Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0339-0005
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-04-26T04:00Z

DRAFT
ECOLOGICAL
HAZARD
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
CHAPTER
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)

PC
Code
069105
CASE
No.:

04/
10/
2006
Richard
C.
Petrie
Kathryn
Montague
Antimicrobials
Division
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
NW
Washington,
DC
20460
Page
­
2
­
of
32
Table
of
Contents
1.
Ecological
Toxicity
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
A.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
1.
Birds,
Acute
and
Subacute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
4
2.
Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
B.
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
5
1.
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
6
2.
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
8
3.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Organisms,
Acute
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
9
4.
Aquatic
Organisms,
Chronic
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
10
C.
Toxicity
to
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
14
II.
Risk
Assessment
and
Risk
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.15
A.
Environmental
Fate
Assessment
Summary
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
18
B.
Environmental
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
18
C.
Endangered
Species
Considerations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.26
III.
Confirmatory
Data
Required.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
28
IV.
Label
Hazard
Statements
for
Terrestrial
and
Aquatic
Organisms.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.28
Page
­
3
­
of
32
V.
References
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
29
Ecological
Hazard
and
Environment
Risk
Assessment
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)

Alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
(
ADBAC)
(
PC
Code
069105)
is
a
surfaceactive
(
surfactant)
chemical,
which
is
effective
against
a
broad
spectrum
of
microorganisms.
It
is
currently
registered
as
a
bactericidal,
fungicidal,
and
algaecidal
agent.
It
is
used
at
a
variety
of
indoor
and
aquatic
sites
including
agricultural
premises
and
equipment,
food
handling,
commercial,
industrial
and
institutional
settings,
residential
areas
or
areas
of
public
access,
pets
and
kennels,
medical
facilities,
swimming
pools,
aquatic
areas,
and
industrial
water
systems.
ADBAC
is
also
used
as
a
wood
preservative
(
non­
aquatic
sites
only)
and
agriculturally
on
ornamental
plants,
shrubs,
and
vines.
The
Manufacturing
Use
Products
(
MUPs)
of
ADBAC
are
available
in
two
grades,
a
50%
and
80%
solution.

I.
Ecological
Toxicity
Data
In
addition
to
estimating
risks
to
human
health,
the
Agency
also
assesses
risks
to
terrestrial
animals,
aquatic
organisms,
and
plants.
The
toxicity
endpoints
presented
below
are
based
on
the
results
of
ecotoxicity
studies
submitted
to
EPA
to
meet
the
Agency=
s
data
requirements
for
the
uses
of
ADBAC,
as
well
as
review
of
the
open
literature.

The
toxicity
of
ADBAC
is
dependent
upon
its
bioavailability.
Due
to
its
propensity
for
binding
to
organic
material,
the
toxicity
of
ADBAC
may
be
mitigated
in
natural
environments.

A.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Page
­
4
­
of
32
(
1)
Birds,
Acute
and
Subacute
In
order
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
avian
species
for
indoor,
aquatic
industrial,
and
wood
preservative
uses,
the
Agency
requires
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
using
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(
TGAI).
The
preferred­
test
species
is
either
mallard
duck
(
a
waterfowl)
or
bobwhite
quail
(
an
upland
game
bird).
The
results
of
one
acute
oral
toxicity
study,
submitted
for
ADBAC,
are
provided
in
the
following
table
(
Table
1).

Table
1.
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Birds
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus
ADBAC
80%
LD50
=
136
NOAEC
=
62.5
(
a.
i.)
Moderately
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
14­
day
test
duration
$
17
weeks
of
age
428859­
01
The
results
from
the
one
core
study
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
moderately
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Study
428859­
01
fulfills
guideline
requirement
71­
1/
OPPTS
850.2100.

A
subacute
dietary
study
using
the
TGAI
may
be
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis
depending
on
the
results
of
lower­
tier
ecological
studies
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics
in
order
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
a
chemical
to
avian
species.
This
testing
was
not
required
for
ADBAC.

(
2)
Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
Toxicity
Wild
mammal
testing
is
not
required
by
the
Agency.
In
most
cases,
rat
toxicity
values
obtained
from
studies
conducted
to
support
data
requirements
for
human
health
risk
assessments
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.

To
summarize
the
human
toxicology
chapter
of
this
RED,
In
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
(
MRID
45109204),
the
acute
oral
LD50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
304.5
mg/
kg
(
both
sexes
combined)
and
was
assigned
Toxicity
Category
II.
In
an
acute
dermal
toxicity
study
(
MRID
45109202),
the
acute
dermal
LD50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
930
mg/
kg
(
both
sexes
combined)
and
was
assigned
Toxicity
Category
II.
In
an
acute
inhalation
toxicity
study
(
MRID
44885201),
the
acute
LC50
of
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
determined
to
be
0.054
<
LC50
<
0.51
mg/
L
and
was
assigned
a
Toxicity
Category
II.
The
primary
eye
irritation
Page
­
5
­
of
32
study
was
waived
and
assigned
a
Toxicity
Category
I
for
technical
grade
ADBAC
(
80%
a.
i).
For
primary
dermal
irritation
(
MRID
45109201),
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
corrosive
to
rabbits
(
Toxicity
Category
I).
In
a
dermal
sensitization
study
(
MRID
45109203),
ADBAC
(
82.26%
a.
i.)
was
not
a
sensitizer
to
guinea
pigs.
In
a
photoallergy
(
light)
sensitization
study
(
MRID
40958501
and
MRID
44825002),
ADBAC
(
80%
a.
i.)
was
not
a
photosensitizer.

In
a
subchronic
oral
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
40746601),
ADBAC
was
found
to
have
a
low
order
of
toxicity,
in
that
manifestations
of
toxicity
were
non­
specific
(
decreased
body
weight
gain,
food
consumption),
and
occurred
at
relatively
high
doses
(
LOAEL
of
62
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
308
mg/
kg/
day
in
females).
This
result
was
also
observed
in
chronic
toxicity
studies
in
rats
and
mice
(
MRIDs
41947501
and
41765201),
where
effects
were
also
non
­
specific
in
nature
(
decreased
body
weight
gain
and
food
consumption),
and
occurred
at
relatively
high
doses.
In
a
21­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
guinea
pigs
(
MRID
41105801),
no
significant
systemic
effects
were
observed
using
a
chemical
mixture
of
4%
ADBAC/
6%
DDAC,
but
denuding
of
the
epidermal
layer
was
observed
at
the
highest
tested,
1000
mg/
kg/
day.
In
a
90­
day
dermal
toxicity
study
in
rats
(
MRID
41499601)
using
technical
grade
ADBAC
,
dermal
applications
of
ADBAC
(
81.09%
a.
i.)
to
rats
did
not
elicit
systemic
or
dermal
toxicity
up
to
the
highest
dose
tested,
20
mg/
kg/
day,
before
dermal
irritation
became
significant.

