
Page
111
of
241
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.723
2.64
2.354
1.909
1.657
0.6646
1962
2.253
2.186
1.974
1.738
1.53
0.7033
1963
2.177
2.108
1.892
1.755
1.56
0.7308
1964
2.054
1.991
1.762
1.442
1.258
0.5992
1965
3.024
2.931
2.584
2.056
1.788
0.8211
1966
2.108
2.042
1.798
1.458
1.269
0.6729
1967
2.13
2.066
1.829
1.494
1.3
0.647
1968
2.051
1.987
1.755
1.553
1.451
0.7516
1969
2.112
2.051
1.823
1.484
1.297
0.6924
1970
2.084
2.022
1.818
1.482
1.284
0.6057
1971
3.317
3.214
2.898
2.334
2.012
0.9314
1972
2.201
2.137
1.897
1.541
1.336
0.6356
1973
2.015
1.948
1.705
1.377
1.194
0.5642
1974
2.039
1.979
1.758
1.445
1.254
0.6241
1975
2.128
2.062
1.829
1.49
1.298
0.6349
1976
2.006
1.943
1.747
1.419
1.23
0.5618
1977
1.978
1.913
1.677
1.384
1.21
0.6077
1978
2.05
1.989
1.772
1.533
1.351
0.62
1979
2.035
1.975
1.787
1.562
1.359
0.6288
1980
2.059
1.993
1.752
1.438
1.284
0.6256
1981
2.066
2.004
1.775
1.457
1.308
0.6535
1982
2.588
2.502
2.194
1.746
1.499
0.7584
1983
2.095
2.027
1.781
1.451
1.267
0.6658
1984
2.704
2.625
2.348
1.977
1.74
0.7869
1985
2.035
1.981
1.752
1.493
1.497
0.7621
1986
2.074
2.011
1.78
1.457
1.266
0.667
1987
2.074
2.015
1.784
1.452
1.256
0.6396
1988
4.083
3.962
3.536
2.849
2.506
1.18
1989
2.107
2.039
1.907
1.628
1.45
0.7076
1990
2.049
1.986
1.799
1.501
1.321
0.6235
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
4.083
3.962
3.536
2.849
2.506
1.18
0.0645161290322581
3.317
3.214
2.898
2.334
2.012
0.9314
0.0967741935483871
3.024
2.931
2.584
2.056
1.788
0.8211
0.129032258064516
2.723
2.64
2.354
1.977
1.74
0.7869
0.161290322580645
2.704
2.625
2.348
1.909
1.657
0.7621
Page
112
of
241
0.193548387096774
2.588
2.502
2.194
1.755
1.56
0.7584
0.225806451612903
2.253
2.186
1.974
1.746
1.53
0.7516
0.258064516129032
2.201
2.137
1.907
1.738
1.499
0.7308
0.290322580645161
2.177
2.108
1.897
1.628
1.497
0.7076
0.32258064516129
2.13
2.066
1.892
1.562
1.451
0.7033
0.354838709677419
2.128
2.062
1.829
1.553
1.45
0.6924
0.387096774193548
2.112
2.051
1.829
1.541
1.359
0.6729
0.419354838709677
2.108
2.042
1.823
1.533
1.351
0.667
0.451612903225806
2.107
2.039
1.818
1.501
1.336
0.6658
0.483870967741936
2.095
2.027
1.799
1.494
1.321
0.6646
0.516129032258065
2.084
2.022
1.798
1.493
1.308
0.6535
0.548387096774194
2.074
2.015
1.787
1.49
1.3
0.647
0.580645161290323
2.074
2.011
1.784
1.484
1.298
0.6396
0.612903225806452
2.066
2.004
1.781
1.482
1.297
0.6356
0.645161290322581
2.059
1.993
1.78
1.458
1.284
0.6349
0.67741935483871
2.054
1.991
1.775
1.457
1.284
0.6288
0.709677419354839
2.051
1.989
1.772
1.457
1.269
0.6256
0.741935483870968
2.05
1.987
1.762
1.452
1.267
0.6241
0.774193548387097
2.049
1.986
1.758
1.451
1.266
0.6235
0.806451612903226
2.039
1.981
1.755
1.445
1.258
0.62
0.838709677419355
2.035
1.979
1.752
1.442
1.256
0.6077
0.870967741935484
2.035
1.975
1.752
1.438
1.254
0.6057
0.903225806451613
2.015
1.948
1.747
1.419
1.23
0.5992
0.935483870967742
2.006
1.943
1.705
1.384
1.21
0.5642
0.967741935483871
1.978
1.913
1.677
1.377
1.194
0.5618
0.1
2.9939
2.9019
2.561
2.0481
1.7832
0.81768
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.692236666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ORapple­
aer
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Page
113
of
241
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
Apple
Ground
Application
stored
as
ORapple­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
ORappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
16:
34
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.418
1.373
1.23
0.9602
0.8077
0.3267
1962
0.9796
0.9498
0.8531
0.6824
0.5952
0.3082
1963
1.025
0.991
0.8682
0.6843
0.6176
0.3184
1964
0.468
0.4548
0.4062
0.3383
0.2993
0.1818
1965
1.586
1.536
1.351
1.047
0.8859
0.4325
1966
0.6191
0.611
0.5615
0.4556
0.3524
0.2891
1967
0.5568
0.5421
0.4872
0.4129
0.3659
0.2635
1968
0.8552
0.8289
0.7326
0.6117
0.5348
0.3598
1969
0.5139
0.5006
0.4507
0.3827
0.3676
0.2811
1970
0.5041
0.4908
0.4655
0.3917
0.3456
0.2152
1971
1.824
1.765
1.64
1.289
1.105
0.5451
Page
114
of
241
1972
0.625
0.6087
0.55
0.4598
0.4054
0.2502
1973
0.457
0.4429
0.3912
0.3211
0.2826
0.1811
1974
0.6941
0.6805
0.6193
0.5172
0.3748
0.2227
1975
0.5622
0.547
0.4999
0.4246
0.3776
0.2448
1976
0.452
0.4388
0.4103
0.3407
0.2978
0.1653
1977
0.6076
0.5864
0.5137
0.4054
0.3499
0.2122
1978
0.5942
0.5769
0.5162
0.4423
0.4078
0.2138
1979
0.659
0.6437
0.5743
0.4702
0.4195
0.2276
1980
0.4946
0.4796
0.4248
0.3562
0.3473
0.2257
1981
0.491
0.4775
0.4276
0.362
0.3572
0.2505
1982
1.047
1.012
0.9027
0.7043
0.6029
0.3795
1983
0.5367
0.5214
0.4651
0.3926
0.3494
0.2734
1984
1.146
1.114
1.044
0.8906
0.7988
0.3884
1985
1.33
1.291
1.129
0.8491
0.7102
0.3813
1986
0.7185
0.6954
0.6098
0.4813
0.4298
0.2739
1987
1.13
1.098
1.031
0.5302
0.3787
0.2565
1988
2.744
2.662
2.382
1.899
1.634
0.8074
1989
0.7251
0.7038
0.6266
0.5839
0.5422
0.3205
1990
0.5166
0.5023
0.4593
0.4058
0.3709
0.2191
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
2.744
2.662
2.382
1.899
1.634
0.8074
0.0645161290322581
1.824
1.765
1.64
1.289
1.105
0.5451
0.0967741935483871
1.586
1.536
1.351
1.047
0.8859
0.4325
0.129032258064516
1.418
1.373
1.23
0.9602
0.8077
0.3884
0.161290322580645
1.33
1.291
1.129
0.8906
0.7988
0.3813
0.193548387096774
1.146
1.114
1.044
0.8491
0.7102
0.3795
0.225806451612903
1.13
1.098
1.031
0.7043
0.6176
0.3598
0.258064516129032
1.047
1.012
0.9027
0.6843
0.6029
0.3267
0.290322580645161
1.025
0.991
0.8682
0.6824
0.5952
0.3205
0.32258064516129
0.9796
0.9498
0.8531
0.6117
0.5422
0.3184
0.354838709677419
0.8552
0.8289
0.7326
0.5839
0.5348
0.3082
0.387096774193548
0.7251
0.7038
0.6266
0.5302
0.4298
0.2891
0.419354838709677
0.7185
0.6954
0.6193
0.5172
0.4195
0.2811
0.451612903225806
0.6941
0.6805
0.6098
0.4813
0.4078
0.2739
0.483870967741936
0.659
0.6437
0.5743
0.4702
0.4054
0.2734
0.516129032258065
0.625
0.611
0.5615
0.4598
0.3787
0.2635
0.548387096774194
0.6191
0.6087
0.55
0.4556
0.3776
0.2565
Page
115
of
241
0.580645161290323
0.6076
0.5864
0.5162
0.4423
0.3748
0.2505
0.612903225806452
0.5942
0.5769
0.5137
0.4246
0.3709
0.2502
0.645161290322581
0.5622
0.547
0.4999
0.4129
0.3676
0.2448
0.67741935483871
0.5568
0.5421
0.4872
0.4058
0.3659
0.2276
0.709677419354839
0.5367
0.5214
0.4655
0.4054
0.3572
0.2257
0.741935483870968
0.5166
0.5023
0.4651
0.3926
0.3524
0.2227
0.774193548387097
0.5139
0.5006
0.4593
0.3917
0.3499
0.2191
0.806451612903226
0.5041
0.4908
0.4507
0.3827
0.3494
0.2152
0.838709677419355
0.4946
0.4796
0.4276
0.362
0.3473
0.2138
0.870967741935484
0.491
0.4775
0.4248
0.3562
0.3456
0.2122
0.903225806451613
0.468
0.4548
0.4103
0.3407
0.2993
0.1818
0.935483870967742
0.457
0.4429
0.4062
0.3383
0.2978
0.1811
0.967741935483871
0.452
0.4388
0.3912
0.3211
0.2826
0.1653
0.1
1.5692
1.5197
1.3389
1.03832
0.87808
0.42809
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.30051
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ORapple­
grnd
Metfile:
w24229.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Page
116
of
241
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Apple
Aerial
Application
stored
as
PAapple­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
3.511
3.39
2.984
2.313
1.969
0.8493
1962
2.595
2.507
2.204
1.793
1.688
0.8838
1963
2.131
2.057
1.79
1.442
1.25
0.6592
1964
3.168
3.063
2.846
2.326
2.019
0.8676
1965
2.057
1.989
1.74
1.396
1.206
0.5623
1966
2.013
1.949
1.763
1.45
1.25
0.5475
1967
2.408
2.332
2.142
1.88
1.817
0.8789
1968
5.607
5.406
4.712
4.057
3.573
1.545
1969
2.571
2.487
2.262
1.828
1.605
0.8526
1970
4.896
4.733
4.445
3.669
3.14
1.299
1971
2.63
2.55
2.285
1.999
1.861
0.9338
1972
2.788
2.695
2.357
2.162
2.106
1.016
1973
3.154
3.054
2.738
2.318
2.097
0.9754
1974
2.722
2.631
2.327
2.179
1.994
0.9283
1975
3.166
3.061
2.758
2.304
2.067
0.9149
1976
3.071
2.963
2.655
2.23
1.947
0.882
Page
117
of
241
1977
2.783
2.685
2.383
1.919
1.719
0.8161
1978
2.721
2.682
2.444
2.019
1.858
0.8738
1979
2.466
2.394
2.137
1.911
1.789
0.8613
1980
2.296
2.219
2.077
1.809
1.578
0.6982
1981
2.545
2.46
2.237
1.902
1.738
0.7852
1982
2.333
2.274
2.091
1.868
1.847
0.9067
1983
6.415
6.21
5.488
4.39
3.741
1.475
1984
3.77
3.651
3.34
3.098
2.801
1.248
1985
4.556
4.398
3.826
3.021
2.629
1.196
1986
7.495
7.236
6.36
4.904
4.144
1.749
1987
3.494
3.385
3.078
2.536
2.192
1.03
1988
3.943
3.81
3.317
2.502
2.21
1.038
1989
3.619
3.506
3.31
2.71
2.409
1.115
1990
2.896
2.807
2.469
2.073
1.979
0.9709
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
7.495
7.236
6.36
4.904
4.144
1.749
0.0645161290322581
6.415
6.21
5.488
4.39
3.741
1.545
0.0967741935483871
5.607
5.406
4.712
4.057
3.573
1.475
0.129032258064516
4.896
4.733
4.445
3.669
3.14
1.299
0.161290322580645
4.556
4.398
3.826
3.098
2.801
1.248
0.193548387096774
3.943
3.81
3.34
3.021
2.629
1.196
0.225806451612903
3.77
3.651
3.317
2.71
2.409
1.115
0.258064516129032
3.619
3.506
3.31
2.536
2.21
1.038
0.290322580645161
3.511
3.39
3.078
2.502
2.192
1.03
0.32258064516129
3.494
3.385
2.984
2.326
2.106
1.016
0.354838709677419
3.168
3.063
2.846
2.318
2.097
0.9754
0.387096774193548
3.166
3.061
2.758
2.313
2.067
0.9709
0.419354838709677
3.154
3.054
2.738
2.304
2.019
0.9338
0.451612903225806
3.071
2.963
2.655
2.23
1.994
0.9283
0.483870967741936
2.896
2.807
2.469
2.179
1.979
0.9149
0.516129032258065
2.788
2.695
2.444
2.162
1.969
0.9067
0.548387096774194
2.783
2.685
2.383
2.073
1.947
0.8838
0.580645161290323
2.722
2.682
2.357
2.019
1.861
0.882
0.612903225806452
2.721
2.631
2.327
1.999
1.858
0.8789
0.645161290322581
2.63
2.55
2.285
1.919
1.847
0.8738
0.67741935483871
2.595
2.507
2.262
1.911
1.817
0.8676
0.709677419354839
2.571
2.487
2.237
1.902
1.789
0.8613
0.741935483870968
2.545
2.46
2.204
1.88
1.738
0.8526
0.774193548387097
2.466
2.394
2.142
1.868
1.719
0.8493
0.806451612903226
2.408
2.332
2.137
1.828
1.688
0.8161
0.838709677419355
2.333
2.274
2.091
1.809
1.605
0.7852
0.870967741935484
2.296
2.219
2.077
1.793
1.578
0.6982
Page
118
of
241
0.903225806451613
2.131
2.057
1.79
1.45
1.25
0.6592
0.935483870967742
2.057
1.989
1.763
1.442
1.25
0.5623
0.967741935483871
2.013
1.949
1.74
1.396
1.206
0.5475
0.1
5.5359
5.3387
4.6853
4.0182
3.5297
1.4574
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.978626666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAapple­
aer
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Page
119
of
241
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Apple
Ground
Application
stored
as
PAapple­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
PAappleC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
24:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.094
2.023
1.806
1.39
1.17
0.5425
1962
1.353
1.308
1.145
0.9078
0.8252
0.5229
1963
0.5601
0.5429
0.4835
0.4053
0.3551
0.2868
1964
1.872
1.807
1.67
1.352
1.173
0.5061
1965
0.4931
0.4782
0.4232
0.3497
0.3129
0.1975
1966
0.4798
0.4652
0.4205
0.3696
0.3234
0.1671
1967
1.492
1.441
1.282
1.136
1.086
0.4999
1968
4.445
4.283
3.726
3.298
2.93
1.207
1969
1.102
1.07
0.9765
0.8017
0.7263
0.4831
1970
3.949
3.828
3.468
2.715
2.311
0.9424
1971
1.697
1.644
1.477
1.24
1.067
0.5652
1972
1.96
1.898
1.699
1.456
1.294
0.6506
1973
1.617
1.568
1.478
1.278
1.198
0.6014
1974
1.686
1.631
1.43
1.193
1.128
0.5633
1975
1.707
1.652
1.589
1.307
1.204
0.5528
1976
1.679
1.619
1.529
1.256
1.098
0.529
1977
1.254
1.21
1.152
0.9135
0.8576
0.4481
1978
1.817
1.776
1.637
1.27
1.081
0.4979
1979
1.67
1.619
1.431
1.115
0.9736
0.4916
1980
0.9847
0.9535
0.894
0.7775
0.7003
0.3336
1981
1.645
1.586
1.413
1.117
0.9475
0.4203
1982
1.615
1.576
1.461
1.251
1.071
0.5431
1983
5.062
4.9
4.316
3.462
2.943
1.148
1984
2.462
2.403
2.218
2.103
1.958
0.8991
1985
3.559
3.433
2.977
2.348
2.016
0.8621
1986
6.203
5.988
5.253
4.076
3.453
1.425
1987
2.053
1.991
1.904
1.532
1.332
0.6791
1988
3.149
3.038
2.625
1.949
1.644
0.6911
1989
2.686
2.598
2.453
2.02
1.73
0.7588
1990
2.179
2.108
1.839
1.427
1.275
0.6163
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
Page
120
of
241
0.032258064516129
6.203
5.988
5.253
4.076
3.453
1.425
0.0645161290322581
5.062
4.9
4.316
3.462
2.943
1.207
0.0967741935483871
4.445
4.283
3.726
3.298
2.93
1.148
0.129032258064516
3.949
3.828
3.468
2.715
2.311
0.9424
0.161290322580645
3.559
3.433
2.977
2.348
2.016
0.8991
0.193548387096774
3.149
3.038
2.625
2.103
1.958
0.8621
0.225806451612903
2.686
2.598
2.453
2.02
1.73
0.7588
0.258064516129032
2.462
2.403
2.218
1.949
1.644
0.6911
0.290322580645161
2.179
2.108
1.904
1.532
1.332
0.6791
0.32258064516129
2.094
2.023
1.839
1.456
1.294
0.6506
0.354838709677419
2.053
1.991
1.806
1.427
1.275
0.6163
0.387096774193548
1.96
1.898
1.699
1.39
1.204
0.6014
0.419354838709677
1.872
1.807
1.67
1.352
1.198
0.5652
0.451612903225806
1.817
1.776
1.637
1.307
1.173
0.5633
0.483870967741936
1.707
1.652
1.589
1.278
1.17
0.5528
0.516129032258065
1.697
1.644
1.529
1.27
1.128
0.5431
0.548387096774194
1.686
1.631
1.478
1.256
1.098
0.5425
0.580645161290323
1.679
1.619
1.477
1.251
1.086
0.529
0.612903225806452
1.67
1.619
1.461
1.24
1.081
0.5229
0.645161290322581
1.645
1.586
1.431
1.193
1.071
0.5061
0.67741935483871
1.617
1.576
1.43
1.136
1.067
0.4999
0.709677419354839
1.615
1.568
1.413
1.117
0.9736
0.4979
0.741935483870968
1.492
1.441
1.282
1.115
0.9475
0.4916
0.774193548387097
1.353
1.308
1.152
0.9135
0.8576
0.4831
0.806451612903226
1.254
1.21
1.145
0.9078
0.8252
0.4481
0.838709677419355
1.102
1.07
0.9765
0.8017
0.7263
0.4203
0.870967741935484
0.9847
0.9535
0.894
0.7775
0.7003
0.3336
0.903225806451613
0.5601
0.5429
0.4835
0.4053
0.3551
0.2868
0.935483870967742
0.4931
0.4782
0.4232
0.3696
0.3234
0.1975
0.967741935483871
0.4798
0.4652
0.4205
0.3497
0.3129
0.1671
0.1
4.3954
4.2375
3.7002
3.2397
2.8681
1.12744
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.621056666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAapple­
grnd
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAappleC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Page
121
of
241
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Grape
Aerial
Application
stored
as
CAgrapesOC­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
10:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.191
1.14
0.9477
0.7547
0.6414
0.2451
1962
1.263
1.211
1.012
0.8152
0.7016
0.2964
1963
1.307
1.256
1.057
0.8583
0.7425
0.3375
Page
122
of
241
1964
1.23
1.179
0.9918
0.7998
0.6851
0.3153
1965
1.241
1.187
0.9956
0.8056
0.6953
0.3022
1966
1.221
1.169
0.9769
0.7847
0.6723
0.2813
1967
1.261
1.208
1.015
0.8226
0.7109
0.3102
1968
1.211
1.158
0.9647
0.7729
0.6616
0.3076
1969
1.252
1.197
1.009
0.8201
0.7101
0.3173
1970
1.247
1.192
0.9997
0.8095
0.6995
0.3446
1971
1.298
1.248
1.044
0.8427
0.7261
0.3259
1972
1.21
1.156
0.9694
0.7811
0.6702
0.3047
1973
1.25
1.197
1.004
0.811
0.6984
0.2955
1974
1.203
1.148
0.9537
0.7645
0.6563
0.2892
1975
1.224
1.17
0.9737
0.7831
0.6739
0.279
1976
1.255
1.2
1.006
0.8158
0.7064
0.4074
1977
1.283
1.233
1.043
0.8459
0.7281
0.3315
1978
1.293
1.237
1.033
0.8462
0.7315
0.4016
1979
1.224
1.17
0.9737
0.7821
0.6722
0.2745
1980
1.243
1.192
0.9971
0.8019
0.6878
0.2699
1981
1.269
1.215
1.011
0.8152
0.7034
0.3053
1982
1.225
1.171
0.9836
0.7953
0.6848
0.3585
1983
1.257
1.202
1.006
0.8142
0.704
0.3248
1984
1.205
1.15
0.9578
0.7688
0.6597
0.2654
1985
1.21
1.156
0.9608
0.7702
0.6609
0.2649
1986
1.276
1.233
0.9642
0.771
0.6602
0.2848
1987
1.365
1.31
1.103
0.9102
0.791
0.4503
1988
1.216
1.164
0.9773
0.7861
0.6717
0.2531
1989
1.224
1.172
0.9762
0.783
0.6707
0.2796
1990
1.983
1.898
1.585
1.159
0.9676
0.3903
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
1.983
1.898
1.585
1.159
0.9676
0.4503
0.0645161290322581
1.365
1.31
1.103
0.9102
0.791
0.4074
0.0967741935483871
1.307
1.256
1.057
0.8583
0.7425
0.4016
0.129032258064516
1.298
1.248
1.044
0.8462
0.7315
0.3903
0.161290322580645
1.293
1.237
1.043
0.8459
0.7281
0.3585
0.193548387096774
1.283
1.233
1.033
0.8427
0.7261
0.3446
0.225806451612903
1.276
1.233
1.015
0.8226
0.7109
0.3375
0.258064516129032
1.269
1.215
1.012
0.8201
0.7101
0.3315
0.290322580645161
1.263
1.211
1.011
0.8158
0.7064
0.3259
0.32258064516129
1.261
1.208
1.009
0.8152
0.704
0.3248
0.354838709677419
1.257
1.202
1.006
0.8152
0.7034
0.3173
0.387096774193548
1.255
1.2
1.006
0.8142
0.7016
0.3153
0.419354838709677
1.252
1.197
1.004
0.811
0.6995
0.3102
0.451612903225806
1.25
1.197
0.9997
0.8095
0.6984
0.3076
Page
123
of
241
0.483870967741936
1.247
1.192
0.9971
0.8056
0.6953
0.3053
0.516129032258065
1.243
1.192
0.9956
0.8019
0.6878
0.3047
0.548387096774194
1.241
1.187
0.9918
0.7998
0.6851
0.3022
0.580645161290323
1.23
1.179
0.9836
0.7953
0.6848
0.2964
0.612903225806452
1.225
1.172
0.9773
0.7861
0.6739
0.2955
0.645161290322581
1.224
1.171
0.9769
0.7847
0.6723
0.2892
0.67741935483871
1.224
1.17
0.9762
0.7831
0.6722
0.2848
0.709677419354839
1.224
1.17
0.9737
0.783
0.6717
0.2813
0.741935483870968
1.221
1.169
0.9737
0.7821
0.6707
0.2796
0.774193548387097
1.216
1.164
0.9694
0.7811
0.6702
0.279
0.806451612903226
1.211
1.158
0.9647
0.7729
0.6616
0.2745
0.838709677419355
1.21
1.156
0.9642
0.771
0.6609
0.2699
0.870967741935484
1.21
1.156
0.9608
0.7702
0.6602
0.2654
0.903225806451613
1.205
1.15
0.9578
0.7688
0.6597
0.2649
0.935483870967742
1.203
1.148
0.9537
0.7645
0.6563
0.2531
0.967741935483871
1.191
1.14
0.9477
0.7547
0.6414
0.2451
0.1
1.3061
1.2552
1.0557
0.85709
0.7414
0.40047
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.31379
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
CAgrapesOC­
aer
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Page
124
of
241
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2101
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Grape
Ground
Application
stored
as
CAgrapesOC­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
modified
Thuday,
17
June
2004
at
10:
13:
38
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.3469
0.3361
0.2967
0.1784
0.1281
0.07053
1962
0.2916
0.2804
0.237
0.2004
0.1736
0.1064
1963
0.3937
0.3785
0.3569
0.2775
0.2328
0.1421
1964
0.5196
0.4965
0.4352
0.3344
0.2409
0.1193
1965
0.2833
0.2717
0.2305
0.1945
0.1695
0.1093
1966
0.436
0.4215
0.3685
0.1716
0.1429
0.08911
1967
0.2955
0.2839
0.2466
0.2062
0.1795
0.117
1968
0.5555
0.5355
0.4663
0.3685
0.2779
0.1173
1969
0.2996
0.2876
0.2633
0.2364
0.2078
0.1254
1970
0.4988
0.4829
0.4378
0.2625
0.2098
0.1582
1971
0.4073
0.3942
0.3466
0.2696
0.2285
0.1339
1972
0.4647
0.4494
0.3925
0.281
0.197
0.1128
1973
0.2842
0.2728
0.2314
0.1946
0.1692
0.1017
1974
0.3242
0.3106
0.2647
0.225
0.167
0.1019
1975
0.2704
0.2589
0.2175
0.1809
0.1569
0.09085
1976
0.9563
0.9137
0.7629
0.5556
0.4612
0.2207
1977
0.6718
0.6484
0.4534
0.2086
0.1825
0.1343
1978
0.6148
0.5957
0.5407
0.4383
0.3758
0.2188
1979
0.2683
0.257
0.2156
0.1785
0.1546
0.08698
1980
0.2674
0.2568
0.2161
0.1767
0.1536
0.07708
Page
125
of
241
1981
0.4105
0.3962
0.3408
0.2557
0.2129
0.1193
1982
0.4185
0.401
0.3414
0.3211
0.3163
0.1673
1983
0.2975
0.2856
0.2423
0.2082
0.1806
0.132
1984
0.2536
0.2425
0.2029
0.1646
0.1429
0.0776
1985
0.2542
0.2432
0.2031
0.1645
0.1428
0.07533
1986
1.27
1.226
0.6613
0.2434
0.1708
0.09631
1987
1.088
1.053
0.9413
0.7222
0.6057
0.2656
1988
0.2491
0.2387
0.2007
0.1622
0.1394
0.0612
1989
0.261
0.2501
0.2095
0.1709
0.148
0.09164
1990
1.048
1.002
0.8436
0.5889
0.4721
0.2072
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
1.27
1.226
0.9413
0.7222
0.6057
0.2656
0.0645161290322581
1.088
1.053
0.8436
0.5889
0.4721
0.2207
0.0967741935483871
1.048
1.002
0.7629
0.5556
0.4612
0.2188
0.129032258064516
0.9563
0.9137
0.6613
0.4383
0.3758
0.2072
0.161290322580645
0.6718
0.6484
0.5407
0.3685
0.3163
0.1673
0.193548387096774
0.6148
0.5957
0.4663
0.3344
0.2779
0.1582
0.225806451612903
0.5555
0.5355
0.4534
0.3211
0.2409
0.1421
0.258064516129032
0.5196
0.4965
0.4378
0.281
0.2328
0.1343
0.290322580645161
0.4988
0.4829
0.4352
0.2775
0.2285
0.1339
0.32258064516129
0.4647
0.4494
0.3925
0.2696
0.2129
0.132
0.354838709677419
0.436
0.4215
0.3685
0.2625
0.2098
0.1254
0.387096774193548
0.4185
0.401
0.3569
0.2557
0.2078
0.1193
0.419354838709677
0.4105
0.3962
0.3466
0.2434
0.197
0.1193
0.451612903225806
0.4073
0.3942
0.3414
0.2364
0.1825
0.1173
0.483870967741936
0.3937
0.3785
0.3408
0.225
0.1806
0.117
0.516129032258065
0.3469
0.3361
0.2967
0.2086
0.1795
0.1128
0.548387096774194
0.3242
0.3106
0.2647
0.2082
0.1736
0.1093
0.580645161290323
0.2996
0.2876
0.2633
0.2062
0.1708
0.1064
0.612903225806452
0.2975
0.2856
0.2466
0.2004
0.1695
0.1019
0.645161290322581
0.2955
0.2839
0.2423
0.1946
0.1692
Page
126
of
241
0.1017
0.67741935483871
0.2916
0.2804
0.237
0.1945
0.167
0.09631
0.709677419354839
0.2842
0.2728
0.2314
0.1809
0.1569
0.09164
0.741935483870968
0.2833
0.2717
0.2305
0.1785
0.1546
0.09085
0.774193548387097
0.2704
0.2589
0.2175
0.1784
0.1536
0.08911
0.806451612903226
0.2683
0.257
0.2161
0.1767
0.148
0.08698
0.838709677419355
0.2674
0.2568
0.2156
0.1716
0.1429
0.0776
0.870967741935484
0.261
0.2501
0.2095
0.1709
0.1429
0.07708
0.903225806451613
0.2542
0.2432
0.2031
0.1646
0.1428
0.07533
0.935483870967742
0.2536
0.2425
0.2029
0.1645
0.1394
0.07053
0.967741935483871
0.2491
0.2387
0.2007
0.1622
0.1281
0.0612
0.1
1.03883
0.99317
0.75274
0.54387
0.45266
0.21764
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.124237666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
CAgrapesOC­
grnd
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAgrapes0C.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Page
127
of
241
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2101
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

