Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2005-0497-0042
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-08-23T04:00Z

U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
Date:
June
29,
2006
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PC
Code:
122101
DP
Barcode:
DP
329391
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Revised
RED
for
the
Reregistration
of
propiconazole
TO:
Christiana
Scheltema,
Chemical
Review
Manager
Reregistration
Branch
3
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(
7505PY)

FROM:
William
Evans,
Biologist
James
Lin,
Environmental
Engineer
Nancy
Andrews,
Branch
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
I
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
7507PY)

The
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
have
revised
the
propriconazole
EFED
Science
Chapter
to
reflect
the
responses
to
the
Phase
3
comments.
The
revised
risk
assessment
is
attached.
Any
questions
on
this
document
should
be
directed
to
Bill
Evans
or
Jim
Lin.
Page
2
of
206
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
Washington,
D.
C.
20460
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticides,
and
Toxic
Substances
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
for
the
Reregistration
of
Propiconazole
[
1­[[
2­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
4­
propyl­
1,3­
dioxolan­
2­
yl]
methyl]­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole]
CAS
Registry
No.:
60207­
90­
1
PC
Code:
122101
Prepared
by:
Reviewed
by:
William
Evans,
Biologist
Nancy
Andrews,
Branch
Chief
James
Lin,
Environmental
Engineer
Edward
Odenkirchen,
Senior
Biologist
Thuy
Nguyen,
Acting
RAPL
Environmental
Risk
Branch
1
(
ERB1)
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
EFED)
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
USEPA)
Ariel
Rios
Building,
1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.
Mail
Code
7507PC
Washington,
DC
2000
Page
3
of
206
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY.........................................................................................................
5
A.
Predicted
Environmental
Exposure
................................................................................
5
1.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor...........................................................................................
5
B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
......................................................................
6
1.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms........................................................................................
6
2.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Organisms.............................................................................................
6
C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization.....................................................................
7
D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization.........................................................................
8
E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
........................................................................................
8
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION.....................................................................................................
9
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.................................................................................
9
1.
Source
and
Intensity.......................................................................................................
9
2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
......................................................
10
3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action...................................................................
10
B.
Receptors
....................................................................................................................
11
1.
Aquatic
Effects
.............................................................................................................
11
2.
Terrestrial
Effects.........................................................................................................
11
3.
Ecosystems
at
Risk........................................................................................................
12
C.
Assessment
Endpoints
................................................................................................
12
D.
Conceptual
Model.......................................................................................................
13
1.
Risk
Hypothesis
............................................................................................................
13
2.
Diagram........................................................................................................................
14
E.
Analysis
Plan...............................................................................................................
16
1.
Preliminary
Identification
of
Data
Gaps
and
Methods................................................
16
2.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
and
Conceptual
Model
..................................
19
III.
ANALYSIS
..............................................................................................................................
22
A.
Use
Characterization..................................................................................................
22
B.
Exposure
Characterization..........................................................................................
25
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization.................................................
25
2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure.....................................................................................
25
3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure...............................................................................
34
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization...........................................................................
41
1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization.................................................................................
42
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
............................................................................
44
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION....................................................................................................
47
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
........................................
47
1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals...............................................................................................
47
2.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
..................................................................................................
51
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals....................................................................................
52
4.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
.......................................................................................
61
B.
Risk
Description..............................................................................................................
62
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.........................................................................................
63
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
....................................................................................
65
3.
Endocrine
Disruption
Assessment................................................................................
72
4.
Review
of
Incident
Data................................................................................................
72
5.
Federally
Threatened
and
Endangered
(
Listed)
Species
Concerns
.............................
73
C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
Strengths
and
Data
Gaps
.......
82
LITERATURE
CITED..........................................................................................................................
83
Appendix
A
 
Environmental
Fate
Discussion
.......................................................................................
85
Page
4
of
206
Appendix
B
 
Modeling
Inputs
and
Attachments
...................................................................................
93
Appendix
C
 
Formulas
used
to
calculate
EEC
values.........................................................................
128
Appendix
D
 
Ecological
Toxicity
Tables............................................................................................
129
Appendix
E
 
RQ
Tables
.....................................................................................................................
144
Appendix
F
 
Endangered
Species
State
Listing..................................................................................
187
Appendix
G
 
Data
Requirement
Tables
..............................................................................................
203
Page
5
of
206
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A.
Predicted
Environmental
Exposure
1.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
The
active
ingredient
propiconazole
is
a
triazole
fungicide
that
has
protective,
curative,
and
systemic
activity.
Some
trade
names
for
products
containing
propiconazole
include
Banner,
Benit,
Desmel,
Orbit,
Radar,
Tilt,
Fidis,
Alamo,
Spire,
Practis,
Bumper,
Mantis,
Restore,
Banner
Maxx,
Taspa,
Juno,
Novel
and
Break.
Formulations
come
as
emulsifiable
concentrates
(
EC)
and
wettable
powders
(
WP).
It
can
also
be
formulated
with
other
pesticides.
Depending
on
the
crop
being
treated,
end
products
containing
propiconazole
as
an
active
ingredient
can
be
applied
by
aerial
or
ground
broadcast
spray,
chemigation,
sprinkler
irrigation,
hose­
end
and
pump­
up
sprayer,
backpack
and
mist
blower,
and
dip
tank.
Exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
is
predominantly
from
release
to
the
environment
by
surface
runoff
and
spray
drift.
Exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
is
predominantly
from
release
to
the
environment
by
spray
drift.

To
support
the
assessment
of
risks
for
re­
registration
of
propiconazole,
this
document
is
dealing
with
propiconazole
parent
compound
only.
This
decision
was
mutually
agreed
upon
in
the
various
chemical
team
meetings
with
RD,
SRRD,
and
HED
that
degradates
will
not
be
addressed
in
this
RED.
They
will
be
possibly
addressed
in
the
new
uses.
This
assessment
focused
on
characterizing
potential
risks
resulting
from
the
registered
uses,
which
have
been
identified
in
the
Use
Closure
Memo
(
dated
04/
22/
2005).
The
uses
can
be
categorized
as
agricultural
or
non­
agricultural
uses.
Agricultural
uses
include
use
on
cereals
(
wheat,
barley,
rye,
oats,
and
triticale),
corn
(
sweet,
field
and
popcorn),
stone
fruits
(
Apricot,
peach,
cherry,
nectarine,
prune
and
plum),
seed
crops,
rice,
wild
rice,
pecans,
peanuts,
dry
beans
and
celery.
Non­
agricultural
uses
include
use
on
turf,
ornamentals,
lawn,
ground
cover,
golf
courses,
and
sod
farms.
The
maximum
annual
application
rate
ranges
from
a
high
of
7.2
lb
ai/
ac
for
turf
(
based
on
4
applications
at
1.78
lb
ai/
A)
use
to
a
low
of
0.1125
lb
ai/
ac
for
barley,
oats,
rye,
and
triticale.
Typical
use
rates
were
not
provided
for
this
review.

Based
on
state­
level
estimates
of
propiconazole
use
rates
for
individual
crops
which
have
been
compiled
by
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(
NCFAP)
from
1995­
1998,
and
on
1997
Census
of
Agricultural
county
crop
acreage,
the
top
ten
agricultural
uses
comprise
95%
of
the
total
amount
used
for
agriculture.
Among
agricultural
uses,
the
highest
amounts
are
used
on
wheat
(
53.89%),
followed
by
seed
crops
(
12.04%),
rice
(
8.05%),
pecans
(
8.04%),
peaches
(
3.45%),
sweet
corn
(
3.05%),
dry
beans
(
2.60%),
peanuts
(
2.08%),
barley
(
1.51%)
and
celery
(
1.15%).
For
non­
agricultural
uses,
the
use
patterns
include
turf,
ornamentals,
and
lawn;
ground
cover;
and
golf
course.
Application
rates
for
non­
agricultural
uses
(
up
to
7.2
lb
ai/
ac
per
year)
are
generally
higher
than
for
agricultural
uses.

The
terrestrial
risk
assessment
was
based
on
the
EFED's
T­
REX
model
(
version
1.2.3).
Since
propiconazole
only
has
very
limited
available
surface
and
groundwater
monitoring
data,
the
water
resource
assessment
was
also
based
on
modeling.
To
simulate
the
most
conservative
surface
water
exposures
for
ecological
risk
assessment
(
ERA),
PRZM/
EXAMS
and
SCIGROW,
Page
6
of
206
respectively,
were
modeled
on
the
top
ten
agricultural
uses
(
with
the
exception
of
the
use
on
rice,
for
which
The
Policy
for
Estimating
Aqueous
Concentrations
from
Pesticides
Labeled
for
Use
on
Rice,
dated
October
29,
2002
was
used
instead
of
PRZM/
EXAMS)
and
the
additional
three
turf
related
non­
agricultural
uses.

B.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
1.
Risk
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
The
screening
assessment
for
propiconazole
suggests
that
the
use
on
turf,
for
which
the
highest
application
rates
are
allowed,
poses
the
greatest
potential
for
risk
to
non­
target
terrestrial
organisms.
Risk
quotients
for
the
turf
use
exceed
the
acute
level
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
Federally
threatened
and/
or
endangered
(
listed)
and
non­
listed
birds,
and
chronic
risk
to
small
(
15­
gram)
birds.
The
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
highly
uncertain,
however,
the
no­
effect
level
used
to
calculate
the
risk
quotients
reflects
a
laboratory
study
in
which
no
effects
were
seen,
but
in
which
the
highest
dose
tested
was
below
the
highest
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
for
propiconazole
on
turf.
Risk
quotients
for
the
use
of
propiconazole
on
most
other
crops
exceed
the
acute
LOC
for
small
listed
birds.

The
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf
also
results
in
risk
quotients
above
the
chronic
LOC
for
mammals.
The
acute
LOC
for
listed
mammals
is
also
exceeded
for
stone
fruit,
pecan,
grasses
grown
for
seed,
and
peanut.

Risk
quotient
values
from
the
TERR­
PLANT
model
(
version
1.2.1)
for
the
use
on
turf
exceed
the
acute
LOC
for
terrestrial
dicot
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
areas
from
a
single
application.
The
listed
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
dicot
terrestrial
plants
in
semi­
aquatic
areas
for
single
applications
of
propiconazole
to
grasses
grown
for
seeds,
rice,
and
peanut.
However,
since
multiple
applications
are
allowed
for
propiconazole
for
all
uses,
it
is
possible
that
listed
terrestrial
plants
could
be
at
risk
from
the
corn,
celery,
and
and
stone
fruit
in
addition
to
the
turf
uses
of
propiconazole.

2.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Organisms
The
screening
assessment
for
propiconazole
indicates
that
the
use
on
rice
might
pose
the
greatest
risk
to
non­
target
aquatic
organisms.
The
RQs
for
propiconazole
use
on
rice
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
freshwater
fish
and
the
listed
species
LOC
for
freshwater
fish,
estuarine/
marine
fish,
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
In
addition,
RQs
for
the
use
on
rice
exceed
the
aquatic
plant
LOC,
based
on
toxicity
to
freshwater
and
marine
diatoms.
However,
the
EECs
for
propiconazole
use
on
rice
should
be
considered
to
be
conservative,
as
they
reflect
the
concentration
of
propiconazole
in
rice
paddy
discharge
water,
with
no
consideration
of
potential
degradation
in
the
paddy
itself
before
release
from
the
paddy.

The
use
on
turf
is
the
only
other
propiconazole
use
for
which
LOCs
for
aquatic
organisms
are
exceeded.
Risk
quotients
for
the
turf
use
exceed
the
LOC
for
listed
freshwater
fish
and
Page
7
of
206
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
In
addition,
RQs
for
the
use
on
turf
exceed
the
aquatic
plant
LOC,
based
on
toxicity
to
freshwater
and
marine
diatoms.

C.
Conclusions
­
Exposure
Characterization
The
soil
movement
and
leaching
potential
of
propiconazole
is
limited.
Mobility
is
restricted
in
soils
high
in
montmorillonite
clay
and/
or
organic
matter.
Also,
movement
of
propiconazole
is
less
in
acidic
soils
than
in
alkaline
soils.
Leaching
in
soils
that
are
acidic
and
high
in
clay
and
organic
matter
will
be
restricted
to
the
top
2­
3
inches.
In
alkaline,
low­
organic
matter
soils
(
typical
of
the
Southwestern
U.
S.),
propiconazole
may
leach
to
a
maximum
depth
of
8­
10
inches.

Propiconazole
displays
moderate
soil
longevity.
The
laboratory
soil
aerobic
metabolism
studies
showed
half­
life
values
of
43,
47,
and
70
days,
depending
on
C14
labeled
position.
Under
field
conditions,
the
longevity
is
somewhat
higher.
The
half­
life
under
these
conditions
ranged
from
a
low
of
96
days
in
a
sandy
loam
to
575
days
in
a
silt
loam
in
Texas.
In
North
Carolina,
the
half­
life
in
soil
dropped
to
229
days.

Because
of
the
very
limited
available
monitoring
data,
the
measures
of
exposure
were
estimated
using
standard
exposure
models.
PRZM/
EXAMS
models
estimate
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
of
propiconazole
in
the
surface
water
aquatic
environments;
PRZM/
EXAMS
was
used
for
all
modeled
propiconazole
uses
except
the
use
on
rice.
The
Policy
for
Estimating
Aqueous
Concentrations
from
Pesticides
Labeled
for
Use
on
Rice,
dated
October
29,
2002
was
used
in
estimating
the
water
concentrations
from
the
use
of
propiconazole
on
rice.
SCIGROW
modeling
was
used
to
estimate
EECs
from
the
ground
water
sources.
T­
REX
model
version
1.2.3
was
used
to
estimate
propiconazole
concentrations
on
terrestrial
food
items.