ADBAC
has
been
examined
for
effects
on
development
of
the
mammalian
fetus
and
effects
on
reproductive
function.
In
developmental
studies
with
rats
(
range­
finding
MRID
42645101
and
main
study
MRID
42351501)
and
rabbits
(
range­
finding
MRID
42734401
and
main
study
MRID
42392801),
developing
fetuses
showed
no
increased
sensitivity
to
the
toxicity
of
ADBAC
in
relation
to
adult
animals.
In
a
2­
generation
reproductive
toxicity
study
(
MRID
41385001),
effects
on
rat
pups
were
observed
in
the
absence
of
maternal
toxicity,
raising
some
concern
for
the
effects
of
ADBAC
on
reproductive
function.
However,
the
effects
observed
were
non­
specific
(
decreased
pup
body
weight
and
weight
gain
during
lactation),
and
there
were
no
effects
of
ADBAC
on
reproductive
indices.

In
a
chronic
toxicity
study
in
dogs
(
MRID
43221101),
groups
of
4
male
and
female
beagle
dogs
per
group
received
either
0,
120,
400,
or
1200
ppm
(
0,
3.79,
13.1,
or
33.8
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
0,
3.67,
14.6,
or
38.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
alkyl
dimethyl
benzyl
ammonium
chloride
[
ADBAC,
80%
a.
i.]
as
a
direct
dietary
admix
for
one
year.
Systemic
toxicity
was
observed
at
13.1
mg/
kg/
day
in
males
and
14.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females
reduced
body
weight
gain
(
approximately
10%
reduction)
after
52
weeks
of
exposure.
Food
consumption
was
decreased
in
the
1200
ppm
males
and
females
for
the
entire
study
period
(
approximately
15%
reduction
in
males
and
5%
reduction
in
females).
Based
on
the
data
in
this
study,
the
Systemic
Toxicity
NOAEL
was
120
ppm
(
3.79
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
3.67
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
and
the
LOAEL
was
400
ppm
(
13.1
mg/
kg/
day
in
males,
14.6
mg/
kg/
day
in
females)
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gain.

ADBAC
has
been
tested
for
carcinogenicity
in
long
term
studies
with
both
rats
(
MRID
41947501)
and
mice
(
MRID
41765201).
In
both
studies,
tested
to
adequate
dose
levels,
ADBAC
was
negative
for
induction
of
tumors
in
both
species.
This
result
is
supported
by
results
of
testing
in
a
battery
of
mutagenicity
studies,
including
an
HGPRT/
CHO
for
ward
mutation
assay
(
MRID
Page
­
6
­
of
32
41012701),
an
in
vivo
bone
marrow
chromosome
aberration
assay
(
MRID
40311101,
supplement
MRID
43037701),
and
an
unscheduled
DNA
synthesis
(
UDS)
assay
(
MRIDs
42290801
and
42290802),
which
show
ADBAC
to
be
negative
for
mutagenic
effects.

The
metabolism
of
ADBAC
was
investigated
in
MRID
41087701.
The
majority
of
administered
radioactive
ADBAC
is
eliminated
in
feces
from
oral
administration.
Intravenous
administration
also
shows
elimination
of
a
significant
proportion
of
ADBAC
in
feces,
indicating
elimination
through
the
bile.
Tissue
retention
of
orally
administered
radioactivity
is
negligible.

Refer
to
the
human
toxicology
chapter
of
this
RED
for
additional
mammalian
toxicity
data.

B.
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Animals
The
Agency
requested
that
aquatic
toxicity
studies
be
conducted
with
ADBAC
since,
under
typical
use
conditions,
it
is
introduced
into
the
aquatic
environment.

(
1)
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
In
order
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
freshwater
fish,
the
Agency
requires
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI.
The
preferred
test
species
are
rainbow
trout
(
a
coldwater
fish)
and
bluegill
sunfish
(
a
warmwater
fish).
Results
of
freshwater
fish
acute
studies,
submitted
for
ADBAC
and
obtained
from
the
open
literature,
are
presented
in
Table
2.

Table
2.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Fish
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
ADBAC
30%*
LC50
=
0.515
NOAEC
=
0.456
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
419472­
01
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
0.28
NOAEC
=
ND
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
437401­
03
Table
2.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Fish
(
cont'd)

Page
7of
32
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
1.4
NOAEC
=
0.99
(
a.
i.)
Moderately
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
addition
of
20
mg/
L
humic
acid
to
dilution
water
437401­
01
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
0.77
NOAEC
=
0.53
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
addition
of
10
mg/
L
humic
acid
to
dilution
water
and
not
preferred
test
species
437401­
02
Fathead
minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
50%
LC50
=
0.36
(
a.
i.)
High
ly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
flow­
through
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

Rainbow
Trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
ADBAC
30%*
LC50
=
0.923
NOAEC
=
0.619
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
419472­
02
*
Comparable
to
typical
ADBAC
Manufacturing
Use
Product
(
MUP)
80%
with
regard
to
actual
composition
of
ADBAC
and
its
impurities.
Table
2.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Fish
(
cont'd)

Page
8of
32
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Rainbow
Trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
ADBAC
50%
LC50
=
1.01
(
a.
i.)
Highly/
moderately
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
flow­
through
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.
Page
9of
32
The
results
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
highly
to
moderately
toxic
to
warmwater
fish
and
coldwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
Studies
419472­
01
and
419470­
02
fulfill
guideline
requirements
72­
1a,
c/
OPPTS
850.1075.

(
2)
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
The
Agency
requires
a
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
study
using
the
TGAI
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
to
freshwater
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
Daphnia
magna.
Results
of
two
studies,
submitted
for
ADBAC
and
obtained
from
the
open
literature,
are
provided
in
the
following
table
(
Table
3).

Table
3.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
ADBAC
30%*
EC50
=
0.0059
NOAEC
=
ND
(
a.
i.)
Very
highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
48­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
419472­
03
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
ADBAC
50%
LC50
=
0.02
(
a.
i.)
Very
highly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
48­
hr
test
duration
$
flow­
through
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.,
et
al.

Results
of
the
studies
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates.
Study
419472­
03
fulfills
guideline
requirement
72­
2a,
OPPTS
850.1010.

*
Comparable
to
typical
ADBAC
Manufacturing
Use
Product
(
MUP)
80%
with
regard
to
actual
composition
of
ADBAC
and
its
impurities
Page
10of
32
(
3)
Estuarine
and
Marine
Organisms,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine
and
marine
organisms
using
the
TGAI
is
required
when
the
end­
use
product
is
intended
for
direct
application
to
the
marine/
estuarine
environment
or
effluent
containing
the
active
ingredient
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment.
The
preferred
fish
test
species
is
sheepshead
minnow.
The
preferred
invertebrate
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
and
eastern
oysters.
This
testing
is
required
for
ADBAC
based
on
the
chemical=
s
use
in
aquatic
sites
such
as
pulp
and
paper
mills,
once­
through
cooling
towers,
oil
field
recovery
systems
and
as
a
wood
preservative.
Results
of
toxicity
studies,
submitted
for
ADBAC
and
obtained
from
the
open
literature,
are
presented
in
Table
4.