NY
Grape
Aerial
Application
stored
as
NYgrape­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
NYGrapesC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
23
August
2005
at
13:
33:
07
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14860.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
14
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.526
1.474
1.299
1.037
0.9174
0.3804
1962
2.822
2.733
2.469
1.95
1.807
0.9107
1963
1.585
1.535
1.339
1.137
1.026
0.6696
1964
2.251
2.18
1.942
1.627
1.6
0.8688
1965
2.165
2.1
1.923
1.733
1.623
0.9013
1966
2.28
2.208
2.079
1.796
1.628
0.8765
1967
2.72
2.634
2.333
1.852
1.674
0.9381
1968
1.577
1.531
1.35
1.151
1.031
0.6147
1969
2.835
2.761
2.6
2.352
2.111
0.9678
1970
2.191
2.128
1.947
1.678
1.648
1.001
1971
1.652
1.601
1.406
1.236
1.201
0.8028
1972
3.161
3.097
2.861
2.665
2.379
1.152
1973
3.491
3.386
3.173
2.617
2.273
1.183
1974
2.528
2.454
2.15
1.868
1.758
1.026
1975
2.315
2.242
1.979
1.64
1.509
0.9788
1976
2.15
2.089
1.871
1.717
1.57
0.8447
1977
1.729
1.689
1.524
1.413
1.384
0.8466
Page
128
of
241
1978
1.697
1.646
1.445
1.237
1.119
0.7716
1979
2.407
2.336
2.202
1.926
1.854
1.121
1980
3.058
2.966
2.73
2.347
2.22
1.286
1981
1.667
1.616
1.456
1.325
1.209
0.8259
1982
8.864
8.573
8.203
6.944
5.993
2.454
1983
2.355
2.283
2.023
1.898
1.891
1.379
1984
2.14
2.074
1.836
1.621
1.481
0.8991
1985
2.003
1.939
1.705
1.529
1.39
0.7665
1986
4.341
4.215
3.846
3.353
2.985
1.435
1987
1.754
1.699
1.606
1.404
1.351
0.9275
1988
1.682
1.626
1.406
1.159
1.034
0.6487
1989
1.825
1.777
1.624
1.489
1.347
0.6977
1990
2.508
2.443
2.232
1.969
1.775
0.9721
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
8.864
8.573
8.203
6.944
5.993
2.454
0.0645161290322581
4.341
4.215
3.846
3.353
2.985
1.435
0.0967741935483871
3.491
3.386
3.173
2.665
2.379
1.379
0.129032258064516
3.161
3.097
2.861
2.617
2.273
1.286
0.161290322580645
3.058
2.966
2.73
2.352
2.22
1.183
0.193548387096774
2.835
2.761
2.6
2.347
2.111
1.152
0.225806451612903
2.822
2.733
2.469
1.969
1.891
1.121
0.258064516129032
2.72
2.634
2.333
1.95
1.854
1.026
0.290322580645161
2.528
2.454
2.232
1.926
1.807
1.001
0.32258064516129
2.508
2.443
2.202
1.898
1.775
0.9788
0.354838709677419
2.407
2.336
2.15
1.868
1.758
0.9721
0.387096774193548
2.355
2.283
2.079
1.852
1.674
0.9678
0.419354838709677
2.315
2.242
2.023
1.796
1.648
0.9381
0.451612903225806
2.28
2.208
1.979
1.733
1.628
0.9275
0.483870967741936
2.251
2.18
1.947
1.717
1.623
0.9107
0.516129032258065
2.191
2.128
1.942
1.678
1.6
0.9013
0.548387096774194
2.165
2.1
1.923
1.64
1.57
0.8991
0.580645161290323
2.15
2.089
1.871
1.627
1.509
0.8765
0.612903225806452
2.14
2.074
1.836
1.621
1.481
0.8688
0.645161290322581
2.003
1.939
1.705
1.529
1.39
0.8466
0.67741935483871
1.825
1.777
1.624
1.489
1.384
0.8447
0.709677419354839
1.754
1.699
1.606
1.413
1.351
0.8259
0.741935483870968
1.729
1.689
1.524
1.404
1.347
0.8028
0.774193548387097
1.697
1.646
1.456
1.325
1.209
0.7716
0.806451612903226
1.682
1.626
1.445
1.237
1.201
0.7665
0.838709677419355
1.667
1.616
1.406
1.236
1.119
0.6977
0.870967741935484
1.652
1.601
1.406
1.159
1.034
0.6696
0.903225806451613
1.585
1.535
1.35
1.151
1.031
0.6487
Page
129
of
241
0.935483870967742
1.577
1.531
1.339
1.137
1.026
0.6147
0.967741935483871
1.526
1.474
1.299
1.037
0.9174
0.3804
0.1
3.458
3.3571
3.1418
2.6602
2.3684
1.3697
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.971563333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
NYgrape­
aer
Metfile:
w14860.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NYGrapesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2101
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)
Page
130
of
241
NY
Grape
Ground
Application
stored
as
NYgrape­
grd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
NYGrapesC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
23
August
2005
at
13:
33:
07
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14860.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
14
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.5935
0.5744
0.5049
0.4012
0.3531
0.1573
1962
2.105
2.033
1.831
1.46
1.4
0.6523
1963
0.6336
0.6335
0.6334
0.6301
0.6026
0.3938
1964
1.633
1.583
1.4
1.147
1.062
0.6048
1965
1.357
1.317
1.169
1.043
1.036
0.6354
1966
1.581
1.533
1.414
1.155
1.069
0.6218
1967
2.29
2.214
1.954
1.543
1.338
0.6873
1968
0.536
0.5356
0.5334
0.5232
0.5031
0.3309
1969
1.925
1.876
1.802
1.654
1.493
0.6724
1970
1.714
1.661
1.525
1.21
1.095
0.6986
1971
1.002
0.9704
0.8522
0.6838
0.6122
0.4982
1972
2.539
2.483
2.298
2.037
1.85
0.8684
1973
2.6
2.526
2.407
1.991
1.744
0.9048
1974
1.941
1.883
1.646
1.315
1.18
0.7401
1975
1.392
1.35
1.2
1.005
0.9739
0.6855
1976
1.211
1.19
1.072
1.017
0.9674
0.5657
1977
1.15
1.135
1.073
0.9796
0.9092
0.5681
1978
0.7632
0.7401
0.6889
0.6313
0.598
0.4705
1979
1.73
1.678
1.492
1.42
1.365
0.8447
1980
2.216
2.152
1.968
1.773
1.74
1.021
1981
0.7689
0.7688
0.7681
0.7626
0.7288
0.5364
1982
8.474
8.197
7.645
6.481
5.602
2.236
1983
1.792
1.737
1.642
1.532
1.4
1.137
1984
1.413
1.371
1.221
0.9668
0.8707
0.6265
1985
1.208
1.17
1.033
0.9684
0.8616
0.497
1986
3.638
3.534
3.179
2.73
2.456
1.177
1987
1.1
1.068
0.9538
0.8725
0.838
0.6685
1988
0.649
0.6297
0.5714
0.4903
0.4676
0.3868
1989
1.12
1.093
0.9712
0.8202
0.7384
0.4242
1990
1.582
1.547
1.459
1.29
1.173
0.7114
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
8.474
8.197
7.645
6.481
5.602
2.236
0.0645161290322581
3.638
3.534
3.179
2.73
2.456
1.177
Page
131
of
241
0.0967741935483871
2.6
2.526
2.407
2.037
1.85
1.137
0.129032258064516
2.539
2.483
2.298
1.991
1.744
1.021
0.161290322580645
2.29
2.214
1.968
1.773
1.74
0.9048
0.193548387096774
2.216
2.152
1.954
1.654
1.493
0.8684
0.225806451612903
2.105
2.033
1.831
1.543
1.4
0.8447
0.258064516129032
1.941
1.883
1.802
1.532
1.4
0.7401
0.290322580645161
1.925
1.876
1.646
1.46
1.365
0.7114
0.32258064516129
1.792
1.737
1.642
1.42
1.338
0.6986
0.354838709677419
1.73
1.678
1.525
1.315
1.18
0.6873
0.387096774193548
1.714
1.661
1.492
1.29
1.173
0.6855
0.419354838709677
1.633
1.583
1.459
1.21
1.095
0.6724
0.451612903225806
1.582
1.547
1.414
1.155
1.069
0.6685
0.483870967741936
1.581
1.533
1.4
1.147
1.062
0.6523
0.516129032258065
1.413
1.371
1.221
1.043
1.036
0.6354
0.548387096774194
1.392
1.35
1.2
1.017
0.9739
0.6265
0.580645161290323
1.357
1.317
1.169
1.005
0.9674
0.6218
0.612903225806452
1.211
1.19
1.073
0.9796
0.9092
0.6048
0.645161290322581
1.208
1.17
1.072
0.9684
0.8707
0.5681
0.67741935483871
1.15
1.135
1.033
0.9668
0.8616
0.5657
0.709677419354839
1.12
1.093
0.9712
0.8725
0.838
0.5364
0.741935483870968
1.1
1.068
0.9538
0.8202
0.7384
0.4982
0.774193548387097
1.002
0.9704
0.8522
0.7626
0.7288
0.497
0.806451612903226
0.7689
0.7688
0.7681
0.6838
0.6122
0.4705
0.838709677419355
0.7632
0.7401
0.6889
0.6313
0.6026
0.4242
0.870967741935484
0.649
0.6335
0.6334
0.6301
0.598
0.3938
0.903225806451613
0.6336
0.6297
0.5714
0.5232
0.5031
0.3868
0.935483870967742
0.5935
0.5744
0.5334
0.4903
0.4676
0.3309
0.967741935483871
0.536
0.5356
0.5049
0.4012
0.3531
0.1573
0.1
2.5939
2.5217
2.3961
2.0324
1.8394
1.1254
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.700746666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
NYgrape­
grd
Metfile:
w14860.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NYGrapesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Page
132
of
241
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2101
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Fruit
Aerial
Application
stored
as
CAfruit­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
CAfruitIC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
35:
16
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.797
1.718
1.437
1.098
0.9136
0.3073
1962
1.829
1.748
1.462
1.121
0.9362
0.3265
1963
2.074
1.995
1.715
1.32
1.102
0.3901
1964
1.847
1.768
1.488
1.144
0.9585
0.3415
Page
133
of
241
1965
1.922
1.849
1.583
1.208
1.005
0.3548
1966
1.829
1.748
1.46
1.115
0.9313
0.3273
1967
2.648
2.586
2.233
1.687
1.398
0.493
1968
1.869
1.788
1.498
1.149
0.9583
0.3425
1969
2.013
1.927
1.631
1.245
1.033
0.3623
1970
1.841
1.763
1.484
1.128
0.9392
0.3284
1971
1.857
1.808
1.556
1.203
1.006
0.3526
1972
1.84
1.762
1.482
1.127
0.9391
0.3316
1973
1.838
1.759
1.475
1.126
0.9403
0.3307
1974
1.848
1.771
1.496
1.134
0.9403
0.3277
1975
1.857
1.783
1.516
1.152
0.9575
0.3344
1976
1.845
1.769
1.496
1.138
0.948
0.334
1977
1.831
1.75
1.465
1.134
0.9527
0.3369
1978
1.986
1.911
1.642
1.257
1.041
0.3613
1979
1.841
1.763
1.482
1.127
0.9364
0.3269
1980
1.848
1.772
1.501
1.157
0.9676
0.3378
1981
1.84
1.761
1.493
1.14
0.9485
0.3287
1982
1.865
1.787
1.507
1.146
0.9549
0.3378
1983
1.866
1.793
1.541
1.186
0.9884
0.3501
1984
1.842
1.764
1.484
1.126
0.9338
0.3251
1985
1.832
1.752
1.467
1.115
0.9254
0.3231
1986
1.844
1.767
1.491
1.138
0.9467
0.3291
1987
1.831
1.751
1.467
1.123
0.9372
0.328
1988
1.901
1.828
1.655
1.267
1.057
0.3677
1989
1.841
1.762
1.482
1.131
0.9428
0.3289
1990
1.839
1.762
1.487
1.139
0.9496
0.3292
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
2.648
2.586
2.233
1.687
1.398
0.493
0.0645161290322581
2.074
1.995
1.715
1.32
1.102
0.3901
0.0967741935483871
2.013
1.927
1.655
1.267
1.057
0.3677
0.129032258064516
1.986
1.911
1.642
1.257
1.041
0.3623
0.161290322580645
1.922
1.849
1.631
1.245
1.033
0.3613
0.193548387096774
1.901
1.828
1.583
1.208
1.006
0.3548
0.225806451612903
1.869
1.808
1.556
1.203
1.005
0.3526
0.258064516129032
1.866
1.793
1.541
1.186
0.9884
0.3501
0.290322580645161
1.865
1.788
1.516
1.157
0.9676
0.3425
0.32258064516129
1.857
1.787
1.507
1.152
0.9585
0.3415
0.354838709677419
1.857
1.783
1.501
1.149
0.9583
0.3378
0.387096774193548
1.848
1.772
1.498
1.146
0.9575
0.3378
0.419354838709677
1.848
1.771
1.496
1.144
0.9549
0.3369
0.451612903225806
1.847
1.769
1.496
1.14
0.9527
0.3344
0.483870967741936
1.845
1.768
1.493
1.139
0.9496
0.334
Page
134
of
241
0.516129032258065
1.844
1.767
1.491
1.138
0.9485
0.3316
0.548387096774194
1.842
1.764
1.488
1.138
0.948
0.3307
0.580645161290323
1.841
1.763
1.487
1.134
0.9467
0.3292
0.612903225806452
1.841
1.763
1.484
1.134
0.9428
0.3291
0.645161290322581
1.841
1.762
1.484
1.131
0.9403
0.3289
0.67741935483871
1.84
1.762
1.482
1.128
0.9403
0.3287
0.709677419354839
1.84
1.762
1.482
1.127
0.9392
0.3284
0.741935483870968
1.839
1.761
1.482
1.127
0.9391
0.328
0.774193548387097
1.838
1.759
1.475
1.126
0.9372
0.3277
0.806451612903226
1.832
1.752
1.467
1.126
0.9364
0.3273
0.838709677419355
1.831
1.751
1.467
1.123
0.9362
0.3269
0.870967741935484
1.831
1.75
1.465
1.121
0.9338
0.3265
0.903225806451613
1.829
1.748
1.462
1.115
0.9313
0.3251
0.935483870967742
1.829
1.748
1.46
1.115
0.9254
0.3231
0.967741935483871
1.797
1.718
1.437
1.098
0.9136
0.3073
0.1
2.0103
1.9254
1.6537
1.266
1.0554
0.36716
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.343176666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
CAfruit­
aer
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAfruitIC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Page
135
of
241
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

CA
Fruit
Ground
Application
stored
as
CAfruit­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
CAfruitIC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
35:
16
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
24
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.3588
0.3429
0.2869
0.2191
0.1823
0.06134
1962
0.3658
0.3496
0.2923
0.2242
0.1872
0.06529
1963
0.5887
0.5661
0.4917
0.3681
0.3048
0.1074
1964
0.3725
0.3567
0.3005
0.2313
0.1941
0.0706
1965
0.4283
0.412
0.3532
0.2694
0.2229
0.07849
1966
0.3666
0.3502
0.2926
0.2237
0.1868
0.06597
1967
1.281
1.246
1.076
0.7692
0.6247
0.2154
1968
0.4038
0.3865
0.3271
0.2541
0.2119
0.08054
1969
0.5464
0.5232
0.461
0.3503
0.2865
0.09942
1970
0.3706
0.3549
0.2989
0.2276
0.1896
0.06734
1971
0.4528
0.4336
0.3713
0.2833
0.236
0.08278
1972
0.3693
0.3536
0.2976
0.2264
0.1887
0.06719
1973
0.3677
0.3518
0.2951
0.2253
0.1881
0.06617
1974
0.3696
0.3542
0.2991
0.2268
0.1881
0.06555
1975
0.3714
0.3566
0.3032
0.2304
0.1915
0.06687
1976
0.3691
0.3538
0.2991
0.2276
0.1896
0.0668
1977
0.3661
0.35
0.2931
0.2267
0.1905
0.06738
1978
0.4928
0.4742
0.4166
0.3229
0.2646
0.091
1979
0.37
0.3543
0.298
0.2269
0.1886
0.06659
1980
0.3697
0.3546
0.3004
0.2315
0.1936
0.06762
1981
0.3679
0.3522
0.3086
0.2354
0.1958
0.06787
Page
136
of
241
1982
0.3895
0.3732
0.3148
0.2394
0.1991
0.07044
1983
0.3736
0.3589
0.3195
0.2548
0.2132
0.07608
1984
0.369
0.3534
0.2975
0.2257
0.1873
0.0655
1985
0.3664
0.3504
0.2935
0.223
0.1851
0.06464
1986
0.3688
0.3534
0.2982
0.2276
0.1893
0.06582
1987
0.3661
0.3501
0.2933
0.2245
0.1874
0.06559
1988
0.5352
0.5143
0.4408
0.3347
0.2777
0.09686
1989
0.3705
0.3547
0.2984
0.2282
0.1903
0.0674
1990
0.3679
0.3524
0.299
0.2293
0.1912
0.06632
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
1.281
1.246
1.076
0.7692
0.6247
0.2154
0.0645161290322581
0.5887
0.5661
0.4917
0.3681
0.3048
0.1074
0.0967741935483871
0.5464
0.5232
0.461
0.3503
0.2865
0.09942
0.129032258064516
0.5352
0.5143
0.4408
0.3347
0.2777
0.09686
0.161290322580645
0.4928
0.4742
0.4166
0.3229
0.2646
0.091
0.193548387096774
0.4528
0.4336
0.3713
0.2833
0.236
0.08278
0.225806451612903
0.4283
0.412
0.3532
0.2694
0.2229
0.08054
0.258064516129032
0.4038
0.3865
0.3271
0.2548
0.2132
0.07849
0.290322580645161
0.3895
0.3732
0.3195
0.2541
0.2119
0.07608
0.32258064516129
0.3736
0.3589
0.3148
0.2394
0.1991
0.0706
0.354838709677419
0.3725
0.3567
0.3086
0.2354
0.1958
0.07044
0.387096774193548
0.3714
0.3566
0.3032
0.2315
0.1941
0.06787
0.419354838709677
0.3706
0.3549
0.3005
0.2313
0.1936
0.06762
0.451612903225806
0.3705
0.3547
0.3004
0.2304
0.1915
0.0674
0.483870967741936
0.37
0.3546
0.2991
0.2293
0.1912
0.06738
0.516129032258065
0.3697
0.3543
0.2991
0.2282
0.1905
0.06734
0.548387096774194
0.3696
0.3542
0.299
0.2276
0.1903
Page
137
of
241
0.06719
0.580645161290323
0.3693
0.3538
0.2989
0.2276
0.1896
0.06687
0.612903225806452
0.3691
0.3536
0.2984
0.2276
0.1896
0.0668
0.645161290322581
0.369
0.3534
0.2982
0.2269
0.1893
0.06659
0.67741935483871
0.3688
0.3534
0.298
0.2268
0.1887
0.06632
0.709677419354839
0.3679
0.3524
0.2976
0.2267
0.1886
0.06617
0.741935483870968
0.3679
0.3522
0.2975
0.2264
0.1881
0.06597
0.774193548387097
0.3677
0.3518
0.2951
0.2257
0.1881
0.06582
0.806451612903226
0.3666
0.3504
0.2935
0.2253
0.1874
0.06559
0.838709677419355
0.3664
0.3502
0.2933
0.2245
0.1873
0.06555
0.870967741935484
0.3661
0.3501
0.2931
0.2242
0.1872
0.0655
0.903225806451613
0.3661
0.35
0.2926
0.2237
0.1868
0.06529
0.935483870967742
0.3658
0.3496
0.2923
0.223
0.1851
0.06464
0.967741935483871
0.3588
0.3429
0.2869
0.2191
0.1823
0.06134
0.1
0.54528
0.52231
0.45898
0.34874
0.28562
0.099164
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.077542
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
CAfruit­
grnd
Metfile:
w93193.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
CAfruitIC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Page
138
of
241
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
Berries
Ground
Application
stored
as
ORberry­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
ORberriesC.
txt
modified
Monday,
3
May
2004
at
13:
14:
18
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.4113
0.4
0.3688
0.3368
0.2957
0.1215
1962
0.8811
0.8586
0.7818
0.718
0.6789
0.3086
1963
1.39
1.349
1.262
1.106
0.9027
0.5445
1964
0.7401
0.7273
0.6784
0.5826
0.5234
0.3827
1965
1.165
1.137
1.014
0.8238
0.6211
0.3386
1966
0.9741
0.9504
0.8677
0.7141
0.5513
0.3907
1967
1.034
1.002
0.8859
0.7914
0.6458
0.3964
1968
1.24
1.208
1.138
0.9947
0.9533
0.5407
1969
1.701
1.655
1.486
1.307
1.287
0.6691
Page
139
of
241
1970
1.065
1.047
0.977
0.8387
0.7503
0.4861
1971
1.341
1.293
1.13
1.009
0.9617
0.4692
1972
0.6724
0.6654
0.5686
0.5012
0.453
0.3842
1973
0.7644
0.7457
0.6953
0.5752
0.4833
0.3408
1974
1.51
1.471
1.34
1.139
0.8292
0.3916
1975
0.9269
0.9086
0.8391
0.7162
0.641
0.4705
1976
0.5011
0.4919
0.4566
0.3908
0.3509
0.2455
1977
0.616
0.6037
0.5656
0.4862
0.4088
0.1974
1978
0.84
0.8145
0.7527
0.5653
0.4679
0.3381
1979
1.713
1.662
1.54
1.284
1.116
0.5897
1980
1.131
1.1
0.9923
0.7089
0.5973
0.4596
1981
1.684
1.65
1.487
1.377
1.303
0.6482
1982
1.007
0.9895
0.9221
0.7967
0.717
0.4513
1983
0.8616
0.8406
0.8124
0.7123
0.5999
0.3569
1984
1.45
1.409
1.309
1.08
0.8705
0.4641
1985
0.9727
0.9464
0.8502
0.7019
0.6027
0.4864
1986
0.4914
0.4834
0.4524
0.3954
0.3581
0.2915
1987
1.895
1.854
1.746
1.015
0.797
0.4268
1988
1.406
1.373
1.255
1.04
0.915
0.5433
1989
1.296
1.261
1.132
0.9083
0.7235
0.3812
1990
1.168
1.137
1.035
0.9313
0.7707
0.5141
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
1.895
1.854
1.746
1.377
1.303
0.6691
0.0645161290322581
1.713
1.662
1.54
1.307
1.287
0.6482
0.0967741935483871
1.701
1.655
1.487
1.284
1.116
0.5897
0.129032258064516
1.684
1.65
1.486
1.139
0.9617
0.5445
0.161290322580645
1.51
1.471
1.34
1.106
0.9533
0.5433
0.193548387096774
1.45
1.409
1.309
1.08
0.915
0.5407
0.225806451612903
1.406
1.373
1.262
1.04
0.9027
0.5141
0.258064516129032
1.39
1.349
1.255
1.015
0.8705
0.4864
0.290322580645161
1.341
1.293
1.138
1.009
0.8292
0.4861
0.32258064516129
1.296
1.261
1.132
0.9947
0.797
0.4705
0.354838709677419
1.24
1.208
1.13
0.9313
0.7707
0.4692
0.387096774193548
1.168
1.137
1.035
0.9083
0.7503
0.4641
0.419354838709677
1.165
1.137
1.014
0.8387
0.7235
0.4596
0.451612903225806
1.131
1.1
0.9923
0.8238
0.717
0.4513
0.483870967741936
1.065
1.047
0.977
0.7967
0.6789
0.4268
0.516129032258065
1.034
1.002
0.9221
0.7914
0.6458
0.3964
0.548387096774194
1.007
0.9895
0.8859
0.718
0.641
0.3916
0.580645161290323
0.9741
0.9504
0.8677
0.7162
0.6211
0.3907
0.612903225806452
0.9727
0.9464
0.8502
0.7141
0.6027
Page
140
of
241
0.3842
0.645161290322581
0.9269
0.9086
0.8391
0.7123
0.5999
0.3827
0.67741935483871
0.8811
0.8586
0.8124
0.7089
0.5973
0.3812
0.709677419354839
0.8616
0.8406
0.7818
0.7019
0.5513
0.3569
0.741935483870968
0.84
0.8145
0.7527
0.5826
0.5234
0.3408
0.774193548387097
0.7644
0.7457
0.6953
0.5752
0.4833
0.3386
0.806451612903226
0.7401
0.7273
0.6784
0.5653
0.4679
0.3381
0.838709677419355
0.6724
0.6654
0.5686
0.5012
0.453
0.3086
0.870967741935484
0.616
0.6037
0.5656
0.4862
0.4088
0.2915
0.903225806451613
0.5011
0.4919
0.4566
0.3954
0.3581
0.2455
0.935483870967742
0.4914
0.4834
0.4524
0.3908
0.3509
0.1974
0.967741935483871
0.4113
0.4
0.3688
0.3368
0.2957
0.1215
0.1
1.6993
1.6545
1.4869
1.2695
1.10057
0.58518
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.420976666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ORberry­
grnd
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORberriesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Page
141
of
241
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.14
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
28
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
Christmas
Tree
Aerial
Application
stored
as
ORxmas­
aer.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
ORXmasTreeC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
23:
10
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.775
2.683
2.43
2.249
2.108
0.9968
1962
3.002
2.911
2.659
2.49
2.354
1.399
1963
3.463
3.361
3.133
2.964
2.817
1.795
1964
3.254
3.16
2.917
2.749
2.602
1.597
1965
2.998
2.907
2.656
2.496
2.36
1.393
1966
3.047
2.947
2.712
2.535
2.382
1.395
1967
2.925
2.823
2.594
2.441
2.293
1.357
1968
3.884
3.772
3.358
2.929
2.769
1.633
1969
3.699
3.59
3.361
3.221
2.957
1.79
1970
3.029
2.929
2.696
2.539
2.394
1.432
1971
4.08
3.947
3.463
2.885
2.783
1.642
1972
3.105
3.006
2.774
2.634
2.497
1.592
1973
3.034
2.938
2.7
2.55
2.406
1.416
Page
142
of
241
1974
3.051
2.953
2.713
2.524
2.373
1.372
1975
3.087
2.996
2.746
2.577
2.432
1.429
1976
3.065
2.976
2.722
2.548
2.407
1.321
1977
3.011
2.913
2.672
2.486
2.339
1.302
1978
3.178
3.084
2.841
2.681
2.545
1.434
1979
4.797
4.637
4.056
3.229
2.99
1.797
1980
3.183
3.086
2.852
2.71
2.563
1.561
1981
3.534
3.443
3.078
2.678
2.533
1.704
1982
3.18
3.083
2.843
2.67
2.522
1.549
1983
3.166
3.069
2.826
2.686
2.567
1.483
1984
3.073
2.974
2.744
2.615
2.477
1.498
1985
3.203
3.102
2.882
2.803
2.708
1.538
1986
3.069
2.964
2.737
2.546
2.39
1.364
1987
4.95
4.792
4.441
3.71
3.248
1.656
1988
3.083
2.981
2.754
2.605
2.458
1.519
1989
3.119
3.026
2.776
2.578
2.429
1.423
1990
3.104
3.009
2.767
2.611
2.466
1.487
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
4.95
4.792
4.441
3.71
3.248
1.797
0.0645161290322581
4.797
4.637
4.056
3.229
2.99
1.795
0.0967741935483871
4.08
3.947
3.463
3.221
2.957
1.79
0.129032258064516
3.884
3.772
3.361
2.964
2.817
1.704
0.161290322580645
3.699
3.59
3.358
2.929
2.783
1.656
0.193548387096774
3.534
3.443
3.133
2.885
2.769
1.642
0.225806451612903
3.463
3.361
3.078
2.803
2.708
1.633
0.258064516129032
3.254
3.16
2.917
2.749
2.602
1.597
0.290322580645161
3.203
3.102
2.882
2.71
2.567
1.592
0.32258064516129
3.183
3.086
2.852
2.686
2.563
1.561
0.354838709677419
3.18
3.084
2.843
2.681
2.545
1.549
0.387096774193548
3.178
3.083
2.841
2.678
2.533
1.538
0.419354838709677
3.166
3.069
2.826
2.67
2.522
1.519
0.451612903225806
3.119
3.026
2.776
2.634
2.497
1.498
0.483870967741936
3.105
3.009
2.774
2.615
2.477
1.487
0.516129032258065
3.104
3.006
2.767
2.611
2.466
1.483
0.548387096774194
3.087
2.996
2.754
2.605
2.458
1.434
0.580645161290323
3.083
2.981
2.746
2.578
2.432
1.432
0.612903225806452
3.073
2.976
2.744
2.577
2.429
1.429
0.645161290322581
3.069
2.974
2.737
2.55
2.407
1.423
0.67741935483871
3.065
2.964
2.722
2.548
2.406
1.416
0.709677419354839
3.051
2.953
2.713
2.546
2.394
1.399
0.741935483870968
3.047
2.947
2.712
2.539
2.39
1.395
0.774193548387097
3.034
2.938
2.7
2.535
2.382
1.393
Page
143
of
241
0.806451612903226
3.029
2.929
2.696
2.524
2.373
1.372
0.838709677419355
3.011
2.913
2.672
2.496
2.36
1.364
0.870967741935484
3.002
2.911
2.659
2.49
2.354
1.357
0.903225806451613
2.998
2.907
2.656
2.486
2.339
1.321
0.935483870967742
2.925
2.823
2.594
2.441
2.293
1.302
0.967741935483871
2.775
2.683
2.43
2.249
2.108
0.9968
0.1
4.0604
3.9295
3.4528
3.1953
2.943
1.7814
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.49582666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ORxmas­
aer
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORXmasTreeC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Page
144
of
241
Interval
7
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

OR
Christmas
Tree
Ground
Application
stored
as
ORxmas­
grnd.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
ORXmasTreeC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
23:
10
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.5548
0.5365
0.4859
0.4496
0.4214
0.2329
1962
1.016
0.9932
0.9067
0.7583
0.6746
0.4072
1963
2.027
1.968
1.766
1.443
1.188
0.759
1964
0.9314
0.9162
0.8576
0.7409
0.6676
0.5519
1965
0.7648
0.7457
0.6747
0.5783
0.5122
0.3844
1966
0.6687
0.6564
0.5987
0.5533
0.5227
0.3933
1967
0.8174
0.7938
0.7088
0.5914
0.5013
0.3957
1968
2.045
1.978
1.73
1.419
1.268
0.634
1969
1.671
1.62
1.454
1.24
1.136
0.7706
1970
0.686
0.6647
0.6221
0.5982
0.5781
0.4429
1971
2.521
2.428
2.094
1.627
1.426
0.6313
1972
0.9299
0.9025
0.8032
0.7348
0.7066
0.6057
1973
0.6696
0.6494
0.6047
0.581
0.5561
0.4158
1974
0.962
0.9354
0.8711
0.7168
0.5603
0.3747
1975
0.6766
0.6574
0.61
0.5812
0.5527
0.4289
1976
0.6395
0.6213
0.5715
0.5391
0.511
0.3104
1977
0.6046
0.5851
0.5369
0.4998
0.4707
0.2944
1978
0.78
0.7551
0.7078
0.689
0.6848
0.3972
1979
3.276
3.155
2.718
2.125
1.874
0.7761
1980
0.9293
0.9142
0.8554
0.7506
0.6893
0.5602
1981
2.566
2.492
2.189
1.825
1.608
0.7187
1982
0.9804
0.9658
0.9085
0.7971
0.7228
0.5522
1983
1.165
1.126
0.9827
0.7647
0.7165
0.4425
1984
0.8599
0.8398
0.7701
0.6604
0.6404
0.4868
1985
1.295
1.25
1.168
1.021
0.9304
0.5713
Page
145
of
241
1986
0.6738
0.6516
0.6093
0.5757
0.5491
0.3815
1987
2.89
2.789
2.508
1.927
1.608
0.7044
1988
1.029
1.009
0.9359
0.7996
0.7146
0.5602
1989
0.8538
0.8284
0.7477
0.6757
0.566
0.4167
1990
0.8467
0.8241
0.7552
0.6475
0.5633
0.4627
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
3.276
3.155
2.718
2.125
1.874
0.7761
0.0645161290322581
2.89
2.789
2.508
1.927
1.608
0.7706
0.0967741935483871
2.566
2.492
2.189
1.825
1.608
0.759
0.129032258064516
2.521
2.428
2.094
1.627
1.426
0.7187
0.161290322580645
2.045
1.978
1.766
1.443
1.268
0.7044
0.193548387096774
2.027
1.968
1.73
1.419
1.188
0.634
0.225806451612903
1.671
1.62
1.454
1.24
1.136
0.6313
0.258064516129032
1.295
1.25
1.168
1.021
0.9304
0.6057
0.290322580645161
1.165
1.126
0.9827
0.7996
0.7228
0.5713
0.32258064516129
1.029
1.009
0.9359
0.7971
0.7165
0.5602
0.354838709677419
1.016
0.9932
0.9085
0.7647
0.7146
0.5602
0.387096774193548
0.9804
0.9658
0.9067
0.7583
0.7066
0.5522
0.419354838709677
0.962
0.9354
0.8711
0.7506
0.6893
0.5519
0.451612903225806
0.9314
0.9162
0.8576
0.7409
0.6848
0.4868
0.483870967741936
0.9299
0.9142
0.8554
0.7348
0.6746
0.4627
0.516129032258065
0.9293
0.9025
0.8032
0.7168
0.6676
0.4429
0.548387096774194
0.8599
0.8398
0.7701
0.689
0.6404
0.4425
0.580645161290323
0.8538
0.8284
0.7552
0.6757
0.5781
0.4289
0.612903225806452
0.8467
0.8241
0.7477
0.6604
0.566
0.4167
0.645161290322581
0.8174
0.7938
0.7088
0.6475
0.5633
0.4158
0.67741935483871
0.78
0.7551
0.7078
0.5982
0.5603
0.4072
0.709677419354839
0.7648
0.7457
0.6747
0.5914
0.5561
0.3972
0.741935483870968
0.686
0.6647
0.6221
0.5812
0.5527
0.3957
0.774193548387097
0.6766
0.6574
0.61
0.581
0.5491
0.3933
0.806451612903226
0.6738
0.6564
0.6093
0.5783
0.5227
0.3844
0.838709677419355
0.6696
0.6516
0.6047
0.5757
0.5122
0.3815
0.870967741935484
0.6687
0.6494
0.5987
0.5533
0.511
0.3747
Page
146
of
241
0.903225806451613
0.6395
0.6213
0.5715
0.5391
0.5013
0.3104
0.935483870967742
0.6046
0.5851
0.5369
0.4998
0.4707
0.2944
0.967741935483871
0.5548
0.5365
0.4859
0.4496
0.4214
0.2329
0.1
2.5615
2.4856
2.1795
1.8052
1.5898
0.75497
Average
of
yearly
averages:
0.50212
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
ORxmas­
grnd
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORXmasTreeC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.2801
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Page
147
of
241
Interval
7
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
Turf
Golf
Course
Application
stored
as
FLturf­
new.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
15:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
80.29
77.31
67
53.55
48.1
24.15
1962
92.42
88.86
77.98
65.55
65.43
35.85
1963
130
125
109
80.79
69.14
48.95
1964
123
118
104
88.49
82.51
62.84
1965
101
96.96
83.38
65.12
56.12
32.71
1966
131
127
111
102
93.11
50.16
1967
87.79
84.72
74.89
58.63
59.85
36.04
1968
151
145
128
109
96.02
55.94
1969
127
123
116
100
93.43
50.37
1970
92.5
89.99
81.63
74.21
68.22
35.06
1971
136
130
111
83.28
74.89
53.66
1972
193
186
163
129
102
64.78
1973
92.9
90.49
82.05
69.16
61.04
39.81
1974
139
133
114
85.36
75.24
40.59
1975
59.79
57.52
50.6
40.66
34.89
27.31
1976
134
129
109
93.29
93.9
52.83
1977
114
110
96.1
78.63
68.12
49.67
1978
82.89
79.72
71.58
57.78
55.93
45.07
1979
121
117
102
83.38
80.05
62.63
1980
54.67
53.53
49.08
45.93
41.92
27.97
1981
88.42
85.28
80.32
64.74
54.99
37.23
1982
103
98.95
86.17
73.4
65.54
47.91
1983
122
118
107
72.98
71.72
51.08
1984
134
129
111
85.59
76.95
64.35
1985
45.52
44.21
39.68
34.53
32.42
27.43
Page
148
of
241
1986
147
143
123
91.21
75.94
47.44
1987
59.63
57.61
50.69
45.57
44.23
29.06
1988
126
121
103
63.6
49.26
30.95
1989
270
259
218
159
131
75.49
1990
89.53
86.73
76.34
58.61
52.75
32.38
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
270
259
218
159
131
75.49
0.0645161290322581
193
186
163
129
102
64.78
0.0967741935483871
151
145
128
109
96.02
64.35
0.129032258064516
147
143
123
102
93.9
62.84
0.161290322580645
139
133
116
100
93.43
62.63
0.193548387096774
136
130
114
93.29
93.11
55.94
0.225806451612903
134
129
111
91.21
82.51
53.66
0.258064516129032
134
129
111
88.49
80.05
52.83
0.290322580645161
131
127
111
85.59
76.95
51.08
0.32258064516129
130
125
109
85.36
75.94
50.37
0.354838709677419
127
123
109
83.38
75.24
50.16
0.387096774193548
126
121
107
83.28
74.89
49.67
0.419354838709677
123
118
104
80.79
71.72
48.95
0.451612903225806
122
118
103
78.63
69.14
47.91
0.483870967741936
121
117
102
74.21
68.22
47.44
0.516129032258065
114
110
96.1
73.4
68.12
45.07
0.548387096774194
103
98.95
86.17
72.98
65.54
40.59
0.580645161290323
101
96.96
83.38
69.16
65.43
39.81
0.612903225806452
92.9
90.49
82.05
65.55
61.04
37.23
0.645161290322581
92.5
89.99
81.63
65.12
59.85
36.04
0.67741935483871
92.42
88.86
80.32
64.74
56.12
35.85
0.709677419354839
89.53
86.73
77.98
63.6
55.93
35.06
0.741935483870968
88.42
85.28
76.34
58.63
54.99
32.71
0.774193548387097
87.79
84.72
74.89
58.61
52.75
32.38
0.806451612903226
82.89
79.72
71.58
57.78
49.26
30.95
0.838709677419355
80.29
77.31
67
53.55
48.1
29.06
0.870967741935484
59.79
57.61
50.69
45.93
44.23
27.97
0.903225806451613
59.63
57.52
50.6
45.57
41.92
27.43
0.935483870967742
54.67
53.53
49.08
40.66
34.89
27.31
0.967741935483871
45.52
44.21
39.68
34.53
32.42
24.15
0.1
150.6
144.8
127.5
108.3
95.808
64.199
Average
of
yearly
averages:
44.657
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Page
149
of
241
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
FLturf­
new
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
3.0256
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
01
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
7
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
8
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
9
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
10
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
11
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
12
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
13
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
14
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
15
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
16
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
17
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
18
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Page
150
of
241
Interval
19
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
20
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
21
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
22
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
23
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
24
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
25
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
Turf
Lawn
Application
stored
as
FLturf­
lawn.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
15:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
6.11
5.869
5.241
4.022
3.393
1.265
1962
7.09
6.82
5.876
5.439
4.688
1.803
1963
16.22
15.56
13.28
9.981
8.224
3.262
1964
7.715
7.413
6.339
4.928
4.208
2.076
1965
12.28
11.78
10.1
7.634
6.363
2.38
1966
16.22
15.61
14.14
11.96
10.18
4.017
1967
6.296
6.059
5.257
4.433
3.977
1.833
1968
22.7
21.8
19.18
14.75
12.17
4.232
1969
6.711
6.432
5.438
4.141
3.643
2.008
1970
1.624
1.561
1.339
1.154
1.056
0.5887
1971
8.933
8.569
7.279
5.319
4.438
1.748
1972
11.47
11.11
9.623
6.999
5.914
2.377
1973
1.574
1.521
1.404
1.197
1.074
0.7542
1974
4.644
4.468
4.028
3.424
2.995
1.147
1975
2.969
2.853
2.559
2.024
1.751
0.7533
1976
16.02
15.38
13.08
9.56
7.845
2.866
1977
5.082
4.887
4.328
3.885
3.318
1.62
1978
9.661
9.246
8.242
6.205
5.156
1.963
1979
9.47
9.122
7.65
5.792
6.197
2.648
Page
151
of
241
1980
3.446
3.312
2.874
2.271
2.106
1.05
1981
3.225
3.102
2.805
2.197
2.119
1.005
1982
11.79
11.29
9.64
7.199
5.95
2.266
1983
13.17
12.62
10.69
7.817
6.679
2.589
1984
9.517
9.104
8.044
6.143
5.276
2.051
1985
5.284
5.063
4.278
3.099
2.558
1.073
1986
4.893
4.681
4.146
3.629
3.032
1.18
1987
1.966
1.889
1.605
1.323
1.204
0.6237
1988
3.348
3.206
2.701
1.959
1.651
0.7225
1989
1.423
1.362
1.152
0.9968
0.8694
0.4514
1990
1.208
1.158
0.9856
0.8568
0.8269
0.4286
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
22.7
21.8
19.18
14.75
12.17
4.232
0.0645161290322581
16.22
15.61
14.14
11.96
10.18
4.017
0.0967741935483871
16.22
15.56
13.28
9.981
8.224
3.262
0.129032258064516
16.02
15.38
13.08
9.56
7.845
2.866
0.161290322580645
13.17
12.62
10.69
7.817
6.679
2.648
0.193548387096774
12.28
11.78
10.1
7.634
6.363
2.589
0.225806451612903
11.79
11.29
9.64
7.199
6.197
2.38
0.258064516129032
11.47
11.11
9.623
6.999
5.95
2.377
0.290322580645161
9.661
9.246
8.242
6.205
5.914
2.266
0.32258064516129
9.517
9.122
8.044
6.143
5.276
2.076
0.354838709677419
9.47
9.104
7.65
5.792
5.156
2.051
0.387096774193548
8.933
8.569
7.279
5.439
4.688
2.008
0.419354838709677
7.715
7.413
6.339
5.319
4.438
1.963
0.451612903225806
7.09
6.82
5.876
4.928
4.208
1.833
0.483870967741936
6.711
6.432
5.438
4.433
3.977
1.803
0.516129032258065
6.296
6.059
5.257
4.141
3.643
1.748
0.548387096774194
6.11
5.869
5.241
4.022
3.393
1.62
0.580645161290323
5.284
5.063
4.328
3.885
3.318
1.265
0.612903225806452
5.082
4.887
4.278
3.629
3.032
1.18
0.645161290322581
4.893
4.681
4.146
3.424
2.995
1.147
0.67741935483871
4.644
4.468
4.028
3.099
2.558
1.073
0.709677419354839
3.446
3.312
2.874
2.271
2.119
1.05
0.741935483870968
3.348
3.206
2.805
2.197
2.106
1.005
0.774193548387097
3.225
3.102
2.701
2.024
1.751
0.7542
0.806451612903226
2.969
2.853
2.559
1.959
1.651
0.7533
0.838709677419355
1.966
1.889
1.605
1.323
1.204
0.7225
0.870967741935484
1.624
1.561
1.404
1.197
1.074
0.6237
0.903225806451613
1.574
1.521
1.339
1.154
1.056
0.5887
0.935483870967742
1.423
1.362
1.152
0.9968
0.8694
0.4514
0.967741935483871
1.208
1.158
0.9856
0.8568
0.8269
0.4286
Page
152
of
241
0.1
16.2
15.542
13.26
9.9389
8.1861
3.2224
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.75938
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
FLturf­
lawn
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.52
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
Turf
Granular
Application
stored
as
FLturf­
gran.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
Page
153
of
241
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
15:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
5.227
5.017
4.497
3.456
2.915
0.9916
1962
6.279
6.036
5.191
4.7
4.064
1.489
1963
15.01
14.4
12.28
9.207
7.579
2.902
1964
6.855
6.583
5.617
4.344
3.707
1.758
1965
11.09
10.63
9.088
6.821
5.684
2.051
1966
14.99
14.43
12.97
10.95
9.325
3.619
1967
5.016
4.826
4.177
3.607
3.28
1.512
1968
20.91
20.08
17.67
13.61
11.23
3.835
1969
5.457
5.23
4.42
3.319
2.93
1.687
1970
0.7224
0.7111
0.6661
0.5748
0.516
0.321
1971
7.975
7.645
6.479
4.714
3.929
1.442
1972
10.29
9.963
8.632
6.26
5.292
2.043
1973
1.203
1.158
1.014
0.8829
0.7484
0.4759
1974
3.795
3.649
3.278
2.646
2.346
0.8548
1975
2.03
1.947
1.772
1.407
1.165
0.4756
1976
14.44
13.86
11.78
8.568
7.03
2.52
1977
4.647
4.466
3.951
3.515
3
1.326
1978
8.333
7.973
7.148
5.388
4.478
1.659
1979
8.511
8.201
6.875
5.164
5.389
2.32
1980
2.68
2.569
2.227
1.71
1.442
0.7799
1981
2.876
2.763
2.499
1.924
1.802
0.7406
1982
10.62
10.16
8.672
6.478
5.35
1.951
1983
11.76
11.26
9.538
6.889
5.908
2.262
1984
8.729
8.349
6.996
5.267
4.538
1.744
1985
4.282
4.101
3.453
2.487
2.043
0.7983
1986
4.264
4.085
3.55
3.132
2.615
0.9029
1987
1.252
1.2
1.012
0.7523
0.6445
0.3641
1988
2.242
2.145
1.799
1.299
1.098
0.4604
1989
0.7266
0.7039
0.6117
0.4447
0.3596
0.2078
1990
0.6215
0.5963
0.5207
0.4342
0.3967
0.1804
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
20.91
20.08
17.67
13.61
11.23
3.835
0.0645161290322581
15.01
14.43
12.97
10.95
9.325
3.619
0.0967741935483871
14.99
14.4
12.28
9.207
7.579
2.902
0.129032258064516
14.44
13.86
11.78
8.568
7.03
2.52
0.161290322580645
11.76
11.26
9.538
6.889
5.908
2.32
Page
154
of
241
0.193548387096774
11.09
10.63
9.088
6.821
5.684
2.262
0.225806451612903
10.62
10.16
8.672
6.478
5.389
2.051
0.258064516129032
10.29
9.963
8.632
6.26
5.35
2.043
0.290322580645161
8.729
8.349
7.148
5.388
5.292
1.951
0.32258064516129
8.511
8.201
6.996
5.267
4.538
1.758
0.354838709677419
8.333
7.973
6.875
5.164
4.478
1.744
0.387096774193548
7.975
7.645
6.479
4.714
4.064
1.687
0.419354838709677
6.855
6.583
5.617
4.7
3.929
1.659
0.451612903225806
6.279
6.036
5.191
4.344
3.707
1.512
0.483870967741936
5.457
5.23
4.497
3.607
3.28
1.489
0.516129032258065
5.227
5.017
4.42
3.515
3
1.442
0.548387096774194
5.016
4.826
4.177
3.456
2.93
1.326
0.580645161290323
4.647
4.466
3.951
3.319
2.915
0.9916
0.612903225806452
4.282
4.101
3.55
3.132
2.615
0.9029
0.645161290322581
4.264
4.085
3.453
2.646
2.346
0.8548
0.67741935483871
3.795
3.649
3.278
2.487
2.043
0.7983
0.709677419354839
2.876
2.763
2.499
1.924
1.802
0.7799
0.741935483870968
2.68
2.569
2.227
1.71
1.442
0.7406
0.774193548387097
2.242
2.145
1.799
1.407
1.165
0.4759
0.806451612903226
2.03
1.947
1.772
1.299
1.098
0.4756
0.838709677419355
1.252
1.2
1.014
0.8829
0.7484
0.4604
0.870967741935484
1.203
1.158
1.012
0.7523
0.6445
0.3641
0.903225806451613
0.7266
0.7111
0.6661
0.5748
0.516
0.321
0.935483870967742
0.7224
0.7039
0.6117
0.4447
0.3967
0.2078
0.967741935483871
0.6215
0.5963
0.5207
0.4342
0.3596
0.1804
0.1
14.935
14.346
12.23
9.1431
7.5241
2.8638
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.45577666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
FLturf­
gran
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Page
155
of
241
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.47
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
Turf
Golf
Course
Application
­
6
Applications,
Max
Rate
stored
as
FLturf­
6app­
max.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
15:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
27.89
26.8
22.87
17.32
14.78
6.703
1962
31.38
30.21
26.14
20.13
20.48
10.79
1963
29.11
28.03
24.23
16.63
14.47
10.3
1964
53.75
51.69
44.8
33.92
28.66
18.07
1965
18.82
18.12
16.25
13.06
11.32
7.87
1966
62.1
59.66
50.71
39
32.89
15.25
1967
26.05
25.13
21.92
16.94
17.14
9.895
1968
49.44
48.18
41.83
31.91
27.14
14.65
1969
33.95
32.72
29.6
23.41
20.85
11.18
1970
22.3
21.68
19.32
16.5
15.36
7.751
Page
156
of
241
1971
29.94
28.69
24.22
18.52
16.7
11.63
1972
54.52
52.47
45.56
34.21
25.33
13.46
1973
24.5
23.83
21.4
17.51
15.51
9.227
1974
26.89
25.9
22.15
17.51
15.34
8.503
1975
16.31
15.68
13.55
10.6
9.009
6.172
1976
30.21
28.87
24.15
21.44
19.22
11.17
1977
34.23
32.97
28.46
22.02
18.87
12.38
1978
16.21
15.6
13.94
11.54
10.78
8.813
1979
48.55
46.68
39.97
30.04
25.98
19.26
1980
19.81
19.28
17.3
15.27
13.85
7.796
1981
23.59
22.62
19.46
14.67
12.76
7.958
1982
17.36
16.72
14.58
12.52
11.74
9.784
1983
22.18
21.38
19.29
15.52
14.46
11.02
1984
31.96
30.7
26.16
20.58
18.03
14.09
1985
17.88
17.16
15.38
13.53
12.53
7.388
1986
46.37
45.12
38.46
28.39
23.6
13.37
1987
13.56
13.09
11.21
9.564
9.466
6.798
1988
27.18
26.05
21.99
14
11.22
7.399
1989
67.41
64.48
54.08
39.29
32.35
15.81
1990
13.85
13.35
12.41
9.462
8.363
5.247
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
67.41
64.48
54.08
39.29
32.89
19.26
0.0645161290322581
62.1
59.66
50.71
39
32.35
18.07
0.0967741935483871
54.52
52.47
45.56
34.21
28.66
15.81
0.129032258064516
53.75
51.69
44.8
33.92
27.14
15.25
0.161290322580645
49.44
48.18
41.83
31.91
25.98
14.65
0.193548387096774
48.55
46.68
39.97
30.04
25.33
14.09
0.225806451612903
46.37
45.12
38.46
28.39
23.6
13.46
0.258064516129032
34.23
32.97
29.6
23.41
20.85
13.37
0.290322580645161
33.95
32.72
28.46
22.02
20.48
12.38
0.32258064516129
31.96
30.7
26.16
21.44
19.22
11.63
0.354838709677419
31.38
30.21
26.14
20.58
18.87
11.18
0.387096774193548
30.21
28.87
24.23
20.13
18.03
11.17
0.419354838709677
29.94
28.69
24.22
18.52
17.14
11.02
0.451612903225806
29.11
28.03
24.15
17.51
16.7
10.79
0.483870967741936
27.89
26.8
22.87
17.51
15.51
10.3
0.516129032258065
27.18
26.05
22.15
17.32
15.36
9.895
0.548387096774194
26.89
25.9
21.99
16.94
15.34
9.784
0.580645161290323
26.05
25.13
21.92
16.63
14.78
9.227
0.612903225806452
24.5
23.83
21.4
16.5
14.47
8.813
0.645161290322581
23.59
22.62
19.46
15.52
14.46
8.503
0.67741935483871
22.3
21.68
19.32
15.27
13.85
7.958
Page
157
of
241
0.709677419354839
22.18
21.38
19.29
14.67
12.76
7.87
0.741935483870968
19.81
19.28
17.3
14
12.53
7.796
0.774193548387097
18.82
18.12
16.25
13.53
11.74
7.751
0.806451612903226
17.88
17.16
15.38
13.06
11.32
7.399
0.838709677419355
17.36
16.72
14.58
12.52
11.22
7.388
0.870967741935484
16.31
15.68
13.94
11.54
10.78
6.798
0.903225806451613
16.21
15.6
13.55
10.6
9.466
6.703
0.935483870967742
13.85
13.35
12.41
9.564
9.009
6.172
0.967741935483871
13.56
13.09
11.21
9.462
8.363
5.247
0.1
54.443
52.392
45.484
34.181
28.508
15.754
Average
of
yearly
averages:
10.6578
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
FLturf­
6app­
max
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
3.03
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
01
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Page
158
of
241
Interval
4
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