The
model
simulations
were
conducted
for
propiconazole
parent
compound
only.
The
standard
scenarios
for
the
selected
uses
were
used
to
provide
a
range
of
estimated
environmental
concentrations
for
selected
crops.
Maximum
application
rates
as
well
as
application
types
(
aerial,
ground,
or
chemigation)
were
selected
to
estimate
environmental
concentrations
for
this
screening­
level
deterministic
(
risk
quotient­
based)
assessment.
Application
dates
were
selected
based
on
the
expected
disease
pressures
within
standard
scenario
regions.

For
surface
water
exposures,
rice
use
has
the
highest
estimated
peak
exposure
value
of
86
µ
g/
L
(
ppb).
Turf
use
has
the
second
highest
estimated
peak
environmental
concentrations
(
peak
EEC
of
40
ppb
and
21­
day
average
EEC
of
37
ppb),
followed
by
sweet
corn
(
FL),
pecans,
and
celery.
Barley
has
the
lowest
estimated
environmental
concentrations,
which
are
less
than
2.0
µ
g/
L.

For
ground
water
exposures,
the
higher
estimated
concentrations
are
associated
with
the
higher
application
rates
for
the
non­
agricultural
uses.
Turf
and
ornamentals
uses
have
the
highest
EEC
of
0.72
µ
g/
L
(
ppb),
whereas
barley
use
has
the
lowest
EEC
of
0.01
µ
g/
L.
Page
8
of
206
D.
Conclusions
­
Effects
Characterization
Propiconazole
had
the
following
LD50s
for
avian
species:
mallard
duck
>
2510
mg/
kg,
Peking
duck
>
1000
mg/
kg,
Japanese
quail
>
1000
mg/
kg,
and
bobwhite
quail
2825
mg/
kg.
For
mammals,
acute
oral
toxicities
were
similar
for
the
rat,
mouse,
and
rabbit.
LD50s
ranged
from
1344
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
for
the
rabbit
to
1517
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
for
the
rat.
The
LD50
for
the
Chinese
hamster
was
3006
mg
ai/
kg­
diet.
A
2­
generation
rat
study
with
propiconazole
was
submitted
which
demonstrated
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet.
This
NOAEC
was
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gains
in
F0
and
F1
generations.

Propiconazole
had
the
following
EC50/
LC50
values
for
freshwater
fish
species:
bluegill
1.3­
10.2
ppm,
brown
trout
3.3
ppm,
rainbow
trout
0.9­
13.2
ppm,
carp
6.8­
21.0
ppm,
catfish
2.0­
5.1
ppm,
and
fathead
minnow
7.6
ppm.
Another
laboratory
trial
found
LC50
(
96­
hour)
values
to
be
20
ppm
water
for
brown
trout
and
>
100
ppm
for
carp.

Propiconazole
had
the
following
EC50/
LC50
values
for
freshwater
invertebrate
species:
crayfish
42.0
ppm,
water
flea
3.2­
11.5
ppm.
The
marine
species
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp
had
EC50/
LC50
values
of
0.3
ppm
and
0.5­
1.4
ppm,
respectively.

Propiconazole
does
not
appear
to
have
any
adverse
effects
on
soil
microbes
as
evidenced
by
soil
biochemical
analyses.
Evaluations
were
made
at
concentrations
up
to
and
including
100
ppm.
At
this
highest
level,
no
changes
were
observed
in
cellulose,
starch,
or
protein
decomposition,
nitrification,
nitrogen
fixation,
or
respiration.

Propiconazole
displayed
no
toxic
effects
to
earthworms.

E.
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
The
following
uncertainties
have
been
identified
on
the
environmental
fate
properties
and
exposure
models
for
propiconazole.
These
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
the
risk
assessment.

1.
Formulation
effects
on
the
dissipation
of
propiconazole
in
the
environment
are
not
known
at
this
time.
For
purposes
of
the
risk
assessment,
it
is
assumed
that
formulation
types
do
not
alter
dissipation
rates
and
pathways
when
compared
to
the
technical
product.

2.
The
water
column
metabolism
parameter
used
by
EXAMS
was
estimated
from
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
by
multiplying
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
input
parameter
by
2
to
reflect
the
uncertainty
in
this
extrapolation.

3.
The
rice
model
(
Policy
for
Estimating
Aqueous
Concentrations
from
Pesticides
Labeled
for
Use
on
Rice,
dated
October
29,
2002)
is
conservative
because
it
represents
the
exposure
experience
by
aquatic
organisms
whose
habitat
lies
close
to
the
discharge
from
the
paddies
during
and
shortly
after
discharge.
The
degradation
in
the
rice
paddy
is
considered
as
the
aquatic
exposure
refinement.
Page
9
of
206
A
number
of
areas
of
uncertainty
have
been
identified
in
the
ecological
risk
portion
of
the
assessment;
since
the
majority
of
the
risk
appears
to
be
with
mammals
and
birds,
these
risk
uncertainties
have
been
identified
as
important
in
the
risk
assessment.
These
uncertainties
are
discussed
in
greater
detail
in
other
sections
of
the
risk
assessment
and
summarized
here.

1.
Other
exposure
routes
are
possible
for
birds
in
treated
areas.
These
routes
include
ingestion
of
contaminated
soils,
ingestion
of
contaminated
drinking
water,
preening,
dermal
contact,
and
inhalation.

2.
The
risk
assessment
only
considers
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.

3.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
100%
of
the
avian
diet
is
relegated
to
single
food
types
foraged
only
from
treated
fields.

4.
The
exposure
assessment
used
95th
percentile
reside
values.
Values
selected
from
points
lower
on
the
distribution
would
yield
lower
exposure
estimates
and
lower
RQs.

5.
The
potential
for
endocrine
disruptor
related
effects
was
observed
in
mammalian
and
avian
reproduction
toxicity
studies
using
tetraconazole.
There
is
also
a
potential
for
endocrine
distruptor
related
effects
due
to
the
toxicity
of
the
degradates
of
propiconazole,
including
1,2,4­
triazole.
Toxicity
data
is
not
available
for
the
degradates.
This
risk
assessment
has
not
included
an
evaluation
of
the
relative
risk
of
propiconazole
and
its
degradates
for
endocrine
disruption
and
as
such
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

There
are
currently
no
environmental
fate
data
gaps
for
propiconazole.
The
submission
of
avian
chronic
data
that
could
produce
a
definitive
LOAEC
could
reduce
avian
chronic
risk
below
the
LOCs.

II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Source
and
Intensity
Propiconazole
is
a
systemic
broad­
spectrum
fungicide
registered
for
treatment
of
disease
in
bananas,
barley,
celery,
corn
(
field,
pop,
and
sweet),
grasses
grown
for
seed,
mint,
oats,
peanuts,
pineapple,
plantains,
rice
and
wild
rice,
rye,
stone
fruits,
sugarcane,
wheat,
and
turf
and
ornamentals
(
lawn,
golf
course,
ground
cover,
and
sod
farm).
Depending
on
the
use,
end
products
containing
propiconazole
as
an
active
ingredient
can
be
applied
by
aerial
or
ground
broadcast
spray,
chemigation,
sprinkler
irrigation,
hose­
end
and
pump­
up
sprayer,
backpack
and
mist
blower,
and
dip
tank.
Exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
is
predominantly
from
release
to
the
environment
by
surface
runoff
and
spray
drift.
Page
10
of
206
2.
Physical/
Chemical/
Fate
and
Transport
Properties
Propiconazole
appears
to
be
persistent
and
moderately
mobile
to
relative
immobile
in
most
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
Propiconazole
degradation
in
the
aquatic
environment
appears
to
be
dependent
solely
on
aqueous
photolysis
in
the
presence
of
photo
sensitizers
that
are
quite
common
in
photolysis
studies.
In
soil
environments,
propiconazole
dissipation
appears
to
be
dependent
on
incorporation
or
binding
to
soil
organic
matter
content.

Laboratory
and
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
indicate
that
propiconazole
is
stable
in
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
Propiconazole
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aqueous
photolysis
(<
10%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
soil
photolysis
(<
8%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aerobic
soil
metabolism
(
t
½
=
30
to
112
days),
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
=
363
days).
The
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
were
consistent
with
laboratory
data
with
reported
half­
lives
of
>
100
days
for
four
soil
textures.
However,
in
supplemental
aquatic
dissipation
data
using
basin­
irrigation
and
flow
through
irrigation
systems
in
rice
fields,
propiconazole
was
found
to
dissipate
rapidly
(
t
½
<
5
days).
Aqueous
photolysis
studies
using
sensitizers
indicated
rapid
degradation
(
t
½
<
1
days)
of
propiconazole
that
appears
to
be
the
case
in
rice
fields.
Furthermore,
aquatic
metabolism
and
dissipation
studies
indicate
propiconazole
dissipates
by
incorporation
or
binding
to
the
organic
matter
content
of
soil/
sediment.

Propiconazole
mobility
in
soil
appears
to
be
dependent
on
the
soil's
organic
matter
content.
In
general,
propiconazole
appears
to
be
moderately
mobile
(
Kd
<
5)
in
soils
with
a
low
organic
matter
content
(<
1%).
However,
in
soils
with
higher
organic
matter
content
(>
1%),
propiconazole
appears
to
be
relatively
immobile
(
Kd
>
5).
Therefore,
propiconazole
may
reach
ground
water
in
soils
with
low
organic
contents.
More
importantly,
propiconazole
may
contaminate
surface
water
through
off­
site
runoff
and
spray
drift.

More
detailed
environmental
fate
discussions
are
included
in
Appendix
A.
The
physical/
chemical
properties
and
the
chemical
structure
are
also
included
in
Appendix
A.

3.
Pesticide
Type,
Class,
and
Mode
of
Action
The
active
ingredient
propiconazole
is
a
triazole
fungicide
that
has
protective,
curative,
and
systemic
activity.
Some
trade
names
for
products
containing
propiconazole
include
Banner,
Benit,
Desmel,
Orbit,
Radar,
Tilt,
Fidis,
Alamo,
Spire,
Practis,
Bumper,
Mantis,
Restore,
Banner
Maxx,
Taspa,
Juno,
Novel
and
Break.
Formulations
come
as
emulsifiable
concentrates
and
wettable
powders.
It
is
also
formulated
with
other
pesticides.

Propiconazole's
mode
of
action
is
demethylation
of
C­
14
during
ergosterol
biosynthesis,
leading
to
accumulation
of
C­
14
methyl
sterols.
In
addition,
propiconazole
is
a
cytochrome
P450
enzyme
inhibitor
(
and
therefore
has
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
mammals,
birds,
fish,
amphibians,
reptiles,
invertebrates,
plants,
etc.
that
have
cytochrome
P­
450
detoxification
enzymes).
The
biosynthesis
of
these
ergosterols
is
critical
to
the
formation
of
cell
walls
of
fungi.
This
lack
of
normal
sterol
production
slows
or
stops
the
growth
of
the
fungus,
effectively
Page
11
of
206
preventing
further
infection
and/
or
invasion
of
host
tissues.
Therefore,
propiconazole
is
considered
to
be
fungistatic
or
growth
inhibiting
rather
than
fungicidal
or
killing.

B.
Receptors
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
exposure
to
a
pesticide.
Ecological
measurement
endpoints
for
the
screening­
level
risk
assessment
are
based
on
a
suite
of
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
performed
on
a
limited
number
of
organisms
as
required
for
registration
in
the
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA;
40
CFR
Part
158).
The
most
sensitive
endpoints
(
described
in
Section
C.
below)
from
each
study
of
surrogate
species
are
used
to
estimate
risk
to
the
taxonomic
group(
s)
represented
by
the
surrogate
tested.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
For
aquatic
effects,
measurement
endpoints
for
the
following
species
were
used
from
the
broad
groupings
of
acute,
sub­
acute,
and
chronic
laboratory
studies
submitted
to
the
Agency.

°
Freshwater
fish
­
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus),
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss),
brown
trout,
catfish,
and
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquaticphase
amphibians,
°
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
Daphnia
magna),
°
Estuarine/
marine
fish
­
spot,
°
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
 
eastern
oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica),
crayfish
and
mysid
shrimp
(
Americamysis
bahia),
°
Vascular
aquatic
plants
 
duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
°
Algae
 
green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum),
blue­
green
algae
(
Anabeana
flos­
aquae),
freshwater
diatom
(
Navicula
pelliculosa),
and
marine
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum)

Within
each
of
the
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
For
terrestrial
effects,
measures
of
effect
for
the
following
species
were
used
from
the
broad
groupings
of
acute,
sub­
acute,
and
chronic
laboratory
studies
submitted
to
the
Agency.

°
Birds
­
mallard
duck
(
Colinus
virginianus),
bobwhite
quail
(
Anas
platyrhynchos),
Peking
duck,
and
Japanese
quail
which
are
also
used
as
surrogate
species
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles,
°
Mammals
(
laboratory
rat,
house
mouse,
and
laboratory
rabbit),
°
Terrestrial
plants
 
Four
monocots
(
including
corn)
and
six
dicots
(
including
soybeans
and
tomato).
Page
12
of
206
Within
each
of
the
very
broad
bird
and
mammalian
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data,
as
the
data
sets
allow.
Only
acute
data
are
required
by
the
Agency
for
terrestrial
plants.