Table
4.
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Estuarine
and
Marine
Organisms
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
0.86
NOAEC
=
0.68
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
424795­
02
Inland
silverside
(
Menidia
beryllina)
ADBAC
50%
LC50
=
0.31
(
a.
i.)
Highly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
flow­
through
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
and
species
tested
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

Mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
0.092
NOAEC
=
0.047
(
a.
i.)
Very
highly
toxic
Yes
$
core
study
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
424795­
01
Page
11of
32
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
ADBAC
50%
LC50
=
0.08
(
a.
i.)
Very
highly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
flow­
through
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
and
test
conducted
at
higher
temperature
and
different
photoperiod
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

Eastern
oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
ADBAC
80%
LC50
=
0.055
(
a.
i.)
Very
highly
toxic
No
$
supplemental
study
$
48­
hr
test
duration
$
embryo
larvae
$
static
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
high
control
mortality
424795­
03
The
results
of
the
studies
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
Two
core
studies
MRID
424795­
01
and
MRID
424795­
02
fulfill
guideline
requirements
for
acute
toxicity
tests
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
shrimp
(
72­
3a,
c/
OPPTS
850.1035
and
850.1075).
However,
study
424795­
03
was
classified
as
supplemental
and
does
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements
(
72­
3b/
OPPTS
850.1055).
The
acute
Eastern
oyster
embryo
larvae
study
must
be
repeated.

(
4)
Aquatic
Organisms,
Chronic
Chronic
toxicity
testing
(
fish
early
life
stage,
72­
4a/
OPPTS
850.1400
and
aquatic
invertebrate
life
cycle,
72­
4b/
OPPTS
850.1300)
is
required
for
pesticides
when
certain
conditions
of
use
and
environmental
fate
apply.
The
preferred
freshwater
fish
test
species
is
fathead
minnow,
but
other
species
may
be
used.
The
preferred
freshwater
invertebrate
is
Daphnia
magna.
This
testing
is
required
for
ADBAC.
Results
of
these
toxicity
studies,
submitted
for
ADBAC,
are
presented
in
Table
5.
Page
12of
32
Table
5.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Organisms
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)
Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
30%
LOAEC
=
0.0759
NOAEC
=
0.0322
MATC
=
0.0494
(
a.
i.)
Yes
$
core
study
$
34­
day
test
duration
$
early­
life
stage
$
static­
renewal
test
system
423021­
02
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
ADBAC
30%
LOAEC
=
ND
NOAEC
=
0.00415
MATC
=
ND
(
a.
i.)
No
$
supplemental
study
$
21­
day
test
duration
$
life­
cycle
test
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
MATC
not
established
423021­
01
Chronic
exposure
to
ADBAC
results
in
measurable
effects
on
warmwater
fish
at
a
concentration
of
75.9
µ
g
a.
i./
L.
The
NOAEC
was
32.2
ug
a.
i./
L.
This
study
fulfills
guideline
requirements
for
a
fish
early
life
stage
chronic
test
72­
4(
a)/
OPPTS
850.1400.
No
measurable
adverse
effects
on
freshwater
invertebrates
were
noted
at
a
concentration
of
4.15
µ
g/
L.
However,
an
MATC
could
not
be
determined
in
this
study.
Therefore,
the
study
was
classified
as
supplemental
and
does
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements
for
an
aquatic
invertebrate
life
cycle
test
(
72­
4b/
OPPTS
850.1300).
The
Daphnia
magna
chronic
toxicity
test
must
be
repeated.

The
chronic
toxicity
of
ADBAC,
complexed
with
bentonite
clay
at
varying
concentrations,
was
also
investigated
and
reported
in
the
open
literature.
Results
of
two
tests
using
a
freshwater
fish
and
a
freshwater
invertebrate
are
presented
in
Table
6.
Page
13of
32
Table
6.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Complexed
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Organisms
Page
14of
32
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)
Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
L)
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
ADBAC
50%
(
2.5
mg/
L)
plus
Bentonite
Clay
at
concentrations
of
0:
0,
2.5:
0,
2.5:
25,
2.5:
37.5,
2.5:
50
and
2.5:
75
mg/
L
LOAEC
=
2.5:
0
for
survival
NOAEC
=
2.5:
25
for
survival
and
growth
(
a.
i.)
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
study
$
larval
survival
and
growth
$
7­
day
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
assess
detoxification
of
a.
i.

$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
ADBAC
50%
(
2.5
mg/
L)
plus
Bentonite
clay
at
concentrations
of
0:
0,
2.5:
0,
2.5:
25,
2.5:
37.5,
2.5:
50
and
2.5:
75
mg/
L
LOAEC
=
2.5:
25
for
survival
NOAEC
=
2.5:
37.5
for
survival
(
a.
i.)
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
life­
cycle
test
$
21­
day
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
assess
detoxification
of
a.
i.

$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

The
results
of
these
studies
indicate
that
the
chronic
toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
is
reduced
after
treatment
with
bentonite
clay.
The
bentonite
clay
was
an
effective
detoxification
agent
at
all
treatment
levels
except
for
2.5:
25.
The
studies
do
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements
for
a
fish
early
life
stage
chronic
test
or
an
aquatic
invertebrate
life
cycle
test.

(
5)
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Chronic
Sediment
Page
15of
32
A
sediment
toxicity
study
850.1790
was
submitted
for
ADBAC
even
though
the
data
are
not
required.
Results
of
this
study
are
presented
in
Table
7.

Table
7.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Sediment­
Incorporated
ADBAC
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
mg/
kg)
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Midge
(
Chironomus
tentans)
ADBAC
80%
14­
day:

LC50
=
548
LOAEC
=
520
NOAEC
=
260
MATC
=
368
(
a.
i.)

28­
day:

LC50
=
479
LOAEC
=
1200
NOAEC
=
520
MATC
=
790
(
a.
i.)
No
$
supplemental
study
$
28­
day
duration
$
sediment
$
static
test
system
$
deviations
from
guideline
include
lack
of
detailed
information
and
wide
pH
range
437311­
01
The
results
of
these
studies
indicate
that
exposure
to
ADBAC
in
the
sediment
results
in
measurable
effects
on
midges
at
a
concentration
of
520
mg/
kg
after
14­
days
and
at
a
concentration
of
1200
mg/
kg
after
28­
days.
This
study
partially
fulfills
the
guideline
requirement
for
an
acute
freshwater
sediment
acute
toxicity
test
(
850.1790).