FL
Turf
Golf
Course
Application
­
6
Applications,
`
Typical'
Use
Rate
stored
as
FLturf­
6app­
avg.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
15:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
13.99
13.44
11.47
8.686
7.414
3.362
1962
15.74
15.16
13.11
10.1
10.28
5.411
1963
14.61
14.06
12.16
8.345
7.261
5.169
1964
26.97
25.93
22.48
17.02
14.38
9.065
1965
9.44
9.089
8.153
6.552
5.681
3.948
1966
31.15
29.93
25.44
19.57
16.5
7.651
1967
13.07
12.61
10.99
8.499
8.598
4.964
1968
24.8
24.17
20.98
16.01
13.61
7.35
1969
17.03
16.41
14.85
11.74
10.46
5.607
1970
11.19
10.88
9.693
8.276
7.706
3.888
1971
15.02
14.39
12.15
9.29
8.375
5.834
1972
27.35
26.32
22.86
17.16
12.71
6.754
1973
12.29
11.95
10.74
8.781
7.782
4.628
1974
13.49
12.99
11.11
8.783
7.696
4.265
1975
8.183
7.866
6.798
5.318
4.519
3.096
1976
15.15
14.48
12.11
10.76
9.643
5.604
1977
17.17
16.54
14.28
11.05
9.465
6.208
1978
8.132
7.826
6.994
5.789
5.406
4.421
1979
24.35
23.42
20.05
15.07
13.03
9.663
1980
9.937
9.671
8.679
7.661
6.945
3.911
1981
11.83
11.35
9.762
7.36
6.402
3.993
1982
8.71
8.384
7.315
6.279
5.887
4.908
1983
11.12
10.72
9.676
7.784
7.252
5.527
1984
16.04
15.4
13.12
10.33
9.044
7.068
Page
159
of
241
1985
8.97
8.606
7.715
6.788
6.285
3.706
1986
23.26
22.63
19.29
14.24
11.84
6.708
1987
6.801
6.568
5.626
4.798
4.749
3.41
1988
13.63
13.07
11.03
7.023
5.629
3.712
1989
33.82
32.35
27.14
19.72
16.23
7.93
1990
6.948
6.699
6.225
4.747
4.196
2.632
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
33.82
32.35
27.14
19.72
16.5
9.663
0.0645161290322581
31.15
29.93
25.44
19.57
16.23
9.065
0.0967741935483871
27.35
26.32
22.86
17.16
14.38
7.93
0.129032258064516
26.97
25.93
22.48
17.02
13.61
7.651
0.161290322580645
24.8
24.17
20.98
16.01
13.03
7.35
0.193548387096774
24.35
23.42
20.05
15.07
12.71
7.068
0.225806451612903
23.26
22.63
19.29
14.24
11.84
6.754
0.258064516129032
17.17
16.54
14.85
11.74
10.46
6.708
0.290322580645161
17.03
16.41
14.28
11.05
10.28
6.208
0.32258064516129
16.04
15.4
13.12
10.76
9.643
5.834
0.354838709677419
15.74
15.16
13.11
10.33
9.465
5.607
0.387096774193548
15.15
14.48
12.16
10.1
9.044
5.604
0.419354838709677
15.02
14.39
12.15
9.29
8.598
5.527
0.451612903225806
14.61
14.06
12.11
8.783
8.375
5.411
0.483870967741936
13.99
13.44
11.47
8.781
7.782
5.169
0.516129032258065
13.63
13.07
11.11
8.686
7.706
4.964
0.548387096774194
13.49
12.99
11.03
8.499
7.696
4.908
0.580645161290323
13.07
12.61
10.99
8.345
7.414
4.628
0.612903225806452
12.29
11.95
10.74
8.276
7.261
4.421
0.645161290322581
11.83
11.35
9.762
7.784
7.252
4.265
0.67741935483871
11.19
10.88
9.693
7.661
6.945
3.993
0.709677419354839
11.12
10.72
9.676
7.36
6.402
3.948
0.741935483870968
9.937
9.671
8.679
7.023
6.285
3.911
0.774193548387097
9.44
9.089
8.153
6.788
5.887
3.888
0.806451612903226
8.97
8.606
7.715
6.552
5.681
3.712
0.838709677419355
8.71
8.384
7.315
6.279
5.629
3.706
0.870967741935484
8.183
7.866
6.994
5.789
5.406
3.41
0.903225806451613
8.132
7.826
6.798
5.318
4.749
3.362
0.935483870967742
6.948
6.699
6.225
4.798
4.519
3.096
0.967741935483871
6.801
6.568
5.626
4.747
4.196
2.632
0.1
27.312
26.281
22.822
17.146
14.303
7.9021
Average
of
yearly
averages:
5.34643333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Page
160
of
241
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
FLturf­
6app­
avg
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.52
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
01
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
60
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Turf
Golf
Course
Application
stored
as
PAturf­
spray.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
27:
02
Page
161
of
241
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
68.08
65.59
58
47.88
40.99
15.69
1962
41.63
40.63
36.62
30.46
29.27
20.64
1963
59.63
57.49
53.59
42.97
38.77
20.38
1964
28.48
28.45
28.32
28.07
26.65
18.05
1965
16.99
16.47
15.28
14.69
13.6
10.79
1966
43.4
41.98
38.62
31.3
27.32
13.93
1967
68.15
65.66
60.63
52
47.11
26.01
1968
49.54
48.02
42.93
35.11
31.11
19.85
1969
84
81.12
70.66
54.61
46.4
21.5
1970
35.4
34.45
31.16
26.36
23.87
21.78
1971
79.72
76.79
71.7
63.45
57.73
30.88
1972
84.11
82.35
73.51
63.08
58.53
38.83
1973
85.92
83.02
72.8
57.41
54.87
39.4
1974
44.99
44.23
40.92
37.58
34.36
26.08
1975
60.87
58.93
51.76
43.04
37.38
22.06
1976
82.08
79.64
69.69
64.04
60.97
30.2
1977
36.5
36.5
36.5
36.45
34.39
22.73
1978
64.75
62.56
55.84
45.48
38.95
21.51
1979
82.55
79.72
70.35
58.31
51.46
27.21
1980
26.61
26.59
26.5
26.08
24.99
17.17
1981
20.48
19.84
18.26
17.22
16.23
12.89
1982
113
109
95.39
74.79
63.58
30.76
1983
26.06
25.48
24.73
23.18
21.18
18.86
1984
59.26
57.33
50.24
46.13
43.09
24.55
1985
164
158
137
106
94.04
39.65
1986
68.66
68.58
68.25
67.58
63.51
37.97
1987
124
120
106
81.05
71.41
32.22
1988
64.48
62.47
55.8
44.53
42.97
32.24
1989
61.06
59.04
51.79
41.38
36.06
25.24
1990
85.76
82.8
72.58
57.5
51.27
30.27
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
164
158
137
106
94.04
39.65
0.0645161290322581
124
120
106
81.05
71.41
39.4
0.0967741935483871
113
109
95.39
74.79
63.58
38.83
0.129032258064516
85.92
83.02
73.51
67.58
63.51
37.97
0.161290322580645
85.76
82.8
72.8
64.04
60.97
32.24
0.193548387096774
84.11
82.35
72.58
63.45
58.53
32.22
Page
162
of
241
0.225806451612903
84
81.12
71.7
63.08
57.73
30.88
0.258064516129032
82.55
79.72
70.66
58.31
54.87
30.76
0.290322580645161
82.08
79.64
70.35
57.5
51.46
30.27
0.32258064516129
79.72
76.79
69.69
57.41
51.27
30.2
0.354838709677419
68.66
68.58
68.25
54.61
47.11
27.21
0.387096774193548
68.15
65.66
60.63
52
46.4
26.08
0.419354838709677
68.08
65.59
58
47.88
43.09
26.01
0.451612903225806
64.75
62.56
55.84
46.13
42.97
25.24
0.483870967741936
64.48
62.47
55.8
45.48
40.99
24.55
0.516129032258065
61.06
59.04
53.59
44.53
38.95
22.73
0.548387096774194
60.87
58.93
51.79
43.04
38.77
22.06
0.580645161290323
59.63
57.49
51.76
42.97
37.38
21.78
0.612903225806452
59.26
57.33
50.24
41.38
36.06
21.51
0.645161290322581
49.54
48.02
42.93
37.58
34.39
21.5
0.67741935483871
44.99
44.23
40.92
36.45
34.36
20.64
0.709677419354839
43.4
41.98
38.62
35.11
31.11
20.38
0.741935483870968
41.63
40.63
36.62
31.3
29.27
19.85
0.774193548387097
36.5
36.5
36.5
30.46
27.32
18.86
0.806451612903226
35.4
34.45
31.16
28.07
26.65
18.05
0.838709677419355
28.48
28.45
28.32
26.36
24.99
17.17
0.870967741935484
26.61
26.59
26.5
26.08
23.87
15.69
0.903225806451613
26.06
25.48
24.73
23.18
21.18
13.93
0.935483870967742
20.48
19.84
18.26
17.22
16.23
12.89
0.967741935483871
16.99
16.47
15.28
14.69
13.6
10.79
0.1
110.292
106.402
93.202
74.069
63.573
38.744
Average
of
yearly
averages:
24.978
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAturf­
spray
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Page
163
of
241
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
3.0256
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
7
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
8
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
9
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
10
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
11
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
12
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Turf
Lawn
Application
stored
as
PAturf­
lawn.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
6.697
6.454
5.965
4.668
3.902
1.434
1962
5.826
5.618
4.863
3.822
3.469
1.857
Page
164
of
241
1963
2.314
2.237
2.011
1.58
1.385
1.147
1964
1.742
1.686
1.487
1.317
1.225
0.7979
1965
1.358
1.311
1.138
0.9146
0.8348
0.5117
1966
1.778
1.724
1.562
1.38
1.278
0.7212
1967
12.55
12.07
10.73
8.602
7.335
3.044
1968
4.9
4.744
4.193
3.264
2.77
1.65
1969
5.13
4.957
4.277
3.231
2.714
1.359
1970
1.827
1.772
1.675
1.361
1.358
1.008
1971
3.031
2.926
2.536
2.172
2.057
1.241
1972
14.68
14.22
12.45
10.82
9.444
3.756
1973
11.14
10.74
9.246
6.966
5.913
3.111
1974
3.739
3.629
3.232
2.953
2.734
1.777
1975
3.212
3.105
2.814
2.366
2.097
1.084
1976
3.828
3.736
3.227
2.556
2.225
1.102
1977
2.092
2.028
1.79
1.54
1.4
0.9545
1978
2.969
2.867
2.588
2.328
2.16
1.221
1979
3.663
3.54
3.202
2.702
2.675
1.494
1980
1.807
1.753
1.546
1.327
1.2
0.7837
1981
2.961
2.859
2.636
2.532
2.246
1.013
1982
9.74
9.409
8.191
6.325
5.65
2.445
1983
3.114
3.002
2.602
2.034
1.829
1.183
1984
5.35
5.178
4.59
4.308
3.94
1.796
1985
3.944
3.803
3.295
3.155
2.944
1.553
1986
2.311
2.231
1.943
1.606
1.468
0.9332
1987
2.705
2.62
2.297
2.031
1.98
1.014
1988
6.468
6.238
5.689
4.414
4.04
1.817
1989
4.466
4.327
3.953
3.613
3.328
1.621
1990
4.555
4.407
3.867
3.383
3.305
1.693
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
14.68
14.22
12.45
10.82
9.444
3.756
0.0645161290322581
12.55
12.07
10.73
8.602
7.335
3.111
0.0967741935483871
11.14
10.74
9.246
6.966
5.913
3.044
0.129032258064516
9.74
9.409
8.191
6.325
5.65
2.445
0.161290322580645
6.697
6.454
5.965
4.668
4.04
1.857
0.193548387096774
6.468
6.238
5.689
4.414
3.94
1.817
0.225806451612903
5.826
5.618
4.863
4.308
3.902
1.796
0.258064516129032
5.35
5.178
4.59
3.822
3.469
1.777
0.290322580645161
5.13
4.957
4.277
3.613
3.328
1.693
0.32258064516129
4.9
4.744
4.193
3.383
3.305
1.65
0.354838709677419
4.555
4.407
3.953
3.264
2.944
1.621
0.387096774193548
4.466
4.327
3.867
3.231
2.77
1.553
0.419354838709677
3.944
3.803
3.295
3.155
2.734
1.494
Page
165
of
241
0.451612903225806
3.828
3.736
3.232
2.953
2.714
1.434
0.483870967741936
3.739
3.629
3.227
2.702
2.675
1.359
0.516129032258065
3.663
3.54
3.202
2.556
2.246
1.241
0.548387096774194
3.212
3.105
2.814
2.532
2.225
1.221
0.580645161290323
3.114
3.002
2.636
2.366
2.16
1.183
0.612903225806452
3.031
2.926
2.602
2.328
2.097
1.147
0.645161290322581
2.969
2.867
2.588
2.172
2.057
1.102
0.67741935483871
2.961
2.859
2.536
2.034
1.98
1.084
0.709677419354839
2.705
2.62
2.297
2.031
1.829
1.014
0.741935483870968
2.314
2.237
2.011
1.606
1.468
1.013
0.774193548387097
2.311
2.231
1.943
1.58
1.4
1.008
0.806451612903226
2.092
2.028
1.79
1.54
1.385
0.9545
0.838709677419355
1.827
1.772
1.675
1.38
1.358
0.9332
0.870967741935484
1.807
1.753
1.562
1.361
1.278
0.7979
0.903225806451613
1.778
1.724
1.546
1.327
1.225
0.7837
0.935483870967742
1.742
1.686
1.487
1.317
1.2
0.7212
0.967741935483871
1.358
1.311
1.138
0.9146
0.8348
0.5117
0.1
11
10.6069
9.1405
6.9019
5.8867
2.9841
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.50407333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAturf­
lawn
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Page
166
of
241
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.52
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Turf
Granular
Application
stored
as
PAturf­
gran.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
5.96
5.739
5.26
4.109
3.425
1.12
1962
4.688
4.517
3.899
3.07
2.821
1.461
1963
1.937
1.869
1.672
1.3
1.132
0.7676
1964
0.7519
0.7519
0.7512
0.7491
0.713
0.4373
1965
0.4113
0.3971
0.352
0.3084
0.274
0.1739
1966
1.45
1.402
1.265
1.046
0.9801
0.3726
1967
11.23
10.79
9.598
7.701
6.56
2.596
1968
3.543
3.433
3.016
2.347
1.992
1.255
1969
4.426
4.271
3.666
2.736
2.285
0.9653
1970
1.233
1.191
1.104
0.9032
0.859
0.6236
1971
2.369
2.283
1.986
1.751
1.543
0.8523
1972
13.31
12.89
11.27
9.644
8.441
3.287
1973
9.986
9.625
8.268
6.206
5.262
2.667
1974
2.668
2.59
2.311
2.053
1.929
1.38
1975
1.972
1.905
1.758
1.544
1.387
0.7126
1976
3.254
3.17
2.72
2.141
1.858
0.7337
1977
0.971
0.9422
0.8845
0.8818
0.8331
0.5738
1978
2.288
2.216
1.982
1.585
1.47
0.8309
1979
2.597
2.508
2.243
1.93
1.891
1.105
1980
0.7764
0.7755
0.7713
0.7549
0.7244
0.4312
Page
167
of
241
1981
2.19
2.11
1.885
1.665
1.476
0.6494
1982
8.459
8.167
7.094
5.472
4.893
2.015
1983
2.159
2.08
1.798
1.378
1.19
0.8316
1984
4.498
4.349
3.85
3.384
3.148
1.41
1985
3.043
2.935
2.544
2.267
2.129
1.181
1986
1.184
1.144
0.9974
0.7824
0.7544
0.5659
1987
2.195
2.122
1.847
1.499
1.442
0.6574
1988
5.655
5.452
4.703
3.495
3.238
1.437
1989
3.251
3.15
2.912
2.685
2.479
1.23
1990
3.948
3.816
3.334
2.827
2.525
1.311
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
13.31
12.89
11.27
9.644
8.441
3.287
0.0645161290322581
11.23
10.79
9.598
7.701
6.56
2.667
0.0967741935483871
9.986
9.625
8.268
6.206
5.262
2.596
0.129032258064516
8.459
8.167
7.094
5.472
4.893
2.015
0.161290322580645
5.96
5.739
5.26
4.109
3.425
1.461
0.193548387096774
5.655
5.452
4.703
3.495
3.238
1.437
0.225806451612903
4.688
4.517
3.899
3.384
3.148
1.41
0.258064516129032
4.498
4.349
3.85
3.07
2.821
1.38
0.290322580645161
4.426
4.271
3.666
2.827
2.525
1.311
0.32258064516129
3.948
3.816
3.334
2.736
2.479
1.255
0.354838709677419
3.543
3.433
3.016
2.685
2.285
1.23
0.387096774193548
3.254
3.17
2.912
2.347
2.129
1.181
0.419354838709677
3.251
3.15
2.72
2.267
1.992
1.12
0.451612903225806
3.043
2.935
2.544
2.141
1.929
1.105
0.483870967741936
2.668
2.59
2.311
2.053
1.891
0.9653
0.516129032258065
2.597
2.508
2.243
1.93
1.858
0.8523
0.548387096774194
2.369
2.283
1.986
1.751
1.543
0.8316
0.580645161290323
2.288
2.216
1.982
1.665
1.476
0.8309
0.612903225806452
2.195
2.122
1.885
1.585
1.47
0.7676
0.645161290322581
2.19
2.11
1.847
1.544
1.442
0.7337
0.67741935483871
2.159
2.08
1.798
1.499
1.387
0.7126
0.709677419354839
1.972
1.905
1.758
1.378
1.19
0.6574
0.741935483870968
1.937
1.869
1.672
1.3
1.132
0.6494
0.774193548387097
1.45
1.402
1.265
1.046
0.9801
0.6236
0.806451612903226
1.233
1.191
1.104
0.9032
0.859
0.5738
0.838709677419355
1.184
1.144
0.9974
0.8818
0.8331
0.5659
0.870967741935484
0.971
0.9422
0.8845
0.7824
0.7544
0.4373
0.903225806451613
0.7764
0.7755
0.7713
0.7549
0.7244
0.4312
0.935483870967742
0.7519
0.7519
0.7512
0.7491
0.713
0.3726
0.967741935483871
0.4113
0.3971
0.352
0.3084
0.274
0.1739
Page
168
of
241
0.1
9.8333
9.4792
8.1506
6.1326
5.2251
2.5379
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.12113666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAturf­
gran
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.47
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
05
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
30
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

PA
Turf
Golf
Course
Application
­
`
Typical'
Use
Rate
stored
as
PAturf­
spray­
13app­
avg.
out
Chemical:
Triadimefon
Page
169
of
241
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
18:
27:
02
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
17:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
10:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
34.19
32.94
29.13
24.05
20.59
7.881
1962
20.91
20.41
18.4
15.3
14.71
10.37
1963
29.96
28.89
26.93
21.59
19.48
10.24
1964
14.31
14.29
14.23
14.1
13.39
9.067
1965
8.537
8.273
7.676
7.38
6.833
5.42
1966
21.8
21.09
19.4
15.72
13.73
6.998
1967
34.24
32.99
30.47
26.13
23.67
13.07
1968
24.89
24.13
21.57
17.64
15.63
9.973
1969
42.2
40.75
35.5
27.43
23.31
10.8
1970
17.78
17.31
15.65
13.24
11.99
10.94
1971
40.05
38.58
36.02
31.88
29
15.51
1972
42.26
41.37
36.93
31.69
29.4
19.51
1973
43.18
41.72
36.58
28.85
27.57
19.8
1974
22.6
22.22
20.56
18.88
17.26
13.1
1975
30.58
29.61
26.01
21.62
18.78
11.08
1976
41.23
40.01
35.01
32.17
30.63
15.17
1977
18.34
18.34
18.34
18.31
17.28
11.42
1978
32.53
31.43
28.06
22.85
19.57
10.81
1979
41.47
40.05
35.34
29.29
25.85
13.67
1980
13.37
13.36
13.31
13.1
12.55
8.625
1981
10.29
9.97
9.174
8.65
8.153
6.478
1982
56.55
54.53
47.92
37.57
31.94
15.45
1983
13.09
12.8
12.42
11.64
10.64
9.475
1984
29.77
28.8
25.24
23.18
21.65
12.33
1985
82.32
79.19
68.69
53.32
47.25
19.92
1986
34.5
34.46
34.3
33.96
31.91
19.08
1987
62.22
60.06
53.13
40.72
35.88
16.19
1988
32.39
31.39
28.03
22.37
21.59
16.2
1989
30.67
29.66
26.02
20.79
18.11
12.68
1990
43.08
41.59
36.46
28.89
25.75
15.21
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
82.32
79.19
68.69
53.32
47.25
19.92
0.0645161290322581
62.22
60.06
53.13
40.72
35.88
19.8
0.0967741935483871
56.55
54.53
47.92
37.57
31.94
19.51
0.129032258064516
43.18
41.72
36.93
33.96
31.91
19.08
0.161290322580645
43.08
41.59
36.58
32.17
30.63
16.2
Page
170
of
241
0.193548387096774
42.26
41.37
36.46
31.88
29.4
16.19
0.225806451612903
42.2
40.75
36.02
31.69
29
15.51
0.258064516129032
41.47
40.05
35.5
29.29
27.57
15.45
0.290322580645161
41.23
40.01
35.34
28.89
25.85
15.21
0.32258064516129
40.05
38.58
35.01
28.85
25.75
15.17
0.354838709677419
34.5
34.46
34.3
27.43
23.67
13.67
0.387096774193548
34.24
32.99
30.47
26.13
23.31
13.1
0.419354838709677
34.19
32.94
29.13
24.05
21.65
13.07
0.451612903225806
32.53
31.43
28.06
23.18
21.59
12.68
0.483870967741936
32.39
31.39
28.03
22.85
20.59
12.33
0.516129032258065
30.67
29.66
26.93
22.37
19.57
11.42
0.548387096774194
30.58
29.61
26.02
21.62
19.48
11.08
0.580645161290323
29.96
28.89
26.01
21.59
18.78
10.94
0.612903225806452
29.77
28.8
25.24
20.79
18.11
10.81
0.645161290322581
24.89
24.13
21.57
18.88
17.28
10.8
0.67741935483871
22.6
22.22
20.56
18.31
17.26
10.37
0.709677419354839
21.8
21.09
19.4
17.64
15.63
10.24
0.741935483870968
20.91
20.41
18.4
15.72
14.71
9.973
0.774193548387097
18.34
18.34
18.34
15.3
13.73
9.475
0.806451612903226
17.78
17.31
15.65
14.1
13.39
9.067
0.838709677419355
14.31
14.29
14.23
13.24
12.55
8.625
0.870967741935484
13.37
13.36
13.31
13.1
11.99
7.881
0.903225806451613
13.09
12.8
12.42
11.64
10.64
6.998
0.935483870967742
10.29
9.97
9.174
8.65
8.153
6.478
0.967741935483871
8.537
8.273
7.676
7.38
6.833
5.42
0.1
55.213
53.249
46.821
37.209
31.937
19.467
Average
of
yearly
averages:
12.5489
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PAturf­
spray­
13app­
avg
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Triadimefon
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
293.75
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
1.15E­
7
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
7.6E­
7
torr
Solubility
sol
70
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
387
mg/
L
Page
171
of
241
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0.32
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
480
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
217
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
240
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
4
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Hydrolysis:
pH
9
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
1
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.52
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
04
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
4
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
5
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
6
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
7
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
8
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
9
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
10
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
11
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
12
interval
14
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)
Page
172
of
241
APPENDIX
C.
Triadimefon
and
Triadimenol
Toxicity
Data
Toxicity
Data
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
bird,
mammal,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
two
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
assessment
of
risk
or
hazard
makes
the
assumption
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicity
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

Ecological
Effects
Characterization
Risk
assessment
of
a
pesticide's
ecological
effects
integrates
the
results
of
exposure
and
toxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
a
non­
target
species.
The
means
of
integrating
these
exposure
factors
is
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method.
Risk
quotients
are
calculated
by
dividing
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
of
the
pesticide
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
EECs
are
based
on
the
maximum
application
rates
for
that
pesticide.

Risk
quotients
are
then
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
The
criteria
are
used
to
indicate
when
a
pesticide
used
as
directed
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
risk
presumption
categories:
(
1)
acute
:
high
potential
for
acute
risk
for
all
nontarget
organisms
which
may
warrant
regulatory
action
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification;
(
2)
acute
restricted
use:
potential
for
acute
risk
for
all
nontarget
organisms,
but
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification;
(
3)
acute
endangered
species:
endangered
species
may
be
adversely
affected
by
use;
and
(
4)
chronic
risk:
potential
for
chronic
risk
may
warrant
regulatory
action.
Currently,
the
Agency
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants,
acute
chronic
risks
to
non­
target
insects,
or
chronic
risk
from
granular/
bait
formulations
to
birds
or
mammals.
In
addition,
the
Agency
considers
any
incident
data
that
is
submitted
concerning
adverse
effects
on
non­
target
species.