3.
Ecosystems
at
Risk
An
ecosystem
can
be
defined
as
a
functional
unit
consisting
of
all
the
living
organisms
(
plants,
animals,
and
microbes)
in
a
given
area,
and
all
the
non­
living
physical
and
chemical
factors
of
their
environment,
linked
together
through
nutrient
cycling
and
energy
flow.
An
ecosystem
can
be
of
any
size­
a
log,
pond,
field,
forest,
or
the
earth's
biosphere­
but
it
always
functions
as
a
whole
unit.
Ecosystems
are
commonly
described
according
to
the
major
type
of
vegetation,
for
example,
forest
ecosystem,
old­
growth
ecosystem,
or
range
ecosystem.
The
ecosystems
that
could
be
potentially
at
risk
due
to
agricultural
use
of
propiconazole
include
terrestrial
and
aquatic
(
lakes,
ponds,
streams,
estuaries)
habitats
in
proximity
to
propiconazole
use
areas.
Moreover,
these
habitats
may
be
at
risk
from
drift
and/
or
runoff
of
propiconazole
from
use
areas.

To
address
specific
ecosystems
at
risk
in
this
screening­
level
assessment
is
beyond
the
scope
of
this
effort.
Generally,
concerns
of
risk
to
ecosystems
are
addressed
in
the
identification
of
assessment
endpoints,
which
reflect
ecological
entities
and
their
associated
attributes.
Functionally,
this
assessment
specifically
addresses
risks
at
the
individual
level.
However,
given
that
the
toxicity
endpoints
used
in
the
assessment
relate
directly
to
higher
levels
of
biological
organization,
any
risks
identified
are
considered
to
provide
insight
into
potential
risks
to
ecosystems
and
ecosystem
function.

C.
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected."
Defining
an
assessment
endpoint
involves
two
steps:
1)
identifying
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk,
and
2)
operationally
defining
the
assessment
endpoint
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
selection
of
the
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.

The
assessment
endpoints
typically
used
in
a
screening­
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
are
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
impairment
from
direct
acute
and
chronic
exposure
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals.
Various
analyses
have
indicated
that
these
endpoints
provide
insights
about
risk
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
e.
g.
populations).

The
assessment
endpoints
used
for
terrestrial
plants
are
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
and
the
concern
is
for
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
both
non­
target
crop
and
non­
crop
plant
species.
Although
these
endpoints
may
not
address
all
the
issues
with
regard
Page
13
of
206
to
all
aspects
of
the
terrestrial
plant
life­
cycles,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
these
stages
indicate
a
potential
impact
to
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.

Measured
endpoints
used
for
aquatic
plants
are
alga
growth
rates
and
measured
plant
biomass.
These
endpoints
provide
insights
into
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass
of
aquatic
plant
life.

Assessing
risks
to
reptiles
and
amphibians
represents
unique
challenges.
Currently,
data
on
direct
toxicity
to
reptiles
and
amphibians
are
not
required
as
part
of
the
standard
dataset
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
pesticide
registration
and
these
data
are
only
occasionally
available
from
the
literature.
For
ecological
risk
assessments
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP),
if
risk
quotients
for
birds
are
below
the
level
of
concern,
then
risks
to
reptiles
are
also
assumed
to
be
low.
For
amphibians,
freshwater
fish
are
considered
a
suitable
surrogate
for
the
aquatic
lifestage
and
birds
a
suitable
surrogate
for
the
terrestrial
life­
stage.

D.
Conceptual
Model
In
order
for
a
chemical
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
ecological
receptors
in
biologically
significant
concentrations.
An
exposure
pathway
is
the
means
by
which
a
substance
moves
in
the
environment
from
a
source
to
an
ecological
receptor.
For
an
ecological
exposure
pathway
to
be
complete,
it
must
have
a
source,
a
release
mechanism,
an
environmental
transport
medium,
a
point
of
exposure
for
ecological
receptors,
and
a
feasible
route
of
exposure.
In
addition,
the
potential
mechanisms
of
transformation
(
i.
e.,
which
degradates
may
form
in
the
environment,
in
which
media,
and
how
much)
must
be
known,
especially
for
a
chemical
whose
metabolites/
degradates
are
of
greater
toxicological
concern.
The
assessment
of
ecological
exposure
pathways,
therefore,
includes
an
examination
of
the
source
and
potential
migration
pathways
for
constituents
and
the
determination
of
potential
exposure
routes
(
e.
g.,
ingestion,
inhalation,
dermal
absorption).

Ecological
receptors
that
may
potentially
be
exposed
to
propiconazole
and
its
degradates
include
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
wildlife
(
i.
e.,
mammals,
birds,
and
reptiles),
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
and
soil
invertebrates.
In
addition
to
terrestrial
ecological
receptors,
aquatic
receptors
(
e.
g.,
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
amphibians)
may
also
be
exposed
to
propiconazole
via
potential
migration
of
propiconazole
from
the
site
of
application
to
various
watersheds
and
other
aquatic
environments
via
runoff
and
spray
drift.

1.
Risk
Hypothesis
Propiconazole's
use
as
a
fungicide
on
numerous
crops
and
turf
to
rates
as
high
as
7.2
lb
ai/
A/
yr
involves
situations
in
the
environment
where
potential
routes
of
exposure
can
be
direct
contact
to
food
items
(
e.
g.,
grass),
as
well
as
indirect
contamination
of
adjacent
bodies
of
water.
Based
on
the
persistence
and
mobility,
mode
of
action,
direct
toxicity
and
potential
indirect
effects
to
plants,
it
is
presumed
that
propiconazole
has
the
potential
to
cause
reduced
survival
and
reproductive
impairment
to
both
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms.
In
addition,
propiconazole
is
a
cytochrome
P450
inhibitor
(
and
therefore
has
the
potential
to
adversely
affect
mammals,
birds,
Page
14
of
206
fish,
amphibians,
reptiles,
invertebrates,
plants,
etc.
that
have
cytochrome
P­
450
detoxification
enzymes).

2.
Diagram
Propiconazole
is
released
into
the
environment
through
chemical
irrigation
systems
(
chemigation)
on
turf
as
well
as
a
ground
and
aerial
foliar
spray
on
a
wide
variety
of
crops.
Assessing
the
probable
dissipation
pathways
from
the
application
site
requires
an
understanding
of
propiconazole
chemistry
and
environmental
fate.

Runoff
to
adjacent
surface
water
bodies
from
areas
of
application
is
expected
to
be
controlled
by
application
site
conditions
such
as
foliar
washoff,
soil
type,
slope,
and
agronomic
practices.
Additional
site
release
mechanisms
include
spray
drift,
and
possibly
wind
erosion,
which
may
potentially
move
propiconazole
from
the
application
site
into
the
air
and
surrounding
environments.

The
conceptual
model
shown
in
Figure
1
depicts
the
potential
routes
of
dissipation
of
propiconazole,
release
mechanisms,
abiotic
receiving
media,
and
biological
receptor
types.
Only
potential
routes
of
exposure
are
considered
in
a
screening­
level
assessment
and
are
presented
in
the
conceptual
site
model.
Routes
of
exposure
not
considered
in
the
conceptual
model
include
dermal
contact
and
inhalation.
Propiconazole
application
via
aerial,
ground
spray,
and
chemigation
is
expected
to
result
in
direct
deposition
of
propiconazole
into
aquatic
environments
through
spray
drift.
Page
15
of
206
Figure
1.
Conceptual
Model
for
Propiconazole
Applications
to
Ecosystem.

Propiconazole
Applications
(
Aerial,
Ground
and
Chemigation)

Aquatic
Invertebrates
Mammals
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Fish
&
Amphibians
Aquatic
Plants
Birds,
Reptiles
&
Amphibians
Aquatic
Environments
Runoff
Erosion
Consumption
of
Foliage
Uptake
Through
Gills
&
Integument
Spray
Drift
Terrestrial
Environments
Foliar
Washoff
Direct
Contact,
Systemic
Uptake
Terrestrial
Plants
Runoff
Erosion
Rice
Direct
Application
Page
16
of
206
E.
Analysis
Plan
The
initial
analysis
plan
for
propiconazole
is
for
a
first­
tier
screening­
level
risk
assessment.
This
document
characterizes
the
environmental
fate
of
propiconazole
to
assess
the
extent
to
which
non­
target
organisms
might
be
exposed
through
the
proposed
uses
of
this
fungicide.
The
toxicity
of
propiconazole
is
characterized,
based
primarily
on
registrantsubmitted
guideline
toxicity
tests.
Additional
information
from
open
literature
through
the
Agency's
ECOTOX
database
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox/)
will
be
considered
in
refinements
of
the
screening­
level
assessment.
Estimated
exposure
and
effects
are
integrated
to
calculate
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
for
non­
target
endangered/
threatened
(
listed)
and
non­
listed
animals
and
plants.
These
RQs
are
compared
to
pre­
determined
levels­
of­
concern
(
LOCs)
to
screen
out
those
taxa
to
which
propiconazole
appears
not
to
pose
unacceptable
risk.
The
determination
of
which
nontarget
organisms
may
and
should
not
be
at
risk
from
propiconazole
exposure
will
be
considered
under
the
requirements
of
the
FIFRA
and
the
Endangered
Species
Act
(
ESA).

Although
risk,
in
the
context
intended
here,
is
often
defined
as
the
likelihood
and
magnitude
of
adverse
ecological
effects,
the
risk
quotient­
based
approach
does
not
provide
a
quantitative
estimate
of
likelihood
and/
or
magnitude
of
an
adverse
effect.
Such
estimates
may
be
possible
through
a
more
refined,
probabilistic
assessment.
However,
the
screening­
level
assessment
is
the
first
step
in
the
determination
of
risk.

1.
Preliminary
Identification
of
Data
Gaps
and
Methods
The
primary
method
used
to
assess
risk
in
this
screening­
level
assessment
is
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
and
follows
closely
methods
outlined
in
the
EPA
Overview
Document
(
EPA,
2004).
The
RQ
is
the
primary
risk
value
for
the
screening­
level
assessment
and
is
the
result
of
comparing
measures
of
exposure
to
measures
of
effect.
A
commonly
used
measure
of
exposure
is
the
estimated
exposure
concentration
(
EEC)
and
commonly
used
measures
of
effect
include
toxicity
values
such
as
the
LD50
or
NOAEC.
Assessment
endpoints
and
their
respective
measures
of
exposure
and
measures
of
effect
are
listed
in
Tables
2.6
and
2.7
of
the
next
section.
The
resulting
RQ
is
then
compared
to
a
specified
level
of
concern
(
LOC),
which
represents
a
point
of
departure
for
concern;
if
the
RQ
exceeds
the
LOC,
then
risks
are
triggered.

To
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
from
the
use
of
propiconazole,
risk
quotients
(
RQ)
are
calculated
from
the
ratio
of
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
to
toxicity
values.
Risk
quotients
are
then
compared
to
the
LOCs
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
consequent
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
Risk
presumptions,
along
with
the
corresponding
RQs,
equations,
and
LOCs
are
summarized
in
Tables
2.1­
2.4.
The
exposure
estimates
in
this
screening
assessment
are
derived
using
maximum
label
rates
and
minimum
application
intervals
for
each
use.
Page
17
of
206
Table
2.1
Risk
presumptions
for
terrestrial
animals
(
birds
and
wild
mammals).

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
EEC1/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day3
0.5
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
ft2
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
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
Table
2.2
Risk
presumptions
for
aquatic
animals.

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
EEC1/
LC50
or
EC50
0.5
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.1
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1
1
EEC
=
(
ppm
or
ppb)
in
water
Table
2.3
Risk
presumptions
for
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants.

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
Risk
EEC1/
EC25
1
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
Table
2.4
Risk
presumptions
for
aquatic
plants.
Page
18
of
206
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC1/
EC50
1
Acute
Listed
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
EEC
=
(
ppb/
ppm)
in
water
Generations
of
robust
RQs
are
dependent
on
the
quality
of
data
from
both
fate
and
toxicological
studies.
These
studies
should
be
conducted
following
Agency
guidelines
and
are
subjected
to
extensive
review
to
ensure
data
quality.

Estimates
of
exposure
are
generated
using
maximum
label
rates
and
minimum
intervals
between
applications
to
generate
exposure
estimates
that
are
within
the
possible
range.
Toxicity
values
used
in
the
risk
quotient
calculations
are
based
on
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
for
a
given
exposure
duration
and
taxonomic
group.

Although
the
lowest
toxicity
value
from
available
studies
is
used
for
RQ
calculations,
typically,
only
data
from
a
few
species
are
available.
For
example,
the
Agency
usually
receives
avian
toxicity
studies
for
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
ducks.
Of
the
650
avian
species
in
the
United
States,
it
is
unlikely
that
bobwhite
quail
or
mallard
ducks
are
the
most
sensitive.
These
species,
in
fact,
were
chosen
primarily
because
they
are
easy
to
maintain
and
rear
in
the
laboratory
and
they
have
some
value
as
game
species.
The
same
argument
holds
for
all
toxicity
estimates;
in
all
likelihood
the
representative
species
are
not
the
most
sensitive.
Similarly,
for
reptiles
and
amphibians,
typically
no
toxicity
data
are
available
at
all.
In
accordance
with
the
EPA
guidance
(
EPA,
2004)
birds
are
used
as
surrogates
for
terrestrial
amphibians
and
reptiles
and
fish
are
used
as
surrogates
for
aquatic
amphibians.
This
is
thought
to
result
in
conservative
estimates
of
risk
for
herpetofauna;
however,
due
to
the
lack
of
available
data,
it
is
difficult
to
determine
whether
this
is
the
case
or
not.

Exposure
estimates
are
generated
from
chemical
fate
studies
and
label
information,
particularly
maximum
application
rates
and
minimum
application
intervals.
Although
exposure
estimates
using
maximum
label
rates
and
minimum
interval
times
generate
maximum
EECs,
they
do
represent
requested
use
rates
and,
if
approved,
could
be
used.
Actual
use
rates
most
likely
vary
over
the
labeled
range,
particularly
for
certain
uses.