(
6)
Freshwater
Fish,
Bioconcentration
Aquatic
organisms
bioavailability/
biomagnification
toxicity
tests
may
be
required
on
a
caseby
case
basis
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
ecological
studies
and
pertinent
environmental
characteristics.
This
testing
is
not
required
for
ADBAC.
However,
a
bioconcentration
study
with
a
freshwater
fish
(
bluegill)
was
submitted
for
review
(
MRID
410268­
01).
The
results
indicate
that
bioaccumulation
of
ADBAC
in
freshwater
fish
is
not
likely
to
occur.
Maximum
bioconcentration
factors
(
BCFs)
were
33X
for
edible
tissues
(
muscle,
skin),
160X
for
nonedible
tissues
(
viscera,
head,
carcass),
and
79X
for
whole
fish
tissues.
However,
this
study
was
classified
as
supplemental
and
does
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements
for
a
fish
bioconcentration
test
72­
6/
OPPTS
850.1730.
Further
information
on
this
study
may
be
found
in
the
Environmental
Fate
Chapter
of
this
RED
document.
Page
16of
32
C.
Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Plants
Phytotoxicity
testing
is
required
for
pesticides
when
certain
conditions
of
use
and
environmental
fate
apply.
Testing
is
conducted
with
one
species
of
aquatic
vacular
plant
(
Lemna
gibba
or
L.
minor)
and
four
species
of
algae:
(
1)
freshwater
green
alga,
Selenastrum
capricornutum,
(
2)
marine
diatom,
Skeletonema
costatum,
(
3)
freshwater
diatom,
Navicula
pelliculosa,
and
(
4)
bluegreen
alga,
Anabaena
flos­
aquae.
Non­
target
plant
phytotoxicity
tests
are
required
for
ADBAC
uses
having
potential
for
environmental
exposure
(
once
through
cooling
towers,
antisapstain).

A
freshwater
algal
growth
study,
that
evaluated
the
chronic
toxicity
of
ADBAC
complexed
with
bentonite
clay
at
various
concentrations,
was
reviewed.
The
study
was
obtained
from
the
open
literature.
Results
of
this
study
are
presented
in
Table
8.

Table
8.
Toxicity
of
Complexed
ADBAC
to
Aquatic
Plants
Species
Chemical,
%
Active
Ingredient
(
a.
i.)

Tested
Endpoint
(
ADBAC:
Clay)
(
mg/
L)
Satisfies
Guidelines/
Comments
Reference
(
MRID
No.)

Green
alga
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)
ADBAC
50%
(
2.5
mg/
L)
plus
Bentonite
Clay
at
concentrations
of
0:
0,
2.5:
25,
2.5:
37.5,
2.5:
50,
and
2.5:
75
mg/
L
LOAEC
=
2.5:
25
for
growth
NOAEC
=
2.5:
37.5
for
growth
No
$
supplemental
study
$
open
literature
$
growth
inhibition
$
96­
hr
test
duration
$
static­
renewal
test
system
$
assess
detoxification
of
a.
i.

$
deviations
from
guideline
include
photoperiod
and
lack
of
detailed
information
Dobbs,
M.
G.
et
al.

The
results
of
this
study
indicate
that
bentonite
clay
is
an
effective
detoxification
agent
for
all
treatment
levels
except
for
the
2.5:
25
treatment.
This
study
was
classified
as
supplemental
and
does
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements
for
an
algal
toxicity
test.
Page
17of
32
II.
Risk
Assessment
and
Characterization
Risk
assessment
integrates
the
results
of
the
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects.
Also
playing
a
role
is
the
environmental
fate
of
a
chemical.
The
following
sections
present
a
summary
of
the
environmental
fate
of
ADBAC
and
an
environmental
exposure
and
ecological
risk
assessment.
One
method
of
integrating
the
results
of
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
is
called
the
quotient
method.
For
this
method,
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
ecotoxicity
values,
both
acute
and
chronic:

RQ
=
EXPOSURE/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
OPP's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
criteria
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
The
criteria
indicate
that
a
pesticide
used
as
directed
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
nontarget
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
risk
presumption
categories:
(
1)
acute
high
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification;
(
2)
acute
restricted
use
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
this
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification;
(
3)
acute
endangered
species
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
to
endangered
species
is
high,
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted;
and
(
4)
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high,
and
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
Currently,
AD
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants,
acute
or
chronic
risks
to
nontarget
insects,
or
chronic
risk
from
granular/
bait
formulations
to
mammalian
or
avian
species.

The
ecotoxicity
test
values
(
i.
e.,
measurement
endpoints)
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
derived
from
the
results
of
required
studies.
Examples
of
ecotoxicity
values
derived
from
the
results
of
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:
(
1)
LC50
(
fish
and
birds)
(
2)
LD50
(
birds
and
mammals)
(
3)
EC50
(
aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
(
4)
EC25
(
terrestrial
plants).
Examples
of
toxicity
test
effect
levels
derived
from
the
results
of
long­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
chronic
effects
are:
(
1)
LOEC
(
birds,
fish,
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
(
2)
NOEC
(
birds,
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
(
3)
MATC
(
Maximum
Allowable
Toxic
Concentration)
(
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates).
For
birds
and
mammals,
the
NOEC
value
is
used
as
the
ecotoxicity
test
value
in
assessing
chronic
effects.
Other
values
may
be
used
when
justified.
Generally,
the
MATC
(
defined
as
the
geometric
mean
of
the
NOEC
and
LOEC)
is
used
as
the
ecotoxicity
test
value
in
assessing
chronic
effects
to
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates.
However,
the
NOEC
is
used
if
the
measurement
endpoint
is
production
of
offspring
or
survival.

Risk
presumptions,
along
with
the
corresponding
RQs
and
LOCs
are
tabulated
below.

Risk
Presumptions
for
Terrestrial
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
and
Wild
Mammals
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft2
or
LD50/
day3
0.5
Page
18of
32
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
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
Risk
Presumptions
for
Aquatic
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
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/
MATC
or
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
(
ppm
or
ppb)
in
water
Risk
Presumptions
for
Plants
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
EC25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC2/
EC50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
2
EEC
=
(
ppb/
ppm)
in
water
Page
19of
32
A.
Environmental
Fate
Assessment
Summary
(
excerpted
from
the
Environmental
Fate
Science
Chapter
of
this
RED
document)

The
Agency
has
reviewed
various
environmental
fate
studies
and
reports
submitted
for
ADBAC.
The
data
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
hydrolytically
and
photolytically
stable
under
abiotic
and
buffered
conditions.
Aquatic
metabolism
studies
indicate
that
ADBAC
is
also
stable
to
microbial
degradation.
However,
a
report
on
the
biodegradability
of
ADBAC
concluded
that
the
degree
of
ADBAC
biodegradability
is
variable
and
is
influenced
by
the
chemical
concentration,
alkyl
chain
length,
the
presence
of
anionic
moieties
and
the
quantity
and
characteristics
of
the
microbial
population.
Accordingly,
ADBAC
is
considered
biodegradable
under
aerobic
and
anaerobic
conditions
and,
therefore,
environmentally
acceptable.
In
addition,
ADBAC
is
immobile
in
soil
because
of
its
strong
tendency
to
bind
to
sediment/
soil.
Bioaccumulation
of
ADBAC
in
terrestrial
or
aquatic
organisms
is
not
likely
to
occur.
Further
information
on
the
environmental
fate
of
ADBAC
may
be
found
in
the
Environmental
Fate
Chapter
of
this
RED
document.