Spray
Applications
to
Foliage
The
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
values
used
for
foliar
terrestrial
exposure
are
derived
from
the
Kenega
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
residue
values
from
actual
field
measurements
(
Hoerger
and
Kenega,
1972).
The
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
modifications
to
the
Kenaga
nomograph
are
based
on
measured
field
residues
from
249
published
research
papers,
including
information
on
118
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
LC
50
and
NOAEC
for
birds
and
the
derived
dietary
value
for
mammals
(
based
on
acute
LD
50
lab
rat
studies).
EFED
uses
the
FATE
model
for
multiple
applications,
incorporating
the
appropriate
dissipation
half­
life
to
generate
EECs.
For
single
application
EECs,
day
zero
maximum
Fletcher
residue
values
are
used
(
lbs
ai/
A
x
240,
110,
135,
and
15
ppm).
Page
173
of
241
RQ
Calculations,
LOCs,
and
Risk
Presumptions
for
Terrestrial
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Restricted
Use
Acute
Endangered
Species
Chronic
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft2
or
LD50/
day3
EEC/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)

EEC/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
EEC/
NOAEC
0.5
0.2
0.1
1
Wild
Mammals
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Restricted
Use
Acute
Endangered
Species
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
EEC/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)

EEC/
LC50
,
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
EEC/
NOAEC
0.5
0.2
0.1
1
1
abbreviation
for
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg/
ft2
3
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
LD50
*
wt.
of
bird
LD50
*
wt.
of
bird
RQ
Calculations,
LOCs,
and
Risk
Presumptions
for
Aquatic
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Restricted
Use
Acute
Endangered
Species
Chronic
Risk
EEC/(
LC50
or
EC50)
EEC/(
LC50
or
EC50)

EEC/(
LC50
or
EC50)
EEC/(
NOAEC)
0.5
0.1
0.05
1
RQ
Calculations,
LOCs,
and
Risk
Presumptions
for
Plants
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC1/
EC25
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC2/
EC50
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
2
EEC
=
(
ppb/
ppm)
in
water
Page
174
of
241
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
One
avian
acute
oral
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
or
bobwhite
quail.
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
Birds
­
Acute
Species
%
ai
LD
50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
95
>
2000
practically
non­
toxic
41895901
Stafford/
1991
Acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
Tech
>
4000
practically
non­
toxic
00050070
Lamb/
1977
Acceptable
Northern
bobwhite
quail
NA
>
10000
practically
non­
toxic
126275
Thyssen/
1975
NA
Canary
NA
>
1000
practically
non­
toxic
126274
Hermann/
1975
NA
The
guideline
(
§
71­
1
a,
b)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Toxicity
of
the
degradate,
Triadimenol,
to
Birds
­
Acute
Species
%
ai
LD
50
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
92
>
2000
practically
non­
toxic
071469
Lamb/
1981
Acceptable
Japanese
quail
(
Coturnix
cortunix
japonica)
92
>
10000
practically
non­
toxic
071469
Mihail
&
Thyssen/
1980
Supplemental
Canary
(
Serinus
canarius)
92
>
1000
slightly
toxic
071469
Herman/
1975
Supplemental
The
studies
using
Japanese
quail
and
canary
provide
supplemental
information.
They
are
nonguideline
studies
since
they
were
not
conducted
using
mallard
duck
or
northern
bobwhite
quail.

Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Two
subacute
dietary
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
and
triadimenol
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.
Results
Page
175
of
241
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
birds
­
Subacute
Dietary
Species
%
ai
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No./
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
93
8392
practically
non­
toxic
00050066
Fink/
1977
Acceptable
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
93
>
4640
practically
non­
toxic
231311
1977
Acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
93
>
10000
practically
non­
toxic
231311
1977
Acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
93
>
10000
practically
non­
toxic
00050067
Fink/
1977
Supplemental
The
mallard
duck
study
(
00050067)
satisfies
the
data
requirement
for
triadimefon,
but
is
supplemental
because
14­
day
old
ducks
were
studied
as
opposed
to
the
required
5­
to
10­
day
old
test
birds.
The
guideline
requirement
(
§
71­
2
a,
b)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Toxicity
of
Triadimenol
to
birds
­
Subacute
Dietary
Species
%
ai
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No./
Year
Study
Classification
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
92
>
5000
practically
non­
toxic
00126277
Acceptable
The
mallard
duck
study
(
00126277)
satisfies
the
data
requirement
for
triadimenol.
The
guideline
requirement
(
§
71­
2
a,
b)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimenol.

Avian
Chronic
Avian
reproduction
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
for
triadimefon
because
the
following
condition
is
met:
(
1)
birds
may
be
subject
to
repeated
or
continuous
exposure
to
the
pesticide
and
its
metabolites,
especially
preceding
or
during
the
breeding
season.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.

Reproductive
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
Birds
Species/
Study
Duration
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
95
780
>
780
not
applicable
42342302
Stafford/
1992
Acceptable
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
93
500
>
500
not
applicable
110432
Lamb/
1982
Supplemental
Northern
bobwhite
(
Colinus
virginianus)
93
20
100
eggs
cracked,
fertile
eggs,
viable
embryos,
hatchling,,
14­
day
old
survivors
110431
Lamb/
1982
Acceptable
Reproductive
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
Birds
Species/
Study
Duration
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Page
176
of
241
Northern
bobwhite
(
Colinus
virginianus)
95
587
>
587
not
applicable
42342301
Stafford/
1992
Supplemental
The
mallard
duck
study
(
248117)
does
not
meet
the
guideline
requirements
due
to
poor
reproductive
success
of
the
control
(
poor
hatchling
survival
rate
in
the
control).
The
northern
bobwhite
study
(
42342301)
does
not
satisfy
guideline
requirements
due
to
problems
with
the
incubator's
ability
to
crack
the
test
eggs.

The
guideline
requirement
(
§
71­
4
a,
b)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Reproductive
Toxicity
of
degradate,
Triadimenol
to
Birds
Species/
Study
Duration
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
(
ppm
ai)
LOAEL
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
97
100
500
eggs
laid,
viability,
hatchability,
14­
day
survivors
40283102
Carlisle/
1984
Acceptable
Northern
bobwhite
(
Colinus
virginianus)
97
Invalid
Invalid
Invalid
40283101
Carlisle/
1984
Invalid
The
triadimenol
study
on
bobwhite
quail
(
MRID
40283101)
is
invalid
because
the
observations
suggest
that
the
controls
may
have
been
less
capable
of
successful
reproduction
than
the
test
organisms,
thereby
diminishing
their
value
as
a
true
control
for
all
reproductive
parameters.

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.

Mammalian
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
Species/
Study
Duration
Test
Type/
Classification
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.

laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute
oral
LD50
=
1470
mg/
kg
(
males)
LD50
=
1090
mg/
kg
(
females)
NA
00264276
laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
2­
generation
reproduction
Offspring
NOAEL=
50ppm
Offspring
LOAEL
=
1800ppm
decreased
pup
weight
and
viability
00155075
92188019
92188320
Page
177
of
241
Mammalian
Toxicity
of
Triadimenol
Species/
Study
Duration
Test
Type/
Classification
Toxicity
Value
Affected
Endpoints
MRID
No.

laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute
oral
LD50
=
689
mg/
kg
(
males)
LD50
=
752
mg/
kg
(
females)
NA
00125411
laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
2­
generation
reproduction
Parental
NOAEL=
100ppm
Parental
LOAEL
=
500ppm
Offspring
NOAEL=
100ppm
Offspring
LOAEL
=
500ppm
dec
body
weights
and
weight
gain
decreased
pup
weight
00151248
Page
178
of
241
Insects
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
because
its
use
will
result
in
honey
bee
exposure.
Results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below.

Nontarget
Insect
Acute
Contact
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
LD50
(
µ
g/
bee)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No
Author./
Year
Study
Classification
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
95.6
>
25
practically
non­
toxic
42307804
Hoxter/
1992
Acceptable
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Tech
>
25
practically
non­
toxic
5001991
Stevenson/
1978
Acceptable
The
guideline
requirement
(
§
141­
1)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Animals
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
fish.
The
preferred
test
species
are
rainbow
trout
(
a
coldwater
fish)
and
bluegill
sunfish
(
a
warmwater
fish).
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below.

Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
Species/
Flow­
through
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
96.8
4.1
Moderately
toxic
43256201
Bowers/
1994
Acceptable
(
72­
1,
static)

Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
93
14
slightly
toxic
231311
Lamb/
1977
Acceptable
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
50WP
28
Slightly
toxic
254693
Nelson/
1977
Supplemental
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
50WP
22.9
Slightly
toxic
147864
Carlisle/
1984
Supplemental
Warm
water
fish
(
Bluegill
sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus)
96.8
10
slightly
to
moderately
toxic
43304301
(
106758)
Bowers/
1994
Acceptable
(
72­
1,
static)

Warm
water
fish
(
Bluegill
sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus)
93
11
slightly
toxic
231311
Lamb/
1977
Acceptable
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
Species/
Flow­
through
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Page
179
of
241
Warm
water
fish
(
Bluegill
sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus)
50WP
24.7
Slightly
toxic
147683
Carlisle/
1984
Supplemental
Warm
water
fish
(
Bluegill
sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus)
50WP
16
Slightly
toxic
254693
Nelson/
1977
Supplemental
Channel
catfish
(
Ictalurus
punctalus)
93
15
Slightly
toxic
231311
Lamb/
1977
Supplemental
The
acute
toxicity
tests
on
bluegill
sunfish
(
147683)
and
rainbow
trout
(
147864)
are
supplemental
for
the
following
reasons:
(
1)
materials
and
methods
were
not
fully
described,
(
2)
raw
water
quality
measurement
data
were
not
provided,
and
(
3)
the
dilution
water
hardness
was
much
greater
than
the
recommended
range.
The
rainbow
trout
test
(
147864)
is
supplemental
due
to
lack
of
reporting
of
critical
information
in
the
materials
and
methods.
Studies
conducted
using
the
formulated
product
are
supplemental.
The
channel
catfish
study
(
231311)
provides
supplemental
information
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
since
catfish
is
not
the
preferred
test
species.

The
guideline
requirement
(
§
72­
1)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
of
Degradate,
Triadimenol
Species/
Flow­
through
%
ai
96­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Salmo
gairdneri)
94.9
23.5
Slightly
toxic
071469
Herman/
1978
Acceptable
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Salmo
gairdneri)
92
14
slightly
toxic
071469
Lamb/
1981
Acceptable
Warm
water
fish
(
Bluegill
sunfish,
Lepomis
macrochirus)
92
14
slightly
toxic
071469
Lamb/
1981
Acceptable
(
goldfish,
Carasius
auratus)
94.9
10­
50
slightly
toxic
071469
Hermann/
1975
Supplemental
(
golden
orfe,
Leuciscus
idus
melanotus)
94.9
17.4
Slightly
toxic
071469
Herman/
1979
Supplemental
The
tridimenol
studies
on
goldfish
and
golden
orfe
provide
supplemental
information.
They
are
non­
guideline
studies
since
they
were
conducted
using
inappropriate
test
species
per
EPA
guidelines.
goldfish
study
supplemntal
­
non­
guideline
study
(
inappropriate
species)
Page
180
of
241
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
Freshwater
Fish
Group
(
Test
Species)
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppm)
LOAEL
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Fish
(
Fathead
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas)
94.2
0.17
0.27
Adult
survival
41922103
Cohle/
1991
Acceptable
Cold
water
fish
(
Rainbow
trout,
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
93
0.041
0.116
growth
251243
Carlisle/
1983
Supplemental
The
rainbow
trout
study
(
251243)
is
supplemental
and
does
not
fulfill
the
data
requirements
because
the
information
submitted
in
the
study
report
is
not
sufficient
to
allow
for
evaluation
of
the
study
results.

Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
(
guideline
72­
2)
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
a
pesticide
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
Results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below.

Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
of
Triademefon
Species/
Flow­
through
%
ai
48­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
98.8
7.2
Moderately
toxic
432
57001
Bowers/
1993
Acceptable
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
Tech
1.6
Moderately
toxic
231311
Lamb/
1977
Acceptable
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
50WP
11.3
Slightly
toxic
254693
Carlisle/
1983
Supplemental
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
92.6
>
10
Slightly
toxic
147862
Heimbach/
1983
Supplemental
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
50WP
INVALID
INVALID
147865
Forbis/
1984
INVALID
Crayfish
(
Orconectes
neglectus)
50WP
104
Practically
non­
toxic
254693
Carlisle/
1983
Supplemental
Only
a
summary
of
a
German
study
was
provided
for
review,
therefore,
the
(
254693)
daphnia
study
is
supplemental.
The
(
147862)
daphnia
study
is
supplemental
because
the
study
failed
to
produce
an
EC
50
or
show
that
the
EC
50
is
>
100
mg/
L.
Since
it
is
not
known
what
concentration
of
the
test
chemical
that
the
daphnids
were
exposed
to
during
the
study,
the
147865
study
is
invalid.
The
crayfish
study
(
254693)
provides
supplemental
information
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
since
it
is
not
the
preferred
test
species.

The
guideline
requirement
(
§
72­
2)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.
Page
181
of
241
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
of
Degradate,
Triadimenol
Species/
Flow­
through
%
ai
48­
hour
LC
50
(
ppm)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea
,
Daphnia
magna)
92
2.5
Moderately
toxic
071469
Lamb/
1981
Acceptable
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
of
Triadimefon
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Group
(
Test
Species)
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppm)
LOAEL
(
ppm)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea,
Daphnia
magna)
93
0.087
0.154
Reproduction
246736
Lamb/
1981
Acceptable
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea,
Daphnia
magna)
94.2
0.052
0.119
Adult
length
41922102
Gagliano/
1991
Supplemental
The
daphnia
study
(
41922102)
is
supplemental
because
the
individual
data
on
daphnid
length
were
not
included
in
the
report.
The
study
can
be
upgraded
to
Acceptable
upon
submission
of
acceptable
data.

The
guideline
requirement
(
§
72­
4)
is
fulfilled
for
triadimefon.

Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
of
Degradate,
Triadimenol
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Group
(
Test
Species)
%
ai
NOAEL
(
ppb)
LOAEL
(
ppb)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Invertebrate
(
Waterflea,
Daphnia
magna)
92
100
200
reproduction
071469
&
246736
Lamb/
1982
Acceptable
Toxicity
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Animals
Data
are
not
available
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
and
its
degradates
to
estuarine
and
marine
organisms.

Toxicity
to
Plants
Terrestrial
Currently,
terrestrial
plant
testing
is
not
required
for
pesticides
other
than
herbicides
except
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
(
e.
g.,
labeling
bears
phytotoxicity
warnings
incident
data
or
literature
that
demonstrate
phytotoxicity).

Aquatic
Plants
Page
182
of
241
Triadimefon:
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Species
%
ai
EC
50
(
ppm)
EC
05
or
NOAEC
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
Lemna
gibba
No
record
of
data
Nonvascular
Plants
Green
algae
Selenastrum
capricornutum
96.8
2.0
1.2
43401701
Bowers/
1994
Acceptable
Green
alga
Selenastrum
capricornutum
50WP
0.91
<
0.5
41616007
Forbis/
1986
Supplemental
Green
algae
Scenedesmus
subspicatus
91.5
1.71
0.1
00159558
Heimbach/
1985
Supplemental
GLN
123­
2
The
algal
study
(
41616007)
is
supplemental
for
a
tier
2
non­
target
aquatic
plant
toxicity
test
because
the
algae
were
exposed
to
the
chemical
for
4
days
as
opposed
to
the
required
minimum
of
5
days.
The
study
using
Scenedesmus
subspicatus
(
0159558)
provides
supplemental
information
on
the
toxicity
of
triadimefon
to
green
alga
since
it
is
not
the
preferred
test
species.

Toxicity
of
Degradate,
Triadimenol
to
Aquatic
Plants
Species
%
ai
EC
50
(
ppm)
EC
05
or
NOAEC
(
ppm)
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
Lemna
gibba
No
record
of
data
Nonvascular
Plants
Green
algae
Scenedesmus
subspicatus
94.9
3.7
0.32
266051
Mobay/
1986
Supplemental
The
green
algae
study
(
266051)
is
supplemental
due
to
deviations
in
the
test
protocol
from
Subdivision
J
Guidelines
(
i.
e.
test
was
conducted
for
only
96
hours,
EDTA
was
used
as
the
nutrient
solution,
an
excessively
high
alga
population
was
utilized,
photoperiod
was
not
reported,
and
raw
data
were
not
provided).
Page
183
of
241
APPENDIX
D:
Terrestrial
Organism
RQ
Calculations
Based
on
Mean
Kenaga
Residue
Values
Table
D­
1.
Avian
dietary­
based
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
nongranular
triadimefon
(
based
on
LC
50
of
8392
mg/
kg
diet)
based
on
mean
Kenaga
values.

Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
Short
grass
55.9
<
LOC
2.8
Tall
grass
23.7
<
LOC
1.2
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
29.6
<
LOC
1.5
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
4.6
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
Short
grass
24.5
<
LOC
1.2
Tall
grass
10.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
12.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
2.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
37.2
<
LOC
1.9
Tall
grass
15.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
19.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
3.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
947.1
0.1
47.4
Tall
grass
401.1
<
LOC
20.1
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
501.4
<
LOC
25.1
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
78.0
<
LOC
3.9
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
Short
grass
229.5
<
LOC
11.5
Tall
grass
97.2
<
LOC
4.9
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
121.5
<
LOC
6.1
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
18.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
Short
grass
203.2
<
LOC
10.2
Tall
grass
86.1
<
LOC
4.3
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
107.6
<
LOC
5.4
Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Page
184
of
241
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
16.7
<
LOC
<
LOC
Use
Food
items
Upper
Bound
EEC
(
mg/
kg)
Acute
dietary­
based
RQ1
(
EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
dietary­
based
RQ2
(
EEC/
NOAEC)

Page
185
of
241
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
Short
grass
78.2
<
LOC
3.9
Tall
grass
33.1
<
LOC
1.7
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
41.4
<
LOC
2.1
Fruits,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
6.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
Table
D­
2.
Mammalian
dose­
based
acute
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
triadimefon
LD
50
of
689
mg/
kg
in
rats)
based
on
mean
Kenaga
values.

Use
Body
Weigh
t
(
g)
Mammalian
Dose­
based
Acute
Risk
Quotients
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Seeds
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
15
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
15
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
15
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
15
0.6
0.3
0.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
0.5
0.2
0.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
0.3
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
15
0.1
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
0.1
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
15
0.1
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
0.1
0.1
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
0.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Page
186
of
241
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
15
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Table
D­
3.
Mammalian
dose­
based
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
rat
NOAEL
of
2.5
mg/
kg
body
weight
and
mean
Kenaga
values).

Use
Body
Weight
(
g)
Dose­
based
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Seeds
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
15
9.7
4.1
5.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
8.3
3.5
4.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
4.4
1.9
2.3
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
15
4.2
1.8
2.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
3.6
1.5
1.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
1.9
<
LOC
1.0
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
15
6.4
2.7
3.4
<
LOC
<
LOC
35
5.5
2.3
2.9
<
LOC
<
LOC
1000
2.9
1.2
1.5
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
15
163.8
69.4
86.7
13.5
3.0
35
140.6
59.6
74.4
11.6
2.6
1000
73.9
31.3
39.1
6.1
1.2
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
15
39.7
16.8
21.0
3.3
<
LOC
35
34.1
14.4
18.0
2.8
<
LOC
1000
17.9
7.6
9.5
1.5
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/
&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
15
35.1
14.9
18.6
2.9
<
LOC
35
30.2
12.8
16.0
2.5
<
LOC
1000
15.9
6.7
8.4
1.3
<
LOC
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
15
13.5
5.7
7.2
1.1
<
LOC
35
11.6
4.9
6.2
1.0
<
LOC
1000
6.1
2.6
3.2
<
LOC
<
LOC
Page
187
of
241
Table
D­
4.
Mammalian
dietary­
based
chronic
risk
quotients
for
selected
uses
of
non­
granular
triadimefon
(
based
on
rat
NOAEC
of
50mg/
kg
diet
and
mean
Kenaga
values).

Use
Dietary­
based
Chronic
Risk
Quotients
Short
grass
Tall
grass
Broadleaf
plants/
small
insects
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
Apples
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
7d
interval)
1.1
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Raspberries
(
0.125
lb
ai/
A,
7
applications,
28d
interval)
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Grapes
(
0.1875
lb
ai/
A,
3
applications,
14d
interval)
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
<
LOC
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
26
applications,
14d
interval)
18.9
8.0
10.0
1.6
Golf
Course
Turf
(
2.7
lb
ai/
A,
1
application)
4.6
1.9
2.4
<
LOC
Residential/
Commercial/&
Recreational
Turf
(
1.36
lb
ai/
A,
2
applications,
14d
interval)
4.1
1.7
2.2
<
LOC
Christmas
Trees
(
0.25
lb
ai/
A,
8
applications,
14
day
interval)
2.3
1.0
1.2
<
LOC
Page
188
of
241
Amphibians
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Arroyo
(=
arroyo
southwestern)
toad
Bufo
californicus
(=
microscaphus)
Mississippi
gopher
Frog
Rana
capito
sevosa
Barton
Springs
salamander
Eurycea
sosorum
Mountain
yellow­
legged
frog
Rana
muscosa
California
red­
legged
frog
Rana
aurora
draytonii
Puerto
Rican
crested
toad
Peltophryne
lemur
California
tiger
Salamander
Ambystoma
californiense
Red
Hills
salamander
Phaeognathus
hubrichti
Cheat
Mountain
salamander
Plethodon
nettingi
San
Marcos
salamander
Eurycea
nana
Chiricahua
leopard
frog
Rana
chiricahuensis
Santa
Cruz
long­
toed
salamander
Ambystoma
macrodactylum
croceum
Desert
slender
salamander
Batrachoseps
aridus
Shenandoah
salamander
Plethodon
shenandoah
Flatwoods
salamander
Ambystoma
cingulatum
Sonora
tiger
Salamander
Ambystoma
tigrinum
stebbinsi
Golden
coqui
Eleutherodactylus
jasperi
Texas
blind
salamander
Typhlomolge
rathbuni
Guajon
Eleutherodactylus
cooki
Wyoming
Toad
Bufo
baxteri
(=
hemiophrys)

Houston
toad
Bufo
houstonensis
Arachnids
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Bee
Creek
Cave
harvestman
Texella
reddelli
Kauai
cave
wolf
or
pe'e
pe'e
maka
'
ole
spider
Adelocosa
anops
Bone
Cave
harvestman
Texella
reyesi
Madla's
Cave
Meshweaver
Cicurina
madla
Braken
Bat
Cave
Meshweaver
Cicurina
venii
Robber
Baron
Cave
Meshweaver
Cicurina
baronia
Cokendolpher
Cave
Harvestman
Texella
cokendolpheri
Spruce­
fir
moss
spider
Microhexura
montivaga
Government
Canyon
Bat
Cave
Meshweaver
Cicurina
vespera
Tooth
Cave
pseudoscorpion
Tartarocreagris
texana
Government
Canyon
Bat
Cave
Spider
Neoleptoneta
microps
Tooth
Cave
Spider
Leptoneta
myopica
APPENDIX
E.
Endangered
Species
Associated
with
Triadimefon
Use
Page
189
of
241
Birds
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
 
O 
u
(
honeycreeper)
Psittirostra
psittacea
Hawaiian
(='
lo)
Hawk
Buteo
solitarius
Akiapola 
au
(
honeycreeper)
Hemignathus
munroi
Hawaiian
common
moorhen
Gallinula
chloropus
sandvicensis
Attwater's
greater
prairie­
chicken
Tympanuchus
cupido
attwateri
Hawaiian
coot
Fulica
americana
alai
Audubon's
crested
caracara
Polyborus
plancus
audubonii
Hawaiian
dark­
rumped
petrel
Pterodroma
phaeopygia
sandwichensis
Bachman's
warbler
(=
wood)
Vermivora
bachmanii
Hawaiian
goose
Branta
(=
Nesochen)
sandvicensis
Bald
eagle
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Hawaiian
stilt
Himantopus
mexicanus
knudseni
Black­
capped
Vireo
Vireo
atricapilla
Inyo
California
towhee
Pipilo
crissalis
eremophilus
Bridled
white­
eye
Zosterops
conspicillatus
conspicillatus
Ivory­
billed
woodpecker
Campephilus
principalis
Brown
pelican
Pelecanus
occidentalis
Kauai
 
o 
o
(
honeyeater)
Moho
braccatus
Cactus
ferruginous
pygmy­
owl
Glaucidium
brasilianum
cactorum
Kauai
akialoa
(
honeycreeper)
Hemignathus
procerus
Cahow
Pterodroma
cahow
Kirtland's
warbler
(=
wood)
Dendroica
kirtlandii
California
clapper
rail
Rallus
longirostris
obsoletus
large
Kauai
(=
kamao)
Thrush
Myadestes
myadestinus
California
condor
Gymnogyps
californianus
Laysan
duck
Anas
laysanensis
California
least
tern
Sterna
antillarum
browni
Laysan
finch
(
honeycreeper)
Telespyza
cantans
Cape
Sable
seaside
sparrow
Ammodramus
maritimus
mirabilis
Least
Bell's
vireo
Vireo
bellii
pusillus
Coastal
California
gnatcatcher
Polioptila
californica
californica
Least
tern
Sterna
antillarum
Crested
honeycreeper
Palmeria
dolei
Light­
footed
clapper
rail
Rallus
longirostris
levipes
Eskimo
curlew
Numenius
borealis
Marbled
murrelet
Brachyramphus
marmoratus
marmoratus
Everglade
snail
kite
Rostrhamus
sociabilis
plumbeus
Mariana
(=
aga)
Crow
Corvus
kubaryi
Florida
grasshopper
sparrow
Ammodramus
savannarum
floridanus
Mariana
common
moorhen
Gallinula
chloropus
guami
Florida
scrub
jay
Aphelocoma
coerulescens
Mariana
gray
swiftlet
Aerodramus
vanikorensis
bartschi
golden­
cheeked
warbler
(=
wood)
Dendroica
chrysoparia
Masked
bobwhite
(
quail)
Colinus
virginianus
ridgwayi
Guam
Micronesian
kingfisher
Halcyon
cinnamomina
cinnamomina
Maui
akepa
(
honeycreeper)
Loxops
coccineus
ochraceus
Guam
rail
Rallus
owstoni
Maui
parrotbill
(
honeycreeper)
Pseudonestor
xanthophrys
Hawaii
akepa
(
honeycreeper)
Loxops
coccineus
coccineus
Mexican
spotted
owl
Strix
occidentalis
lucida
Hawaii
creeper
Oreomystis
mana
Micronesian
megapode
Megapodius
laperouse
Hawaiian
(='
alala)
Crow
Corvus
hawaiiensis
Mississippi
sandhill
crane
Grus
canadensis
pulla
Hawaiian
(=
koloa)
Duck
Anas
wyvilliana
Molokai
creeper
Paroreomyza
flammea
Page
190
of
241
Birds
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Molokai
thrush
Myadestes
lanaiensis
rutha
Puerto
Rican
sharp­
shinned
hawk
Accipiter
striatus
venator
Newell's
Townsend's
shearwater
Puffinus
auricularis
newelli
Red­
cockaded
woodpecker
Picoides
borealis
Nightingale
reed
warbler
(
old
world
warbler)
Acrocephalus
luscinia
Roseate
tern
Sterna
dougallii
dougallii
Nihoa
finch
(
honeycreeper)
Telespyza
ultima
Rota
bridled
white­
eye
Zosterops
rotensis
Nihoa
millerbird
(
old
world
warbler)
Acrocephalus
familiaris
kingi
San
Clemente
loggerhead
shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus
mearnsi
Northern
aplomado
falcon
Falco
femoralis
septentrionalis
San
Clemente
sage
sparrow
Amphispiza
belli
clementeae
Northern
spotted
owl
Strix
occidentalis
caurina
Short­
tailed
albatross
Phoebastria
(=
Diomedea)
albatrus
Nukupu 
u
(
honeycreeper)
Hemignathus
lucidus
Small
Kauai
(=
puaiohi)
thrush
Myadestes
palmeri
Oahu
creeper
Paroreomyza
maculata
Southwestern
willow
flycatcher
Empidonax
traillii
extimus
Oahu
Elepaio
Chasiempis
sandwichensis
ibidis
Spectacled
eider
Somateria
fischeri
Palila
(
honeycreeper)
Loxioides
bailleui
Steller's
Eider
Polysticta
stelleri
Piping
plover
Charadrius
melodus
Western
snowy
plover
Charadrius
alexandrinus
nivosus
Po 
ouli
(
honeycreeper)
Melamprosops
phaeosoma
White­
necked
crow
Corvus
leucognaphalus
Puerto
Rican
broad­
winged
hawk
Buteo
platypterus
brunnescens
Whooping
crane
Grus
americana
Puerto
Rican
nightjar
Caprimulgus
noctitherus
Wood
stork
Mycteria
americana
Puerto
Rican
parrot
Amazona
vittata
Yellow­
shouldered
blackbird
Agelaius
xanthomus
Puerto
Rican
plain
Pigeon
Columba
inornata
wetmorei
Yuma
clapper
rail
Rallus
longirostris
yumanensis
Clams
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
(=
inflated)
heelsplitter
Potamilus
inflatus
Black
clubshell
Pleurobema
curtum
Alabama
lampmussel
Lampsilis
virescens
Carolina
heelsplitter
Lasmigona
decorata
Alabama
moccasinshell
Medionidus
acutissimus
Catspaw
(=
purple
cat's
paw
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
obliquata
obliquata
Appalachian
elktoe
Alasmidonta
raveneliana
Chipola
slabshell
Elliptio
chipolaensis
Appalachian
monkeyface
(
pearlymussel)
Quadrula
sparsa
Clubshell
Pleurobema
clava
Arkansas
fatmucket
Lampsilis
powelli
Coosa
moccasinshell
Medionidus
parvulus
Birdwing
pearlymussel
Conradilla
caelata
Cracking
pearlymussel
Hemistena
lata
Page
191
of
241
Clams
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Cumberland
bean
(
pearlymussel)
Villosa
trabalis
Oval
pigtoe
Pleurobema
pyriforme
Cumberland
elktoe
Alasmidonta
atropurpurea
Ovate
clubshell
Pleurobema
perovatum
Cumberland
monkeyface
(
pearlymussel)
Quadrula
intermedia
Oyster
mussel
Epioblasma
capsaeformis
Cumberland
pigtoe
Pleurobema
gibberum
Pale
lilliput
(
pearlymussel)
Toxolasma
cylindrellus
Cumberlandian
combshell
Epioblasma
brevidens
Pink
mucket
(
pearlymussel)
Lampsilis
abrupta
Curtis
pearlymussel
Epioblasma
florentina
curtisii
Purple
bankclimber
(
mussel)
Elliptoideus
sloatianus
Dark
pigtoe
Pleurobema
furvum
Purple
bean
Villosa
perpurpurea
Dromedary
pearlymussel
Dromus
dromas
Ring
pink
(
mussel)
Obovaria
retusa
Dwarf
wedgemussel
Alasmidonta
heterodon
Rough
pigtoe
Pleurobema
plenum
Fanshell
Cyprogenia
stegaria
Rough
rabbitsfoot
Quadrula
cylindrica
strigillata
Fat
pocketbook
Potamilus
capax
Scaleshell
mussel
Leptodea
leptodon
Fat
three­
ridge
(
mussel)
Amblema
neislerii
Shiny
pigtoe
Fusconaia
cor
Finelined
pocketbook
Lampsilis
altilis
Shinyrayed
pocketbook
Lampsilis
subangulata
Finerayed
pigtoe
Fusconaia
cuneolus
Southern
acornshell
Epioblasma
othcaloogensis
Flat
pigtoe
Pleurobema
marshalli
Southern
clubshell
Pleurobema
decisum
Green
blossom
(
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
torulosa
gubernaculum
Southern
combshell
Epioblasma
penita
Gulf
moccasinshell
Medionidus
penicillatus
Southern
pigtoe
Pleurobema
georgianum
Heavy
pigtoe
Pleurobema
taitianum
Speckled
pocketbook
Lampsilis
streckeri
Higgins
eye
(
pearlymussel)
Lampsilis
higginsii
Stirrupshell
Quadrula
stapes
James
spinymussel
Pleurobema
collina
Tan
riffleshell
Epioblasma
florentina
walkeri
(=
E.

walkeri)

Littlewing
pearlymussel
Pegias
fabula
Tar
River
spinymussel
Elliptio
steinstansana
Louisiana
pearlshell
Margaritifera
hembeli
Triangular
Kidneyshell
Ptychobranchus
greenii
Northern
riffleshell
Epioblasma
torulosa
rangiana
Tubercled
blossom
(
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
torulosa
torulosa
Ochlockonee
moccasinshell
Medionidus
simpsonianus
Turgid
blossom
(
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
turgidula
orangefoot
pimpleback
(
pearlymussel)
Plethobasus
cooperianus
Upland
combshell
Epioblasma
metastriata
orangenacre
mucket
Lampsilis
perovalis
White
catspaw
(
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
obliquata
perobliqua
Ouachita
rock
pocketbook
Arkansia
wheeleri
White
wartyback
(
pearlymussel)
Plethobasus
cicatricosus
Page
192
of
241
Clams
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Winged
mapleleaf
(
mussel)
Quadrula
fragosa
Yellow
blossom
(
pearlymussel)
Epioblasma
florentina
florentina
Crustaceans
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
cave
shrimp
Palaemonias
alabamae
Madison
Cave
isopod
Antrolana
lira
California
freshwater
shrimp
Syncaris
pacifica
Nashville
crayfish
Orconectes
shoupi
Cave
crayfish
Cambarus
aculabrum
Peck's
cave
amphipod
Stygobromus
(=
Stygonectes)
pecki
Cave
crayfish
Cambarus
zophonastes
Riverside
fairy
shrimp
Streptocephalus
woottoni
Conservancy
fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
conservatio
San
Diego
fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
Hay's
Spring
amphipod
Stygobromus
hayi
Shasta
crayfish
Pacifastacus
fortis
Illinois
cave
amphipod
Gammarus
acherondytes
Socorro
isopod
Thermosphaeroma
thermophilus
Kauai
cave
amphipod
Spelaeorchestia
koloana
Squirrel
Chimney
Cave
shrimp
Palaemonetes
cummingi
Kentucky
cave
shrimp
Palaemonias
ganteri
Vernal
pool
fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
Lee
County
cave
isopod
Lirceus
usdagalun
Vernal
pool
tadpole
shrimp
Lepidurus
packardi
Longhorn
fairy
shrimp
Branchinecta
longiantenna
Fish
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
cavefish
Speoplatyrhinus
poulsoni
Big
Bend
gambusia
Gambusia
gaigei
Alabama
sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus
suttkusi
Big
Spring
spinedace
Lepidomeda
mollispinis
pratensis
Amber
darter
Percina
antesella
Blackside
dace
Phoxinus
cumberlandensis
Apache
trout
Oncorhynchus
apache
Blue
shiner
Cyprinella
caerulea
Arkansas
River
shiner
Notropis
girardi
Bluemask
(=
jewel)
darter
Etheostoma
spp.