Exposure
estimates
for
terrestrial
species
are
generated
assuming
these
species
feed
exclusively
on
the
treated
field
soon
after
application
of
the
pesticide.
Moreover,
the
assumption
is
that
these
organisms
will
consume
their
daily
ingestion
rate
while
on
the
treated
field.
Although
some
individuals
at
particular
times
may
feed
exclusively
on
a
treated
field,
the
actual
frequency
and
duration
of
this
type
of
behavior
is
a
source
of
uncertainty.
While
the
current
approach
may
overestimate
exposure
for
some
individuals,
it
does
capture
the
potential
of
possible
exposures
that
may
occur.
Page
19
of
206
2.
Measures
to
Evaluate
Risk
Hypotheses
and
Conceptual
Model
a.
Measures
of
Exposure
Measures
of
exposure
are
estimates
of
exposure
for
a
receptor
determined
by
modeling
or
monitoring
data.
In
this
risk
assessment,
measures
of
exposure
for
propiconazole
are
obtained
from
modeling
efforts
since
national­
scale
monitoring
data
were
not
identified.
Exposure
models
used
for
this
assessment
include
the
suite
of
standard
exposure
models
commonly
used
in
pesticide
risk
assessments
(
EPA,
2004).
Generally,
aquatic
exposure
estimates
are
generated
from
EFED
models
and
incorporate
maximum
proposed
application
rates
and
empiricallyderived
fate
properties.
Measures
of
exposure
to
aquatic
animals
and
plants
are
concentrations
in
surface
water
simulated
by
PRZM/
EXAMS.
PRZM/
EXAMS
uses
half­
lives
derived
from
registrant­
submitted
environmental
fate
data
and
proposed
application
rates,
frequencies,
and
intervals
between
application
for
crops
on
which
propiconazole
is
being
considered
for
registration
or
reregistration
to
simulate
runoff
and
spray
drift
to
a
standard
pond.
The
standard
pond
is
intended
to
represent
a
sitewhich
is
more
vulnerable
than
most
sites
in
the
United
States.
PRZM/
EXAMS
makes
a
deterministic
estimate
of
the
concentration
that
would
be
equaled
or
exceeded
in
the
pond
once
every
ten
years.
Further
details
of
the
exposure
models
can
be
found
in
Section
III.
B
and
on
the
web
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm.

Measures
of
exposure
for
terrestrial
mammals,
birds,
reptiles,
and
amphibians
similarly
incorporate
maximum
proposed
use
rates
but
rely
less
on
fate
properties.
Instead,
terrestrial
exposure
estimates
are
derived
directly
from
empirically
determined
observations
of
pesticide
residues
on
various
terrestrial
food
items.
The
Kenaga
nomogram,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
Kenaga
and
Hoerger,
1972;
Fletcher
et
al.,
1994),
is
used
to
relate
pesticide
application
rates
to
residues
on
terrestrial
food
items.
For
numerous
applications
for
a
given
use,
the
exposure
model
incorporates
a
first­
order
decay
rate
from
foliar
surfaces
that
is
dependent
on
the
soil
halflife
of
the
chemical.
In
the
absence
of
data,
a
default
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
35
days
is
used.
The
current
terrestrial
exposure
model
used
by
EFED
is
T­
REX
version
1.2.3.

Measures
of
exposure
to
terrestrial
plants
are
expressed
as
a
fraction
of
the
mass
of
propiconazole
applied
to
a
treated
field.
The
screening
model
TerrPlant
(
version
1.0)
assumes
that
default
fractions
of
the
intended
application
will
be
transported
to
an
adjacent
field
through
runoff
and
spray
drift.
A
refinement
of
the
exposure
from
spray
drift
is
accomplished
using
the
spray
drift
model
AgDrift
(
version
2.01).

b.
Measures
of
Effect
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
exposure
to
a
pesticide.
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
the
Ecological
Effects
section
of
this
document.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
propiconazole
is
provided
in
Table
2.5.
Page
20
of
206
Table
2.5.
Assessment
endpoints
with
associated
toxicity
and
exposure
measurement
endpoints.
The
toxicity
and
exposure
endpoints
are
used
in
a
risk
quotient
assessment.

Assessment
Endpoint
Associated
Toxicity
Endpoint
Exposure
Endpoint
Terrestrial
Avian
Survival
Acute
Avian
Oral
LD50,
Dietary
LC50
from
most
sensitive
bird
tested,
adjusted
for
size
for
20
g
bird
maximum
concentration
on
food
items
(
foliar)
or
dose
on
planted
seeds
consumed
by
20
g
bird
Avian
Growth/
Reproduction/
Survival
Growth
or
Reproduction
NOAEC/
LOAEC
from
avian
chronic
study
from
most
sensitive
bird
tested
maximum
residue
on
food
items
(
foliar)
or
planted
seeds
Mammalian
Survival
acute
oral
LD50,
dietary
LC50
for
most
sensitive
mammal
tested,
adjusted
for
20
g
mammal
maximum
concentration
on
food
items
(
foliar)
or
dose
on
planted
seeds
consumed
by
20
g
mammal
Mammalian
Growth/
Reproduction/
Su
rvival
growth/
reproduction
NOAEC/
LOAEC
from
chronic
mammalian
study
from
most
sensitive
mammal
tested
maximum
concentration
on
food
items.

Non­
target
Beneficial
Insect
Survival
Honey­
bee
acute
contact
LD50
none
Aquatic
Freshwater
Fish
Survival
96­
hr
LC50
for
most
sensitive
species
tested
1
in
10
year
peak
concentration
at
90%
ile
site
Freshwater
Fish
Growth/
Reproduction/
Survival
Fish
Early
Life
Stage
NOAEC/
LOAEC
for
Growth
1
in
10
year
60­
day
mean
concentration
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Survival
48­
hr
EC50
based
on
mortality
(
immobility)
for
most
sensitive
species
tested
1
in
10
year
peak
concentration
at
a
90%
ile
site
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Growth/
Reproduction
/
Survival
Invertebrate
Life
Cycle
NOAEC
for
growth
or
reproductive
effect
1
in
10
year
21­
day
mean
concentration
at
a
90%
ile
site
Marine/
Estuarine
Fish
Survival
96­
hr
LC50
for
most
sensitive
species
tested
1
in
10
year
peak
concentration
at
90%
ile
site
Marine/
Estuarine
Fish
Growth/
Reproduction
/
Survival
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
NOAEC
for
growth
1
in
10
year
60­
day
mean
concentration
at
a
90%
ile
site
Page
21
of
206
Marine/
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Survival
48­
hr
EC50
based
on
mortality
(
immobility)
for
most
sensitive
species
tested
1
in
10
year
peak
concentration
at
a
90%
ile
site
Marine/
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Growth/
Reproduction/
Survival
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
NOAEC
for
reproduction
for
most
sensitive
species
1
in
10
year
21
day
mean
concentration
at
a
90%
ile
site.

Explicit
endpoints
for
reptiles
and
amphibians,
two
classes
of
organisms
that
may
be
at
risk,
are
not
explicitly
considered
in
this
assessment.
Data
on
direct
toxicity
to
reptiles
and
amphibians
are
not
required
as
part
of
the
standard
dataset
submitted
to
the
Agency
for
pesticide
registration
and
these
data
are
only
occasionally
available
from
the
literature.
For
the
purposes
of
risk
assessments
in
OPP,
if
risk
quotients
for
birds
are
below
the
level
of
concern,
the
reptiles
are
also
assumed
to
be
low.
For
amphibians,
freshwater
fish
are
considered
to
be
a
suitable
surrogate
for
the
aquatic
phase
and
birds
for
the
terrestrial
phase.

c.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
Because
of
its
intended
wide­
spread
use
on
such
a
wide
variety
of
crops
and
turf,
many
diverse
ecosystems
are
likely
to
be
exposed
to
propiconazole.
Generally,
ecosystems
at
risk
are
those
proximal
temporally
and
spatially
to
the
use
areas.
However,
due
to
the
persistence
and
moderate
mobility
of
propiconazole
(
as
subsequently
discussed),
exposure
may
occur
at
times
and
locations
far
removed
from
the
use
site.
As
exposure
is
strongly
linked
to
application
rate,
higher
use
rate
sites,
such
as
turf,
lawn,
and
golf
courses,
representing
greater
potential
sources
of
exposure
to
ecosystems.

Beyond
direct
mortality,
exposure
may
apply
selective
pressure
to
plant
communities,
potentially
altering
population
distributions.
These
effects
may
be
beneficial
or
adverse.
Certainly,
any
listed
plant
species
(
direct
effect)
or
listed
animal
species
with
an
obligate
or
dependent
relationship
with
a
sensitive
plant
species
(
indirect
effect)
could
be
at
potential
risk
if
it
is
exposed.
Page
22
of
206
III.
ANALYSIS
A.
Use
Characterization
There
are
two
parts
in
the
analysis
plan.
The
first
part
identifies
all
the
registration
uses
and
how
they
were
arranged
to
complete
a
comprehensive
assessment
for
the
ecological
risk
for
propiconazole.
The
second
part
describes
how
the
information
of
the
use
patterns
was
used
to
estimate
EECs
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
assessment.

A
Use
Closure
Memo
(
dated
04/
22/
2005)
provided
all
the
section
3
uses
for
propiconazole.
There
are
a
total
of
twenty­
five
use
patterns,
including:
(
1)
Barley,
(
2)
Celery,
(
3)
Corn,
field,
pop,
sweet,
(
4)
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses),
(
5)
Non­
bearing
Apple,
(
6)
Non­
bearing
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
Plum,
(
7)
Nonbearing
Pecan,
(
8)
Non­
bearing
Citrus,
(
9)
Oats,
(
10)
Peanuts,
(
11)
Pecans,
(
12)
Pineapple
(
HI
only),
(
13)
Rice,
(
14)
Rice,
wild,
(
15)
Rye,
(
16)
Stone
Fruits
 
Apricot,
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
and
Plum,
(
17)
Sugarcane,
(
18)
Triticale,
(
19)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Ground
Cover,
(
20)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Lawns
and
Turf,
Golf
Course,
(
21)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Shade
Trees
(
injection),
(
22)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Shade
Trees
(
outdoor
spray),
Herbaceous
Plants,
(
23)
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines,
(
24)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
Sod
Farm
(
Turf),
and
(
25)
Wheat.

Additionally,
there
are
nine
use
patterns
for
section
24C,
including
(
1)
Bananas
and
Plantain
(
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico),
(
2)
Corn
(
post
silk,
IL),
(
3)
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses,
ID,
WA,
NV),
(
4)
Mint
(
OR),
(
5)
Non­
bearing
Blueberries
(
FL),
(
6)
Non­
bearing
Hazelnuts
(
OR),
(
7)
Sugarcane
Seed
Piece
(
FL),
(
8)
Sunflower
Breeder's
Seed
(
IL,
MI,
TX),
and
(
9)
Wheat
(
past
Feekes
8,
NV).

The
maximum
annual
application
rate
ranges
from
7.2
lb
ai/
ac
for
turf
use
to
0.1125
lb
ai/
ac
for
barley,
oats,
rye,
and
triticale.

For
agricultural
uses,
the
annual
use
map
of
propiconazole
is
shown
on
the
next
page.
It
is
based
on
state­
level
estimates
of
propiconazole
use
rates
for
individual
crops,
which
have
been
compiled
by
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
(
NCFAP)
from
1995­
1998,
and
on
1997
Census
of
Agricultural
county
crop
acreage.
Based
on
the
estimated
total
annual
applied
amount
of
about
480,000
lb,
the
map
provides
the
percent
national
use
for
the
top
ten
use
patterns,
which
is
about
95%
of
agricultural
uses.
Among
these
uses,
wheat
use
has
the
highest
value
of
53.89%,
followed
by
seed
crops
(
12.04%),
rice
(
8.05%),
pecans
(
8.04%),
peaches
(
3.45%),
sweet
corn
(
3.05%),
dry
beans
(
2.60%),
peanuts
(
2.08%),
barley
(
1.51%)
and
celery
(
1.15%).
[
Note
 
the
legend
is
wrong
in
the
map,
which
has
been
confirmed
by
Gail
Thelin
of
USGS].

For
non­
agricultural
uses,
the
use
patterns
include
turf,
ornamentals,
lawn,
ground
cover
and
golf
course.
Comparing
with
agricultural
uses,
the
non­
agricultural
uses
in
general
have
a
higher
application
rate
(
up
to
7.2
lb
ai/
ac
per
year).
Page
23
of
206
(
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
cgi­
bin/
pnsp/
pesticide_
use_
maps_
1997.
pl?
map=
W5020
)
[
Note
 
the
legend
is
wrong
in
the
map,
which
has
been
confirmed
by
Gail
Thelin
of
USGS.
Seed_
Crops
should
have
been
included
as
the
number
2
crop
between
wheat
and
rice].

The
use
practices
actually
simulated
for
this
assessment
are
in
the
following
table.
In
addition
to
the
top
ten
agricultural
uses,
three
turf­
related
non­
agricultural
uses
are
also
included
in
this
ecological
risk
assessment.