B.
Environmental
Exposure
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
organisms
and
plants
could
potentially
be
exposed
to
ADBAC
discharged
into
the
aquatic
environment.
The
Agency
conducted
modeling
in
2005
to
estimate
the
exposure
and
environment
risk
resulting
from
such
discharges
of
ADBAC
from
the
once­
through
cooling
tower
and
antisapstain
wood
treatment
uses.

(
1)
Tier
I
2005
Probabilistic
Dilution
Modeling
for
once­
through
cooling
tower
use
The
EPA
Office
of
Water
PDM4
Model
was
used
to
estimate
exposure
from
oncethrough
cooling
tower
use
as
a
preliminary
screen
in
the
absence
of
field
residue
data.
Oncethrough
cooling
water
systems
applying
a
continuous
dose
of
pesticide
located
on
low­
flow
streams
(
100
million
gallons
per
day)
were
used
as
the
scenarios
providing
the
maximum
concentrations
of
ADBAC
in
the
receiving
water,
e.
g.,
the
"
worst
case"
scenarios.
It
was
assumed
that
the
chemical
was
being
applied
at
the
highest
listed
maintenance
rate
shown
on
any
of
the
ADBAC
product
labels.
Actual
probabilities
of
exceedance
of
concentrations
in
receiving
waters
are
likely
lower
than
what
are
shown
in
Table
10
due
to
higher
flow
rates
and
possible
degradation/
dissipation
of
available
ADBAC
by
mechanisms
other
than
hydrolysis.
A
summary
of
concentrations
over
time
is
provided
in
Table
10.
The
concentrations
selected
for
analysis
were
the
measured
endpoints
derived
from
the
results
of
the
required
studies
(
see
Section
I.
B.)

Table
9
­
Table
of
LOC
Values
Page
20of
32
Modeling
Results
for
ADBAC
 
Once­
through
Cooling
Use
The
following
tables
list
the
probability
that
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
will
be
exceeded
for
aquatic
organisms.
Various
dosages,
dosing
methods
(
continuous
vs
intermittent),
and
water
flow
rates
(
low,
medium,
high
stream
flow
rates)
were
modeled.

Results
are
given
as
percent
of
days
per
year
and
number
of
days
per
year
of
LOC
exceedance
for
the
different
aquatic
animal
and
plant
groups.
BOLD
indicates
exceedance
of
LOC
(
e.
g.,
if
the
number
of
days
exceeded
is
equivalent
to
or
greater
than
number
of
days
used
to
determine
the
toxicology
endpoint,
risk
is
assumed).
A
maximum
dosage
of
10.0
ppm
was
selected
from
labeling.
The
lowest
estuarine/
marine
species
endpoint
(
marine
mollusk)
was
used
below.

Average
Exceedances
Table
10
­
5.0
ppm
intermittent
dose,
Low
Flow
facility
("
best
case")
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
0.13%,
0.10
days
140
ppb
10.9%,
40
days
322
ppb,
1.35%,
1.0
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
>
21.2%,
>
80days
3.0
ppb
>
21.2%,
>
80
days
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
1.99%,
7.3
days
2.8
ppb
>
2.12%,
>
8
days
n/
a
Green
alga
2500
ppb
4e­
10%...
negligible
Table
11
­
5.0
ppm
intermittent
dose,
High
flow
Taxa
LC50/
EC50
High
Acute
Risk
LOC
(
X
0.5)
Restricted
Use
LOC
(
X
0.1)
Endangered
Species
LOC
(
X
0.05)

Freshwater
fish­
warm
280
ppb
140
ppb
28
ppb
14
ppb
Freshwater
fish
 
cold
923
ppb
462
ppb
92
ppb
46
ppb
Freshwater
invertebrate
5.9
ppb
2.95
ppb
0.59
ppb
0.30
ppb
Marine
fish
860
ppb
430
ppb
86
ppb
43
ppb
Marine
mollusk
55
ppb
28
ppb
5.5
ppb
2.8
ppb
Marine
invertebrate
80
ppb
40
ppb
8
ppb
4
ppb
Green
alga
2500
ppb
n/
a
n/
a
n/
a
Aquatic
vascular
plant
No
data
Freshwater
fish
chronic
32.2
ppb
Page
21of
32
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
0.038%,
negligible
140
ppb
18.7%,
68
days
322
ppb
0.81%,
3.0
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
>
40.1%,
>
150
days
3.0
ppb
>
40.1%,
>
150
days
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
1.5%,
6.0
days
2.8
ppb
>
40.1%,
>
150
days
Green
alga
2500
ppb
1.33e­
8
Table
12
­
10.0
ppm
intermittent,
Low
Flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
0.7%,
2.6
days
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
322
ppb
4.6%,
17
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
9.3%,
34.2
days
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
Green
alga
2500
ppb
5.99e­
7%,
negligible
Table
13
­
2.0
ppm
continuous,
High
Flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
147%,
540
days
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
322
ppb
422%,
1540
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
460%,
1680
days
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
Green
alga
2500
ppb
0.0920%,
0.3
days
Table
14
­
2.0
ppm
continuous,
Low
Flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Page
22of
32
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
65%,
239
days
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
322
ppb
198%,
64
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
224%,
819
days
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
doses
Green
alga
2500
ppb
0.284%,
1.0
days
Table
15
­
5.0
ppm
continuous,
Low
Flow
(
highest)
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
322
ppb
350%,
1270
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
Green
alga
2500
ppb
2.0%,
7.3
days
Worst­
Case
Exceedances:
Page
23of
32
Table
16
­
5.0
ppm
intermittent,
Medium­
flow
(
lowest
worst­
case)
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
0.10%,
0.4
days
140
ppb
22.6%,
82.5
days
322.0
ppb
1.7%,.
6.0
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
>
61.7%,
>
225
days
3.0
ppb
>
617%,
>
225
days
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
2.9%,
10.5
days
2.8
ppb
>
61.7%,
>
225
days
Green
alga
2500
ppb
3.55e­
7%,
negligible
Table
17
­
5.0
ppm
intermittent,
Low­
flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
1.6%,
6.0
days
140
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
medium
flow
322
ppb
15.7%,
57.3
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
medium
flow
3.0
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
medium
flow
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
22.6%,
82.5
days
2.8
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
medium
flow
Green
alga
2500
ppb
4.79e­
08%,
negligible
Table
18
­
10
ppm
intermittent,
Medium­
flow
Page
24of
32
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
0.77%,
3.0
days
140
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
322
ppb
8.16%,
30
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
0.5
ppm
dose
3.0
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
2.8
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
Green
alga
2500
ppb
7.31
e­
06%,
negligible
Table
19
­
10
ppm
intermittent,
Low­
flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
7.9%,
29
days
140
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
322
ppb
49.5%,
180
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
3.0
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
2.8
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
Green
alga
2500
ppb
7.17e­
7%,
neglibile
Table
20
­
2.0
ppm
continuous,
Medium­
flow
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
274.3%,
1000
days
140
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
322
ppb
740%,
2700
days
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
3.0
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
2.8
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
5.0
ppm
dose
dose
Page
25of
32
Green
alga
2500
ppb
0.242%,
10
days
Table
21
­
5.0
ppm
continuous,
Low­
flow
(
highest
worst­
case)
Levels
of
Concern
(
LOCs)
Taxa
Endpoint
value
(
from
study)
Acute
Nontarget
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.5)
Endangered
Species
(
LC50
or
EC50
*
0.05)
Chronic
(
NOEC)