Ash
Meadows
Amargosa
pupfish
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
mionectes
Bonytail
chub
Gila
elegans
Ash
Meadows
speckled
dace
Rhinichthys
osculus
nevadensis
Borax
Lake
chub
Gila
boraxobius
Atlantic
salmon
Salmo
salar
Boulder
darter
Etheostoma
wapiti
Bayou
darter
Etheostoma
rubrum
Bull
trout
Salvelinus
confluentus
Beautiful
shiner
Cyprinella
formosa
Cahaba
shiner
Notropis
cahabae
Page
193
of
241
Fish
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Cape
Fear
shiner
Notropis
mekistocholas
Independence
Valley
speckled
dace
Rhinichthys
osculus
lethoporus
Cherokee
darter
Etheostoma
scotti
June
sucker
Chasmistes
liorus
Chihuahua
chub
Gila
nigrescens
Kendall
Warm
Springs
dace
Rhinichthys
osculus
thermalis
Chinook
salmon
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
tshawytscha
Lahontan
cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus
clarki
henshawi
Chum
salmon
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
keta
Leon
Springs
pupfish
Cyprinodon
bovinus
Clear
Creek
gambusia
Gambusia
heterochir
Leopard
darter
Percina
pantherina
Clover
Valley
speckled
dace
Rhinichthys
osculus
oligoporus
Little
Colorado
spinedace
Lepidomeda
vittata
Coho
salmon
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
kisutch
Little
Kern
golden
trout
Oncorhynchus
aguabonita
whitei
Colorado
pikeminnow
(=
squawfish)
Ptychocheilus
lucius
Loach
minnow
Tiaroga
cobitis
Comanche
Springs
pupfish
Cyprinodon
elegans
Lost
River
sucker
Deltistes
luxatus
Conasauga
logperch
Percina
jenkinsi
Maryland
darter
Etheostoma
sellare
Cui­
ui
Chasmistes
cujus
Moapa
dace
Moapa
coriacea
Delta
smelt
Hypomesus
transpacificus
Modoc
Sucker
Catostomus
microps
Desert
dace
Eremichthys
acros
Mohave
tui
chub
Gila
bicolor
mohavensis
Desert
pupfish
Cyprinodon
macularius
Neosho
madtom
Noturus
placidus
Devils
Hole
pupfish
Cyprinodon
diabolis
Niangua
darter
Etheostoma
nianguae
Devils
River
minnow
Dionda
diaboli
Okaloosa
darter
Etheostoma
okaloosae
Duskytail
darter
Etheostoma
percnurum
Oregon
chub
Oregonichthys
crameri
Etowah
darter
Etheostoma
etowahae
Owens
pupfish
Cyprinodon
radiosus
Foskett
speckled
dace
Rhinichthys
osculus
ssp.
Owens
tui
chub
Gila
bicolor
snyderi
Fountain
darter
Etheostoma
fonticola
Ozark
cavefish
Amblyopsis
rosae
Gila
topminnow
(
incl.
Yaqui)
Poeciliopsis
occidentalis
Pahranagat
roundtail
chub
Gila
robusta
jordani
Gila
trout
Oncorhynchus
gilae
Pahrump
poolfish
Empetrichthys
latos
Goldline
darter
Percina
aurolineata
Paiute
cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus
clarki
seleniris
Greenback
cutthroat
trout
Oncorhynchus
clarki
stomias
Palezone
shiner
Notropis
albizonatus
Gulf
sturgeon
Acipenser
oxyrinchus
desotoi
Pallid
sturgeon
Scaphirhynchus
albus
Hiko
White
River
springfish
Crenichthys
baileyi
grandis
Pecos
bluntnose
shiner
Notropis
simus
pecosensis
Humpback
chub
Gila
cypha
Pecos
gambusia
Gambusia
nobilis
Hutton
tui
chub
Gila
bicolor
ssp.
Pygmy
madtom
Noturus
stanauli
Page
194
of
241
Fish
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Pygmy
Sculpin
Cottus
paulus
(=
pygmaeus)
Spotfin
chub
Cyprinella
monacha
Railroad
Valley
springfish
Crenichthys
nevadae
Steelhead
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
mykiss
Razorback
sucker
Xyrauchen
texanus
Tidewater
goby
Eucyclogobius
newberryi
Relict
darter
Etheostoma
chienense
Topeka
shiner
Notropis
topeka
(=
tristis)

Rio
Grande
silvery
minnow
Hybognathus
amarus
Unarmored
threespine
stickleback
Gasterosteus
aculeatus
williamsoni
Roanoke
logperch
Percina
rex
Vermilion
darter
Etheostoma
chermocki
San
Marcos
gambusia
Gambusia
georgei
Virgin
River
Chub
Gila
seminuda
(=
robusta)

Santa
Ana
sucker
Catostomus
santaanae
Waccamaw
silverside
Menidia
extensa
Scioto
madtom
Noturus
trautmani
Warm
Springs
pupfish
Cyprinodon
nevadensis
pectoralis
Shortnose
sturgeon
Acipenser
brevirostrum
Warner
sucker
Catostomus
warnerensis
Shortnose
sucker
Chasmistes
brevirostris
Watercress
darter
Etheostoma
nuchale
Slackwater
darter
Etheostoma
boschungi
White
River
spinedace
Lepidomeda
albivallis
Slender
chub
Erimystax
cahni
White
River
springfish
Crenichthys
baileyi
baileyi
Smoky
madtom
Noturus
baileyi
White
sturgeon
Acipenser
transmontanus
Snail
darter
Percina
tanasi
Wwoundfin
Plagopterus
argentissimus
Sockeye
salmon
Oncorhynchus
(=
Salmo)
nerka
Yaqui
catfish
Ictalurus
pricei
Sonora
chub
Gila
ditaenia
Yaqui
chub
Gila
purpurea
Spikedace
Meda
fulgida
Yellowfin
madtom
Noturus
flavipinnis
Insects
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
[
unnamed]
ground
beetle
Rhadine
exilis
Callippe
silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria
callippe
callippe
[
unnamed]
ground
beetle
Rhadine
infernalis
Carson
wandering
skipper
Pseudocopaeodes
eunus
obscurus
American
burying
beetle
Nicrophorus
americanus
Coffin
Cave
mold
beetle
Batrisodes
texanus
Ash
Meadows
naucorid
Ambrysus
amargosus
Comal
Springs
dryopid
beetle
Stygoparnus
comalensis
Bay
checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas
editha
bayensis
Comal
Springs
riffle
beetle
Heterelmis
comalensis
Behren's
silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria
zerene
behrensii
Delhi
Sands
flower­
loving
fly
Rhaphiomidas
terminatus
abdominalis
Blackburn's
sphinx
moth
Manduca
blackburni
Delta
green
ground
beetle
Elaphrus
viridis
Page
195
of
241
Insects
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
El
Segundo
blue
butterfly
Euphilotes
battoides
allyni
Northeastern
beach
tiger
beetle
Cicindela
dorsalis
dorsalis
Fender's
blue
butterfly
Icaricia
icarioides
fenderi
Ohlone
tiger
beetle
Cicindela
ohlone
Helotes
mold
beetle
Batrisodes
venyivi
Oregon
silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria
zerene
hippolyta
Hine's
emerald
dragonfly
Somatochlora
hineana
Palos
Verdes
blue
butterfly
Glaucopsyche
lygdamus
palosverdesensis
Hungerford's
crawling
water
Beetle
Brychius
hungerfordi
Pawnee
montane
skipper
Hesperia
leonardus
montana
Karner
blue
butterfly
Lycaeides
melissa
samuelis
Puritan
tiger
beetle
Cicindela
puritana
Kern
primrose
sphinx
moth
Euproserpinus
euterpe
Quino
checkerspot
butterfly
Euphydryas
editha
quino
(=
E.
e.

wrighti)

Kretschmarr
Cave
mold
beetle
Texamaurops
reddelli
Saint
Francis'
satyr
butterfly
Neonympha
mitchellii
francisci
Laguna
Mountains
skipper
Pyrgus
ruralis
lagunae
San
Bruno
elfin
butterfly
Callophrys
mossii
bayensis
Lange's
metalmark
butterfly
Apodemia
mormo
langei
Schaus
swallowtail
butterfly
Heraclides
aristodemus
ponceanus
Lotis
blue
butterfly
Lycaeides
argyrognomon
lotis
Smith's
blue
butterfly
Euphilotes
enoptes
smithi
Mission
blue
butterfly
Icaricia
icarioides
missionensis
Tooth
Cave
ground
beetle
Rhadine
persephone
Mitchell's
satyr
Butterfly
Neonympha
mitchellii
mitchellii
Uncompahgre
fritillary
butterfly
Boloria
acrocnema
Mount
Hermon
June
beetle
Polyphylla
barbata
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus
Myrtle's
silverspot
butterfly
Speyeria
zerene
myrtleae
Zayante
band­
winged
grasshopper
Trimerotropis
infantilis
Mammals
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
ammobates
Caribbean
monk
seal
Monachus
tropicalis
Amargosa
vole
Microtus
californicus
scirpensis
Carolina
northern
flying
squirrel
Glaucomys
sabrinus
coloratus
Anastasia
Island
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
phasma
Choctawhatchee
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
allophrys
Bighorn
sheep
Ovis
canadensis
Columbian
white­
tailed
deer
Odocoileus
virginianus
leucurus
Bighorn
sheep
Ovis
canadensis
californiana
Delmarva
Peninsula
fox
squirrel
Sciurus
niger
cinereus
Black­
footed
ferret
Mustela
nigripes
Eastern
puma
(=
cougar)
Puma
(=
Felis)
concolor
couguar
Blue
whale
Balaenoptera
musculus
Finback
whale
Balaenoptera
physalus
Bowhead
whale
Balaena
mysticetus
Florida
panther
Puma
(=
Felis)
concolor
coryi
Buena
Vista
Lake
ornate
Shrew
Sorex
ornatus
relictus
Canada
Lynx
Lynx
canadensis
Page
196
of
241
Mammals
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Florida
salt
marsh
vole
Microtus
pennsylvanicus
dukecampbelli
Ocelot
Leopardus
(=
Felis)
pardalis
Fresno
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
nitratoides
exilis
Ozark
big­
eared
bat
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)

townsendii
ingens
Giant
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
ingens
Pacific
pocket
mouse
Perognathus
longimembris
pacificus
Gray
bat
Myotis
grisescens
Perdido
Key
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
trissyllepsis
Gray
wolf
Canis
lupus
Point
Arena
mountain
beaver
Aplodontia
rufa
nigra
Grizzly
bear
Ursus
arctos
horribilis
Preble's
meadow
jumping
mouse
Zapus
hudsonius
preblei
Guadalupe
fur
seal
Arctocephalus
townsendi
Pygmy
rabbit
Brachylagus
idahoensis
Gulf
Coast
jaguarundi
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
cacomitli
Red
wolf
Canis
rufus
Hawaiian
hoary
bat
Lasiurus
cinereus
semotus
Rice
rat
Oryzomys
palustris
natator
Hawaiian
monk
seal
Monachus
schauinslandi
Right
whale
Balaena
glacialis
(
incl.
australis)

Hualapai
Mexican
vole
Microtus
mexicanus
hualpaiensis
Riparian
brush
rabbit
Sylvilagus
bachmani
riparius
Humpback
whale
Megaptera
novaeangliae
Riparian
woodrat
(=
San
Joaquin
Valley)
Neotoma
fuscipes
riparia
Indiana
bat
Myotis
sodalis
Ssalt
marsh
harvest
mouse
Reithrodontomys
raviventris
Jaguar
Panthera
onca
San
Bernardino
Merriam's
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
merriami
parvus
Key
deer
Odocoileus
virginianus
clavium
San
Joaquin
kit
fox
Vulpes
macrotis
mutica
Key
Largo
cotton
mouse
Peromyscus
gossypinus
allapaticola
San
Miguel
Island
Fox
Urocyon
littoralis
littoralis
Key
Largo
woodrat
Neotoma
floridana
smalli
Santa
Catalina
Island
Fox
Urocyon
littoralis
catalinae
Lesser
long­
nosed
bat
Leptonycteris
curasoae
yerbabuenae
Santa
Cruz
Island
Fox
Urocyon
littoralis
santacruzae
Little
Mariana
fruit
bat
Pteropus
tokudae
Santa
Rosa
Island
Fox
Urocyon
littoralis
santarosae
Louisiana
black
bear
Ursus
americanus
luteolus
Sei
whale
Balaenoptera
borealis
Lower
Keys
marsh
rabbit
Sylvilagus
palustris
hefneri
Sinaloan
Jaguarundi
Herpailurus
(=
Felis)
yagouaroundi
tolteca
Mariana
fruit
bat
(=
Mariana
flying
fox)
Pteropus
mariannus
mariannus
Sonoran
pronghorn
Antilocapra
americana
sonoriensis
Mexican
long­
nosed
bat
Leptonycteris
nivalis
Southeastern
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
niveiventris
Morro
Bay
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
heermanni
morroensis
Southern
sea
otter
Enhydra
lutris
nereis
Mount
Graham
red
squirrel
Tamiasciurus
hudsonicus
grahamensis
Sperm
whale
Physeter
catodon
(=
macrocephalus)

Northern
Idaho
ground
squirrel
Spermophilus
brunneus
brunneus
St.
Andrew
beach
mouse
Peromyscus
polionotus
peninsularis
Page
197
of
241
Mammals
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Steller
sea­
lion
Eumetopias
jubatus
Virginia
big­
eared
bat
Corynorhinus
(=
Plecotus)

townsendii
virginianus
Stephens'
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
stephensi
(
incl.
D.
cascus)
Virginia
northern
flying
squirrel
Glaucomys
sabrinus
fuscus
Tipton
kangaroo
rat
Dipodomys
nitratoides
nitratoides
West
Indian
manatee
Trichechus
manatus
Utah
prairie
dog
Cynomys
parvidens
Woodland
caribou
Rangifer
tarandus
caribou
Lichens
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Florida
perforate
cladonia
Cladonia
perforata
Rock
gnome
lichen
Gymnoderma
lineare
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Ma 
o
hau
hele
(=
native
yellow
hibiscus)
Hibiscus
brackenridgei
 
Anunu
Sicyos
alba
 
Ahinahina
Argyroxiphium
sandwicense
ssp.

macrocephalum
 
Awikiwiki
Canavalia
molokaiensis
 
Ahinahina
Argyroxiphium
sandwicense
ssp.

sandwicense
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
drepanomorpha
 
Aiakeakua,
popolo
Solanum
sandwicense
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
lindseyana
 
Aiea
Nothocestrum
breviflorum
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
oblongifolia
ssp.

brevipes
 
Aiea
Nothocestrum
peltatum
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
oblongifolia
ssp.

mauiensis
 
Akoko
Chamaesyce
celastroides
var.
kaenana
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
peleana
 
Akoko
Chamaesyce
deppeana
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
pyrularia
 
Akoko
Chamaesyce
herbstii
 
Oha
wai
Clermontia
samuelii
 
Akoko
Chamaesyce
kuwaleana
 
Ohe 
ohe
Tetraplasandra
gymnocarpa
 
Akoko
Chamaesyce
rockii
A 
e
Zanthoxylum
dipetalum
var.

tomentosum
 
Akoko
Euphorbia
haeleeleana
A 
e
Zanthoxylum
hawaiiense
 
Anaunau
Lepidium
arbuscula
Alabama
canebrake
pitcher­
plant
Sarracenia
rubra
alabamensis
Page
198
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
leather
flower
Clematis
socialis
Ash
Meadows
ivesia
Ivesia
kingii
var.
eremica
Alabama
streak­
sorus
fern
Thelypteris
pilosa
var.
alabamensis
Ash
meadows
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
phoenix
Alani
Melicope
adscendens
Ash
Meadows
sunray
Enceliopsis
nudicaulis
var.

corrugata
Alani
Melicope
balloui
Ash­
grey
paintbrush
Castilleja
cinerea
Alani
Melicope
haupuensis
Ashy
dogweed
Thymophylla
tephroleuca
Alani
Melicope
knudsenii
Asplenium­
leaved
diellia
Diellia
erecta
Alani
Melicope
lydgatei
Aupaka
Isodendrion
hosakae
Alani
Melicope
mucronulata
Aupaka
Isodendrion
laurifolium
Alani
Melicope
munroi
Aupaka
Isodendrion
longifolium
Alani
Melicope
ovalis
Autumn
Buttercup
Ranunculus
aestivalis
(=
acriformis)

Alani
Melicope
pallida
Avon
Park
harebells
Crotalaria
avonensis
Alani
Melicope
quadrangularis
Awiwi
Centaurium
sebaeoides
Alani
Melicope
reflexa
Awiwi
Hedyotis
cookiana
Alani
Melicope
saint­
johnii
Baker's
larkspur
Delphinium
bakeri
Alani
Melicope
zahlbruckneri
Bakersfield
cactus
Opuntia
treleasei
Aleutian
shield
fern
Polystichum
aleuticum
Bariaco
Trichilia
triacantha
Amargosa
niterwort
Nitrophila
mohavensis
Barneby
reed­
mustard
Schoenocrambe
barnebyi
American
chaffseed
Schwalbea
americana
Barneby
ridge­
cress
Lepidium
barnebyanum
American
hart's­
tongue
fern
Asplenium
scolopendrium
var.

americanum
Beach
jacquemontia
Jacquemontia
reclinata
Antioch
Dunes
evening­
primrose
Oenothera
deltoides
ssp.
howellii
Bach
layia
Layia
carnosa
Apalachicola
rosemary
Conradina
glabra
Bear
Valley
sandwort
Arenaria
ursina
Applegate's
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
applegatei
Beautiful
goetzea
Goetzea
elegans
Arizona
agave
Agave
arizonica
Beautiful
pawpaw
Deeringothamnus
pulchellus
Arizona
Cliff­
rose
Purshia
(=
Cowania)
subintegra
Ben
Lomond
spineflower
Chorizanthe
pungens
var.

hartwegiana
Arizona
hedgehog
cactus
Echinocereus
triglochidiatus
var.

arizonicus
Ben
Lomond
wallflower
Erysimum
teretifolium
Ash
Meadows
blazingstar
Mentzelia
leucophylla
Big­
leaved
crownbeard
Verbesina
dissita
Ash
Meadows
gumplant
Grindelia
fraxino­
pratensis
Page
199
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Black
lace
cactus
Echinocereus
reichenbachii
var.
albertii
Chorro
Creek
bog
thistle
Cirsium
fontinale
var.
obispoense
Black
spored
quillwort
Isoetes
melanospora
Chupacallos
Pleodendron
macranthum
Blowout
penstemon
Penstemon
haydenii
Clara
Hunt's
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
clarianus
Blue
Ridge
goldenrod
Solidago
spithamaea
Clay
phacelia
Phacelia
argillacea
Bradshaw's
desert­
parsley
Lomatium
bradshawii
Clay
reed­
mustard
Schoenocrambe
argillacea
Brady
pincushion
cactus
Pediocactus
bradyi
Clay­
loving
wild­
buckwheat
Eriogonum
pelinophilum
Braun's
rock­
cress
Arabis
perstellata
Clay's
hibiscus
Hibiscus
clayi
Braunton's
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
brauntonii
Clover
lupine
Lupinus
tidestromii
Britton's
beargrass
Nolina
brittoniana
Coachella
Valley
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
lentiginosus
var.

coachellae
Brooksville
bellflower
Campanula
robinsiae
Coastal
dunes
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
tener
var.
titi
Bunched
arrowhead
Sagittaria
fasciculata
Cobana
negra
Stahlia
monosperma
Bunched
cory
cactus
Coryphantha
ramillosa
Cochise
pincushion
cactus
Coryphantha
robbinsorum
Burke's
goldfields
Lasthenia
burkei
Colorado
Butterfly
plant
Gaura
neomexicana
var.

coloradensis
Butte
County
meadowfoam
Limnanthes
floccosa
ssp.
californica
Colusa
grass
Neostapfia
colusana
California
jewelflower
Caulanthus
californicus
Conejo
dudleya
Dudleya
abramsii
ssp.
parva
California
Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
californica
Contra
Costa
goldfields
Lasthenia
conjugens
California
seablite
Suaeda
californica
Contra
Costa
wallflower
Erysimum
capitatum
var.
angustatum
California
taraxacum
Taraxacum
californicum
Cooke's
koki 
o
Kokia
cookei
Calistoga
allocarya
Plagiobothrys
strictus
Cook's
holly
Ilex
cookii
Canby's
dropwort
Oxypolis
canbyi
Cook's
lomatium
Lomatium
cookii
Canelo
Hills
ladies'­
tresses
Spiranthes
delitescens
Cooley's
meadowrue
Thalictrum
cooleyi
Capa
rosa
Callicarpa
ampla
Cooley's
water­
willow
Justicia
cooleyi
Carter's
mustard
Warea
carteri
Coyote
ceanothus
Ceanothus
ferrisae
Carter's
panicgrass
Panicum
fauriei
var.
carteri
Crenulate
lead­
plant
Amorpha
crenulata
Catalina
Island
mountain­
mahogany
Cercocarpus
traskiae
Cumberland
rosemary
Conradina
verticillata
Chapman
rhododendron
Rhododendron
chapmanii
Cumberland
sandwort
Arenaria
cumberlandensis
Chinese
Camp
brodiaea
Brodiaea
pallida
Cushenbury
buckwheat
Eriogonum
ovalifolium
var.
vineum
Chisos
Mountain
hedgehog
cactus
Echinocereus
chisoensis
var.
chisoensis
Cushenbury
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
albens
Page
200
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Cushenbury
oxytheca
Oxytheca
parishii
var.
goodmaniana
Fish
Slough
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
lentiginosus
var.

piscinensis
Davis'
green
pitaya
Echinocereus
viridiflorus
var.
davisii
Fleshy
owl's­
clover
Castilleja
campestris
ssp.
succulenta
Decurrent
false
aster
Boltonia
decurrens
Florida
bonamia
Bonamia
grandiflora
Del
Mar
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
glandulosa
ssp.

crassifolia
Florida
golden
aster
Chrysopsis
floridana
Deltoid
spurge
Chamaesyce
deltoidea
ssp.
deltoidea
Florida
skullcap
Scutellaria
floridana
Deseret
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
desereticus
Florida
torreya
Torreya
taxifolia
Desert
yellowhead
Yermo
xanthocephalus
Florida
ziziphus
Ziziphus
celata
Diamond
Head
schiedea
Schiedea
adamantis
Fosberg's
love
grass
Eragrostis
fosbergii
Dudley
Bluffs
bladderpod
Lesquerella
congesta
Fountain
thistle
Cirsium
fontinale
var.
fontinale
Dudley
Bluffs
twinpod
Physaria
obcordata
Four­
petal
pawpaw
Asimina
tetramera
Dwarf
bear­
poppy
Arctomecon
humilis
Fragrant
prickly­
apple
Cereus
eriophorus
var.
fragrans
Dwarf
iliau
Wilkesia
hobdyi
Fringed
campion
Silene
polypetala
Dwarf
lake
iris
Iris
lacustris
Furbish
lousewort
Pedicularis
furbishiae
Dwarf
naupaka
Scaevola
coriacea
Gambel's
watercress
Rorippa
gambellii
Dwarf­
flowered
heartleaf
Hexastylis
naniflora
Garber's
spurge
Chamaesyce
garberi
Eastern
prairie
fringed
orchid
Platanthera
leucophaea
Garrett's
mint
Dicerandra
christmanii
Eggert's
sunflower
Helianthus
eggertii
Gaviota
tarplant
Deinandra
increscens
ssp.
villosa
El
Dorado
bedstraw
Galium
californicum
ssp.
sierrae
Gentian
pinkroot
Spigelia
gentianoides
Elfin
tree
fern
Cyathea
dryopteroides
Gentner's
Fritillary
Fritillaria
gentneri
Encinitas
baccharis
Baccharis
vanessae
Godfrey's
butterwort
Pinguicula
ionantha
Erubia
Solanum
drymophilum
Golden
paintbrush
Castilleja
levisecta
Etonia
rosemary
Conradina
etonia
Golden
sedge
Carex
lutea
Eureka
Dune
grass
Swallenia
alexandrae
Gowen
cypress
Cupressus
goveniana
ssp.
goveniana
Eureka
Valley
evening­
primrose
Oenothera
avita
ssp.
eurekensis
Green
pitcher­
plant
Sarracenia
oreophila
Ewa
Plains
 
akoko
Chamaesyce
skottsbergii
var.

kalaeloana
Greene's
tuctoria
Tuctoria
greenei
Fassett's
locoweed
Oxytropis
campestris
var.
chartacea
Guthrie's
(=
Pyne's)
ground­
plum
Astragalus
bibullatus
Few­
flowered
navarretia
Navarretia
leucocephala
ssp.
pauciflora
(=
N.
pauciflora)
Gypsum
wild­
buckwheat
Eriogonum
gypsophilum
Page
201
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
crenata
Haha
Cyanea
procera
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
dentata
Haha
Cyanea
recta
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
giffardii
Haha
Cyanea
remyi
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
limahuliensis
Haha
Cyanea
shipmannii
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
munroi
Haha
Cyanea
stictophylla
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
polyantha
Haha
Cyanea
st­
johnii
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
subumbellata
Haha
Cyanea
superba
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
tintinnabula
Haha
Cyanea
truncata
Ha 
iwale
Cyrtandra
viridiflora
Haha
Cyanea
undulata
Haha
Cyanea
acuminata
Hairy
orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
pilosa
Haha
Cyanea
asarifolia
Hairy
rattleweed
Baptisia
arachnifera
Haha
Cyanea
copelandii
ssp.
copelandii
Hala
pepe
Pleomele
hawaiiensis
Haha
Cyanea
copelandii
ssp.
haleakalaensis
Harperella
Ptilimnium
nodosum
Haha
Cyanea
dunbarii
Harper's
beauty
Harperocallis
flava
Haha
Cyanea
glabra
Hartweg's
golden
sunburst
Pseudobahia
bahiifolia
Haha
Cyanea
grimesiana
ssp.
grimesiana
Hau
kuahiwi
Hibiscadelphus
giffardianus
Haha
Cyanea
grimesiana
ssp.
obatae
Hau
kuahiwi
Hibiscadelphus
hualalaiensis
Haha
Cyanea
hamatiflora
carlsonii
Hau
kuahiwi
Hibiscadelphus
woodii
Haha
Cyanea
hamatiflora
ssp.
hamatiflora
Hawaiian
bluegrass
Poa
sandvicensis
Haha
Cyanea
humboldtiana
Hawaiian
gardenia
(=
Na 
u)
Gardenia
brighamii
Haha
Cyanea
koolauensis
Hawaiian
red­
flowered
geranium
Geranium
arboreum
Haha
Cyanea
lobata
Hawaiian
vetch
Vicia
menziesii
Haha
Cyanea
longiflora
Hayun
Iagu
(=(
Guam),
Tronkon
guafi
(
Rota))
Serianthes
nelsonii
Haha
Cyanea
macrostegia
ssp.
gibsonii
Heau
Exocarpos
luteolus
Haha
Cyanea
mannii
Heliotrope
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
montii
Haha
Cyanea
mceldowneyi
Heller's
blazingstar
Liatris
helleri
Haha
Cyanea
pinnatifida
Hickman's
potentilla
Potentilla
hickmanii
Haha
Cyanea
platyphylla
Hidden
Lake
bluecurls
Trichostema
austromontanum
ssp.

compactum
Page
202
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Highlands
scrub
hypericum
Hypericum
cumulicola
Jones
Cycladenia
Cycladenia
jonesii
(=
humilis)

Higo
Chumbo
Harrisia
portoricensis
Kamakahala
Labordia
cyrtandrae
Higuero
de
Sierra
Crescentia
portoricensis
Kamakahala
Labordia
lydgatei
Hilo
ischaemum
Ischaemum
byrone
Kamakahala
Labordia
tinifolia
var.
lanaiensis
Hinckley
oak
Quercus
hinckleyi
Kamakahala
Labordia
tinifolia
var.
wahiawaensis
Hoffmann's
rock­
cress
Arabis
hoffmannii
Kamakahala
Labordia
triflora
Hoffmann's
slender­
flowered
gilia
Gilia
tenuiflora
ssp.
hoffmannii
Kamanomano
Cenchrus
agrimonioides
Holei
Ochrosia
kilaueaensis
Kauai
hau
kuahiwi
Hibiscadelphus
distans
Holmgren
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
holmgreniorum
Kauila
Colubrina
oppositifolia
Holy
Ghost
ipomopsis
Ipomopsis
sancti­
spiritus
Kaulu
Pteralyxia
kauaiensis
Honohono
Haplostachys
haplostachya
Kearney's
blue­
star
Amsonia
kearneyana
Hoover's
spurge
Chamaesyce
hooveri
Keck's
Checker­
mallow
Sidalcea
keckii
Houghton's
goldenrod
Solidago
houghtonii
Kenwood
Marsh
checker­
mallow
Sidalcea
oregana
ssp.
valida
Howell's
spectacular
thelypody
Thelypodium
howellii
spectabilis
Kern
mallow
Eremalche
kernensis
Howell's
spineflower
Chorizanthe
howellii
Key
tree
cactus
Pilosocereus
robinii
Huachuca
water­
umbel
Lilaeopsis
schaffneriana
var.
recurva
Kincaid's
Lupine
Lupinus
sulphureus
(=
oreganus)
ssp.

kincaidii
(=
var.
kincaidii)

Ihi 
ihi
Marsilea
villosa
Kio 
ele
Hedyotis
coriacea
Indian
Knob
mountain
balm
Eriodictyon
altissimum
Kiponapona
Phyllostegia
racemosa
Ione
(
incl.
Irish
Hill)
buckwheat
Eriogonum
apricum
(
incl.
var.

prostratum)
Kneeland
Prairie
penny­
cress
Thlaspi
californicum
Ione
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia
Knieskern's
Beaked­
rush
Rhynchospora
knieskernii
Island
barberry
Berberis
pinnata
ssp.
insularis
Knowlton
cactus
Pediocactus
knowltonii
Island
bedstraw
Galium
buxifolium
Ko 
oko 
olau
Bidens
micrantha
ssp.
kalealaha
Island
malacothrix
Malacothrix
squalida
Ko 
oko 
olau
Bidens
wiebkei
Island
phacelia
Phacelia
insularis
ssp.
insularis
Ko 
oloa 
ula
Abutilon
menziesii
Island
rush­
rose
Helianthemum
greenei
Kodachrome
bladderpod
Lesquerella
tumulosa
Jesup's
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
robbinsii
var.
jesupi
Kohe
malama
malama
o
kanaloa
Kanaloa
kahoolawensis
Johnson's
seagrass
Halophila
johnsonii
Koki 
o
Kokia
drynarioides
Johnston's
frankenia
Frankenia
johnstonii
Koki 
o
Kokia
kauaiensis
Page
203
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Koki 
o
ke 
oke 
o
Hibiscus
arnottianus
ssp.
immaculatus
Leedy's
roseroot
Sedum
integrifolium
ssp.
leedyi
Koki 
o
ke 
oke 
o
Hibiscus
waimeae
ssp.
hannerae
Lewton's
polygala
Polygala
lewtonii
Kolea
Myrsine
juddii
Liliwai
Acaena
exigua
Kolea
Myrsine
linearifolia
Little
Aguja
(=
Creek)
pondweed
Potamogeton
clystocarpus
Kopa
Hedyotis
schlechtendahliana
var.
remyi
Little
amphianthus
Amphianthus
pusillus
Kral's
water­
plantain
Sagittaria
secundifolia
Lloyd's
Mariposa
cactus
Echinomastus
mariposensis
Kuahiwi
laukahi
Plantago
hawaiensis
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
affinis
Kuahiwi
laukahi
Plantago
princeps
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
kaalae
Kuawawaenohu
Alsinidendron
lychnoides
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
munroi
Kuenzler
hedgehog
cactus
Echinocereus
fendleri
var.
kuenzleri
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
napaliensis
Kula
wahine
noho
Isodendrion
pyrifolium
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
remota
Kulu 
i
Nototrichium
humile
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
schattaueri
La
Graciosa
thistle
Cirsium
loncholepis
Lo 
ulu
Pritchardia
viscosa
Laguna
Beach
liveforever
Dudleya
stolonifera
Loch
Lomond
coyote
thistle
Eryngium
constancei
Lake
County
stonecrop
Parvisedum
leiocarpum
Lompoc
yerba
santa
Eriodictyon
capitatum
Lakela's
mint
Dicerandra
immaculata
Longspurred
mint
Dicerandra
cornutissima
Lakeside
daisy
Hymenoxys
herbacea
Louisiana
quillwort
Isoetes
louisianensis
Lanai
sandalwood
(= 
iliahi)
Santalum
freycinetianum
var.
lanaiense
Lyon's
pentachaeta
Pentachaeta
lyonii
Lane
Mountain
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
jaegerianus
Lyrate
bladderpod
Lesquerella
lyrata
Large­
flowered
fiddleneck
Amsinckia
grandiflora
Ma 
oli 
oli
Schiedea
apokremnos
Large­
flowered
skullcap
Scutellaria
montana
Ma 
oli 
oli
Schiedea
kealiae
Large­
flowered
woolly
meadowfoam
Limnanthes
floccosa
ssp.
grandiflora
MacFarlane's
four­
o'clock
Mirabilis
macfarlanei
Large­
fruited
sand­
verbena
Abronia
macrocarpa
Maguire
daisy
Erigeron
maguirei
Last
Chance
townsendia
Townsendia
aprica
Maguire
primrose
Primula
maguirei
Lau
 
ehu
Panicum
niihauense
Mahoe
Alectryon
macrococcus
Laulihilihi
Schiedea
stellarioides
Makou
Peucedanum
sandwicense
Layne's
butterweed
Senecio
layneae
Malheur
wire­
lettuce
Stephanomeria
malheurensis
Leafy
prairie­
clover
Dalea
foliosa
Mancos
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
humillimus
Lee
pincushion
cactus
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
leei
Mann's
bluegrass
Poa
mannii
Page
204
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Many­
flowered
navarretia
Navarretia
leucocephala
ssp.
plieantha
Mountain
sweet
pitcher­
plant
Sarracenia
rubra
ssp.
jonesii
Mapele
Cyrtandra
cyaneoides
Munz's
onion
Allium
munzii
Marcescent
dudleya
Dudleya
cymosa
ssp.
marcescens
Na
Pali
beach
hedyotis
Hedyotis
st.­
johnii
Marin
dwarf­
flax
Hesperolinon
congestum
Na 
ena 
e
Dubautia
herbstobatae
Mariposa
pussypaws
Calyptridium
pulchellum
Na 
ena 
e
Dubautia
latifolia
Marsh
Sandwort
Arenaria
paludicola
Na 
ena 
e
Dubautia
pauciflorula
Mat­
forming
quillwort
Isoetes
tegetiformans
Na 
ena 
e
Dubautia
plantaginea
ssp.
humilis
Maui
remya
Remya
mauiensis
Nani
wai 
ale 
ale
Viola
kauaiensis
var.
wahiawaensis
Mauna
Loa
(=
Ka'u)
silversword
Argyroxiphium
kauense
Nanu
Gardenia
mannii
McDonald's
rock­
cress
Arabis
mcdonaldiana
Napa
bluegrass
Poa
napensis
Mead's
milkweed
Asclepias
meadii
Navajo
sedge
Carex
specuicola
Mehamehame
Flueggea
neowawraea
Navasota
ladies'­
tresses
Spiranthes
parksii
Menzies'
wallflower
Erysimum
menziesii
Nehe
Lipochaeta
fauriei
Mesa
Verde
cactus
Sclerocactus
mesae­
verdae
Nehe
Lipochaeta
kamolensis
Metcalf
Canyon
jewelflower
Streptanthus
albidus
ssp.
albidus
Nehe
Lipochaeta
lobata
var.
leptophylla
Mexican
flannelbush
Fremontodendron
mexicanum
Nehe
Lipochaeta
micrantha
Miccosukee
gooseberry
Ribes
echinellum
Nehe
Lipochaeta
tenuifolia
Michaux's
sumac
Rhus
michauxii
Nehe
Lipochaeta
waimeaensis
Michigan
monkey­
flower
Mimulus
glabratus
var.
michiganensis
Nellie
cory
cactus
Coryphantha
minima
Minnesota
dwarf
trout
lily
Erythronium
propullans
Nelson's
checker­
mallow
Sidalcea
nelsoniana
Missouri
bladderpod
Lesquerella
filiformis
Nevin's
barberry
Berberis
nevinii
Mohr's
Barbara
button
Marshallia
mohrii
Nichol's
Turk's
head
cactus
Echinocactus
horizonthalonius
var.

nicholii
Monterey
clover
Trifolium
trichocalyx
Nioi
Eugenia
koolauensis
Monterey
gilia
Gilia
tenuiflora
ssp.
arenaria
Nipomo
Mesa
lupine
Lupinus
nipomensis
Monterey
spineflower
Chorizanthe
pungens
var.
pungens
Nohoanu
Geranium
multiflorum
Morefield's
leather
flower
Clematis
morefieldii
North
Park
phacelia
Phacelia
formosula
Morro
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
morroensis
Northeastern
bulrush
Scirpus
ancistrochaetus
Mountain
golden
heather
Hudsonia
montana
Northern
wild
monkshood
Aconitum
noveboracense
Page
205
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Oha
Delissea
rivularis
Pelos
del
diablo
Aristida
portoricensis
Oha
Delissea
subcordata
Pendant
kihi
fern
Adenophorus
periens
Ohai
Sesbania
tomentosa
Penland
alpine
fen
mustard
Eutrema
penlandii
Okeechobee
gourd
Cucurbita
okeechobeensis
ssp.

okeechobeensis
Penland
beardtongue
Penstemon
penlandii
Olulu
Brighamia
insignis
Pennell's
bird's­
beak
Cordylanthus
tenuis
ssp.
capillaris
Opuhe
Urera
kaalae
Persistent
trillium
Trillium
persistens
Orcutt's
spineflower
Chorizanthe
orcuttiana
Peter's
Mountain
mallow
Iliamna
corei
Osterhout
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
osterhoutii
Pigeon
wings
Clitoria
fragrans
Otay
mesa­
mint
Pogogyne
nudiuscula
Pilo
Hedyotis
mannii
Otay
tarplant
Deinandra
(=
Hemizonia)
conjugens
Pima
pineapple
cactus
Coryphantha
scheeri
var.