Ideally
all
the
label
uses
should
have
been
addressed
for
this
ecological
risk
assessment.
However,
the
following
uses
have
not
been
addressed:
(
1)
Non­
bearing
Apple,
(
2)
Non­
bearing
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
Plum,
(
3)
Non­
bearing
Pecan,
(
4)
Nonbearing
Citrus,
(
5)
Oats,
(
6)
Pineapple
(
HI
only),
(
7)
Rye,
(
8)
Sugarcane
(
HI),
(
9)
Triticale,
(
10)
Bananas
and
Plantain
(
HI
and
Puerto
Rico
only),
(
11)
Mint
(
OR),
(
12)
Non­
bearing
Blueberries
(
FL),
(
13)
Non­
bearing
Hazelnuts
(
OR),
(
14)
Sugarcane
Seed
Piece
(
FL),
and
(
15)
Sunflower
Breeder's
Seed
(
IL,
MI,
TX).
The
main
reason
is
due
to
Page
24
of
206
the
lack
of
modeling
scenarios.
Among
the
6
uses
for
non­
bearing
fruits
(
1,
2,
3,
4,
12,
13),
there
is
a
restriction
in
the
various
labels
that
specifies
do
not
apply
within
12
months
of
bearing
harvestable
fruits.
So
the
potential
propiconazole
exposure
will
be
limited
to
the
first
one
or
two
years.
For
Oats
(
5),
Rye
(
7),
and
Triticale
(
9)
uses,
the
maximum
annual
allowable
application
amount
is
0.1125
lb
ai/
ac,
which
is
the
same
use
rate
as
for
barley.
The
barley
use
can
be
used
as
the
surrogate.
The
Pineapple
use
(
6)
is
limited
to
HI,
and
only
allowed
as
dipping
during
planting,
so
the
potential
exposure
should
be
minimum
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
concerns.
The
case
is
similar
for
sugarcane
(
8,
14),
which
is
limited
to
HI
and
FL
and
only
allowed
for
seed
treatment.
Bananas
and
Plantain
(
10)
uses
are
limited
to
HI
and
Puerto
Rico.
The
maximum
application
scheme
is
8
applications
of
0.084
lb/
ac
for
a
total
of
0.675
lb/
ac
per
year.
Due
to
the
lack
of
aquatic
modeling
scenarios
for
banana
and
plantain,
no
aquatic
modeling
effort
was
attempted.
As
a
rough
estimate,
the
exposure
can
be
estimated
with
modeling
of
the
pecans
use
(
which
has
a
total
annual
application
rate
of
0.90
lb/
ac).
The
use
rates
are
2
applications
of
0.1125
lb/
ac
for
the
Mint
(
11)
use
and
4
applications
of
0.1125
lb/
ac
for
the
Sunflower
Breeder's
Seed
(
15)
use.
As
a
rough
estimate,
modeling
for
the
sweet
corn
use
(
with
a
total
annual
application
rate
of
0.45
lb/
ac)
can
be
used
as
a
surrogate
for
these
two
uses.

Application
practices
simulated
for
propiconazole
risk
assessment
Use
Scenario
Maximum
Single
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Maximum
Annual/
Seasonal
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
Application
Interval
(
days)
Method*

Agricultural
Use
Wheat
0.1125
0.225
14
G,
C,
A
Seed
Crops
(
Grasses)
0.225
0.90
14
G,
C,
A
Rice
0.225
0.34
10
A
Pecans
0.225
0.90
14
G,
A
Peaches
0.1125
0.56
5
G,
A
Sweet
Corn
0.1125
0.45
7
G,
C,
A
Dry
Beans
0.1125
0.3375
14
G,
C,
A
Peanuts
0.225
0.45
10
G,
C,
A
Barley
0.1125
0.1125
NA
G,
C,
A
Celery
0.1125
0.45
7
G,
C,
A
Non­
Agricultural
Use
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Lawn
and
Turf,
Golf
Course
1.78
7.2
14
G,
C
Ground
Cover
1.78
7.2
10
G,
C
Sod
Farm
1.78
7.2
21
G,
C
*
G
=
Ground
spray;
C
=
Chemigation
(
w/
irrigation);
A
=
Aerial
spray.
Page
25
of
206
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
Propiconazole
appears
to
be
persistent
and
moderately
mobile
to
relative
immobile
in
most
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
Propiconazole
degradation
in
the
aquatic
environment
appears
to
be
dependent
solely
on
aqueous
photolysis
in
the
presence
of
photo
sensitizers.
In
soil
environments,
propiconazole
dissipation
appears
to
be
dependent
on
incorporation
or
binding
to
soil
organic
matter
content.

Laboratory
and
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
indicate
that
propiconazole
is
stable
in
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
Propiconazole
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aqueous
photolysis
(<
10%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
soil
photolysis
(<
8%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aerobic
soil
metabolism
(
t
½
=
30
to
112
days),
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
=
363
days).
The
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
were
consistent
with
reported
half­
lives
of
>
100
days
for
four
soil
textures.
However,
in
supplemental
aquatic
dissipation
data
using
basin­
irrigation
and
flow
through
irrigation
systems
in
rice
fields,
propiconazole
was
found
to
dissipate
rapidly
(
t
½
<
5
days).
Aqueous
photolysis
studies
using
sensitizers
indicated
rapid
degradation
(
t
½
<
1
days)
of
propiconazole
which
appears
to
be
the
case
in
rice
fields.
Furthermore,
aquatic
metabolism
and
dissipation
studies
indicate
propiconazole
dissipates
by
incorporation
or
binding
to
the
organic
matter
content
of
soil/
sediment.

Propiconazole
mobility
in
soil
appears
to
be
dependent
on
the
soil's
organic
matter
content.
In
general,
propiconazole
appears
to
be
moderately
mobile
(
Kd
<
5)
in
soils
with
a
low
organic
matter
content
(<
1%).
However,
in
soils
with
higher
organic
matter
content
(>
1%),
propiconazole
appears
to
be
relatively
immobile
(
Kd
>
5).
Therefore,
propiconazole
may
reach
ground
water
in
soils
with
low
organic
contents.
More
importantly,
propiconazole
may
contaminate
surface
water
through
off­
site
runoff
and
spray
drift.

Bioaccumulation
and
biomagnification
should
not
be
a
significant
concern
for
propiconazole,
which
has
an
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
Kow)
of
2.95
and
bioconcentration
factor
(
BCF)
values
of
24x,
138­
516x,
and
68­
203x,
respectively
for
edible,
viscera,
and
whole
body
of
bluegill.

Propiconazole
is
readily
absorbed
by
plant
tissues,
and
is
transported
systemically
within
the
plant.
It
affects
the
cell
walls
of
target
fungi
and
inhibits
the
production
of
sterol
synthesis.
Thus,
leaves
that
emerge
following
the
application
will
also
be
protected
from
fungal
infection.
Systemic
movement
is
predominately
upward
(
from
roots
to
foliage,
or
lower
leaves
to
upper
leaves),
but
limited
downward
translocation
also
occurs.

2.
Measures
of
Aquatic
Exposure
Page
26
of
206
Measures
of
exposure
are
estimates
of
exposure
for
a
receptor
determined
by
modeling
or
monitoring
data.
In
this
risk
assessment,
measures
of
exposure
for
propiconazole
are
obtained
from
modeling
efforts
since
national­
scale
monitoring
data
were
not
available.

a.
Aquatic
Exposure
Modeling
Models,
Scenarios,
and
Input
Parameters
Used
To
Estimate
Concentrations
of
Propiconazole
For
all
uses
examined
with
the
exception
of
the
rice
use,
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
in
surface
water
were
calculated
using
Tier
II
PRZM
(
Pesticide
Root
Zone
Model)
and
EXAMS
(
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System).
PRZM
is
used
to
simulate
pesticide
transport
as
a
result
of
runoff,
erosion,
and
off­
target
spray
drift
from
an
agricultural
field
and
EXAMS
estimates
environmental
fate
and
transport
of
pesticides
in
surface
water
and
using
the
linkage
program
shell
­
PE4V01,
which
incorporates
the
standard
scenarios
developed
by
EFED.

Linked
crop­
specific
scenarios
and
meteorological
data
were
used
to
estimate
exposure
as
a
result
of
uses
on
various
field
crops
and
vegetables.
Simulations
were
done
using
the
standard
farm
pond
scenario
in
EXAMS,
which
is
a
surrogate
for
a
permanent
surface
aquatic
environment.
Weather
and
agricultural
practices
are
simulated
over
30
years
so
that
the
1­
in­
10
year
exceedence
probability
at
the
site
can
be
estimated.

The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
in
ground
water
were
calculated
using
the
Tier
I
SCIGROW
(
Screening
Concentration
In
Ground
Water)
model.
It
is
a
regression
approach
model,
based
on
the
results
of
several
perspective
ground
water
monitoring
studies.
SCIGROW
was
developed
using
Koc
values
ranging
from
32
­
180
mL/
g
and
half­
lives
from
13
­
1000
days.
Extrapolation
beyond
these
values
will
increase
the
uncertainty
of
the
predicted
ground
water
concentrations.

For
further
information
on
these
models
see
the
following
EPA
Web
site:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
index.
htm
Rice
Use
The
Policy
for
Estimating
Aqueous
Concentrations
from
Pesticides
Labeled
for
Use
on
Rice,
dated
October
29,
2002
was
used
in
estimating
the
water
concentrations
from
rice
use.

The
estimated
concentration
(
EEC
in
µ
g/
L)
represents
the
dissolved
concentration
occurring
in
the
water
column
and
the
concentration
in
water
released
from
the
paddy.
Movement
of
pesticide
on
suspended
sediment
is
not
considered.
The
equation
to
use
for
this
calculation
is:
Page
27
of
206
EEC
M
V
m
K
T
T
sed
d
=
+
109
where
MT
is
the
total
mass
of
pesticide
in
kg
applied
per
ha
of
paddy,
VT
is
1.067
x106
L/
ha
which
is
the
volume
of
water
in
a
paddy
4
inches
(
10.16
cm)
deep,
and
includes
the
pore
space
in
a
1
cm
sediment
interaction
zone.
The
mass
of
sediment,
msed,
is
the
amount
found
in
the
top
1
cm
interaction
zone
and
is
130,000
kg/
ha
when
the
sediment
bulk
density
was
assumed
to
be
1.3
kg/
L,
a
standard
assumption
for
the
bulk
density
of
surface
horizons
of
mineral
soils.
The
109
constant
converts
the
units
of
mass
from
kg
to
µ
g.
For
chemicals
that
have
a
valid
Koc,
the
Kd
can
be
calculated
using
a
sediment
carbon
content
of
2%
(
Koc*
0.02).
An
organic
carbon
content
of
2%
represents
a
typical
value
for
a
high
clay
soil
that
might
be
used
to
grow
rice
in
the
Mississippi
Valley
or
Gulf
Coast
regions.

The
above
equation
calculates
the
concentration
of
rice
paddy
water
with
adsorption
and
dilution.
Since
propiconazole
degrades
quickly
in
the
rice
paddy
environment
with
a
halflife
of
5
days,
which
is
equivalent
of
a
first
order
degradation
rate
of
0.139/
day.
This
degradation
rate
was
used
in
simulating
the
continuing
degradation
in
the
rice
paddy
environment.

Surface
water
Several
of
EFED's
standard
scenarios
were
simulated
for
this
aquatic
exposure
assessment.
These
scenarios
are
briefly
identified
in
Table
3.1.
For
each
specific
use,
the
maximum
allowable
single
label
application
rate
was
inputted
to
PE4V01,
except
for
the
rice
scenario
where
the
total
annual
application
rate
was
used
for
the
rice
water
calculation.

Table
3.1
 
Modeling
scenarios
for
propiconazole
aquatic
exposure
assessment
Use
Scenario
Crop
Region,
Met
File
and
Soil
Info
ED,
MD,
HD*:

Wheat
/
ND
MLRA
(
Major
Land
Resource
Area):
56,
Cass
Co.
Metfile:
W.
14914dvf,
Soil:
Bearden
silty
clay
loam
05/
15,
07/
25,
08/
05
Grass
Seed
/
OR
MLRA:
2,
Willamette
Valley
Metfile:
W24232.
dvf,
Soil:
Dayton
silty
loam
09/
15,
05/
15,
06/
30
Rice
Based
on
EFED
policy
on
rice
use
dated
Oct.
29,
2002
with
modification
of
aquatic
degradation.

Pecans
/
GA
MLRA:
133A,
Mitchell
and
Dougherty
Counties
Metfile:
W93805.
dvf,
Soil:
Greenville
sandy
loam
04/
21,
09/
21,
10/
01
Peaches
/
GA
MLRA:
133A,
Peach
County
Metfile:
W03813.
dvf,
Soil:
Greenville
sandy
loam
03/
01,
05/
15,
08/
31
Page
28
of
206
Sweet
Corn
/
FL
MLRA:
156B,
Palm
Beach
County
Metfile:
W12844.
dvf,
Soil:
Riviera
sand
10/
15,
01/
05,
01/
15
Sweet
Corn
/
OR
MLRA:
2,
Marion
County
Metfile:
W24232.
dvf,
Soil:
Woodburn
silt
loam
05/
10,
08/
21,
09/
10
Dry
Beans
/
MI
MLRA:
99,
Huron
County
Metfile:
W14826.
dvf,
Soil:
Toledo
silt
clay
06/
05,
07/
27,
09/
04
Peanuts
/
NC
MLRA:
133,
East
Pitt
County
Metfile:
W13737.
dvf,
Soil:
Craven
silt
loam
05/
10,
10/
01,
10/
10
Barley
(
use
ND
Wheat
Scenario)
MLRA
(
Major
Land
Resource
Area):
56,
Cass
Co.
Metfile:
W.
14914dvf,
Soil:
Bearden
silty
clay
loam
05/
15,
07/
25,
08/
05
Celery
(
use
FL
Carrots
Scenario)
MLRA:
156B,
Western
Palm
Beach
County
Metfile:
W12833.
dvf,
Soil:
Riviera
sand
10/
15,
01/
15,
01/
22
Turf
/
PA
MLRA:
148,
York
County
Metfile:
W14737.
dvf,
Soil:
Glenville
silt
loam
04/
01,
04/
15,
11/
01
Turf
/
FL
MLRA:
156A,
Osceola
County
Metfile:
W12834.
dvf,
Soil:
Adamsville
sand
02/
01,
02/
15,
12/
15
*
ED
=
emergence
date,
MD
=
maturation
date,
HD
=
harvest
date
Ground
Water
SCIGROW
is
neither
scenario­
nor
crop­
specific.
The
only
input
requirements
are
application
rate,
number
of
applications,
Koc,
and
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life.