FW
fish
280
ppb
1400
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
ppm
dose
140
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
322
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
2.0
pm
dose
FW
invert
5.9
ppb
30
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
3.0
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
n/
a
ME
mollusk
55
ppb
280
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
dose
2.8
ppb
Already
exceeded
by
intermittent
ppm
dose
Green
alga
2500
ppb
23.1%,
84
days
Tier
I
once­
through
cooling
tower
modeling
indicates
that
ADBAC
use
will
result
in
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered/
threatened
freshwater
fish
and
acute
risk
to
other
aquatic
animals
at
all
3
dosages
modeled:
2.0
ppm,
5.0
ppm,
and
10.0ppm.
High
water
flow,
intermittent
dosing
at
10.0
ppm
had
less
acute
and
chronic
impact
on
non­
endangered
freshwater
fish
than
medium
to
low
stream
flow.
However,
all
LOC's
were
triggered
at
the
2.0
ppm
dosage
using
continuous
dosing
regardless
of
high,
medium,
or
low
stream
flow.
The
nontarget
plant
LOC
is
triggered
at
all
3
continuous
dosages
modeled.

(
2)
Antisapstain
Wood
Leaching
Model
The
ADBAC
antisapstain
wood
treatment
use
was
modeled
using
Krahn
and
Strub
­
1990,
to
estimate
expected
environmental
concentrations
(
EEC's).
The
EEC
is
an
estimate
of
the
amount
of
ADBAC
that
will
runoff
from
antisapstain
treated
wood
exposed
to
the
elements
when
stored
outdoors.
The
chemical
formulation,
retention
of
antisapstain
by
the
wood,
rough
vs
smooth
wood
surfaces,
amount
and
timing
of
precipitation,
and
storage
site
conditions
are
some
of
the
variables
that
affect
the
amount
and
timing
of
runoff.
A
total
of
16
rain
cycles
of
equal
intensity
and
duration
were
used
in
this
model.

Table
22
­
Table
of
LOCs
Page
26of
32
The
maximum
amount
of
leachate
from
the
antisapstain
treated
wood
that
was
predicted
by
this
model
totaled
3.92
ppb.
The
lowest
predicted
amount
of
leachate
was
1.02
ppb
and
the
typical
amount
was
1.57
ppb.
LC50
values
for
fish
range
from
280
to
860
ppb,
and
for
estuarine
invertebrates
range
from
55
to
92
ppb.
Freshwater
invertebrates
are
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
animals
to
ADBAC
with
an
acute
EC50
of
5.9
ppb,
and
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
4.1
ppb.

Non­
endangered/
threatened
aquatic
species
(
fish,
invertebrates,
green
algae)
are
not
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
­
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
­
based
on
LOCs
above.
Endangered/
threatened
fish
(
freshwater
and
marine/
estuarine)
and
green
algae
are
not
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
antisapstain
use.
However,
freshwater
and
marine
aquatic
invertebrate
endangered/
threatened
species
are
at
risk
from
the
antisapstain
use.

Conclusions:

Once­
through
Cooling
Tower
Use
Tier
I
once­
through
cooling
tower
modeling
indicates
that
ADBAC
use
will
result
in
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
non­
endangered
and
endangered/
threatened
freshwater
fish
and
acute
risk
to
other
aquatic
animals
at
all
3
dosages
modeled:
2.0
ppm,
5.0
ppm,
and
10.0ppm.
High
water
flow,
intermittent
dosing
at
10.0
ppm
had
less
acute
and
chronic
impact
on
non­
endangered
freshwater
fish
than
medium
to
low
stream
flow.
However,
all
LOC's
were
triggered
at
the
2.0
ppm
dosage
using
continuous
dosing
regardless
of
high,
medium,
or
low
stream
flow.
The
nontarget
plant
LOC
is
triggered
at
all
3
continuous
dosages
modeled.
The
aquatic
plant
risk
assessment
is
incomplete
due
to
a
number
of
outstanding
studies
(
see
section
II.
1.
Confirmatory
Data
Required).

The
high
vs
medium
vs
low
water
flow
rate
is
based
on
size
of
the
facility.
Generally,
higher
flow
(
e.
g.,
>
1000
MGD)
would
use
more
chemical
than
smaller
facilities,
but
the
pattern
does
not
hold
true
across
the
board,
probably
because
model
input
values
are
based
on
different
receiving
water
Taxa
LC50/
EC50
High
Acute
Risk
LOC
(
X
0.5)
Restricted
Use
LOC
(
X
0.1)
Endangered
Species
LOC
(
X
0.05)

Freshwater
fish­
warm
280
ppb
140
ppb
28
ppb
14
ppb
Freshwater
fish
 
cold
923
ppb
462
ppb
92
ppb
46
ppb
Freshwater
in
Vertebrate
5.9
ppb
2.95
ppb
0.59
ppb
0.30
ppb
Marine
fish
860
ppb
430
ppb
86
ppb
43
ppb
Marine
mollusk
55
ppb
28
ppb
5.5
ppb
2.8
ppb
Marine
invertebrate
80
ppb
40
ppb
8
ppb
4
ppb
Green
alga
2500
ppb
n/
a
n/
a
n/
a
Aquatic
vascular
plant
No
data
Freshwater
fish
chronic
32.2
ppb
Page
27of
32
("
reach")
data
for
individual
facilities.
This
model
uses
7Q10
rainfall
conditions,
which
is
essentially
the
worst­
case
drought
of
a
10
year
period.
Variables
such
as
stream
flow
rate
and
ADBAC
dissipation,
degradation,
and
1/
2
life
were
not
considered
in
this
Tier
I
model
but
should
be
considered
in
higher
tier
modeling.
Field
monitoring
is
suggested
in
the
absence
of
higher
Tier
modeling.
Risk
mitigation
recommendations
should
be
based
on
dosing
method
(
e.
g.
intermittent
vs
continuous)
and
application
rate
instead
of
facility
size,
however,
risk
mitigation
is
not
recommended
at
this
time.