robustispina
Pallid
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
pallida
Pine
Hill
ceanothus
Ceanothus
roderickii
Palma
de
manaca
Calyptronoma
rivalis
Pine
Hill
flannelbush
Fremontodendron
californicum
ssp.

decumbens
Palmate­
bracted
bird's
beak
Cordylanthus
palmatus
Pismo
clarkia
Clarkia
speciosa
ssp.
immaculata
Palo
Colorado
Ternstroemia
luquillensis
Pitcher's
thistle
Cirsium
pitcheri
Palo
de
Jazmin
Styrax
portoricensis
Pitkin
Marsh
lily
Lilium
pardalinum
ssp.
pitkinense
Palo
de
Nigua
Cornutia
obovata
Po 
e
Portulaca
sclerocarpa
Palo
de
Ramon
Banara
vanderbiltii
Pondberry
Lindera
melissifolia
Palo
de
Rosa
Ottoschulzia
rhodoxylon
Popolo
ku
mai
Solanum
incompletum
Pamakani
Tetramolopium
capillare
Prairie
bush­
clover
Lespedeza
leptostachya
Pamakani
Viola
chamissoniana
ssp.

chamissoniana
Presidio
clarkia
Clarkia
franciscana
Papery
whitlow­
wort
Paronychia
chartacea
Presidio
Manzanita
Arctostaphylos
hookeri
var.
ravenii
Parish's
daisy
Erigeron
parishii
Price's
potato­
bean
Apios
priceana
Pauoa
Ctenitis
squamigera
Pu 
uka 
a
Cyperus
trachysanthos
Pecos
(=
puzzle,
=
paradox)
sunflower
Helianthus
paradoxus
Pua
 
ala
Brighamia
rockii
Pedate
checker­
mallow
Sidalcea
pedata
Purple
amole
Chlorogalum
purpureum
Peebles
Navajo
cactus
Pediocactus
peeblesianus
peeblesianus
Pygmy
fringe­
tree
Chionanthus
pygmaeus
Peirson's
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
magdalenae
var.
peirsonii
Red
Hills
vervain
Verbena
californica
Page
206
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Relict
trillium
Trillium
reliquum
San
Francisco
Peaks
groundsel
Senecio
franciscanus
Roan
Mountain
bluet
Hedyotis
purpurea
var.
montana
San
Jacinto
Valley
crownscale
Atriplex
coronata
var.
notatior
Robust
(
incl.
Scotts
Valley)

spineflower
Chorizanthe
robusta
(
incl.
vars.
robusta
and
hartwegii)
San
Joaquin
adobe
sunburst
Pseudobahia
peirsonii
Rough
popcornflower
Plagiobothrys
hirtus
San
Joaquin
Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
inaequalis
Rough­
leaved
loosestrife
Lysimachia
asperulaefolia
San
Joaquin
wooly­
threads
Monolopia
(=
Lembertia)
congdonii
Round­
leaved
chaff­
flower
Achyranthes
splendens
var.
rotundata
San
Mateo
thornmint
Acanthomintha
obovata
ssp.
duttonii
Rugel's
pawpaw
Deeringothamnus
rugelii
San
Mateo
woolly
sunflower
Eriophyllum
latilobum
Running
buffalo
clover
Trifolium
stoloniferum
San
Rafael
cactus
Pediocactus
despainii
Ruth's
golden
aster
Pityopsis
ruthii
Sandlace
Polygonella
myriophylla
Sacramento
Mountains
thistle
Cirsium
vinaceum
Sandplain
gerardia
Agalinis
acuta
Sacramento
Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
viscida
Santa
Ana
River
woolly­
star
Eriastrum
densifolium
ssp.

sanctorum
Sacramento
prickly
poppy
Argemone
pleiacantha
ssp.
pinnatisecta
Santa
Barbara
Island
liveforever
Dudleya
traskiae
Salt
marsh
bird's­
beak
Cordylanthus
maritimus
ssp.
maritimus
Santa
Clara
Valley
dudleya
Dudleya
setchellii
San
Benito
evening­
primrose
Camissonia
benitensis
Santa
Cruz
cypress
Cupressus
abramsiana
San
Bernardino
bluegrass
Poa
atropurpurea
Santa
Cruz
Island
bush­
mallow
Malacothamnus
fasciculatus
var.

nesioticus
San
Bernardino
Mountains
bladderpod
Lesquerella
kingii
ssp.
bernardina
Santa
Cruz
Island
dudleya
Dudleya
nesiotica
San
Clemente
Island
broom
Lotus
dendroideus
ssp.
traskiae
Santa
Cruz
Island
fringepod
Thysanocarpus
conchuliferus
San
Clemente
Island
bush­
mallow
Malacothamnus
clementinus
Santa
Cruz
Island
malacothrix
Malacothrix
indecora
San
Clemente
Island
indian
paintbrush
Castilleja
grisea
Santa
Cruz
Island
rockcress
Sibara
filifolia
San
Clemente
Island
larkspur
Delphinium
variegatum
ssp.
kinkiense
Santa
Cruz
tarplant
Holocarpha
macradenia
San
Clemente
Island
woodland­
star
Lithophragma
maximum
Santa
Monica
Mountains
dudleyea
Dudleya
cymosa
ssp.
ovatifolia
San
Diego
ambrosia
Ambrosia
pumila
Santa
Rosa
Island
manzanita
Arctostaphylos
confertiflora
San
Diego
button­
celery
Eryngium
aristulatum
var.
parishii
Schweinitz's
sunflower
Helianthus
schweinitzii
San
Diego
mesa­
mint
Pogogyne
abramsii
Scotts
Valley
Polygonum
Polygonum
hickmanii
San
Diego
thornmint
Acanthomintha
ilicifolia
Scrub
blazingstar
Liatris
ohlingerae
San
Francisco
lessingia
Lessingia
germanorum
(=
L.
g.
var.

germanorum)
Scrub
buckwheat
Eriogonum
longifolium
var.

gnaphalifolium
Page
207
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Scrub
lupine
Lupinus
aridorum
Solano
grass
Tuctoria
mucronata
Scrub
mint
Dicerandra
frutescens
Sonoma
alopecurus
Alopecurus
aequalis
var.
sonomensis
Scrub
plum
Prunus
geniculata
Sonoma
spineflower
Chorizanthe
valida
Seabeach
amaranth
Amaranthus
pumilus
Sonoma
sunshine
Blennosperma
bakeri
Sebastopol
meadowfoam
Limnanthes
vinculans
South
Texas
ambrosia
Ambrosia
cheiranthifolia
Sensitive
joint­
vetch
Aeschynomene
virginica
Southern
mountain
wild­
buckwheat
Eriogonum
kennedyi
var.

austromontanum
Sentry
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
cremnophylax
var.

cremnophylax
Spalding's
Catchfly
Silene
spaldingii
Shale
barren
rock­
cress
Arabis
serotina
Spreading
avens
Geum
radiatum
Shivwitz
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
ampullarioides
Spreading
navarretia
Navarretia
fossalis
Short­
leaved
rosemary
Conradina
brevifolia
Spring
Creek
bladderpod
Lesquerella
perforata
Short's
goldenrod
Solidago
shortii
Spring­
loving
centaury
Centaurium
namophilum
Showy
Indian
clover
Trifolium
amoenum
Springville
clarkia
Clarkia
springvillensis
Showy
stickseed
Hackelia
venusta
St.
Thomas
prickly­
ash
Zanthoxylum
thomasianum
Shrubby
reed­
mustard
Schoenocrambe
suffrutescens
Star
cactus
Astrophytum
asterias
Siler
pincushion
cactus
Pediocactus
(=
Echinocactus,=
Utahia)

sileri
Stebbins'
morning­
glory
Calystegia
stebbinsii
Slender
Orcutt
grass
Orcuttia
tenuis
Suisun
thistle
Cirsium
hydrophilum
var.

hydrophilum
Slender
rush­
pea
Hoffmannseggia
tenella
Swamp
pink
Helonias
bullata
Slender­
horned
spineflower
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Telephus
spurge
Euphorbia
telephioides
Slender­
petaled
mustard
Thelypodium
stenopetalum
Tennessee
purple
coneflower
Echinacea
tennesseensis
Small
whorled
pogonia
Isotria
medeoloides
Tennessee
yellow­
eyed
grass
Xyris
tennesseensis
Small­
anthered
bittercress
Cardamine
micranthera
Terlingua
Creek
cat's­
eye
Cryptantha
crassipes
Small's
milkpea
Galactia
smallii
Texas
ayenia
Ayenia
limitaris
Smooth
coneflower
Echinacea
laevigata
Texas
poppy­
mallow
Callirhoe
scabriuscula
Snakeroot
Eryngium
cuneifolium
Texas
prairie
dawn­
flower
Hymenoxys
texana
Sneed
pincushion
cactus
Coryphantha
sneedii
var.
sneedii
Texas
snowbells
Styrax
texanus
Soft
bird's­
beak
Cordylanthus
mollis
ssp.
mollis
Texas
trailing
phlox
Phlox
nivalis
ssp.
texensis
Soft­
leaved
paintbrush
Castilleja
mollis
Texas
wild­
rice
Zizania
texana
Page
208
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Thread­
leaved
brodiaea
Brodiaea
filifolia
West
Indian
Walnut
Juglans
jamaicensis
Tiburon
jewelflower
Streptanthus
niger
Western
lily
Lilium
occidentale
Tiburon
mariposa
lily
Calochortus
tiburonensis
Western
prairie
fringed
orchid
Platanthera
praeclara
Tiburon
paintbrush
Castilleja
affinis
ssp.
neglecta
Wheeler's
peperomia
Peperomia
wheeleri
Tiny
polygala
Polygala
smallii
White
birds­
in­
a­
nest
Macbridea
alba
Tobusch
fishhook
cactus
Ancistrocactus
tobuschii
White
bladderpod
Lesquerella
pallida
Todsen's
pennyroyal
Hedeoma
todsenii
White
irisette
Sisyrinchium
dichotomum
Triple­
ribbed
milk­
vetch
Astragalus
tricarinatus
White
sedge
Carex
albida
Uhiuhi
Caesalpinia
kavaiense
White­
haired
goldenrod
Solidago
albopilosa
Uinta
Basin
hookless
Cactus
Sclerocactus
glaucus
White­
rayed
pentachaeta
Pentachaeta
bellidiflora
Ute
ladies'­
tresses
Spiranthes
diluvialis
Wide­
leaf
warea
Warea
amplexifolia
Uvillo
Eugenia
haematocarpa
Willamette
daisy
Erigeron
decumbens
var.
decumbens
Vahl's
boxwood
Buxus
vahlii
Willowy
monardella
Monardella
linoides
ssp.
viminea
Vail
Lake
ceanothus
Ceanothus
ophiochilus
Winkler
cactus
Pediocactus
winkleri
Steamboat
buckwheat
Eriogonum
ovalifolium
var.
williamsiae
Wireweed
Polygonella
basiramia
Ventura
Marsh
Milk­
vetch
Astragalus
pycnostachyus
var.

lanosissimus
Wright
fishhook
cactus
Sclerocactus
wrightiae
Verity's
dudleya
Dudleya
verityi
Yadon's
piperia
Piperia
yadonii
Vine
Hill
clarkia
Clarkia
imbricata
Yellow
larkspur
Delphinium
luteum
Virginia
round­
leaf
birch
Betula
uber
Yreka
phlox
Phlox
hirsuta
Virginia
sneezeweed
Helenium
virginicum
Zapata
bladderpod
Lesquerella
thamnophila
Virginia
spiraea
Spiraea
virginiana
Zuni
fleabane
Erigeron
rhizomatus
Wahane
Pritchardia
aylmer­
robinsonii
No
common
name
Abutilon
eremitopetalum
Walker's
manioc
Manihot
walkerae
No
common
name
Abutilon
sandwicense
water
howellia
Howellia
aquatilis
No
common
name
Achyranthes
mutica
Wawae 
iole
Huperzia
mannii
No
common
name
Alsinidendron
obovatum
Wawae 
iole
Lycopodium
(=
Phlegmariurus)
nutans
No
common
name
Alsinidendron
trinerve
Welsh's
milkweed
Asclepias
welshii
No
common
name
Alsinidendron
viscosum
Wenatchee
Mountains
checkermallow
Sidalcea
oregana
var.
calva
No
common
name
Amaranthus
brownii
Page
209
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
No
common
name
Adiantum
vivesii
No
common
name
Hedyotis
parvula
No
common
name
Auerodendron
pauciflorum
No
common
name
Hesperomannia
arborescens
No
common
name
Aristida
chaseae
No
common
name
Hesperomannia
arbuscula
No
common
name
Asplenium
fragile
var.
insulare
No
common
name
Hesperomannia
lydgatei
No
common
name
Bonamia
menziesii
No
common
name
Ilex
sintenisii
No
common
name
Calyptranthes
thomasiana
No
common
name
Lepanthes
eltoroensis
No
common
name
Catesbaea
melanocarpa
No
common
name
Leptocereus
grantianus
No
common
name
Chamaecrista
glandulosa
var.
mirabilis
No
common
name
Lipochaeta
venosa
No
common
name
Chamaesyce
halemanui
No
common
name
Lobelia
gaudichaudii
ssp.

koolauensis
No
common
name
Cordia
bellonis
No
common
name
Lobelia
monostachya
No
common
name
Cranichis
ricartii
No
common
name
Lobelia
niihauensis
No
common
name
Cyanea
(=
Rollandia)
crispa
No
common
name
Lobelia
oahuensis
No
common
name
Daphnopsis
hellerana
No
common
name
Lyonia
truncata
var.
proctorii
No
common
name
Delissea
rhytidosperma
No
common
name
Lysimachia
filifolia
No
common
name
Delissea
undulata
No
common
name
Lysimachia
lydgatei
No
common
name
Diellia
falcata
No
common
name
Lysimachia
maxima
No
common
name
Diellia
pallida
No
common
name
Mariscus
fauriei
No
common
name
Diellia
unisora
No
common
name
Mariscus
pennatiformis
No
common
name
Diplazium
molokaiense
No
common
name
Mitracarpus
maxwelliae
No
common
name
Elaphoglossum
serpens
No
common
name
Mitracarpus
polycladus
No
common
name
Eugenia
woodburyana
No
common
name
Munroidendron
racemosum
No
common
name
Gahnia
lanaiensis
No
common
name
Myrcia
paganii
No
common
name
Geocarpon
minimum
No
common
name
Neraudia
angulata
No
common
name
Gesneria
pauciflora
No
common
name
Neraudia
ovata
No
common
name
Gouania
hillebrandii
No
common
name
Neraudia
sericea
No
common
name
Gouania
meyenii
No
common
name
Nesogenes
rotensis
No
common
name
Gouania
vitifolia
No
common
name
Osmoxylon
mariannense
No
common
name
Hedyotis
degeneri
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
glabra
var.
lanaiensis
Page
210
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
hirsuta
No
common
name
Schiedea
spergulina
var.
spergulina
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
kaalaensis
No
common
name
Schiedea
verticillata
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
knudsenii
No
common
name
Schoepfia
arenaria
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
mannii
No
common
name
Silene
alexandri
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
mollis
No
common
name
Silene
hawaiiensis
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
parviflora
No
common
name
Silene
lanceolata
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
velutina
No
common
name
Silene
perlmanii
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
waimeae
No
common
name
Spermolepis
hawaiiensis
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
warshaueri
No
common
name
Stenogyne
angustifolia
var.

angustifolia
No
common
name
Phyllostegia
wawrana
No
common
name
Stenogyne
bifida
No
common
name
Platanthera
holochila
No
common
name
Stenogyne
campanulata
No
common
name
Poa
siphonoglossa
No
common
name
Stenogyne
kanehoana
No
common
name
Polystichum
calderonense
No
common
name
Tectaria
estremerana
No
common
name
Pteris
lidgatei
No
common
name
Ternstroemia
subsessilis
No
common
name
Remya
kauaiensis
No
common
name
Tetramolopium
arenarium
No
common
name
Remya
montgomeryi
No
common
name
Tetramolopium
filiforme
No
common
name
Sanicula
mariversa
No
common
name
Tetramolopium
lepidotum
ssp.

lepidotum
No
common
name
Sanicula
purpurea
No
common
name
Tetramolopium
remyi
No
common
name
Schiedea
haleakalensis
No
common
name
Tetramolopium
rockii
No
common
name
Schiedea
helleri
No
common
name
Thelypteris
inabonensis
No
common
name
Schiedea
hookeri
No
common
name
Thelypteris
verecunda
No
common
name
Schiedea
kauaiensis
No
common
name
Thelypteris
yaucoensis
No
common
name
Schiedea
kaalae
No
common
name
Trematolobelia
singularis
No
common
name
Schiedea
lydgatei
No
common
name
Vernonia
proctorii
No
common
name
Schiedea
membranacea
No
common
name
Vigna
o­
wahuensis
No
common
name
Schiedea
nuttallii
No
common
name
Viola
helenae
No
common
name
Schiedea
sarmentosa
No
common
name
Viola
lanaiensis
No
common
name
Schiedea
spergulina
var.
leiopoda
No
common
name
Viola
oahuensis
Page
211
of
241
Plants
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
No
common
name
Xylosma
crenatum
Reptiles
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alabama
red­
belly
turtle
Pseudemys
alabamensis
Island
night
lizard
Xantusia
riversiana
Alameda
whipsnake
(=
striped
racer)
Masticophis
lateralis
euryxanthus
Kemp's
ridley
sea
turtle
Lepidochelys
kempii
American
crocodile
Crocodylus
acutus
Lake
Erie
water
snake
Nerodia
sipedon
insularum
Atlantic
salt
marsh
snake
Nerodia
clarkii
taeniata
Leatherback
sea
turtle
Dermochelys
coriacea
Bluetail
mole
skink
Eumeces
egregius
lividus
Loggerhead
sea
turtle
Caretta
caretta
Blunt­
nosed
leopard
lizard
Gambelia
silus
Mona
boa
Epicrates
monensis
monensis
Bog
(=
Muhlenberg)
turtle
Clemmys
muhlenbergii
Mona
ground
Iguana
Cyclura
cornuta
stejnegeri
Coachella
Valley
fringe­
toed
lizard
Uma
inornata
Monito
gecko
Sphaerodactylus
micropithecus
Concho
water
snake
Nerodia
paucimaculata
New
Mexican
ridge­
nosed
rattlesnake
Crotalus
willardi
obscurus
Copperbelly
water
snake
Nerodia
erythrogaster
neglecta
Northern
redbelly
(=
Plymouth)

cooter
(=
turtle)
Pseudemys
rubriventris
bangsi
Culebra
Island
giant
anole
Anolis
roosevelti
Olive
ridley
sea
turtle
Lepidochelys
olivacea
Desert
tortoise
Gopherus
agassizii
Puerto
Rican
boa
Epicrates
inornatus
Eastern
indigo
snake
Drymarchon
corais
couperi
Ringed
map
turtle
Graptemys
oculifera
Flattened
musk
turtle
Sternotherus
depressus
San
Francisco
garter
snake
Thamnophis
sirtalis
tetrataenia
Giant
garter
snake
Thamnophis
gigas
Sand
skink
Neoseps
reynoldsi
Gopher
tortoise
Gopherus
polyphemus
St.
Croix
ground
lizard
Ameiva
polops
Green
sea
turtle
Chelonia
mydas
Virgin
Islands
tree
boa
Epicrates
monensis
granti
Hawksbill
sea
turtle
Eretmochelys
imbricata
Yellow­
blotched
map
turtle
Graptemys
flavimaculata
Snails
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Alamosa
springsnail
Tryonia
alamosae
Banbury
Springs
limpet
Lanx
spp.

Anthony's
riversnail
Athearnia
anthonyi
Bliss
Rapids
snail
Taylorconcha
serpenticola
Armored
snail
Pyrgulopsis
(=
Marstonia)
pachyta
Bruneau
Hot
springsnail
Pyrgulopsis
bruneauensis
Page
212
of
241
Snails
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Chittenango
ovate
amber
snail
Succinea
chittenangoensis
Painted
rocksnail
Leptoxis
taeniata
Cylindrical
lioplax
(
snail)
Lioplax
cyclostomaformis
Painted
snake
coiled
forest
snail
Anguispira
picta
Flat
pebblesnail
Lepyrium
showalteri
Plicate
rocksnail
Leptoxis
plicata
Flat­
spired
three­
toothed
snail
Triodopsis
platysayoides
Round
rocksnail
Leptoxis
ampla
Idaho
springsnail
Fontelicella
idahoensis
Royal
marstonia
(
snail)
Pyrgulopsis
ogmorhaphe
Iowa
Pleistocene
snail
Discus
macclintocki
Slender
campeloma
Campeloma
decampi
Kanab
ambersnail
Oxyloma
haydeni
kanabensis
Snake
River
physa
snail
Physa
natricina
Lacy
elimia
(
snail)
Elimia
crenatella
Socorro
springsnail
Pyrgulopsis
neomexicana
Magazine
Mountain
shagreen
Mesodon
magazinensis
Stock
Island
tree
snail
Orthalicus
reses
(
not
incl.

nesodryas)

Morro
shoulderband
(=
Banded
dune)

snail
Helminthoglypta
walkeriana
Tulotoma
snail
Tulotoma
magnifica
Newcomb's
snail
Erinna
newcombi
Tumbling
Creek
cavesnail
Antrobia
culveri
Noonday
snail
Mesodon
clarki
nantahala
Utah
valvata
snail
Valvata
utahensis
Oahu
tree
snails
Achatinella
spp.
Virginia
fringed
mountain
snail
Polygyriscus
virginianus
Page
213
of
241
APPENDIX
F.
Triadimefon
Papers
Accepted
by
ECOTOX
and
OPP/
EFED
38524
Riviere,
J.
L.,
Leroux,
P.,
Bach,
J.,
and
Gredt,
M.
(
1984)
Effect
of
Some
Ergosterol
Biosynthesis
Inhibiting
Fungicideson
Sterols
and
Cytochrome
P­
450
from
the
Japanese
Quail
Coturnix
coturnix.
Pestic.
Sci.
15:
317­
323
.

63983
Neil,
K.
A.,
Gaul,
S.
O.,
and
McRae,
K.
B.
(
1997)
Control
of
the
English
Grain
Aphid
[
Sitobion
avenae
(
F.)]
(
Homoptera:
Aphididae)
and
the
Oat­
Birdcherry
Aphid
[
Rhopalosiphum
padi
(
L.)]
(
Homoptera:
Aphididae)
on
Winter
Cereals.
Can.
Entomol.
129:
1079­
1091.

72042
Fisher,
D.
J.,
Pickard,
J.
A.,
and
McKenzie,
C.
M.
(
1979)
Uptake
of
the
Systemic
Fungicide
Triadimefon
by
Clover
and
Its
Effect
on
Symbiotic
Nitrogen
Fixation.
Pestic.
Sci.
10:
75­
82.

75052
Miyagawa,
M.,
Takasawa,
H.,
Sugiyama,
A.,
Inoue,
Y.,
Murata,
T.,
Uno,
Y.,
and
Yoshikawa,
K.
(
1995)
The
In
Vivo­
In
Vitro
Replicative
DNA
Synthesis
(
RDS)
Test
with
Hepatocytes
Prepared
from
Male
B6C3F1
Mice
as
an
Early
Prediction
Assay
for
Putative
Nongenotoxic
(
Ames­
negative)
Mouse
Hepatocarcinogens.
Mutat.
Res.
343:
157­
183.

75057
Umechuruba,
C.
I.
and
Nwachukwu,
E.
O.
(
1994)
Efficacy
of
Certain
Fungicides
Against
Seed­
Borne
Fungi
of
African
Yam
Bean
(
Sphenostylis
stenocarpa
(
Hochst
ex.
A.
Rich)
Harms)
Seeds.
Int.
J.
Pest
Manag.
40:
126­
131.

75266
Orth,
A.
B.
and
Sisler,
H.
D.
(
1991)
Cross­
Resistance
of
Terbinafine­
Resistant
Isolates
of
Ustilago
maydis
to
Sterol
Biosynthesis
Inhibitors.
7th
Int.
Congr.
Pestic.
Chem.,
Hamburg,
Germany,
Aug.
5­
10,1990,
Pestic.
Sci.
31:
96­
97.

75765
Carzaniga,
R.,
Carelli,
A.,
Farina,
G.,
Arnoldi,
A.,
and
Gozzo,
F.
(
1991)
Comparative
Antifungal
Effect
and
Mode
of
Action
of
Tetraconazole
on
Ustilago
maydis.
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
40:
274­
283.

75966
Wojdyla,
A.
T.
(
1999)
Chemical
Control
of
Rose
Diseases.
V.
Effectiveness
of
Fungicides
in
the
Control
of
Powdery
Mildew
on
Rose
cv
Mercedes
in
Greenhouse.
J.
Fruit
Ornam.
Plant
Res.
7:
47­
54.

76463
Hardwick,
N.
V.,
Jenkins,
J.
E.
E.,
Collins,
B.,
and
Groves,
S.
J.
(
1994)
Powdery
Mildew
(
Erysiphe
graminis)
on
Winter
Wheat:
Control
with
Fungicides
and
the
Effects
on
Yield.
Crop
Prot.
13:
93­
98.

76467
Barbetti,
M.
J.
(
1992)
Efficacy
of
Fungicides
for
Control
of
Phoma
Black
Stem
and
Pseudopeziza
Leaf
Spot,
and
the
Effects
on
Herbage
and
Seed
Production,
in
Annual
Medicago
polymorpha
var.
brevispina.
Plant
Prot.
Q.
7:
21­
22.
Page
214
of
241
76497
Guy,
S.
O.,
Oplinger,
E.
S.,
Wiersma,
D.
W.,
and
Grau,
C.
R.
(
1989)
Agronomic
and
Economic
Responses
of
Winter
Wheat
to
Foliar
Fungicides.
J.
Prod.
Agric.
2:
68­
73.

76504
Wulster,
G.
J.,
Gianfagna,
T.
J.,
and
Clarke,
B.
B.
(
1987)
Comparative
Effects
of
Ancymidol,
Propiconazol,
Triadimefon,
and
Mobay
RSW0411
on
Lily
Height.
Hortscience
22:
601­
602.

76505
Sutton,
J.
C.
(
1985)
Effectiveness
of
Fungicides
for
Managing
Foliar
Diseases
and
Promoting
Yields
of
Ontario
Winter
Wheat.
Phytoprotection
66:
141­
152.

76514
Marshall,
D.
and
Sutton,
R.
L.
(
1995)
Epidemiology
of
Stripe
Rust,
Virulence
of
Puccinia
striiformis
f.
sp.
hordei,
and
Yield
Loss
in
Barley.
Plant
Dis.
79:
732­
737.

76524
Elliott,
M.
L.
(
1999)
Effect
of
Demethylation
Inhibiting
Fungicides
on
'
Tifgreen'
Bermudagrass
Quality.
Horttechnology
9:
195­
197.

76881
Hakoi,
K.,
Cabral,
R.,
Hoshiya,
T.,
Hasegawa,
R.,
Shirai,
T.,
and
Ito,
N.
(
1992)
Analysis
of
Carcinogenic
Activity
of
Some
Pesticides
in
a
Medium­
Term
Liver
Bioassay
in
the
Rat.
Teratog.
Carcinog.
Mutagen.
12:
269­
276.

77519
Reeves,
R.,
Thiruchelvam,
M.,
Richfield,
E.
K.,
and
Cory­
Slechta,
D.
A.
(
2004)
The
Effect
of
Developmental
Exposure
to
the
Fungicide
Triadimefon
on
Behavioral
Sensitization
to
Triadimefon
During
Adulthood.
Toxicol.
Appl.
Pharmacol.
200:
54­
63.

77522
Babu,
T.
R.
and
Azam,
K.
M.
(
1987)
Toxicity
of
Different
Fungicides
to
Adult
Crytolaemus
montrouzieri
Mulsant
Coleoptera
Coccinellidae.
Crop
Prot.
6:
161­
162.

77529
Crofton,
K.
M.,
Boncek,
V.
M.,
and
Reiter,
L.
W.
(
1988
)
Hyperactivity
Induced
by
Triadimefon,
a
Triazole
Fungicide.
Fundam.
Appl.
Toxicol.
10:
459­
465.

77536
Reeves,
R.,
Thiruchelvam,
M.,
Richfield,
E.
K.,
and
Cory­
Slechta,
D.
A.
(
2003)
Behavioral
Sensitization
and
Long­
Term
Neurochemical
Alterations
Associated
with
the
Fungicide
Triadimefon.
Pharmacol.
Biochem.
Behav.
76:
315­
326.

77537
Reeves,
R.,
Thiruchelvam,
M.,
Baggs,
R.
B.,
and
Cory­
Slechta,
D.
A.
(
2003)
Interactions
of
Paraquat
and
Triadimefon:
Behavioral
and
Neurochemical
Effects.
Neurotoxicology
24:
839­
850.

77553
Walker,
Q.
D.,
Lewis,
M.
H.,
Crofton,
K.
M.,
and
Mailman,
R.
B.
(
1990)
Triadimefon,
a
Triazole
Fungicide,
Induces
Stereotyped
Behavior
and
Alters
Monoamine
Metabolism
in
Rats
.
Toxicol.
Appl.
Pharmacol.
102:
474­
485.
Page
215
of
241
77554
Khalil,
I.
A.
(
1996)
Biosynthetic
Artefacts
in
Crop
Plants
by
Systemic
Fungicides.
Agrochimica
40:
123­
131.

77555
Fletcher,
R.
A.,
Hofstra,
G.,
and
Gao,
J.
G.
(
1985)
Comparative
Fungitoxic
and
Plant
Growth
Regulating
Properties
of
Triazole
Derivatives.
Plant
Cell
Physiol.
27:
367­
371.

77556
Feng,
Z.,
Guo,
A.,
and
Feng,
Z.
(
2003)
Amelioration
of
Chilling
Stress
by
Triadimefon
in
Cucumber
Seedlings.
Plant
Growth
Regul.
39:
277­
283.

77572
Saxena,
D.
C.,
Abbas,
S.,
and
Sairam,
R.
K.
(
2000)
Chemical
Manipulation
of
Reproductive
Efficiency
of
Chickpea
(
Cicer
arietinnum
L.)
by
Triadimefon
in
Relation
to
Changes
in
Ethylene.
J.
Agron.
Crop
Sci.
185:
27­
32.

77574
El­
Beih,
N.
M.
(
1989)
Total
Lipids
and
Total
Cholesterol
in
Plasma
and
Liver
of
Normal
and
Fungicide
Treated
Rats.
Ann.
Agric.
Sci.(
Cairo)
34:
529­
538.

77575
El­
Beih,
N.
M.
(
1989)
Effect
of
Some
Fungicides
on
Body
Weight
Gain,
Food
Consumption,
Weight
of
Certain
Organs
and
Water
Content
of
the
Liver
in
Male
Rats.
Ann.
Agric.
Sci.(
Cairo)
34:
505­
515.

77576
El­
Beih,
N.
M.
(
1989)
Effect
of
Fungicides
on
Plasma
and
Liver
Phospholipids
in
Male
Rats.
Ann.
Agric.
Sci.(
Cairo)
34:
517­
527
.

77577
Leibovitch,
S.,
Ma,
B.
L.,
Maloba,
W.
E.,
and
Smith,
D.
L.
(
1992)
Spring
Barley
Responses
to
Row
Spacing
and
Fungicide
Triadimefon
in
Regions
with
a
Short
Crop­
Growing
Season.
J.
Agron.
Crop
Sci.
169:
209­
215.

77578
Ikaiddi,
M.
U.,
Akunne,
H.
C.,
and
Soliman,
K.
F.
A.
(
1997)
Behavioral
and
Neurochemical
Effects
of
Acute
and
Repeated
Administration
of
Triadimefon
in
the
Male
Rat.
Neurotoxicology
18:
771­
780.

77591
Sairam,
R.
K.,
Deshmukh,
P.
S.,
and
Shukla,
D.
S.
(
1991)
Effect
of
Triadimefon
and
Kinetin
on
Moisture­
Stress
Tolerance
in
Wheat
(
Triticum
aestivum).
Indian
J.
Agric.
Sci.
61:
102­
106.

77594
Dernoeden,
P.
H.,
Krusberg,
L.
R.,
and
Sardanelli,
S.
(
1990)
Fungicide
Effects
on
Acremonium
Endophyte,
Plant­
Parasitic
Nematodes,
and
Thatch
in
Kentucky
Bluegrass
and
Perennial
Ryegrass.
Plant
Dis.
74:
879­
881.

77613
Asare­
Boamah,
N.
K.
and
Fletcher,
R.
A.
(
1986)
Protection
of
Bean
Seedlings
Against
Heat
and
Chilling
Injury
by
Triadimefon.
Physiol.
Plant
67:
353­
358.

77619
Moser,
C.
V.
and
MacPhail,
R.
C.
(
1989)
Neurobehavioral
Effects
of
Triadimefon,
Page
216
of
241
a
Triazole
Fungicide,
in
Male
and
Female
Rats.
Neurotoxicol.
Teratol.
11:
285­
293.

77669
Sairam,
R.
K.,
Shukla,
D.
S.,
and
Deshmukh,
P.
S.
(
1995)
Effect
of
Triazole­
Triadimefon
on
Tolerance
to
Moisture
Stress
in
Wheat
(
Triticum
aestivum).
Indian
J.
Agric.
Sci.
65:
483­
489.

77670
Sailerova,
E.
and
Zwiazek,
J.
J.
(
1996)
Early
Effects
of
Triadimefon
on
Water
Relations,
Sterol
Composition
and
Plasma
Membrane
ATPase
in
White
Spruce
(
Picea
glauca)
Seedlings
.
Physiol.
Plant.
97:
747­
753.

77671
Khalil,
I.
A.,
Mercer,
E.
I.,
and
Wang,
Z.
X.
(
1990)
Effect
of
Triazole
Fungicides
on
the
Growth,
Chloroplast
Pigments
and
Sterol
Biosynthesis
of
Maize
(
Zea
mays
L.).
Plant
Sci.
66:
21­
28.

77672
Singh,
G.
R.,
Sharma,
S.
R.,
and
Anilkumar,
T.
B.
(
1986)
Effects
of
Biloxazol,
Carbendazim,
and
Triadimefon
on
Nodulation
and
Nitrogen
Fixation
in
Cowpea.
Zentralbl.
Mikrobiol.
141:
35­
37.

77673
Babu,
T.
H.
(
1988)
Effectiveness
of
Certain
Chemicals
and
Fungicides
on
the
Feeding
Behavior
of
House
Sparrows.
PAVO
26:
17­
24.

77675
Wright,
D.
and
Hughes,
L.
G.
(
1987)
Effects
of
Fungicide
Treatments
and
Variety
on
Development
Grain
Growth
and
Yield
of
Spring
Barley.
Ann.
Appl.
Biol.
111:
89­
102.

77679
Page­
Dumroese,
D.
S.,
Harvey,
A.
E.,
Jurgensen,
M.
F.,
and
Larsen,
M.
J.
(
1996)
Ponderosa
Pine
Seedling
Response
to
Planting­
Site
Soil
Fumigation
and
Fungicide
Application.
Northwest
Sci.
70:
139­
147.

77681
Potter,
L.
R.
and
Jones,
D.
I.
H.
(
1985)
The
Effect
of
Three
Fungicides
on
Yield
and
Quality
of
Perennial
and
Italian
Ryegrass.
Tests
Agrochem.
Cultiv.
6:
136­
137.

77683
Radford,
B.
J.
and
Wildermuth,
G.
B.
(
1987)
Effect
of
Sowing
Depth,
Seed
Dressings,
a
Press
Wheel,
Cultivars
and
Trifluralin
on
the
Establishment
of
Barley.
Aust.
J.
Exp.
Agric.
27:
579­
584.

77684
Vickerman,
G.
P.
and
Sotherton,
N.
W.
(
1983)
Effects
of
Some
Foliar
Fungicides
on
the
Chrysomelid
Beetle
Gastrophysa
polygoni
(
L.).
Pestic.
Sci.
14:
405­
411.