Input
Parameters
The
appropriate
PRZM,
EXAMS,
and
SCIGROW
input
parameters
were
selected
from
the
environmental
fate
data
submitted
by
the
petitioner
and
in
accordance
with
US
EPA­
OPP
EFED
water
model
parameter
selection
guidelines,
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II,
February
28,
2002.

The
input
parameters
used
in
the
PRZM,
EXAMS,
and
SCIGROW
models
are
tabulated
below
as
well
as
in
Appendix
B.
The
output
files
of
PE4
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
runs
and
the
SCIGROW
outputs
are
also
listed
in
Appendix
B.

Input
Parameters
for
PRZM
with
Propiconazole
(
version
3.12)

Variable
(
units)
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Source
of
Info/
Reference
Page
29
of
206
DWRATE(
1)
1
(
day­
1)
Dissolved
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
surface
horizon
DSRATE(
1)
1
(
day­
1)
Adsorbed
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
surface
horizon
DWRATE(
1)
=
DSRATE(
1)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
values
of
70,
43
and
47
days
(
MRID:
129912,
129914)

DWRATE(
2)
(
day­
1)
DWRATE(
3)
(
day­
1)
Dissolved
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
1st,
and
2nd
subsurface
horizon
DSRATE(
2)
(
day­
1)
DSRATE(
3)
(
day­
1)
Adsorbed
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
1st
and
2nd
subsurface
horizon
DWRATE(
2)
=
DSRATE(
2)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
DWRATE(
3)
=
DSRATE(
3)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
same
as
above
KD(
1)
KD(
2)
KD(
3)
(
cm3
gm­
1
or
mL
g­
1
or
L
kg­
1)
Pesticide
partition
or
distribution
coefficients
for
each
horizon
assume
average
KOC
of
648
Mobility
­
Adsorption/
Desorptio
n
study
:
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)

PLDKRT
(
day­
1)
Foliar
decay
rate
35
days
(
only
applicable
to
foliar
applications)
default
value
TAPP
(
kg
ha­
1)
Application
rate
Depending
on
the
labels
with
the
maximum
rate
and
number
of
applications
Product
label
APPEFF
(
decimal)
Application
efficiency
0.95
for
aerial
spray;
0.99
for
ground
spray
input
guidance
document
DRFT
Spray
drift
fraction
0.05
for
aerial
spray;
0.01
for
ground
spray
input
guidance
document
Page
30
of
206
Input
Parameters
for
EXAMS
with
Propiconazole
(
Version
2.98)

Variable
(
units)
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Source
of
Info/
Reference
HENRY
(
atm­
m3mole­
1)
Henry's
law
constant
no
input,
let
EXAMS
compute
KBACW1
(
cfu/
mL)­
1
hour­
1
Bacterial
biolysis
in
water
column
138.4
days
2
x
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
KBACS1
(
cfu/
mL)­
1
hour­
1
Bacterial
biolysis
in
benthic
sediment
stable
aquatic
anaerobic
halflife
=
363
days
(
MRID:
42347902)

KDP
(
hour­
1)
Direct
photolysis
0.0
Stable
(
MRID:
41811901)

KBH
(
mole­
1
hour­
1)
KNH
(
hour­
1)
KAH
(
mole­
1
hour­
1)
Base
hydrolysis
Neutral
hydrolysis
Acid
hydrolysis
0.0
0.0
0.0
Stable
(
MRID:
00067901
/
42238201)

KOC
(
mL
g­
1
O.
C.)
Partition
coefficient
for
organic
carbon
assume
a
mean
KOC
of
648
Mobility
­
Adsorption/
Desorption
study
:
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)

MWT
(
g
mole­
1)
Molecular
weight
342.23
product
chemistry
SOL
(
mg
L­
1)
Aqueous
solubility
100
product
chemistry
QUANT
Reaction
quantum
yield
for
direct
photolysis
1.0
VAPR
(
torr)
Vapor
pressure
1.0
x
10­
6
product
chemistry
Page
31
of
206
Input
Parameters
for
SCIGROW
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Soil
half­
life
(
day)
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
values
of
70,
43
and
47
days
(
MRID:
129912,
129914)

Use
the
average
value
of
53
days
Pesticide
partition
or
distribution
coefficients,
Koc
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)*

Use
the
median
value
of
604
Application
rate
Depending
on
the
labels
with
the
maximum
rate
and
number
of
applications
 
The
Koc
value
is
outside
the
range
of
32
­
180
mL/
g.

Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
in
Surface
Water
The
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
propiconazole
based
on
1­
in­
10
year
return
period
in
surface
water
are
summarized
in
Table
3.2.
In
general,
the
higher
use
rate
produces
the
higher
concentrations.
Rice
use
predicts
the
highest
water
concentration
of
138
ppb
(
µ
g/
L)
for
both
acute
and
chronic
concerns.
It
represents
paddy
discharge
water,
therefore
the
upper
bound
on
the
environmental
concentration.

After
rice,
turf
use
has
the
second
highest
estimated
environmental
concentrations,
followed
by
sweet
corn
(
FL),
pecans,
and
celery.
Barley
use
has
the
lowest
estimated
environmental
concentrations,
which
are
less
than
2.0
µ
g/
L.
Page
32
of
206
Table
3.2
 
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
in
Surface
Water
Use
Scenario
Peak
(
µ
g/
L)
96­
hour
average
(
µ
g/
L)
21­
day
average
(
µ
g/
L)
60­
day
average
(
µ
g/
L)
90­
day
average
(
µ
g/
L)

Wheat
/
ND
3.67
3.61
3.38
3.09
3.05
Grass
Seed
/
OR
5.69
5.63
5.41
5.06
4.95
Rice
86.49
71.10
34.24
17.81
11.88
Pecans
/
GA
12.15
11.93
11.21
10.15
9.49
Peaches
/
GA
3.35
3.28
3.01
2.55
2.35
Sweet
Corn
/
FL
13.28
13.00
12.32
10.70
9.77
Sweet
Corn
/
OR
4.49
4.46
4.30
4.09
4.06
Dry
Beans
/
MI
6.49
6.41
6.17
5.83
5.64
Peanuts
/
NC
7.00
6.89
6.49
6.16
5.75
Barley
(
use
ND
Wheat
Scenario)
1.92
1.89
1.79
1.66
1.61
Celery
(
use
FL
Carrots
Scenario)
9.83
9.68
9.12
7.07
5.97
Turf
/
PA
40.35
39.59
37.28
34.83
33.98
Turf
/
FL
34.77
34.09
31.14
27.93
27.04
Page
33
of
206
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
in
Ground
Water
Table
3.3
summarizes
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
of
propiconazole
in
ground
water.
Due
to
the
fact
that
the
input
value
of
604
for
soil
adsorption
Koc
used
in
SCIGROW
runs
is
outside
the
model
development
range
of
32
to
180
mL/
g,
the
uncertainties
of
these
estimated
values
are
great.
For
these
SCIGROW
runs,
all
the
fate
input
parameters
are
identical
to
those
used
in
PRZM/
EXAMS,
except
the
propiconazole
application
information.
The
higher
estimated
concentrations
are
associated
with
the
higher
rate.
Turf
and
ornamentals
uses
have
the
highest
concentration
of
0.72
µ
g/
L
(
ppb),
whereas
barley
use
has
the
lowest
value
of
0.01
µ
g/
L.

Table
3.3
 
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
from
Ground
Water
Sources
Use
Scenario
Acute
Value
(
ppb,
µ
g/
L)
Chronic
Value
(
ppb,
µ
g/
L)

Wheat
2.27E­
02
2.27E­
02
Seed
Crops
(
Grasses)
and
Pecans
9.11E­
02
9.11E­
02
Rice
3.44E­
02
3.44E­
02
Peaches
5.70E­
02
5.70E­
02
Sweet
Corn
and
Celery
4.56E­
02
4.56E­
02
Dry
Beans
3.42E­
02
3.42E­
02
Peanuts
4.56E­
02
4.56E­
02
Barley
1.14E­
02
1.14E­
02
Turf
and
Ornamentals
7.21E­
01
7.21E­
01
b.
Aquatic
Exposure
Monitoring
and
Field
Data
Monitoring
data
are
from
the
U.
S.
Geological
Survey
National
Water
Assessment
Data
Warehouse
(
link:
http://
infotrek.
er.
usgs.
gov/
servlet/
page?_
pageid=
543&_
dad=
portal30&_
schema=
PORTA
L30);
however,
there
are
not
many
samples
analyzed
for
propiconazole.
Among
the
samples
analyzed,
none
of
the
samples
exceed
the
detection
limits
(
from
0.001
to
0.021
µ
g/
L).
Also,
the
monitoring
effort
by
Minnesota
Department
of
Agriculture
shows
no
detections
(
at
the
reporting
limit
of
0.20
µ
g/
L)
in
surface
and
ground
water
during
calendar
year
2003
and
2004
(
the
pdf
file
through
the
link:
http://
www.
mda.
state.
mn.
us/
appd/
ace/
reports/
2005annual.
pdf).
Page
34
of
206
A
registrant
submitted
monitoring
study,
"
Monitoring
of
Propiconazole
(
CGA­
64250)
Residues
in
Surface
Water
at
Selected
US
Community
Water
Systems,"
showed
few
detections
among
a
total
of
thirty­
eight
selected
CWSs
located
in
twelve
states
(
California,
Florida,
Georgia,
Iowa,
Illinois,
Indiana,
North
Dakota,
New
Jersey,
Oregon,
Texas,
Washington,
and
Wisconsin).
The
study
design
assumed
that
detections
of
propiconale
would
be
expected
during
the
propiconazole
use
months,
therefore
the
sampling
frequency
was
decided
to
take
two
samples
during
the
use
months
and
only
one
sample
for
the
remaining
months.
The
highest
detection
was
reported
during
the
non­
use
months.
Therefore,
the
results
suggest
that
the
sampling
scheme
has
missed
possible
higher
residue
detections
by
only
collect
18
samples
per
year.
The
sampling
scheduling
of
this
monitoring
study
is
not
rigorous
enough
to
be
used
for
drinking
water
assessment
(
March
26,
2006,
DP325258).
Since
the
monitoring
studies
did
not
provide
good
quality
data,
this
aquatic
exposure
assessment
is
based
on
the
model­
predicted
environmental
concentrations.

3.
Measures
of
Terrestrial
Exposure
As
discussed
in
the
Use
Characterization
section
of
this
document,
there
are
a
total
of
25
use
patterns
for
propiconazole.
These
uses
are
(
1)
Barley,
(
2)
Celery,
(
3)
Corn,
field,
pop,
sweet,
(
4)
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses),
(
5)
Nonbearing
Apple,
(
6)
Non­
bearing
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
Plum,
(
7)
Non­
bearing
Pecan,
(
8)
Non­
bearing
Citrus,
(
9)
Oats,
(
10)
Peanuts,
(
11)
Pecans,
(
12)
Pineapple
(
HI
only),
(
13)
Rice,
(
14)
Rice,
wild,
(
15)
Rye,
(
16)
Stone
Fruits
 
Apricot,
Cherry,
Nectarine,
Peach,
and
Plum,
(
17)
Sugarcane,
(
18)
Triticale,
(
19)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Ground
Cover,
(
20)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Lawns
and
Turf,
Golf
Course,
(
21)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Shade
Trees
(
injection),
(
22)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
 
Shade
Trees
(
outdoor
spray),
Herbaceous
Plants,
(
23)
Ornamental
Woody
Shrubs
and
Vines,
(
24)
Turf
and
Ornamentals
Sod
Farm
(
Turf),
and
(
25)
Wheat.

The
maximum
annual
use
rate
ranges
from
7.2
lb
ai/
ac
for
turf
use
to
0.1125
lb
ai/
ac
for
barley,
oats,
rye,
and
triticale.
The
proposed
application
methods
for
propiconazole
are
broadcast
ground
or
aerial
sprays,
chemigation,
and
seed/
dipped
treatments.
These
application
methods
can
result
in
various
routes
of
exposure
to
nontarget
terrestrial
organisms,
including
ingestion
of
treated
foods,
spray
drift
and
runoff.

Additionally,
there
are
nine
use
patterns
for
section
24Cs,
including
(
1)
Bananas
and
Plantain
(
Hawaii
and
Puerto
Rico),
(
2)
Corn
(
post
silk,
IL),
(
3)
Grasses
Grown
for
Seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses,
ID,
WA,
NV),
(
4)
Mint
(
OR),
(
5)
Non­
bearing
Blueberries
(
FL),
(
6)
Non­
bearing
Hazelnuts
(
OR),
(
7)
Sugarcane
Seed
Piece
(
FL),
(
8)
Sunflower
Breeder's
Seed
(
IL,
MI,
TX),
and
(
9)
Wheat
(
past
Feekes
8,
NV).