Antisapstain
Wood
Treatment
Use
The
maximum
amount
of
leachate
from
antisapstain
treated
wood
per
the
Krahn
and
Strub,
1990
model
totaled
3.92
ppb.
The
lowest
predicted
amount
of
leachate
was
1.02
ppb
and
the
typical
amount
was
1.57
ppb.
LC50
values
for
fish
range
from
280
to
860
ppb,
and
for
estuarine
invertebrates
range
from
55
to
92
ppb.
Freshwater
invertebrates
are
the
most
sensitive
aquatic
animals
to
ADBAC
with
an
acute
EC50
of
5.9
ppb,
and
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
4.1
ppb.
Nonendangered
threatened
aquatic
species
(
fish,
invertebrates,
green
algae)
are
not
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
­
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
­
based
on
LOCs.
Endangered/
threatened
fish
and
green
algae
species
are
not
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
antisapstain
use.
Due
to
the
extreme
sensitivity
of
freshwater
and
marine
aquatic
invertebrates
to
ADBAC,
methods
such
as
indoor
or
covered
wood
storage
and/
or
containment
of
runoff
water
via
berms
or
plastic
barriers
in
outdoor
storage
areas
are
suggested.
ADBAC
is
tightly
adsorbed
to
clay
and
organic
matter
which
greatly
reduces
potential
for
ADBAC
to
leach
downward
through
soil
to
groundwater,
and
will
serve
to
reduce
surface
runoff
as
well.
The
Tier
I
screening
model
is
only
intended
as
a
screening­
level
model,
and,
as
such,
has
inherent
uncertainties
and
limitations
which
may
result
in
inaccurate
exposure
estimations,
further
refinement
of
the
model
is
recommended
before
any
regulatory
action
is
taken
regarding
the
antisapstain
uses
of
ADBAC.
An
environmental
monitoring
study
of
runoff
from
antisapstain
treatment
facilities
is
needed
to
address
the
potential
risks
and
to
provide
EECs
for
use
in
a
refined
risk
assessment.
Additionally,
impacts
from
the
antisapstain
use
could
potentially
be
mitigated
with
precautions
to
prevent
leaching
and
runoff
when
wood
is
stored
outdoors.

C.
Endangered
Species
Considerations
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
andronomus
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.
Page
28of
32
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
performed,
if
any
of
the
Agency=
s
Listed
Species
LOC
Criteria
are
exceeded
for
either
direct
or
indirect
effects,
a
determination
is
made
to
identify
if
any
listed
or
candidate
species
may
co­
occur
in
the
area
of
the
proposed
pesticide
use.
If
determined
that
listed
or
candidate
species
may
be
present
in
the
proposed
use
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.

For
certain
use
categories,
the
Agency
assumes
there
will
be
minimal
environmental
exposure,
and
only
a
minimal
toxicity
data
set
is
required
(
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency
­
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations,
1/
23/
04,
Appendix
A,
Section
IIB,
pg.
81).
Chemicals
in
these
categories
therefore
do
not
undergo
a
full
screening­
level
risk
assessment,
and
are
considered
to
fall
under
a
Ano
effect@
determination
(
NE).
The
majority
of
ADBAC
uses
are
spray
applications
to
indoor
surfaces,
truck
interiors,
kennels,
institutional
areas,
household
areas,
recirculating
cooling
towers,
evaporative
condensers,
pulp/
paper
mills,
swimming
pools
and
spas,
and
oil
field
mud
treatments
to
name
a
few
and
fall
into
this
category
for
the
following
reasons:

1.
The
amount
that
will
actually
reach
the
environment
is
very
small
based
on
usage
data
and
use
patterns
(
no
homeowner/
residential
use
for
bathrooms)
and
containment
methods
(
retaining
ponds,
recirculation,
low
residual
upon
release).

2.
Breakdown
in
the
environment
and
via
sewage
treatment
is
rapid
and
well
documented
in
the
literature
(
See
Environmental
Fate
Chapter
for
more
detail).
The
agency
requires
the
following
label
statement:
"
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authorities
are
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
to
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
local
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
EPA."

ADBAC
uses
that
have
potential
for
direct
release
into
the
environment
or
runoff
to
surface
waters
include
once­
through
cooling
tower
and
antisapstain
wood
treatment
uses
respectively.
These
uses
are
considered
to
be
representative
of
having
worst­
case
potential
for
impacting
the
environment.
Therefore,
these
sites
were
modeled.
Page
29of
32
The
"
best
case"
once­
through
cooling
tower
scenario
using
1/
2
the
maximum
recommended
label
dosage
intermittently
applied
in
a
low
water
flow
resulted
in
several
LOC
exceedances
including
freshwater
fish,
freshwater
invertebrates,
and
marine
invertebrates.
Green
algae
were
not
adversely
affected
except
from
use
of
continuous
dosing
in
combination
with
low
stream
flow
conditions.
The
agency
is
not
aware
of
any
endangered
or
threatened
green
algae.
Because
ADBAC
is
rapidly
adsorbed
to
organic
materials
and
clay,
impacts
to
aquatic
organisms
may
be
less
than
modeled.
The
once­
through
cooling
tower
model
does
not
account
for
degradation
and
therefore,
further
assessment
is
required
prior
to
making
an
agency
endangered
species
determination.

Endangered/
threatened
fish
and
green
algae
species
are
not
expected
to
be
adversely
affected
by
the
antisapstain
use.
However,
based
on
LOC's
above
both
freshwater
and
marine
aquatic
invertebrate
endangered/
threatened
species
are
at
risk
from
the
antisapstain
use.
Impacts
from
the
antisapstain
use
are
not
expected
to
occur
as
long
as
precautions
are
taken
to
prevent
leaching
when
wood
is
stored
outdoors.
Using
Tier
I
screening
modeling
to
assess
potential
exposure
from
antisapstain
wood
preservation
uses
of
ADBAC,
risks
to
Listed
Species
are
indicated.
Since
the
model
is
only
intended
as
a
screening­
level
model,
and,
as
such,
has
inherent
uncertainties
and
limitations
which
may
result
in
inaccurate
exposure
estimations,
further
refinement
of
the
model
is
recommended
before
any
regulatory
action
is
taken
regarding
the
antisapstain
uses
of
ADBAC.
An
environmental
monitoring
study
of
runoff
from
antisapstain
treatment
facilities
is
needed
to
address
the
potential
risks
and
to
provide
EECs
for
use
in
a
refined
risk
assessment.
Additionally,
impacts
from
the
antisapstain
use
could
potentially
be
mitigated
with
precautions
to
prevent
leaching
and
runoff
when
wood
is
stored
outdoors.
Due
to
these
circumstances,
the
Agency
defers
making
a
determination
for
the
antisapstain
uses
of
ADBAC
until
additional
data
and
modeling
refinements
are
available.
At
that
time,
the
environmental
exposure
assessment
of
the
antisapstain
use
of
ADBAC
will
be
revised,
and
the
risks
to
Listed
Species
will
be
reconsidered.