77686
Overton,
S.
V.,
Moore,
L.
D.,
Orcutt,
D.
M.,
Yoder,
K.
S.,
and
Meredith,
S.
A.
(
1988)
Influence
of
Sterol­
Inhibiting
Fungicides
on
the
Free
Sterol
and
Free
Fatty
Acid
Composition
of
Red
Delicious
and
Jonathan
Apple
Cultivars.
J.
Hortic.
Sci.
63:
183­
191.
Page
217
of
241
77687
Rajendiran,
K.
and
Ramanujam,
M.
P.
(
2003)
Alleviation
of
Ultraviolet­
B
Radiation­
Induced
Growth
Inhibition
of
Green
Gram
by
Triadimefon.
Biol.
Plant.
46:
621­
624.

77688
Bora,
K.
K.
and
Mathur,
S.
(
1991)
Physiological
Studies
on
the
Actions
of
Triadimefon
in
Desert
Plants:
II.
Role
on
Transpiration
in
Groundnut.
Biochem.
Physiol.
Pflanz.(
BPP)
187:
395­
400.
Page
218
of
241
APPENDIX
G.
Triadimefon
Papers
Accepted
by
ECOTOX
and
Rejected
by
OPP/
EFED
344
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
2000)
Pesticide
Ecotoxicity
Database
(
Formerly:
Environmental
Effects
Database
(
EEDB)).
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
U.
S.
EPA,
Washington,
D.
C.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
EFED
(
344)

895
Bailey,
T.
A.
and
Jeffrey,
S.
M.
(
1989)
Evaluation
of
215
Candidate
Fungicides
for
Use
in
Fish
Culture.
Invest.
Fish
Control
No.
99,
Fish
Wildl.
Serv.,
Bur.
Sport
Fish.
Wildl.,
U.
S.
D.
I.,
Washington,
D.
C.
9
p.
Rejection
Code
:
OK(
ANZ,
Captan,
CuOS,
CuOX,
CuS,
DBAC,
DIIS,
DLN,
DPHP,
DQTBr,
FML,
Folpe
t,
ILL,
KPM,
MEM,
NaPTN,
OYZ,
PPMH,
TBA,
TCMTB,
TFM,
THM,

31450
Banko,
T.
J.
(
1985)
Evaluation
of
Growth
Regulator
Effects
of
Embark,
Atrinal,
Blazer,
and
Bayleton
on
Container­
Grown
Azaleas.
J.
Environ.
Hortic.
3:
149­
152.
Rejection
Code
:
OK(
ACF),
NO
ENDPOINT(
TDF)

64951
Tuckey,
D.
M.,
Orcutt,
D.
M.,
and
Hipkins,
P.
L.
(
2002)
Inherent
and
Growth
Stage­
Related
Differences
in
Growth
and
Lipid
and
Sterol
Composition
of
Algal
Species
Sensitive
and
Tolerant
to
Sterol­
Inhibiting
Fungicides.
Environ.
Toxicol.
Chem.
21:
1715­
1723.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT,
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

66683
Ypema,
H.
L.,
Ypema,
M.,
and
Gubler,
W.
D.
(
1997)
Sensitivity
of
Uncinula
necator
to
Benomyl,
Triadimefon,
Myclobutanil,
and
Fenarimol
in
California.
Plant
Dis.
81:
293­
297.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

67127
Tanacs,
L.,
Matuz,
J.,
Csatlos,
I.,
and
Gero,
L.
(
1998)
Study
of
Fungicide
Residues
in
the
Grain
of
Fungicide­
Treated
Wheats
III.
Flusilazole,
Carbendazime,
Tebuconazole
and
Triadimefon­
Based
Fungicides.
Cereal
Res.
Commun.
26:
329­
336.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT,
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

67219
Mani,
M.
and
Krishnamoorthy,
A.
(
1996)
Response
of
the
Encyrtid
Parasitoid,
Tetracnemoidea
indica
of
the
Oriental
Mealybug
Planococcus
lilacinus
to
Different
Pesticides.
Indian
J.
Plant
Prot.
24:
80­
85.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

70301
Burpee,
L.
L.,
Mueller,
A.
E.,
and
Hannusch,
D.
J.
(
1990)
Control
of
Typhula
Blight
and
Pink
Snow
Mold
of
Creeping
Bentgrass
and
Residual
Suppression
of
Dollarspot
by
Triadimefon
and
Propiconazole.
Plant
Dis.
74:
687­
689.
Rejection
Code
:
TARGET(
PCZ,
TDF)
Page
219
of
241
70773
Venkatasubbaiah,
P.
and
Safeeulla,
K.
M.
(
1987)
Effect
of
Fungicidal
Treatments
on
Coffee
Seed
Germination.
Pesticides
21:
35­
36.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

74145
Khalil,
S.
K.,
Shah,
M.
A.,
and
Naeem,
M.
(
1985)
Laboratory
Studies
on
the
Compatibility
of
the
Entomopathogenic
Fungus
Verticillium
lecanii
with
Certain
Pesticides.
Agric.
Ecosyst.
Environ.
13:
329­
334.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

75156
Tronsmo,
A.
(
1989)
Effect
of
Fungicides
and
Insecticides
on
Growth
of
Botrytis
cinerea,
Trichoderma
viride
and
T.
harzianum.
Norw.
J.
Agric.
Sci.
3:
151­
156.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

75266
Orth,
A.
B.
and
Sisler,
H.
D.
(
1991)
Cross­
Resistance
of
Terbinafine­
Resistant
Isolates
of
Ustilago
maydis
to
Sterol
Biosynthesis
Inhibitors.
In:
7th
Int.
Congr.
Pestic.
Chem.,
Aug.
5­
10,
1990,
Hamburg,
Germany,
Pestic.
Sci.
31:
96­
97.
Rejection
Code
:
OK
TARGET(
PCZ,
TDF),
OK(
ALL
CHEMS)

75765
Carzaniga,
R.,
Carelli,
A.,
Farina,
G.,
Arnoldi,
A.,
and
Gozzo,
F.
(
1991)
Comparative
Antifungal
Effect
and
Mode
of
Action
of
Tetraconazole
on
Ustilago
maydis.
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
40:
274­
283.
Rejection
Code
:
LITE
EVAL
CODED(
TCZ),
OK(
ALL
CHEMS),
OK
TARGET(
PCZ,
TDF)

75964
Garavaglia,
C.,
Mirenna,
L.,
Puppin,
O.,
and
Spagni,
E.
(
1988)
M
14360,
a
New
Broad­
Spectrum
and
Versatile
Antifungal
Triazole.
In:
Brighton
Crop
Prot.
Conf.­
Pests
and
Dis.
1:
49­
56.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
TCZ,
PCZ,
FUZ,
HCZ,
BTN),
MIXTURE(
Captan),
TARGET(
TDF)

76452
Solomon,
M.
G.
and
Hooker,
K.
J.
M.
(
1989)
Chemical
Repellents
for
Reducing
Pesticide
Hazard
to
Honeybees
in
Apple
Orchards.
J.
Apic.
Res.
28:
223­
227.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

76462
Milus,
E.
A.
(
1994)
Effect
of
Foliar
Fungicides
on
Disease
Control,
Yield
and
Test
Weight
of
Soft
Red
Winter
Wheat.
Crop
Prot.
13:
291­
295.
Rejection
Code
:
LITE
EVAL
CODED(
PCZ),
OK(
TEZ),
NO
MIXTURE(
TDF,
MZB)

76474
Hoebaus,
E.
(
1989)
Active
Substances
and
Plant
Protection
Agents
Approved
for
Use
Against
Animal
Pests
in
Viticulture
Listed
by
Active
Substance
(
Wirkstoffe
und
Genehmigte
Pflanzenschutzmittel
Gegen
Tierische
Schadlinge
im
Weinbau
(
nach
Wirkstoffen
Geordnet)).
Pflanzenschutz
(
Vienna)
2:
12­
15
(
GER).
Page
220
of
241
Rejection
Code
:
NO
FOREIGN
76514
Marshall,
D.
and
Sutton,
R.
L.
(
1995)
Epidemiology
of
Stripe
Rust,
Virulence
of
Puccinia
striiformis
f.
sp.
hordei,
and
Yield
Loss
in
Barley.
Plant
Dis.
79:
732­
737.
Rejection
Code
:
LITE
EVAL
CODED(
PCZ),
OK(
TEZ,
FUZ),
NO
MIXTURE(
MZB,
TDF)

77570
Nielsen,
S.
L.
(
1987)
Chemicals
Tested
in
the
Laboratory
for
the
Control
of
Black
Current
Gall
Mite
(
Cecidophyopsis
ribis)
Westw.
Tidsskr.
Planteavl.
91:
89­
93.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL(
ALL
CHEMS)

77581
Edland,
T.
(
1994)
Side­
Effects
of
Fungicide
and
Insecticide
Sprays
on
Phytoseid
Mites
in
Apple
Orchards.
Norw.
J.
Agric.
Sci.
Suppl.
Suppl.
17:
195­
204.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL,
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

77582
Karikalan,
L.,
Rajah,
S.
N.,
Gopi,
R.,
Sujatha,
B.
M.,
and
Panneerselvam,
R.
(
1999)
Induction
of
Salt
Tolerants
by
Triadimefon
in
Pigeon
Pea
(
Cajanus
cajan
L.)
Millsp.
Indian
J.
Exp.
Biol.
37:
825­
829.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
MIXTURE(
TDF)

77588
Siddiqui,
Z.
S.
and
Ahmed,
S.
(
1996)
Effect
of
Systemic
Fungicides
on
Seed
Germination,
Seedling
Growth
and
Phenolic
Content
of
Vigna
radiata.
Pak.
J.
Bot.
28:
191­
193.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

77611
Johnson,
J.
W.,
Kriegel,
R.
D.,
and
Wise,
J.
C.
(
1996)
Grape
Season­
Long
Broad­
Spectrum
Control,
1995.
In:
A.
K.
Burditt,
Jr.(
Ed.),
Arthropod
Management
Tests,
Volume
21,
Entomol.
Soc.
of
Am.,
Lanham,
MD
63­
64.
Rejection
Code
:
OK(
CBL,
AZ),
NO
CONC(
TDF)

77627
Zelenkova,
J.
and
Hurka,
K.
(
1990)
Carabids
(
Col.,
Carabidae)
in
the
Epigeon
of
Pest
Management
Apple
Orchards
in
South
Bohemia.
Acta
Soc.
Zool.
Bohemoslov
54:
133­
145.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
ENDPOINT(
ALL
CHEMS)

77660
Rempel,
C.
B.
and
Hall,
R.
(
1995)
Effects
of
Time
and
Rate
of
Application
of
Triazole
Fungicides
on
Incidence
and
Severity
of
Blackleg
and
Growth
and
Yield
of
Canola.
Can.
J.
Plant
Sci.
75:
737­
743.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
CONTROL(
TDF)
Page
221
of
241
APPENDIX
H.
Triadimefon
Papers
Rejected
by
ECOTOX
(
1989).
RATE
OF
DISSIPATION
OF
TRIADIMEFON
AND
ITS
METABOLITE
IN
STRAWBERRY
FRUITS
AU
­
KEPCZYNSKA
EK.
FRUIT
SCI
REP
(
SKIERNIEWICE);
16
(
1).
1989.
17­
22.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

(
1990).
SYSTEMIC
FUNGICIDES
AS
ANTIFEEDANTS
A
CASE
STUDY
USING
ACYRTHOSIPHON­
PISUM
AU
­
EL­
BASSIOUNY
SA.
THIRD
INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM
ON
APHIDS,
KECSKEMET,
HUNGARY,
AUGUST
14­
19,
1989.
ACTA
PHYTOPATHOL
ENTOMOL
HUNG;
25
403­
410.
Rejection
Code:
NO
SOURCE.

ABBAS,
S.,
FLETCHER
RA,
and
MURR
DP
(
1989).
ALTERATION
OF
ETHYLENE
SYNTHESIS
IN
CUCUMBER
SEEDLINGS
BY
TRIADIMEFON.
CAN
J
BOT;
67
278­
280.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Aloi,
C.,
Gullino,
M.
L.,
and
Garibaldi,
A.
(
1991).
Reduced
Sensitivity
to
Fenarimol
and
Triadimefon
in
Field
Populations
of
Uncinula
necatrix.
7th
Int.
Congr.
Pestic.
Chem.,
Hamburg,
Germany,
Aug.
5­
10,1990,
Pestic.
Sci.
31:
114­
116.
Rejection
Code:
NO
DURATION.

ANON
(
1997).
Meeting
of
the
Plant
Protection
Association
of
India
on
Plant
Protection
towards
Sustainability
(
Hyderabad,
India;
December
22­
24,
1997).
INDIAN
JOURNAL
OF
PLANT
PROTECTION;
25
175­
223.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

ANON
(
1986).
SEED
TREATMENTS.
AGRICHEM
AGE;
30
8I,
8L.
Rejection
Code:
NO
SOURCE.

Anon.
(
Triadimefon.
PESTICIDE
RESIDUES
IN
FOOD
­­
1986.
EVALUATIONS
1986.
PART
1.
RESIDUES.,
1986,
pp.
279­
288,
FAO
Plant
Production
and
Protection
Paper
[
FAO
PLANT
PROD.
PROT.
PAP.],
vol.
78.
Rejection
Code:
FOOD.

Asami,
Tadao,
Mizutani,
Masaharu,
Shimada,
Yukihisa,
Goda,
Hideki,
Kitahata,
Nobutaka,
Sekimata,
Katsuhiko,
Han,
Sun­
Young,
Fujioka,
Shozo,
Takatsuto,
Suguru,
and
Sakata
et,
al.
(
2003).
Triadimefon,
a
fungicidal
triazole­
type
P450
inhibitor,
induces
brassinosteroid
deficiency­
like
phenotypes
in
plants
and
binds
to
DWF4
protein
in
the
brassinosteroid
biosynthesis
pathway.
The
Biochemical
Journal
369:
71­
76.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Athanasopoulos,
Panagiotis
E.,
Pappas,
Christos
J.,
and
Kyriakidis,
Nikolaos
V.
(
2003).
Page
222
of
241
Decomposition
of
myclobutanil
and
triadimefon
in
grapes
on
the
vines
and
during
refrigerated
storage.
Food
Chemistry
82:
367­
371.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Atwal,
A.
S.
(
1986).
Future
of
Pesticides
in
Plant
Protection.
Proc.
Indian
Natl.
Sci.
Acad.
Part
B
52:
77­
90.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

BABU,
E.
and
SINGH
VP
(
1992).
Triadimefon
ameliorated
cadmium
toxicity
in
wheat
seedlings.
INDIAN
J
PLANT
PHYSIOL;
35
195­
197.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

BAKER
EA,
HAYES
AL,
and
BUTLER
RC
(
1992).
Physicochemical
properties
of
agrochemicals:
Their
effects
on
foliar
penetration.
PESTIC
SCI;
34
167­
182.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Balasubramaniam,
R.
and
Gaunt,
R.
E.
(
1989).
The
Effect
of
Fungicide
Sprays
on
Root
Development,
Green
Leaf
Area
and
Yield
of
Wheat
in
the
Absence
of
Disease.
Plant
Prot.
Q.
4:
95­
97.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

BEAVIS,
C.,
SIMPSON,
P.,
SYME,
J.,
and
RYAN,
C.
(
1991).
QUEENSLAND
DEPARTMENT
OF
PRIMARY
INDUSTRIES
INFORMATION
SERIES
QI91006.
INFOPEST
CHEMICALS
FOR
THE
PROTECTION
OF
FIELD
CROPS
FORAGE
CROPS
AND
PASTURES
2ND
EDITION.
BEAVIS,
C.,
P.
SIMPSON,
J.
SYME
AND
C.
RYAN.
QUEENSLAND
DEPARTMENT
OF
PRIMARY
INDUSTRIES
INFORMATION
SERIES,
QI91006.
INFOPEST:
CHEMICALS
FOR
THE
PROTECTION
OF
FIELD
CROPS,
FORAGE
CROPS
AND
PASTURES,
2ND
EDITION.
VI+
312P.
QUEENSLAND
DEPARTMENT
OF
PRIMARY
INDUSTRIES:
BRISBANE,
QUEENSLAND,
AUSTRALIA.
PAPER.
ISBN
0­
7242­
3985­
5.;
0
VI+
312P.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Berglof,
T.,
Koskinen,
W.
C.,
Kylin,
H.,
and
Moorman,
T.
B.
(
Characterization
of
triadimefon
sorption
in
soils
using
supercritical
fluid
(
SFE)
and
accelerated
solvent
(
ASE)
extraction
techniques.
Pest
Management
Science,
56
(
10)
pp.
927­
931,
2000.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Bhushan,
B.
and
Hoondal,
G.
S.
(
1999).
Effect
of
Fungicides,
Insecticides
and
Allosamidin
on
a
Thermostable
Chitinase
from
Bacillus
sp.
BG­
11.
World
J.
Microbiol.
Biotechnol.
15:
403­
404.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.

BONHAM­
SMITH
PC,
KAPOOR,
M.,
and
BEWLEY
JD
(
1988).
EXOGENOUS
Page
223
of
241
APPLICATION
OF
ABSCISIC
ACID
OR
TRIADIMEFON
AFFECTS
THE
RECOVERY
OF
ZEA­
MAYS
SEEDLINGS
FROM
HEAT
SHOCK.
PHYSIOL
PLANT;
73
27­
30.
Rejection
Code:
NO
EFFECT.

BRAMAN
SK,
OETTING
RD,
and
FLORKOWSKI,
W.
(
1997).
Assessment
of
pesticide
use
by
commercial
landscape
maintenance
and
lawn
care
firms
in
Georgia.
JOURNAL
OF
ENTOMOLOGICAL
SCIENCE;
32
403­
411.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Brattsten,
L.
B.,
Berger,
D.
A.,
and
Dungan,
L.
B.
(
1994).
In
vitro
inhibition
of
midgut
microsomal
P450s
from
Spodoptera
eridania
caterpillars
by
demethylation
inhibitor
fungicides
and
plant
growth
regulators.
Pesticide
Biochemistry
and
Physiology
[
PESTIC.
BIOCHEM.
PHYSIOL.]
48:
234­
243.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

Brattsten,
L.
B.,
Berger,
D.
A.,
and
Dungan,
L.
B.
(
1994).
In
Vitro
Inhibition
of
Midgut
Microsomal
P450s
from
Spodoptera
eridania
Caterpillars
by
Demethylation
Inhibitor
Fungicides
and
Plant
Growth
Regulators.
Pestic.
Biochem.
Physiol.
48:
234­
243.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

BROMILOW
RH,
EVANS
AA,
NICHOLLS
PH,
TODD
AD,
and
BRIGGS
GG
(
1996).
The
effect
on
soil
fertility
of
repeated
applications
of
pesticides
over
20
years.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE;
48
63­
72.
Rejection
Code:
NO
SPECIES.

BURPEE
LL
and
GOULTY
LG
(
1989).
NEW
APPROACHES
TO
DISEASE
CONTROL
IN
TURF
GRASSES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
CANADIAN
PEST
MANAGEMENT
SOCIETY,
LONDON,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
JUNE
22­
26,
1987.
CAN
J
PLANT
SCI;
69
263.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

CABRAS,
P.,
ANGIONI,
A.,
GARAU
VL,
MINELLI
EV,
MELIS,
M.,
and
PIRISI
FM
(
1997).
Pesticides
in
the
distilled
spirits
of
wine
and
its
byproducts.
JOURNAL
OF
AGRICULTURAL
AND
FOOD
CHEMISTRY;
45
2248­
2251.
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.

Cabras,
P.,
Cabitza,
F.,
Meloni,
M.,
and
Maria
Pirisi,
F.
(
1985).
Behavior
of
some
pesticide
residues
on
greenhouse
tomatoes.
2.
Fungicides,
acaricides,
and
insecticides.
Journal
of
Agricultural
and
Food
Chemistry
[
J.
AGRIC.
FOOD
CHEM.]
33:
935­
937.
Rejection
Code:
HUMAN
HEALTH.

Carrion,
G.,
Ruiz­
Beilin,
F.,
and
Alarcon­
Mora,
R.
(
1990).
Effect
of
Triadimefon
and
Copper
Oxychloride
on
In
Vitro
Growth
or
Verticillium
Lecanii.
Rev.
Mex.
Micol.
6:
85­
90.
Page
224
of
241
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

Celik,
I.,
Camas,
H.,
Arslan,
O.,
and
Kuefrevioglu,
O.
e.
I.
(
The
effects
of
some
pesticides
on
human
and
bovine
erythrocyte
carbonic
anhydrase
enzyme
activities
in
vitro.
J.
Environ.
Sci.
Health,
Part
A:
Environ.
Sci.
Eng.
Toxic
Hazard.
Subst.
Control,
vol.
A31,
no.
10,
pp.
2651­
2657,
1996.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

COHEN,
S.,
SVRJCEK,
A.,
DURBOROW,
T.,
and
BARNES
NL
(
1999).
Water
quality
impacts
by
golf
courses.
JOURNAL
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
QUALITY;
28
798­
809.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Cox,
W.
J.,
Bergstrom,
G.
C.,
Reid,
W.
S.,
Sorrells,
M.
E.,
and
Otis,
D.
J.
(
1989).
Fungicide
and
Nitrogen
Effects
on
Winter
Wheat
Under
Low
Foliar
Disease
Severity.
Crop
Sci.
29:
164­
170.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Crofton,
K.
M.
(
1996).
A
structure­
activity
relationship
for
the
neurotoxicity
of
triazole
fungicides.
Toxicology
Letters
[
TOXICOL.
LETT.]
84:
155­
159.
Rejection
Code:
QSAR.

Da
Silva,
J.
P.
and
Da
Silva,
A.
M.
(
Comparative
study
of
the
dissipation
of
triadimefon
in
greenhouse
and
field
conditions.
Toxicological
and
Environmental
Chemistry,
66
(
1­
4)
pp.
229­
236,
1998.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Da
Silva,
J
P,
Da
Silva,
A
M,
and
Khmelinskii,
I
V
(
2001).
Dissipation
of
triadimefon
on
the
solid/
gas
interface.
Chemosphere
45:
875­
880.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Daamen,
R.
A.,
Wijnands,
F.
G.,
and
Van
der
Vliet,
G.
(
1989).
Epidemics
of
Diseases
and
Pests
of
Winter
Wheat
at
Different
Levels
of
Agrochemical
Input:
A
Study
on
the
Possibilities
for
Designing
an
Integrated
Cropping
System.
J.
Phytopathol.
125:
305­
319.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

DAVIES
ML
(
1986).
ADAS
VEGETABLE
RESEARCH
IN
THE
UK.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
SOCIETE
CANADIENNE
DE
PHYTOPATHOLOGIE
(
CANADIAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY),
SASKATOON,
SASKATCHEWAN,
CANADA,
JULY
27­
30,
1986.
CAN
J
PLANT
PATHOL;
8
(
3).
1986
(
RECD.
1987).
348­
349.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

DINGMAN
DW
(
1993).
EFFECT
OF
TURF
PESTICIDES
ON
THE
ENTOMOPATHOGEN
BACILLUS­
POPILLIAE.
93RD
GENERAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
Page
225
of
241
SOCIETY
FOR
MICROBIOLOGY,
ATLANTA,
GEORGIA,
USA,
MAY
16­
20,
1993.
ABSTR
GEN
MEET
AM
SOC
MICROBIOL;
93
423.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT,
BACTERIA.

DORN,
F.,
PFIFFNER,
A.,
and
SCHLAGETER,
M.
(
1990).
SYNTHESIS
OF
NOVEL
PYRIDINE
FUNGICIDES.
BAKER,
D.
R.,
J.
G.
FENYES
AND
W.
K.
MOBERG
(
ED.).
ACS
(
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY)
SYMPOSIUM
SERIES,
443.
SYNTHESIS
AND
CHEMISTRY
OF
AGROCHEMICALS
II;
MEETING.
XIII+
609P.
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY:
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
8412­
1885­
4.;
0
(
0).
1990
(
1991).
506­
514.
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.

ERDMANN,
F.,
BROSE,
C.,
and
SCHUETZ,
H.
(
1990).
A
TLC
screening
program
for
170
commonly
used
pesticide
using
the
corrected
Rf
value
(
Rcf
value).
INT
J
LEG
MED;
104
25­
32.
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.

EVERTS
KL
and
LEATH,
S.
(
1991).
EFFECT
OF
TRIADIMENOL
SEED
TREATMENT
AND
TIMING
OF
TRIADIMEFON
SPRAYS
ON
POWDERY
MILDEW
LEAF
RUST
AND
YIELD
OF
WINTER
WHEAT.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
SOUTHERN
DIVISION,
RALEIGH,
NORTH
CAROLINA,
USA,
MARCH
24­
26,
1991.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
81
811.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

FARRIS
GA,
FATICHENTI,
F.,
CABRAS,
P.,
MELONI,
M.,
and
PIRISI
FM
(
1989).
FLOR­
YEAST
AND
FUNGICIDE
INTERACTIONS.
SCI
ALIMENTS;
9
553­
560.
Rejection
Code:
YEAST.

Feng,
Z.,
Wang,
J.,
and
Feng,
Z.
(
2003).
Effect
of
Triadimefon
on
Cucumber
Seedlings
Growth
and
Their
Resistance
to
Chilling
Injury.
J.
Appl.
Ecol.(
Ying
Yong
Sheng
Tai
Xue
Bao)
14:
1637­
1640
(
CHI).
Rejection
Code:
NON­
ENGLISH.

Feng,
Z.
Z.,
Guo,
A.
H.,
and
Feng,
Z.
W.
(
Delay
of
senescence
of
detached
cucumber
cotyledons
by
triadimefon.
Biologia
Plantarum,
46
(
4)
pp.
571­
575,
2003.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

Feng,
Zhaozhong,
Wang,
Jing,
and
Feng,
Zongwei
(
2002).
Effect
of
triadimefon
on
activity
of
peroxidase
and
soluble
protein
content
in
detached
cucumber
cotyledons.
Huan
Jing
Ke
Xue=
Huanjing
Kexue
/
[
Bian
Ji,
Zhongguo
Ke
Xue
Yuan
Huan
Jing
Ke
Xue
Wei
Yuan
Hui
"
Huan
Jing
Ke
Xue"
Bian
Ji
Wei
Yuan
Hui.]
23:
126­
128.
Rejection
Code:
NON­
ENGLISH.

FLETCHER
RA
and
HOFSTRA,
G.
(
1985).
TRIADIMEFON
A
PLANT
Page
226
of
241
MULTI­
PROTECTANT.
PLANT
CELL
PHYSIOL;
26
775­
780.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

FUEHR,
F.
(
1986).
UPTAKE
AND
TRANSLOCATION
OF
CARBON­
14­
LABELED
FUNGICIDES
IN
CEREALS
MACRO
AND
MICROAUTORADIOGRAPHIC
STUDIES.
GREEN,
M.
B.
AND
D.
A.
SPILKER
(
ED.).
ACS
(
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY)
SYMPOSIUM
SERIES,
304.
FUNGICIDE
CHEMISTRY:
ADVANCES
AND
PRACTICAL
APPLICATIONS;
SYMPOSIUM
PRESENTED
AT
THE
188TH
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY,
PHILADELPHIA,
PA.,
USA,
AUG.
26­
31,
1984.
VII+
173P.
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY:
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
8412­
0963­
4.;
0
(
0).
1986.
53­
72.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

FUKAL,
L.
and
KAS,
J.
(
1989).
THE
ADVANTAGES
OF
IMMUNOASSAY
IN
FOOD
ANALYSIS.
TRENDS
ANAL
CHEM;
8
112­
116.
Rejection
Code:
FOOD.

GASPAROTTO,
L.
and
LIMA,
M.
I.
PM
(
1991).
RESEARCH
ON
SOUTH
AMERICAN
LEAF
BLIGHT
MICROCYCLUS­
ULEI
OF
RUBBER
IN
BRAZIL.
INDIAN
J
NAT
RUBBER
RES;
4
83­
90.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

Gopi,
R.,
Sujatha,
B.
M.,
Rajan,
S.
N.,
Karikalan,
L.,
and
Panneerselvam,
R.
(
1999).
Effect
of
triadimefon
in
the
sodium
chloride
stressed
cowpea
(
Vigna
unguiculata)
seedlings.
Indian
Journal
of
Agricultural
Sciences,
69
(
10)
pp.
743­
745,
1999
69:
743­
745.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

GRAYSON
BT
and
KLEIER
DA
(
1990).
Phloem
mobility
of
xenobiotics:
IV.
Modelling
of
pesticide
movement
in
plants.
PESTIC
SCI;
30
67­
80.
Rejection
Code:
MODELING.

GROVE
IG,
FAIR,
P.,
and
MOSS
SR
(
1996).
EVALUATION
OF
ISOPROTURON
AND
FUNGICIDE
MIXTURES
FOR
THE
CONTROL
OF
HERBICIDE
RESISTANT
BLACK­
GRASS
ALOPECURUS
MYOSUROIDES.
TESTS
OF
AGROCHEMICALS
AND
CULTIVARS;
0
8­
9.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

GUNDERSHEIM
NA
and
WOLFE
DW
(
1992).
REACTION
OF
SEEDLESS
AND
POLLINATOR
WATERMELONS
TO
BACTERIAL
RIND
NECROSIS
AU
­
ZITTER
TA.
WYSONG,
D.
S.
(
ED.).
BIOLOGICAL
AND
CULTURAL
TESTS
FOR
CONTROL
OF
PLANT
DISEASES,
VOL.
7.
III+
137P.
APS
PRESS:
ST.
PAUL,
MINNESOTA,
USA.
PAPER.;
0
(
0).
1992.
27.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.
Page
227
of
241
HAGAN
AK
and
GUDAUSKAS
RT
(
1986).
TANK
MIXES
OF
MANCOZEB
WITH
TRIADIMEFON
OR
PROPICONAZOLE
FOR
FOLIAR
DISEASE
CONTROL
ON
WHEAT.
1986
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
AND
OF
THE
CARIBBEAN
AND
SOUTHERN
DIVISIONS,
KISSIMMEE,
FLORIDA,
USA,
AUGUST
10­
14,
1986.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
76
1060.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Hai
Qiu
Tang,
Hu,
J.,
Yang,
L.,
and
Ren
Xiang
Tan
(
Terpenoids
and
flavonoids
from
Artemisia
species.
Planta
Medica,
66
(
4)
pp.
391­
393,
2000.
Rejection
Code:
BIOLOGICAL
TOXICANT.

Haith,
Douglas
A
and
Rossi,
Frank
S
(
Risk
assessment
of
pesticide
runoff
from
turf.
Journal
Of
Environmental
Quality
32:
447­
455.
Rejection
Code:
EFFLUENT.

Hakoi,
K.,
Cabral,
R.,
Hoshiya,
T.,
Hasegawa,
R.,
Shirai,
T.,
and
Ito,
N.
(
1992).
Analysis
of
Carcinogenic
Activity
of
Some
Pesticides
in
a
Medium­
Term
Liver
Bioassay
in
the
Rat.
Teratog.
Carcinog.
Mutagen.
12:
269­
276.;
Habitat:
T;
Effect
Codes:
PHY,
CEL;
Rejection
Code:
LITE
EVAL
CODED(
CYP,
TDF),
OK(
ALL
CHEMS).

HART
MR
and
BROOKES
PC
(
1996).
Effects
of
two
ergosterol­
inhibiting
fungicides
on
soil
ergosterol
and
microbial
biomass.
SOIL
BIOLOGY
AND
BIOCHEMISTRY;
28
885­
892.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.

Hoebaus,
E.
(
1989).
Active
Substances
and
Plant
Protection
Agents
Approved
for
Use
Against
Animal
Pests
in
Viticulture
Listed
by
Active
Substance
(
Wirkstoffe
und
Genehmigte
Pflanzenschutzmittel
Gegen
Tierische
Schadlinge
im
Weinbau
(
nach
Wirkstoffen
Geordnet)).
Pflanzenschutz
(
Vienna)
2:
12­
15
(
GER).
Rejection
Code:
NON­
ENGLISH.

HUESKES,
R.
and
LEVSEN,
K.
(
1997).
Pesticides
in
rain.
CHEMOSPHERE;
35
3013­
3024.
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.

Hurley,
P.
M.,
Hill,
R.
N.,
and
Whiting,
R.
J.
(
1998).
Mode
of
Carcinogenic
Action
of
Pesticides
Inducing
Thyroid
Follicular
Cell
Tumors
in
Rodents.
Environ.
Health
Perspect.
106:
437­
445.
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

Iesce,
Maria
Rosaria,
Graziano,
Maria
Liliana,
Cermola,
Flavio,
Montella,
Stefania,
di
Gioia,
Lucrezia,
and
Stasio,
Ciriaco
(
2003).
Effects
of
sensitizers
on
the
photodegradation
of
the
systemic
fungicide
triadimenol.
Chemosphere
51:
163­
166.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.
Page
228
of
241
INT
CONGR
PESTIC
CHEM
(
1991).
7TH
INTERNATIONAL
CONGRESS
OF
PESTICIDE
CHEMISTRY
HAMBURG
GERMANY
AUGUST
5­
10
1990.
PESTIC
SCI;
31
91­
128.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Ito,
N.,
Hagiwara,
A.,
Tamano,
S.,
Futacuchi,
M.,
Imaida,
K.,
and
Shirai,
T.
(
1996).
Effects
of
Pesticide
Mixtures
at
the
Acceptable
Daily
Intake
Levels
on
Rat
Carcinogenesis.
Food
Chem.
Toxicol.
34:
1091­
1096.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

JAYASINGHE
CK
and
WIJESUNDERA,
R.
LC
(
1995).
In
vitro
evaluation
of
fungicides
against
clove
isolate
of
Cylindrocladium
quinqueseptatum
in
Sri
Lanka.
INTERNATIONAL
JOURNAL
OF
PEST
MANAGEMENT;
41
219­
223.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

Jones,
P.
(
1997).
Control
of
Loose
Smut
(
Ustilago
nuda
and
U.
tritici)
Infections
in
Barley
and
Wheat
Plants
by
Foliar
Application
of
Triadimefon.
Plant
Pathol.
46:
946­
951.
Rejection
Code:
NO
CONC.