With
regard
to
terrestrial
exposure,
special
considerations
should
be
given
to
some
of
these
uses.
For
example,
among
the
6
uses
for
non­
bearing
fruits,
there
is
a
restriction
in
the
various
labels
that
specifies
that
the
products
should
not
apply
be
applied
within
12
months
of
bearing
harvestable
fruits.
Hence,
the
potential
Page
35
of
206
propiconazole
exposure
will
be
limited
to
the
first
one
or
two
years.
For
oats,
rye,
and
triticale
uses,
the
maximum
annual
allowable
amount
is
0.1125
lb
ai/
ac,
which
has
the
same
use
rate
as
barley.
Therefore,
the
barley
use
can
be
used
as
the
surrogate.
The
pineapple
use
is
limited
to
HI,
and
only
allowed
as
dipping
during
planting,
so
the
potential
exposure
should
be
minimum
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
concerns.
The
case
is
similar
for
sugarcane
which
is
limited
to
HI
and
FL
and
only
allowed
for
seed
treatment.
Bananas
and
plantain
uses
are
only
limited
to
HI
and
Puerto
Rico.
The
maximum
application
scheme
is
8
applications
of
0.084
lb/
ac
for
a
total
of
0.675
lb/
ac
per
year.
Mint
and
sunflower
breeder's
seed
is
applied
at
a
rate
of
0.1125
lb
ai/
A
at
2
and
4
times
throughout
the
growing
season,
respectively.

a.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Modeling
 
Birds
and
Mammals
Birds
and
mammals
in
the
field
may
be
exposed
to
broadcast
spray
applications
of
pesticides
by
ingesting
material
directly
with
the
diet.
They
also
may
be
exposed
by
other
routes,
such
as
incidental
ingestion
of
contaminated
soil,
dermal
contact
with
treated
plant
surfaces
and
soil
during
activities
in
the
treated
areas,
direct
impingement
of
sprayed
material
on
the
body
at
the
time
of
application,
preening
activities,
inhalation
of
pesticide
vapor
and
contaminated
particulate,
and
ingestion
of
drinking
water
contaminated
by
the
pesticide.
Currently,
EFED
estimates
terrestrial
wildlife
exposures
via
the
dietary
route
alone.

For
the
purposes
of
this
risk
assessment,
propiconazole
exposures
were
modeled
using
the
data
derived
from
the
Kenaga
nomogram,
as
modified
by
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
1,
based
on
a
large
set
of
field
residue
data.
The
upper
limit
values
from
the
nomogram
represent
the
95th
percentile
of
residue
values
from
actual
field
measurements
(
Hoerger
and
Kenaga,
1972).
The
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
modifications
to
the
Kenaga
nomogram
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
data
establish
concentrations
of
pesticides
on
wildlife
food
items,
normalized
for
a
unit
application
of
1
lb
a.
i./
acre.
For
single
applications
of
a
pesticide,
the
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
residues
are
commonly
adjusted
for
the
labeled
application
rate.
For
multiple
applications,
not
only
are
single
application
rates
considered,
but
the
number
of
the
applications,
the
time
interval
between
applications,
and
the
potential
for
residue
dissipation
between
applications
must
be
considered.
To
incorporate
these
latter
factors,
EFED
employs
the
T­
REX
model
(
version
1.2.3),
an
in­
house
computer
model
that
uses
a
first­
order
dissipation
relationship
to
account
for
residue
dissipation
of
the
pesticide
between
applications.
The
peak
residue
concentration
from
either
the
single
or
multiple
application
models
is
used
for
both
acute
and
chronic
risk
assessments.
Uncertainties
in
the
terrestrial
EECs
are
primarily
associated
with
a
lack
of
data
on
interception
and
subsequent
dissipation
from
foliar
surfaces.
Based
on
the
review
of
HED's
DER
on
"
propiconazole
(
122101):
Magnitude
of
Residue
in/
on
wheat
for
the
Registration
of
1Fletcher,
J.
S.,
J.
E.
Nellsen,
T.
G.
Pfleeger.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
EPA
food­
chain
(
Kenaga)
nomogram,
an
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Env.
Toxicol.
Chem.
13:
1381­
1391.
Page
36
of
206
Stratego
use
on
wheat,"
EFED
concludes
that
it
is
justifiable
to
use
the
default
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
35
days.
This
conclusion
is
due
to
the
following
reasoning:

1.
Among
the
21
field
trials,
only
two
trials
have
"
zero"
time
samples,
which
include
only
forage
samples
in
Fresno,
CA
and
Payne,
OK.
The
residue
samples
for
other
food
matrix
(
hay,
straw,
and
grain)
do
not
have
any
"
zero"
time
samples.

2.
For
Fresno,
CA
forage
samples
(
0,
16,
23,
30,
and
37
days)
and
Payne,
OK
samples
(
0,
15,
22,
29,
35
days),
no
records
of
weather
information
were
provided,
so
there
is
no
way
to
verify
that
no
other
path
(
such
as
wash­
off)
could
occur.

However,
this
study
was
found
adequate
by
HED
and
two
of
the
studies
have
time
0
data
and
at
least
three
sampling
points.
Further,
these
two
decline
studies
(
Payne
OK
and
Fresn,
CA)
are
forage
studies,
and
it
was
pointed
out
that
there
was
no
mention
of
rainfall
during
the
study.
Data
from
the
registrant
on
propiconazole
suggest
the
half­
life
is
7.05
days
with
an
SD
of
1.15.
N
is
2
and
the
resulting
degrees
of
freedom
is
1.
The
tcritical
value
for
a
one
tailed
5
per
cent
upperbound
probability
is
6.314.
So
the
an
estimate
of
the
95th
percentile
value
of
the
population
half­
lives
,
based
on
a
sample
population
of
2
values
is
14.41
days
(
7.05
+
1.15(
6.314)).
Although
there
is
much
uncertainty
with
this
estimate,
this
value
can
be
used
to
further
characterize
the
risk
to
propiconazole.
However,
it
must
be
emphised
that
the
resulting
reduction
in
exposure,
and
ultimately
risk,
should
not
be
taken
as
a
definitive
value.

Some
of
the
uncertainties
with
the
use
of
this
study
include:

1)
The
study
was
only
performed
on
wheat
at
CA
and
OK
and
with
only
one
application
at
a
rate
of
0.11
lb
ai/
A.
When
applying
these
results
to
other
regions
in
the
U.
S.
the
uncertainties
could
be
enormous.
2)
The
rainfall
information
was
based
on
NOAA
station
records.
For
this
type
of
field
study,
records
from
local
weather
station
should
be
used.
3)
The
time
zero
residues
for
the
data
analyzed
(
2
samples)
are
very
different
(
3.9
and
6.9
for
CA
and
11
and
12
for
OK).

The
estimated
wildlife
exposure
residues
from
the
T­
REX
model
(
version
1.2.3)
are
presented
below.

Table
3.4
 
Wildlife
Estimated
Exposure
Concentrations
of
Propiconazole
(
Acute
and
Chronic
Birds
and
Mammals)
Page
37
of
206
Avian
Food
Item
Maximum
Avian
Food
Item
Residue
(
mg/
kg
@
1
1b
ai/
A)
1
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
2
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
3
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg)

Agricultural
Uses
Barley
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

short
grass
240
27
27
tall
grass
110
12.375
12.375
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
15.1875
15.1875
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
1.6875
1.6875
Rye
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
1
application)

short
grass
240
27
27
tall
grass
110
12.375
12.375
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
15.1875
15.1875
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
1.6875
1.6875
Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval
between
applications)

short
grass
240
33.75
19.2
tall
grass
110
15.47
8.8
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
18.98
10.8
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
2.11
1.2
Triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
1
application)

short
grass
240
27
27
tall
grass
110
12.375
12.375
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
15.1875
15.1875
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
1.6875
1.6875
Pecans,
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses)
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

short
grass
240
149.44
54
tall
grass
110
68.5
24.75
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
84.06
30.375
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
9.34
3.375
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

short
grass
240
49.52
27
Page
38
of
206
Table
3.4
 
Wildlife
Estimated
Exposure
Concentrations
of
Propiconazole
(
Acute
and
Chronic
Birds
and
Mammals)

Avian
Food
Item
Maximum
Avian
Food
Item
Residue
(
mg/
kg
@
1
1b
ai/
A)
1
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
2
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
3
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg)

tall
grass
110
22.7
12.375
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
27.86
15.1875
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
3.10
1.6875
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)

short
grass
240
93.72
54
tall
grass
110
42.95
24.75
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
52.72
30.375
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
5.86
3.375
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)
4
short
grass
240
77.09
54
tall
grass
110
35.33
24.75
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
43.37
30.38
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
4.82
3.38
stone
fruits
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
non­
bearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)

short
grass
240
111.83
27
tall
grass
110
51.26
12.375
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
62.91
15.1875
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
6.99
1.6875
Non­
agricultural
Uses
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

short
grass
240
1300.97
427.2
tall
grass
110
596.28
195.8
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
731.79
240.3
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
81.31
26.7
Page
39
of
206
Table
3.4
 
Wildlife
Estimated
Exposure
Concentrations
of
Propiconazole
(
Acute
and
Chronic
Birds
and
Mammals)

Avian
Food
Item
Maximum
Avian
Food
Item
Residue
(
mg/
kg
@
1
1b
ai/
A)
1
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
2
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg)
3
Maximum
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
at
Seasonal
Maximum
Application
Rate
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg)
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

short
grass
240
1182.27
427.2
tall
grass
110
541.87
195.8
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
665.03
240.3
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
73.89
26.7
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

short
grass
240
1007.68
427.2
tall
grass
110
466.44
195.8
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
135
572.44
240.3
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
15
63.6
26.7
1
maximum
residues
as
per
Fletcher
et
al.
1994
2
maximum
residues
using
T­
REX
model
version
1.2.3
pseudo
first
order
dissipation
kinetics
dissipation
default
half­
life
of
35
days
3
maximum
residues
using
T­
REX
model
version
1.2.3
pseudo
first
order
dissipation
kinetics
dissipation
default
half­
life
of
14.41
days
4
maximum
residues
at
day
1
(
first
application)
+
maximum
residues
at
day
9
(
second
application)

b.
Terrestrial
Plant
Exposure
Modeling
In
the
screening­
level
risk
assessment,
terrestrial
plant
exposure
is
estimated
using
the
spreadsheet­
based
TerrPlant
model
(
version
1.2.1).).
Terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
dry
and
semi­
aquatic
(
wetland)
areas
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
from
runoff
and/
or
spray
drift.
Resulting
EECs
from
a
single
application
are
presented
in
Table
3.5.
The
model
estimates
EECs
based
on
application
rate,
a
solubility
factor,
and
default
assumptions
of
drift.
A
description
of
the
model
is
in
Appendix
C.

Table
3.5.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
derived
from
the
TerrPlant
screening
model
assuming
a
single
application
at
maximum
label
rate.
Page
40
of
206
Crop
Application
Rate
lbs
a.
i./
A;
Single
application
Application
Method
Total
loading
to
adjacent
areas1
Total
loading
to
semi­
aquatic
areas2
Drift
EEC
Ground
spray
0.0034
0.0236
0.0011
Barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
corn,
celery
0.1125
Aerial
spray
0.0079
0.0281
0.0056
Ground
spray
0.0024
0.0168
0.0008
Wheat
0.1125
Aerial
spray
0.0056
0.020
0.004
Ground
spray
0.0068
0.0473
0.0023
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses,
Rice,
Wild
rice,
Peanut
0.225
Aerial
spray
0.0168
0.0563
0.0113
Ground
spray
0.0534
0.3738
0.0178
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover
1.78
chemigation
0.1246
0.4450
0.089
1
EEC
for
ground
applications
=
drift
+
runoff
=
total
load
Drift
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.01
(
drift)
Runoff
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.02
(
based
on
solubility)
2
EEC
for
aerial/
chemigation
applications
=
drift
+
runoff
=
total
load
Drift
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.05
(
drift)
Runoff
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.02
(
based
on
solubility)

The
TERR­
PLANT
version
1.2.1
exposure
model
calculates
the
potential
exposure
for
terrestrial
plants
for
only
a
single
application
of
propiconazole
and
EFED
does
not
have
data
to
show
residue
accumulation
from
multiple
applications
over
time
for
all
the
uses
of
propiconazole.
As
explained
above,
EFED
has
but
two
decline
studies
for
one
crop
(
wheat)
with
only
one
application
at
only
two
sites
(
Payne,
OK
and
Freno,
CA)
with
no
mention
of
rainfall
during
the
studies.
Such
decline
studies
provide
limited
data
for
multiple
applications
of
propiconazole.
Since
propiconazole
labels
allow
multiple
applications
to
each
crop,
the
magnitude
of
the
risk
to
plants
is
uncertain,
and
potentially
underestimated.
At
this
time
EFED
The
upper
bound
to
the
magnitude
of
the
exposure
for
terrestrial
plants
would
be
to
sum
the
exposures
from
each
application
as
if
the
effect
to
non­
target
plants
were
additive.
Such
EECs
are
presented
below.

The
uncertainty
in
the
magnitude
of
exposure
to
multiple
applications
of
propiconazole
is
great.
It
is
unlikely
that
the
same
plant(
s)
will
receive
the
same
drift
and
runoff
following
each
application,
and
a
significant
rainfall
event
after
each
application
may
not
occur.
However,
the
exposure
calculations
for
terrestrial
plants
assume
exposure
both
through
spray
drift
and
runoff
from
a
treated
field
after
a
heavy
rain
event.
The
likelihood
of
co­
occurrence
of
such
events
is
uncertain,
especially
for
multiple
applications,
and
as
a
result
the
estimated
exposure
values
may
be
conservative.
In
addition,
while
the
likelihood
of
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
through
drift
alone
is
significantly
greater,
the
same
plants
may
not
be
exposed
to
spray
drift
from
each
application,
because
wind
speed
and
direction
could
be
different
at
the
time
of
each
application.
Page
41
of
206
Table
3.6.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
derived
from
the
TerrPlant
screening
model
assuming
the
total
number
of
applications
per
season
at
maximum
label
rate.