III.
Confirmatory
Data
Required
1.
Non­
target
Plant
Phytotoxicity
Studies
are
Required:
850.4225
(
seedling
emergence
using
rice),
850.4250
(
vegetative
vigor
using
rice),
850.4400
(
Lemna
gibba),
850.5400
(
Algal
toxicity,
4
species:
green
alga
Selenastrum
capricornutum
or
Pseudokirshneriella
subcapitata,
blue­
green
cyanobacteria
Anabeana
flos­
aquae,
freshwater
diatom
Navicula
pelliculosa,
marine
diatom
Skeletonema
costatum).

2.
Acute
Eastern
Oyster
embryo
larvae
study
is
required:
850.1055.

3.
Chronic
Daphnia
magna
study
is
required:
850.1300
4.
Monitoring
and/
or
Tier
II
modeling
of
once­
through
cooling
tower
and
antisapstain
uses
to
establish
EEC's
for
risk
assessment.
Page
30of
32
IV.
Label
Hazard
Statements
for
Terrestrial
and
Aquatic
Organisms
and
Use
Recommendations
ADBAC
labels
must
state:

"
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
oysters,
and
shrimp".

"
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(
NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authorities
are
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
to
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
local
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
EPA."

Antisapstain
labels
must
state:
"
Treated
lumber
must
not
be
store
outdoors
without
precautions
to
prevent
leaching
by
rainfall
to
the
environment.
Suitable
precautions
include:
covering
wood
with
plastic
or
other
impervious
covering,
installation
of
berms
and
placement
of
plastic
under
the
wood
to
prevent
surface
water
runoff
away
from
the
storage
area."
Page
31of
32
V.
REFERENCES
Dobbs,
M.
G.,
D.
S.
Cherry,
J.
C.
Scott,
and
J.
C.
Petrille.
1995.
Environmental
Assessment
of
an
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
Based
Molluscicide
Using
Laboratory
Tests.
Published
data.
Proceedings
of
the
Fifth
International
Zebra
Mussel
and
Other
Aquatic
Nuisance
Organisms
Conference,
Toronto,
Canada.

Krahn,
P.
K.
and
R.
Strub.
1990.
Standard
leaching
test
for
antisapstain
chemicals.
Regional
Program
Report
90­
10.
Environment
Canada,
Conservation
and
Protection,
Environmental
Protection,
Pacific
and
Yukon
Region,
North
Vancouver,
B.
C.

MRID
410268­
01.
Fackler,
P.
1989.
Bioconcentration
and
Elimination
of
14C­
Residues
by
Bluegill
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
Exposed
to
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC).
Project
No.
11572­
0287­
6103­
140B.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Springborn
Life
Sciences,
Inc.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
419472­
01.
Pate,
H.
O.
and
D.
O.
McIntyre.
1991.
Daily
Static­
Renewal
Acute
96­
Hour
Toxicity
Test
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
to
Bluegill
Sunfish.
Study
No.
SC890050.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Battelle
Columbus
Division
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
419472­
02.
Pate,
H.
O.
and
D.
O.
McIntyre.
1991.
Daily
Static­
Renewal
Acute
96­
Hour
Toxicity
Test
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
to
Rainbow
Trout.
Study
No.
SC890051.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Battelle
Columbus
Division
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
419472­
03.
Pate,
H.
O.
and
D.
O.
McIntyre.
1991.
Daily
Static­
Renewal
Acute
48­
Hour
Toxicity
Test
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
to
Daphnia
magna.
Study
No.
SC
890052.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Battelle
Columbus
Division
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
423021­
01.
McIntyre,
D.
O.
and
H.
O.
Pate.
1992.
Daily
Static­
Renewal
Chronic
21­
Day
Toxicity
Test
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
to
Daphnia
magna.
Study
No.
SC890056.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Battelle
Columbus
Division
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
423021­
02.
McIntyre,
D.
O.
and
H.
O.
Pate.
1992.
Daily
Static­
Renewal
Early
Life
Stage
Toxicity
Test
of
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
to
Fathead
Minnows.
Project
No.
SC890057.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Battelle
Columbus
Operations
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.
Page
32of
32
MRID
424795­
01.
Sved,
D.
W.,
J.
P.
Swigert,
and
G.
J.
Smith.
1992.
A
96­
Hour
Static­
Renewal
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Saltwater
Mysid
(
Mysidopsis
bahia).
Project
No.
350A­
101A.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.
MRID
424795­
02.
Sved,
D.
W.,
J.
P.
Swigert,
and
G.
J.
Smith.
1992.
A
96­
Hour
Static­
Renewal
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Sheepshead
Minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
Project
No.
350A­
102.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
424795­
03.
Sved,
D.
W.,
J.
P.
Swigert,
and
G.
J.
Smith.
1992.
A
48­
Hour
Static
Acute
Toxicity
Test
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
Embryo
Larvae
of
the
Eastern
Oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica).
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
428859­
01.
Campbell,
S.
M.
and
M.
Jaber.
1993.
An
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Study
with
Alkyl
Dimethyl
Benzyl
Ammonium
Chloride
(
ADBAC)
in
the
Northern
Bobwhite
Quail.
Project
No.
289­
109.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
Wildlife
International
Ltd.
for
Lonza,
Inc.

MRID
437311­
01.
England,
D.
C.
and
T.
Leak.
1995.
Chronic
Toxicity
of
Sediment­
Incorporated
ADBAC
to
Chironomus
tentans.
Project
No.
41004.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
437401­
01.
Sword,
M.
C.
and
L.
Stuerman.
1993.
Static­
Renewal
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
in
Dilution
Water
Amended
with
20
mg/
L
Humic
Acid.
Study
No.
41235.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
437401­
02.
Sword,
M.
C.
and
L.
Stuerman.
1993.
Static­
Renewal
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas)
in
Dilution
Water
Amended
with
10
mg/
L
Humic
Acid.
Study
No.
41236.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.

MRID
437401­
03.
Sword,
M.
C.
and
L.
Stuerman.
1993.
Static­
Renewal
Acute
Toxicity
of
ADBAC
to
Fathead
Minnow
(
Pimephales
promelas).
Study
No.
41237.
Unpublished
data.
Conducted
by
ABC
Laboratories,
Inc.
for
ADBAC
Quat
Joint
Venture/
Chemical
Specialties
Manufacturers
Association.