KALAMARAKIS
AE,
DEMOPOULOS
VP,
ZIOGAS
BN,
and
GEORGOPOULOS
SG
(
1989).
A
highly
mutable
major
gene
for
triadimenol
resistance
in
Nectria
haematococca
var.
cucurbitae.
NETH
J
PLANT
PATHOL;
95
109­
120.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Kara,
M.
and
Celik,
I.
(
Effects
of
some
fungicides
on
activity
of
eight
serum
enzymes
in
vitro.
Journal
of
Environmental
Science
and
Health,
Part
A:
Environmental
Science
and
Engineering
&
Toxic
and
Hazardous
Substance
Control
[
J.
Environ.
Sci.
Health,
Part
A:
Environ.
Sci.
Eng.
Toxic
Hazard.
Subst.
Control],
vol.
A32,
no.
5,
pp.
1377­
1382,
1997.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

KAWANISHI
CY,
ZUCKER,
R.,
ANDREWS,
J.,
and
MARTIN,
P.
(
1999).
Branchial
arch
outgrowth
and
Triadimefon­
induced
cranial
nerve
defects.
58TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
SOCIETY
FOR
DEVELOPMENTAL
BIOLOGY,
CHARLOTTESVILLE,
VIRGINIA,
USA,
JUNE
13­
18,
1999.
YDEVELOPMENTAL
BIOLOGY;
210
236.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

KELLEY
WD
and
RUNION
GB
(
1988).
EFFECT
OF
TRIADIMEFON
SEED
TREATMENT
PLUS
FOLIAR
SPRAYS
ON
CONTROL
OF
FUSIFORM
RUST
ON
LOBLOLLY
SEEDLINGS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
AND
THE
PACIFIC
DIVISION,
SAN
DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
13­
17,
1988.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
78
1606.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Kevekordes,
S.,
Gebel,
T.,
Pav,
K.,
Edenharder,
R.,
and
Dunkelberg,
H.
(
1996).
Genotoxicity
of
selected
pesticides
in
the
mouse
bone­
marrow
micronucleus
test
and
in
the
Page
229
of
241
sister­
chromatid
exchange
test
with
human
lymphocytes
in
vitro.
Toxicology
Letters
[
Toxicol.
Lett.]
89:
35­
42.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

KHALIL
IA
and
MERCER
EI
(
1990).
Effect
of
some
sterol­
biosynthesis­
inhibiting
fungicides
on
the
biosynthesis
of
polyisoprenoid
compounds
in
winter
wheat
seedlings.
PHYTOCHEMISTRY
(
OXF);
29
417­
424.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Knaak,
J.
B.,
Yee,
K.,
Ackerman,
C.
R.,
Zweig,
G.,
and
Wilson,
B.
W.
(
1984).
Percutaneous
absorption
of
triadimefon
in
the
adult
and
young
male
and
female
rat.
Toxicology
and
Applied
Pharmacology
[
TOXICOL.
APPL.
PHARMACOL.]
72:
406­
416.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

KOELLER,
W.
(
1989).
STEROL
DEMETHYLATION
INHIBITORS
MECHANISM
OF
ACTION
AND
RESISTANCE.
DELP,
C.
J.
(
ED.).
FUNGICIDE
RESISTANCE
IN
NORTH
AMERICA;
WORKSHOP,
UNIVERSITY
PARK,
PENNSYLVANIA,
USA,
SEPTEMBER
20­
25,
1987.
V+
133P.
APS
PRESS:
ST.
PAUL
MINNESOTA,
USA.
ILLUS.
PAPER.
ISBN
0­
89054­
095­
0.;
0
(
0).
1989.
79­
88.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

KONTAXIS
DG
(
1985).
CHEMICAL
CONTROL
OF
POWDERY
MILDEW
ON
SUNFLOWER
HELIANTHUS­
ANNUUS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
RENO,
NEVADA,
USA,
AUG.
11­
15,
1985.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
75
1346.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

KURATA,
Y.,
SHIBATA
M­
A,
MIYATA,
E.,
HASEGAWA,
R.,
and
ITO,
N.
(
1993).
EVALUATION
OF
CARCINOGENICITY
OF
PESTICIDES
IN
A
MEDIUM­
TERM
LIVER
CARCINOGENICITY
BIOASSAY.
20TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
JAPANESE
SOCIETY
OF
TOXICOLOGICAL
SCIENCES,
CHIBA,
JAPAN,
JULY
29­
30,
1993.
JOURNAL
OF
TOXICOLOGICAL
SCIENCES;
18
418.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Lamb,
D
C,
Cannieux,
M,
Warrilow,
A
G,
Bak,
S,
Kahn,
R
A,
Manning,
N
J,
Kelly,
D
E,
and
Kelly,
S
L
(
2001).
Plant
sterol
14
alpha­
demethylase
affinity
for
azole
fungicides.
Biochemical
And
Biophysical
Research
Communications
284:
845­
849.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

LATIN
RX
(
1993).
OCCURRENCE
OF
CLEISTOTHECIA
OF
SPHAEROTHECA­
FULIGINEA
ON
PUMPKIN
IN
INDIANA.
PLANT
DIS;
77
647.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Lee
Wai­
on
and
Wong
Siu­
kay
(
Simple
and
rapid
method
for
simultaneous
gas
chromatographic
Page
230
of
241
determination
of
bitertanol,
metalaxyl,
oxadixyl,
propiconazole,
and
triadimefon
residues
in
cucumbers.
Analyst,
120
(
10)
pp.
2475­
2478,
1995.
Rejection
Code:
METHODS.

LILJA,
A.,
LILJA,
S.,
KURKELA,
T.,
and
RIKALA,
R.
(
1997).
Nursery
practices
and
management
of
fungal
diseases
in
forest
nurseries
in
Finland.
A
review.
SILVA
FENNICA;
31
79­
100.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

LO
CC
and
LEE
TL
(
1989).
EFFECTS
OF
ADJUVANTS
ON
PESTICIDE
COMBINATIONS
WATER
QUALITY
ON
PHYSICAL
COMPATIBILITY.
CHOW,
P.
N.
P.
(
ED.).
ADJUVANTS
AND
AGROCHEMICALS,
VOL.
II.
RECENT
DEVELOPMENT,
APPLICATION,
AND
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF
AGRO­
ADJUVANTS;
FIRST
INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM,
BRANDON,
MANITOBA,
CANADA,
AUGUST
5­
7,
1986.
XIII+
222P.
CRC
PRESS,
INC.:
BOCA
RATON,
FLORIDA,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
8493­
6532­
5;
ISBN
0­
8493­
6533­
3.;
0
(
0).
1989.
111­
120.
Rejection
Code:
NO
SPECIES.

Lofs­
Holmin,
A.
(
1982).
Influence
of
Routine
Pesticide
Spraying
on
Earthworms
(
Lumbricidae)
in
Field
Experiments
with
Winter
Wheat.
Swed
J
Agric
Res
12:
121­
123.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Lorenz,
E.
J.
and
Cothren,
J.
T.
(
1989).
Photosynthesis
and
Yield
and
Wheat
Triticum
aestivum
Treated
with
Fungicides
in
Disease­
Free
Environment.
Plant
Dis.
73:
25­
27.

Lovatt,
J.
(
1991).
Growing
Pumpkins
Grammas
and
Watermelons
in
Queensland.
In:
J.
Lovatt,
Growing
Pumpkins,
Grammas
and
Watermelons
in
Queensland,
Queensland
Dep.
of
Primary
Ind.,
Brisbane,
Queensland,
Australia
44
p.
Rejection
Code:
REFS
CHECKED/
REVIEW.

MARIA,
R.
(
1987).
HINOSAN
TOLERANCE
DEVELOPED
BY
COCHLIOBOLUS­
MIYABEANUS
AND
PYRICULARIA­
ORYZAE.
TROP
AGRIC;
64
36­
40.
Rejection
Code:
NO
EFFECT.

MARINI,
R.,
BARDEN,
J.,
and
SOWERS,
D.
(
1996).
PERFORMANCE
OF
NINE
APPLE
CULTIVARS
GROWN
WITH
SIX
FUNGICIDE
REGIMES.
93RD
ANNUAL
CONFERENCE
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
FOR
HORTICULTURAL
SCIENCE,
LEXINGTON,
KENTUCKY,
USA,
OCTOBER
6­
10,
1996.
HORTSCIENCE;
31
675.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Markoglou,
A.
N.
and
Ziogas,
B.
N.
(
Genetic
control
of
resistance
to
fenpropimorph
in
Ustilago
maydis.
Plant
Pathology,
48
(
4)
pp.
521­
530,
1999.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.
Page
231
of
241
MARTIN
PM,
ANDREWS,
J.,
O'CALLAGHAN
JP,
and
KAWANISHI
CY
(
1996).
ABNORMAL
DEVELOPMENT
OF
CRANIAL
NERVES
IN
MICE
INDUCED
BY
IN
VIVO
EXPOSURE
TO
TRIADIMEFON.
26TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
SOCIETY
FOR
NEUROSCIENCE,
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.,
USA,
NOVEMBER
16­
21,
1996.
SOCIETY
FOR
NEUROSCIENCE
ABSTRACTS;
22
1911.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

MATHIESON
JT
and
WORRALL
WD
(
1985).
STUDIES
OF
IN­
VITRO
EFFICACY
AND
PHYTOTOXICITY
OF
STEROL
INHIBITING
FUNGICIDES
ON
ORGANISMS
KNOWN
TO
CAUSE
COMMON
ROOT
ROT
OF
WHEAT.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
RENO,
NEVADA,
USA,
AUG.
11­
15,
1985.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
75
1384.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

MAYER
AS,
MITCHELL
RJ,
CARRIERE,
P.
PE,
HEIN
GL,
RABIDEAU
AJ,
and
WOJICK
CL
(
1995).
GROUNDWATER
QUALITY.
WATER
ENVIRONMENT
RESEARCH;
67
629­
685.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

McGrath,
M.
T.,
Staniszewska,
H.,
and
Shishkoff,
N.
(
Distribution
of
mating
types
of
Sphaerotheca
fuliginea
in
the
United
States.
Plant
Disease,
80
(
10)
pp.
1098­
1102,
1996.
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.

Menegola,
E,
Broccia,
M
L,
Di
Renzo,
F,
Prati,
M,
and
Giavini,
E
(
2000).
In
vitro
teratogenic
potential
of
two
antifungal
triazoles:
triadimefon
and
triadimenol.
In
Vitro
Cellular
&
Developmental
Biology.
Animal
36:
88­
95.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

MERCER
EI,
KHALIL
IA,
and
WANG
Z­
X
(
1989).
EFFECT
OF
SOME
STEROL­
BIOSYNTHESIS­
INHIBITING
FUNGICIDES
ON
THE
BIOSYNTHESIS
OF
POLYISOPRENOID
COMPOUNDS
IN
BARLEY
SEEDINGS.
STEROIDS;
53
393­
412.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Miyake,
Y.,
Hashimoto,
K.,
and
Matsuki,
H.
(
Fate
of
insecticide
and
fungicide
residues
on
barley
during
storage
and
malting.
Journal
of
the
American
Society
of
Brewing
Chemists,
60
(
3)
pp.
110­
115,
2002.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

MOORMAN
TB
(
1989).
A
REVIEW
OF
PESTICIDE
EFFECTS
ON
MICROORGANISMS
AND
MICROBIAL
PROCESSES
RELATED
TO
SOIL
FERTILITY.
J
PROD
AGRIC;
2
14­
23.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.
Page
232
of
241
MOZA
PN,
HUSTERT,
K.,
FEICHT,
E.,
and
KETTRUP,
A.
(
1995).
Comparative
rates
of
photolysis
of
triadimefon
in
aqueous
solution
in
the
presence
of
humic
and
fulvic
acid.
CHEMOSPHERE;
30
605­
610.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

MUELLER,
M.
(
1997).
Quantum
chemical
modelling
of
soil
sorption
coefficients:
Multiple
linear
regression
models.
CHEMOSPHERE;
35
365­
377.
Rejection
Code:
MODELING.

Murphy,
K.
C.,
Cooper,
R.
J.,
and
Clark,
J.
M.
(
Volatile
and
dislodgeable
residues
following
triadimefon
and
MCPP
application
to
turfgrass
and
implications
for
human
exposure.
Crop
Science,
36
(
6)
pp.
1455­
1461,
1996.
Rejection
Code:
HUMAN
HEALTH.

Muthukumarasamy,
M.,
Dutta
Gupta,
S.,
and
Panneerselvam,
R.
(
Enhancement
of
peroxidase,
polyphenol
oxidase
and
superoxide
dismutase
activities
by
triadimefon
in
NaCl
stressed
Raphanus
sativus
L.
Biologia
Plantarum,
43
(
2)
pp.
317­
320,
2000.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Muthukumarasamy,
M.,
Dutta
Gupta,
S.,
and
Panneerselvam,
R.
(
2000).
Influence
of
triadimefon
on
the
metabolism
of
NaCl
stressed
radish.
Biologia
Plantarum
43:
67­
72.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

MUTHUKUMARASAMY,
M.
and
PANNEESELVAM,
R.
(
1997).
Amelioration
of
NaCl
stress
by
triadimefon
in
peanut
seedlings.
PLANT
GROWTH
REGULATION;
22
157­
162.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Nag,
S.
K.
and
Dureja,
P.
(
Environmental
transformation
of
triadimefon
in
water
and
on
plant
leaf
surface.
Journal
of
Environmental
Science
and
Health
­
Part
B
Pesticides,
Food
Contaminants,
and
Agricultural
Wastes,
38
(
1)
pp.
49­
57,
2003.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

NAG
SK
and
DUREJA,
P.
(
1996).
Phototransformation
of
triadimefon
on
glass
and
soil
surfaces.
PESTICIDE
SCIENCE;
48
247­
252.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

NIGH,
E.
L.
JR
(
1988).
OCCURRENCE
AND
CONTROL
OF
PUCCINIA­
ASPARAGI
IN
DESERT
IRRIGATED
ASPARAGUS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
AND
THE
PACIFIC
DIVISION,
SAN
DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
13­
17,
1988.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
78
1532.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

NILSSON,
U.,
NYBRANT,
T.,
PAPANTONI,
M.,
and
MATHIASSON,
L.
(
1996).
Long­
term
studies
of
fungicide
concentrations
in
greenhouses.
2.
Fungicide
concentrations
in
air
and
Page
233
of
241
on
leaves
after
different
exposure
times
and
under
different
climate
conditions.
JOURNAL
OF
AGRICULTURAL
AND
FOOD
CHEMISTRY;
44
2878­
2884.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Ogale,
V.
K.,
Venu­
Babu,
P.,
and
Mishra,
S.
D.
(
PGR­
induced
changes
in
protein
banding
patterns
of
different
corm
sizes
and
cultivars
of
Gladiolus.
Indian
Journal
of
Experimental
Biology,
37
(
11)
pp.
1105­
1108,
1999.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

OKUMURA,
D.,
MELNICOE,
R.,
JACKSON,
T.,
DREFS,
C.,
MADDY,
K.,
and
WELLS,
J.
(
1991).
PESTICIDE
RESIDUES
IN
FOOD
CROPS
ANALYZED
BY
THE
CALIFORNIA
USA
DEPARTMENT
OF
FOOD
AND
AGRICULTURE
IN
1989.
WARE,
G.
W.
(
ED.).
REVIEWS
OF
ENVIRONMENTAL
CONTAMINATION
AND
TOXICOLOGY,
VOL.
118.
IX+
158P.
SPRINGER­
VERLAG
NEW
YORK
INC.:
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
USA;
BERLIN,
GERMANY.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
387­
97447­
4;
ISBN
3­
540­
97447­
4.;
0
(
0).
1991.
87­
152.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

ONDIK
KL,
NELSON
EB,
and
HARMAN
GE
(
1997).
BIOLOGICAL
AND
INTEGRATED
CONTROL
OF
TURFGRASS
DISEASES
USING
TRICHODERMA
HARZIANUM.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
ROCHESTER,
NEW
YORK,
USA,
AUGUST
9­
13,
1997.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
87
S72­
S73.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

OWEN
WJ
(
1992).
POTENTIAL
FOR
SYNERGISING
HERBICIDES
THROUGH
MODIFICATION
OF
METABOLISM.
DENHOLM,
I.,
A.
L.
DEVONSHIRE
AND
D.
W.
HOLLOMON
(
ED.).
RESISTANCE
'
91:
ACHIEVEMENTS
AND
DEVELOPMENTS
IN
COMBATING
PESTICIDE
RESISTANCE;
SCI
SYMPOSIUM,
HARPENDEN,
ENGLAND,
UK,
JULY
15­
17,
1991.
XIII+
367P.
ELSEVIER
SCIENCE
PUBLISHERS
LTD.:
LONDON,
ENGLAND,
UK;
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
USA.
ISBN
1­
85166­
886­
1.;
0
(
0).
1992.
340­
353.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Pan,
R.
C.
and
Gui,
H.
(
Physiological
basis
of
the
synergistic
effects
of
IBA
and
triadimefon
on
rooting
of
mung
bean
hypocotyls.
Plant
Growth
Regulation,
22
(
1)
pp.
7­
11,
1997.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Panneerselvam,
R.,
Muthukumarasamy,
M.,
and
Karikalan,
L.
(
Triadimefon
enhances
growth
and
net
photosynthetic
rate
in
NaCl
stressed
plants
of
Raphanus
sativus
L.
Photosynthetica,
34
(
4)
pp.
605­
609,
1997.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Panneerselvam,
R.,
Muthukumarasamy,
M.,
and
Rajan,
S.
N.
(
Amelioration
of
NaCl
stress
by
Page
234
of
241
triadimefon
in
soybean
seedlings.
Biologia
Plantarum,
41
(
1)
pp.
133­
137,
1998.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

PEARSON
RC
(
1988).
THE
USE
OF
DORMANT
SEASON
ERADICANT
SPRAYS
TO
CONTROL
GRAPE
POWDERY
MILDEW
AU
­
GADOURY
DM.
1988
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
(
NORTHEASTERN
DIVISION),
STURBRIDGE,
MASSACHUSETTS,
USA,
SEPTEMBER
28­
30,
1988.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
78
(
11).
1988.
1507.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

PELL,
M.,
STENBERG,
B.,
and
TORSTENSSON,
L.
(
1998).
Potential
denitrification
and
nitrification
tests
for
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
in
soil.
AMBIO;
27
24­
28.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

Potter,
D.
A.
(
1993).
Pesticide
and
Fertilizer
Effects
on
Beneficial
Invertebrates
and
Consequences
for
Thatch
Degradation
and
Pest
Outbreaks
in
Turfgrass.
In:
K.
D.
Racke
and
A.
R.
Leslie
(
Eds.),
ACS
Symp.
Ser.
No.
522,
Pesticides
in
Urban
Environments:
Fate
and
Significance,
203rd
Natl.
Meet.
of
the
Am.
Chem.
Soc.,
Apr.
5­
10,
1992,
San
Francisco,
CA
331­
343.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

RAGAB,
M.
TH,
ANDERSON
MG,
and
JOHNSTON
HW
(
1990).
RESIDUE
ANALYSIS
OF
TRIADIMEFON
TRIADIMENOL
AND
THE
BAY­
KWG­
1342
DIOL
AND
BAY­
KWG­
1323
HYDROXYLATED
METABOLITES
IN
WINTER
WHEAT.
BULL
ENVIRON
CONTAM
TOXICOL;
44
100­
105.
Rejection
Code:
HUMAN
HEALTH.

RAHIER,
A.
and
TATON,
M.
(
1997).
Fungicides
as
tools
in
studying
postsqualene
sterol
synthesis
in
plants.
PESTICIDE
BIOCHEMISTRY
AND
PHYSIOLOGY;
57
1­
27.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Reeves,
R,
Thiruchelvam,
M,
and
Cory­
Slechta,
D
A
(
2004).
Development
of
Behavioral
Sensitization
to
the
Cocaine­
Like
Fungicide
Triadimefon
Is
Prevented
by
AMPA,
NMDa,
DA
D1
but
Not
DA
D2
RECEPTOR
Antagonists.
Toxicological
Sciences:
An
Official
Journal
Of
The
Society
Of
Toxicology
79:
123­
136.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Reeves,
R,
Thiruchelvam,
M,
and
Cory­
Slechta,
D
A
(
2004).
Expression
of
behavioral
sensitization
to
the
cocaine­
like
fungicide
triadimefon
is
blocked
by
pretreatment
with
AMPA,
NMDA
and
DA
D1
receptor
antagonists.
Brain
Research
1008:
155­
167.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Robinson,
H
L,
Ridout,
C
J,
Sierotzki,
H,
Gisi,
U,
and
Brown,
J
K
M
(
2002).
Isogamous,
hermaphroditic
inheritance
of
mitochondrion­
encoded
resistance
to
Qo
inhibitor
fungicides
Page
235
of
241
in
Blumeria
graminis
f.
sp.
tritici.
Fungal
Genetics
And
Biology:
FG
&
B
36:
98­
106.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

RUNION
GB
and
KELLEY
WD
(
1988).
EFFECT
OF
TRIADIMEFON
AS
A
SEED
TREATMENT
ON
EMERGENCE
OF
LOBLOLLY
AND
SLASH
PINE
SEEDLINGS.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY
AND
THE
PACIFIC
DIVISION,
SAN
DIEGO,
CALIFORNIA,
USA,
NOVEMBER
13­
17,
1988.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
78
1606.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

SADHU
BP
and
GUPTA,
K.
(
1997).
Triazole:
A
plant
growth
regulator
and
a
fungicide.
GEOBIOS
(
JODHPUR);
24
181­
192.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

SAILEROVA,
E.
and
ZWIAZEK
JJ
(
1993).
Effects
of
triadimefon
and
osmotic
stress
on
plasma
membrane
composition
and
ATPase
activity
in
white
spruce
Picea
glauca,
needles.
PHYSIOL
PLANT;
87
475­
482.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

SCHAEFFER,
A.
(
1993).
PESTICIDE
EFFECTS
ON
ENZYME
ACTIVITIES
IN
THE
SOIL
ECOSYSTEM.
BOLLAG,
J.­
M.
AND
G.
STOTZKY
(
ED.).
SOIL
BIOCHEMISTRY,
VOL.
8.
XI+
418P.
MARCEL
DEKKER,
INC.:
NEW
YORK,
NEW
YORK,
USA;
BASEL,
SWITZERLAND.
ISBN
0­
8247­
9044­
8.;
0
(
0).
1993.
273­
340.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.

SCHATTENBERG,
H.
J.
III
and
HSU
J­
P
(
1992).
Pesticide
residue
survey
of
produce
from
1989
to
1991.
J
AOAC
(
ASSOC
OFF
ANAL
CHEM)
INT;
75
(
5).
1992.
925­
933.
Rejection
Code
:
SURVEY.

Schreiber,
L.
and
Schoenherr,
J.
(
1992).
Analysis
of
Foliar
Uptake
of
Pesticides
in
Barley
Leaves:
Role
of
Epicuticular
Waxes
and
Compartmentation.
Pestic.
Sci.
36:
213­
221.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

SCHUSTER,
E.
and
SCHROEDER,
D.
(
1990).
Side
effects
of
sequentially­
applied
pesticides
on
non­
target
soil
microorganisms:
Field
experiments.
SOIL
BIOL
BIOCHEM;
22
367­
374.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.

SHIRAI,
T.
(
1997).
A
medium­
term
rat
liver
bioassay
as
a
rapid
in
vitro
test
for
carcinogenic
potential:
A
historical
review
of
model
development
and
summary
of
results
from
291
tests.
TOXICOLOGIC
PATHOLOGY;
25
453­
460.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

Singh,
Neera
(
2002).
Sorption
behavior
of
triazole
fungicides
in
Indian
soils
and
its
correlation
with
soil
properties.
Journal
Of
Agricultural
And
Food
Chemistry
50:
6434­
6439.
Page
236
of
241
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

SIPES
BS
and
SCHMITT
DP
(
1998).
NEMATODE­
PESTICIDE
INTERACTIONS.
BARKER,
K.
R.,
G.
A.
PEDERSON
AND
G.
L.
WINDHAM
(
ED.).
AGRONOMY
(
MADISON),
36.
PLANT
AND
NEMATODE
INTERACTIONS.
XVII+
771P.
SOIL
SCIENCE
SOCIETY
OF
AMERICA,
INC.,
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
AGRONOMY,
INC.,
CROP
SCIENCE
SOCIETY
OF
AMERICA,
INC.:
MADISON,
WISCONSIN,
USA.
ISBN
0­
89118­
136­
9.;
0
(
36).
1998.
173­
185.
Rejection
Code:
REVIEW.

SMITH
GL
and
REHBERG
BE
(
1995).
CONTROLLED
RELEASE
FERTILIZER
BRIQUETTE
COMBINATIONS.
210TH
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY
NATIONAL
MEETING,
CHICAGO,
ILLINOIS,
USA,
AUGUST
20­
24,
1995.
ABSTRACTS
OF
PAPERS
AMERICAN
CHEMICAL
SOCIETY;
210
FERT
18.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

SMOLEY,
R.
(
1985).
CAN
CHEMICALS
UP
OUR
WHEAT
YIELDS?
AGRICHEM
AGE;
29
29:
10­
12.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Soleas,
G.
J.,
Yan,
J.,
Hom,
K.,
and
Goldberg,
D.
M.
(
Multiresidue
analysis
of
seventeen
pesticides
in
wine
by
gas
chromatography
with
mass­
selective
detection.
Journal
of
Chromatography
A,
882
(
1­
2)
pp.
205­
212,
2000.
Rejection
Code:
SURVEY.

SOMERVILLE,
L.
(
1986).
THE
METABOLISM
OF
FUNGICIDES.
ISSX
(
INTERNATIONAL
SOCIETY
FOR
THE
STUDY
OF
XENOBIOTICS)
FIRST
EUROPEAN
MEETING
ON
FOREIGN
COMPOUND
METABOLISM,
MALTA,
ITALY,
1985.
XENOBIOTICA;
16
1017­
1030.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

SREEDHAR
VM
and
SHREE
MP
(
1991).
LEAF
GAS
EXCHANGE
AND
SOLUTE
ACCUMULATION
RESPONSES
IN
MULBERRY
LEAVES
TO
TRIAZOLES.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
SOCIETY
OF
PLANT
PHYSIOLOGISTS,
ALBUQUERQUE,
NEW
MEXICO,
USA,
JULY
28­
AUGUST
1,
1991.
PLANT
PHYSIOL
(
BETHESDA);
96
(
1
SUPPL.).
1991.
29.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

STEURBAUT,
W.,
MELKEBEKE,
G.,
and
DEJONCKHEERE,
W.
(
1989).
THE
INFLUENCE
OF
NONIONIC
SURFACTANTS
ON
THE
PENETRATION
AND
TRANSPORT
OF
SYSTEMIC
FUNGICIDES
IN
PLANTS.
CHOW,
P.
N.
P.
(
ED.).
ADJUVANTS
AND
AGROCHEMICALS,
VOL.
I.
MODE
OF
ACTION
AND
PHYSIOLOGICAL
ACTIVITY;
FIRST
INTERNATIONAL
SYMPOSIUM,
BRANDON,
MANITOBA,
CANADA,
AUGUST
5­
7,
1986.
XIV+
207P.
CRC
PRESS,
INC.:
BOCA
RATON,
Page
237
of
241
FLORIDA,
USA.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
8493­
6532­
5;
ISBN
0­
8493­
6533­
3.;
0
(
0).
1989.
93­
104.
Rejection
Code:
METABOLISM.

Stevens,
P.
J.
G.,
Walker,
J.
T.
S.,
Shaw,
P.
W.,
and
Suckling,
D.
M.
(
1994).
Organosilicone
Surfactants:
Tools
for
Horticultural
Crop
Protection.
In:
Brighton
Crop
Prot.
Conf.­
Pests
and
Disease,
Conf.,
Nov.
21­
24,
1994,
Brighton,
England
1­
3:
755­
760.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

STIMMANN
MW
and
FERGUSON
MP
(
1990).
PROGRESS
REPORT
VICE
PRESIDENT'S
TASK
FORCE
ON
PEST
CONTROL
ALTERNATIVES
POTENTIAL
PESTICIDE
USE
CANCELLATIONS
IN
CALIFORNIA
USA.
CALIF
AGRIC;
44
12­
16.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOX
DATA.

TANACS,
L.,
MATUZ,
J.,
CSATLOS,
I.,
and
GERO,
L.
(
1998).
Study
of
fungicide
residues
in
the
grain
of
fungicide­
treated
wheats:
III.
Flusilazole,
carbendazine,
tebuconazole
and
triadimefon­
based
fungicides.
CEREAL
RESEARCH
COMMUNICATIONS;
26
329­
336.
Rejection
Code:
FATE.

THOMAS
CS,
GUBLER
WD,
SILACCI
MW,
and
MILLER,
R.
(
1993).
Changes
in
elemental
sulfur
residues
on
Pinot
noir
and
Cabernet
Sauvignon
grape
berries
during
the
growing
season.
AM
J
ENOL
VITIC;
44
205­
210.
Rejection
Code:
NO
TOXICANT.

THOMPSON
DC
and
BIEHN
WL
(
1997).
MINOR­
USE
FUNGICIDE
AND
NEMATICIDE
REGISTRATION
UPDATE.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
ROCHESTER,
NEW
YORK,
USA,
AUGUST
9­
13,
1997.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
87
S96­
S97.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

TUINSTRA,
L.
G.
MT,
POVEL
FR,
and
ROOS
AH
(
1991).
Multi­
matrix­
multi­
pesticide
method
for
agricultural
products.
J
CHROMATOGR;
552
259­
264.
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.

VALENTICH
MA,
MONIS,
B.,
CHESTA
CS,
and
SPINSANTI
LI
(
1994).
Effect
on
the
pancreas
of
dietary
administration
of
the
pesticides
Folithion
or
Bayleton
to
rats
treated
with
nitrosomethylurea
(
NMU).
COMUNICACIONES
BIOLOGICAS;
12
371­
382.
Rejection
Code:
MIXTURE.

Viana,
E.,
Molto,
J.
C.,
and
Font,
G.
(
Optimization
of
a
matrix
solid­
phase
dispersion
method
for
the
analysis
of
pesticide
residues
in
vegetables.
Journal
of
Chromatography
A,
754
(
1­
2)
pp.
437­
444,
1996.
Rejection
Code:
METHODS.
Page
238
of
241
Vijayaraghavan,
M.
and
Nagarajan,
B.
(
1994).
Mutagenic
potential
of
acute
exposure
to
organophosphorus
and
organochlorine
compounds.
Mutation
Research
[
MUTAT.
RES.]
321:
103­
111.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

Vincelli,
P.
(
Simulations
of
Fungicide
Runoff
Following
Applications
for
Turfgrass
Disease
Control.
Plant
Disease
[
Plant
Dis.].
Vol.
88,
no.
4,
pp.
391­
396.
Apr
2004.
Rejection
Code:
MODELING.

Vinggaard,
A.
M.,
Hnida,
C.,
Breinholt,
V.,
and
Larsen,
J.
C.
(
Screening
of
Selected
Pesticides
for
Inhibition
of
CYP19
Aromatase
Activity
In
Vitro.
Toxicology
In
Vitro
[
Toxicol.
In
Vitro].
Vol.
14,
no.
3,
pp.
227­
234.
Jun
2000.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

WALKER
OD,
LEWIS
MH,
CROFTON
KC,
and
MAILMAN
RB
(
1988).
TRIADIMEFON
INDUCES
SEX­
DEPENDENT
CHANGES
IN
STEREOTYPED
BEHAVIOR
AND
BIOGENIC
AMINE
ACTIVITY.
18TH
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
SOCIETY
FOR
NEUROSCIENCE,
TORONTO,
ONTARIO,
CANADA,
NOVEMBER
13­
18,
1988.
SOC
NEUROSCI
ABSTR;
14
773.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

WALKER
QD
and
MAILMAN
RB
(
1996).
Triadimefon
and
triadimenol:
Effects
on
monoamine
uptake
and
release.
TOXICOLOGY
AND
APPLIED
PHARMACOLOGY;
139
227­
233.
Rejection
Code:
IN
VITRO.

WENDLER,
R.
and
GADKARI,
D.
(
1986).
Influence
of
the
fungicides
Bayleton,
Desmel,
Sportak,
and
Corbel
on
nitrification.
ZENTRALBL
MIKROBIOL;
141
141­
149.
Rejection
Code:
BACTERIA.

WORTHING
CR
(
1991).
THE
PESTICIDE
MANUAL
A
WORLD
COMPENDIUM
9TH
EDITION.
WORTHING,
C.
R.
(
ED.).
THE
PESTICIDE
MANUAL:
A
WORLD
COMPENDIUM,
9TH
EDITION.
XLVII+
1141P.
BRITISH
CROP
PROTECTION
COUNCIL:
FARNHAM,
ENGLAND,
UK.
ILLUS.
ISBN
0­
948404­
42­
6.;
0
(
0).
1991.
XLVII+
1141P.
Rejection
Code
:
NO
TOX
DATA.

Wu,
Y
S,
Lee,
H
K,
and
Li,
S
F
(
2001).
High­
performance
chiral
separation
of
fourteen
triazole
fungicides
by
sulfated
beta­
cyclodextrin­
mediated
capillary
electrophoresis.
Journal
Of
Chromatography.
A
912:
171­
179.
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.

YOUNG
DJ,
SULLIVAN
LM,
and
ENGLE
CE
(
1985).
STEROL­
INHIBITING
FUNGICIDES
FOR
CONTROL
OF
SOUTHWESTERN
RUST
PUCCINIA­
CACABATA
ON
COTTON
GOSSYPIUM­
HIRSUTUM.
ANNUAL
MEETING
OF
THE
AMERICAN
Page
239
of
241
PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL
SOCIETY,
RENO,
NEVADA,
USA,
AUG.
11­
15,
1985.
PHYTOPATHOLOGY;
75
1384.
Rejection
Code:
ABSTRACT.

Zhou,
Chang­
Xin,
Liu,
Jun­
Yan,
Ye,
Wen­
Cai,
Liu,
Chang­
Hong,
and
Tan,
Ren­
Xiang
(
2003).
Neoverataline
A
and
B,
two
antifungal
alkaloids
with
a
novel
carbon
skeleton
from
Veratrum
taliense.
Tetrahedron
59:
5743­
5747.
Rejection
Code:
CHEM
METHODS.
Page
240
of
241
APPENDIX
I:
FUGACITY
APPROACH
FOR
EARTHWORM
PESTICIDE
RESIDUE
MODELING
Fugacity
capacities
(
Z)
for
a
given
chemical
are
calculated
for
the
phases
of
interest
as
part
of
the
exposure
point
estimation
methodology
(
Mackay
and
Paterson
1981;
Mackay
et
al.
1995).
The
following
calculations
require
several
specific
parameters
and
an
assumption
of
the
system
temperature,
e.
g.
25
C.

Earthworms
dwelling
within
the
soil
are
assumed
to
be
exposed
to
both
soil
pore­
water
and
via
the
ingestion
of
soil
(
Belfroid
et
al.
1994).
The
concentration
of
earthworms
is
calculated
as
a
combination
of
uptake
from
soil
pore
water
and
ingested
soil
across
the
gastro­
intestinal
tract:

C
earthworm
=
[(
Csoil)(
Zearthworm/
Zsoil)]+[(
Csoil
water)(
Zearthworm/
Zwater)]

where:
Csoil
is
the
concentration
of
chemical
in
bulk
soil
(
note:
a
chemical
concentration
averaged
over
a
15
cm
soil
depth
was
used
to
reflect
a
concentration
across
the
earthworm
occupied
area
of
soil)
Zearthworm
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
earthworms
=
(
lipid)(
Kow)(
Dearthworm)/
H
Zsoil
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
soil
=
(
Kd)(
Dsoil)/
H
Zwater
is
the
fugacity
capacity
of
chemical
in
water
=
1/
H
Csoil
water
is
the
concentration
of
chemical
in
soil
water
=
Csoil/
Kbw
Kbw
is
the
bulk
soil­
to­
water
partitioning
coefficient
=
(
Dsoil)(
Kd)+
2
+(,­
2)(
Kaw)
as
per
Trapp
and
McFarlane
(
1995)
Kaw
is
the
air­
to­
water
partitioning
coefficient
=
H/
RT
H
=
Henry's
Constant
specific
to
the
chemical
(
Pa­
m3/
mole)
R
=
universal
gas
constant,
8.31
Joules­
m3/
mol­
oK
T
=
temperature
oK,
assumed
to
be
298
oK
Kd
=
soil
partitioning
coefficient
=
(
chemical
Koc
)(
fraction
of
soil
organic
carbon)
Dsoil
=
bulk
density
of
soil
g/
cm3
2
=
volumetric
fraction
of
the
soil
,
=
volumetric
total
porosity
of
the
soil
lipid
=
fraction
of
lipid
in
organism
0.01
(
Cobb
et
al.
1995)
Kow
=
chemical
octanol
to
water
partitioning
coefficient
Dearthworm
=
the
density
of
the
organism
g/
cm3,
assumed
to
be
1
g/
cm3
The
following
parameters
were
used
to
calculate
earthworm
triadimefon
concentrations:

Soil
Concentration:
Triadimefon
soil
concentrations
at
one
centimeter
were
calculated
using
the
following
equation:

application
rate
(
kg/
ha)
x
1x106
mg/
kg
x
1
ha/
1x108
x
1.3
g/
cm3
Csoil
(
maximum
application
of
2.7
lb
ai/
A
­
golf
course
turf)
=
31
mg/
kg
Page
241
of
241
Parameters
used
to
calculate
earthworm
triadimefon
concentration:

Vapor
Pressure:
1x10­
4
Pa
Solubility:
70
mg/
L
Henry's
Law
Constant:
1.7x10­
2
pa­
m3/
mol
Kow:
2.77
Koc:
387
fraction
of
soil
organic
carbon:
0.02
soil
bulk
density:
1.3
g/
cm3
volumetric
soil
fraction:
0.30
volumetric
soil
porosity:
0.50
Organism
(
worm)
density:
1
g/
cm3
fraction
of
lipid
in
an
organism:
0.01
Parameter
triadimefon/
triadimefnol
max
C
sed
at
surface
(
ppm)
3.10E+
01
C
sed
avg
in
15
cm
(
ppm)
2.07E+
00
Vapor
Pressure
(
Pa)
1.00E­
04
Solubility
(
mg/
L)
7.00E+
01
Solubility
(
mol/
L)
2.06E+
01
Henry's
C
1.170E­
02
Kow
2.77
Koc
387
foc
0.02
Zwater
8.55E+
01
Zinv
2.37E+
00
Cwater
4.01E+
00
pworm
1
lipid
0.01
Invert
Conc
mg/
kg
1.11E­
01