Crop
Application
Rate
lbs
a.
e./
A;
Total
#
appl.;
Intervals
in
days
Application
Method
Total
loading
to
adjacent
areas1
Total
loading
to
semi­
aquatic
areas2
Drift
EEC
Ground
spray
0.0169
0.1181
0.0055
Stone
fruit
0.1125
/
5
/
5
Aerial
spray
0.0394
0.1406
0.028
Ground
spray
0.0048
0.0336
0.0016
Wheat
0.1125
/
2
/
14
Aerial
spray
0.0112
0.040
0.008
Ground
spray
0.027
0.189
0.0092
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
0.225
/
4
/
14
Aerial
spray
0.0630
0.2250
0.0452
Ground
spray
0.0135
0.0935
0.0045
Corn,
Celery
0.1125
/
4
/
2
Aerial
spray
0.0315
0.1125
0.0225
Ground
spray
0.0102
0.0714
0.0034
Rice,
Wild
rice
0.225
/
2
/
103
Aerial
spray
0.0238
0.0805
0.017
Ground
spray
0.2136
1.4952
0.7712
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover
1.78
/
4
/
10,
14,
or
21
chemigation
0.4984
1.78
0.356
1
EEC
for
ground
applications
=
drift
+
runoff
=
total
load
Drift
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.01
(
drift)
Runoff
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.02
(
based
on
solubility)
2
EEC
for
aerial/
chemigation
applications
=
drift
+
runoff
=
total
load
Drift
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.05
(
drift)
Runoff
=
application
rate
(
lbs.
a.
e./
acre)
x
0.02
(
based
on
solubility)
3
Maximum
annual
rate
is
0.34
lb
ai/
A.
Assumed
maximum
single
rate
of
0.225
lb
ai/
A
applied,
followed
by
0.115
lb
ai/
A
at
a
10­
day
interval
between
applications.

c.
Residue
Studies
As
discussed
above,
extremely
limited
data
from
the
registrant
regarding
foliar
residues
were
submitted
for
review,
so
the
Agency's
default
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
value
(
35
days)
was
primarily
used.
In
addition,
the
14.41
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
as
discussed
above
was
also
considered
in
the
assessment
for
avian
and
mammalian
assessments.
Terrestrial
exposure
estimates
for
avian
and
mammalian
risk
assessments
were
derived
using
the
T­
REX
model
(
version
1.2.3).

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
effects
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
In
addition,
other
Page
42
of
206
sources
of
information,
including
reviews
of
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS),
are
conducted
to
further
refine
the
characterization
of
potential
ecological
effects.

Appendix
D
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
All
formulated
product
toxicity
values
were
adjusted
to
100%
of
the
active
ingredient
for
this
analysis.
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.
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
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
Characterization
The
registrant
has
submitted
a
battery
of
studies,
as
required
by
CFR
40
Part
158,
that
examine
the
toxicity
of
propiconazole
to
representative
aquatic
organisms
that
serve
as
surrogates
for
organisms
that
may
be
exposed.
Acute
effects
were
determined
for
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
aquatic
vascular
and
nonvascular
plants.
The
results
from
these
studies
are
presented
in
Appendix
D.

a.
Aquatic
Animals
(
1).
Acute
Effects
Fish
and
Aquatic­
Phase
Amphibians
Studies
for
several
species
of
fish
were
submitted
including
the
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss),
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus),
brown
trout
(
Salmo
trutta),
catfish
(
Ictalurus
punctatus),
and
carp
(
Cyprinus
carpio).
These
studies
included
the
testing
of
the
propiconazole
technical
(
CGA­
64250)
and
the
formulated
products
Tilt
3.6E,
Tilt
EC
250
(
A­
6079
A),
and
Tilt
CGA­
64250
SCW
125
(
A­
6079
A).
In
addition,
the
propiconazole
metabolite
1,2,4­
triazole
(
CGA­
98032)
was
tested
on
the
rainbow
trout.

An
acceptable
rainbow
trout
study
on
the
technical
indicated
the
highest
toxicity
with
an
LC50
of
850
µ
g/
L
(
highly
toxic)
while
an
acceptable
bluegill
sunfish
study
revealed
the
lowest
toxicity
with
an
LC50
of
5500
µ
g/
L
(
moderately
toxic).
Although
no
sub­
lethal
effects
were
noted
in
either
study,
NOAEC
occurred
at
the
320
µ
g/
L
treatment
level
in
the
rainbow
study
and
at
the
2000
µ
g/
L
level
for
the
bluegill.

The
toxicity
values
for
the
formulated
products
were
generally
found
to
be
less
toxic
than
the
technical
and
ranged
from
1000
to
5750
µ
g/
L
(
moderately
to
slightly
toxic).
These
studies
were
performed
with
formulations
Tilt
3.6
E,
Tilt
EC
250
and
Tilt
CGA­
64250
SCW
125
between
1979
and
1983.
It
is
not
clear
whether
the
formulants
that
Page
43
of
206
comprised
these
tested
formulations
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
formulations
of
propiconazole
today.

A
single
rainbow
trout
study
using
the
metabolite
1,2,4­
triazole
(
CGA­
98032)
resulted
in
an
LC50
value
of
506,000
µ
g/
L
(
practically
non­
toxic).
No
environmental
fate
data
is
currently
available
on
this
compound,
and
is
presently
under
review
with
other
triazole
compounds.

Tests
on
estuarine/
marine
fish
indicate
that
the
LC50
toxicity
of
2244
µ
g/
L
is
less
toxic
than
freshwater
fish.
The
formulated
product
LC50
of
3900
µ
g/
L
appears
to
be
less
toxic
than
the
most
toxic
freshwater
fish.
LC50
for
the
formulated
product
(
LC50
=
1000
µ
g/
L).
These
studies
are
summarized
in
table
3
of
Appendix
D.

Aquatic
Invertebrates
Freshwater
invertebrate
data
on
daphnids
indicate
LC50s
for
the
technical
and
formulated
product
are
4800
and
1300
µ
g/
L,
respectively.
Although
these
data
are
not
as
robust
as
for
fish,
the
data
submitted
show
the
formulated
product
Tilt
3.6
E
to
be
more
acutely
toxic
than
the
parent.
As
with
the
formulation
data
done
for
freshwater
fish,
it
is
not
clear
how
the
1983
study
represents
the
current
formulations
of
propiconazole.

Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
testing
indicates
the
same
trend
as
the
freshwater
invertebrate
in
that
the
formulated
product
appears
to
be
more
toxic
than
the
technical
propiconazole.
The
EC50
for
the
eastern
oyster
shell
deposition
study
was
113
µ
g/
L
for
the
formulated
product
Tilt
3.6
E,
compared
to
an
EC50
for
the
technical
ingredient
of
1700
µ
g/
L.
A
mysid
shrimp
LC50
of
510
µ
g/
L
was
observed
for
the
technical
propiconazole
in
an
acceptable
study.
These
studies
are
summarized
in
table
4
of
Appendix
D.

(
2).
Chronic
Effects
Fish
and
Aquatic­
Phase
Amphibians
A
fathead
minnow
early­
life
stage
study
was
submitted
in
1981
(
MRID
072210).
This
study
has
been
classified
as
acceptable
with
a
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
of
95
and
184

g/
L,
respectively.
The
chronic
endpoints
for
this
study
were
fish
mortality,
length
and
weight.

Aquatic
Invertebrates
A
daphnid
life­
cycle
study
was
submitted
in
1981
on
the
formulated
product
CGA­
64250
(
MRID
00163165).
Unfortunately
this
study
was
deemed
unsound
because
replicate
and/
or
raw
data
were
not
submitted
of
any
of
the
tested
endpoints.
In
addition,
raw
data
to
verify
the
validity
of
the
mean­
measured
concentration
were
not
submitted.
This
study
could
be
up­
graded
to
supplemental
status
if
the
results
could
be
verified
by
Page
44
of
206
the
submission
of
the
missing
data.
However,
at
this
time
EFED
can
not
use
this
study
in
a
risk
assessment.

(
3).
Field
Studies
No
field
studies
are
currently
available
for
propiconazole.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
Several
aquatic
plant
studies
have
been
conducted
for
propiconazole
and
satisfy
the
OPP
data
requirements.
These
include
the
vascular
plant
EC50
for
the
duckweed
Lemna
gibba
and
the
non­
vascular
algae
and
diatoms.
The
results
from
these
studies
are
list
in
Appendix
D
and
show
that
in
all
cases
a
definitive
NOAEC
(
51
µ
g/
L)
was
only
reached
for
the
freshwater
diatom,
Navicula
pelliculosa.
However,
this
alga
was
not
the
most
sensitive
of
the
non­
vascular
algae.
The
most
sensitive
was
the
marine
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum)
with
a
NOAEC
of
18
µ
g/
L.
The
vascular
plant
EC50
and
NOAEC
indicated
a
much
lower
toxic
level
than
the
non­
vascular
plant
studies.
The
EC50
and
NOAEC
were
4828
and
<
2240
µ
g/
L,
respectively.

2.
Terrestrial
Effects
Characterization
The
registrant
has
submitted
a
battery
of
studies,
as
required
by
CFR
40
Part
158,
that
examine
the
toxicity
of
propiconazole
to
representative
terrestrial
organisms
that
serve
as
surrogates
for
organisms
that
may
be
exposed.
Both
acute
and
chronic
effects
were
determined
for
birds
and
mammals.
In
addition
acute
effects
were
determined
for
terrestrial
plants.
The
results
from
these
studies
are
presented
in
Appendix
D.

a.
Terrestrial
Animals
A
number
of
studies
were
submitted
for
birds
and
mammals
for
the
active
ingredient.
The
results
from
these
studies
are
presented
in
Appendices
XX.

(
1).
Acute
and
Sub­
lethal
Effects
Birds
In
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
(
MRID
79689)
of
northern
bobwhite
quail,
Colinus
virginianus,
the
LD50
is
2825
mg
a.
i./
kg
body
weight.
Sub­
lethal
signs
included
lethargy,
loss
of
coordination,
lower
limb
weakness,
wing
droop,
and
body
weight
gain.
The
NOAEC
was
631
mg
ai/
kg­
bw.
A
second
acute
oral
study
was
performed
with
the
surrogate
waterfowl
species,
the
mallard
duck
(
MRID
67926),
and
similar
results
were
obtained.
The
LD50
is
>
2510
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
and
lethargy
was
observed
but
there
was
full
recovery
from
the
lethargy
after
six
hours.
The
results
from
these
studies
classify
propiconazole
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
Page
45
of
206
Several
sub­
acute
dietary
toxicity
tests
with
bobwhite
quail,
mallard
duck,
Peking
duck,
and
Japanese
quail
indicated
that
the
8­
day
LC50
values
exceed
the
maximum
concentrations
tested,
i.
e.,
LC50>
5620
mg
a.
e./
kg
of
diet
for
the
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
and
LC50>
1000
mg
a.
i./
kg
of
diet
for
the
Peking
duck
and
Japanese
quail.
No
sub­
lethal
effects
were
noted
for
the
Peking
duck
or
Japanese
quail,
but
body
weight
gain
and
reduction
in
feed
consumption
were
observed
in
the
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck.
For
the
purposes
of
this
assessment,
propiconazole
is
considered
to
be
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
dietary
basis.

Mammals
Acute
oral
mammalian
data
were
submitted
on
the
active
ingredient
for
the
rat,
mouse,
Chinese
hamster,
and
rabbit.
The
toxicities
were
similar
for
the
rat,
mouse,
and
rabbit,
and
ranged
from
LD50s
of
1344
to
1517
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
for
the
rabbit
and
rat,
respectively.
The
Chinese
hamster
LD50
was
3006
mg
ai/
kg­
diet.

(
2).
Chronic
Effects
Birds
Chronic
data
for
the
bobwhite
quail
(
MRID
00133369)
showed
that
no
treatment
related
effects
were
observed
at
any
of
the
test
levels
up
to
1000
ppm­
diet.
In
addition,
one
mortality
was
observed
at
this
test
level.
The
results
from
this
study
are
somewhat
deceptive
in
that
the
birds
were
only
tested
to
1000
mg/
kg­
diet,
and
consequently
a
definitive
LOAEC
was
not
obtained.
A
chronic
study
was
also
performed
on
the
mallard
duck
(
MRID
00134502),
but
was
found
to
be
unsound
because
the
treated
feed
was
not
analyzed
to
verify
test
concentration,
homogeneity
of
the
mixing
procedure,
and
stability
under
actual
use
conditions.
In
addition,
replicate
data
for
hatching
and
survivor
weight
were
not
provided
and
adult
body
weight
data
were
not
reported
by
sex.

Mammals
A
two­
generation
rat
study
(
MRIDs
00163164,
00151514)
with
propiconazole
technical
was
submitted
which
demonstrated
a
chronic
NOAEC
of
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
(
ppm).
This
NOAEC
was
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gains
in
F0
and
F1
generations.
In
addition,
the
NOAEL
was
reported
as
43
mg/
kg­
bw/
day.
No
clinical
mortality
was
observed
in
this
study
but
reduced
body
weight
gains
occurred
in
both
the
F0
and
F1
generations.
Hepatic
"
clear
cell
change"
was
additionally
observed
in
the
F0
generation.
Decreased
offspring
survival
and
body
weights
and
increased
incidence
of
hepatic
lesions
(
cellular
swelling)
at
the
2500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
level
were
also
observed.

(
3).
Field
Studies
Page
46
of
206
No
field
studies
were
submitted.

b.
Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
plant
testing
(
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor)
is
required
for
herbicides
that
have
terrestrial
non­
residential
outdoor
use
patterns
and
that
may
move
off
the
application
site
through
volatilization
(
vapor
pressure
>
1.0
x
10­
5mm
Hg
at
25oC)
or
drift
(
aerial
or
irrigation)
and/
or
that
may
have
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
associated
with
the
application
site.
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).

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

Tier
1
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
at
a
test
level
that
is
equal
to
the
highest
use
rate
(
expressed
as
lbs
ai/
A).
If
effects
are
observed
in
this
test,
the
registrant
is
required
to
proceed
to
the
Tier
2
level.
Terrestrial
Tier
2
studies
are
required
for
any
pesticide
showing
a
negative
response
equal
to
or
greater
than
25%
in
Tier
1
tests.
The
registrant
may
opt
to
proceed
directly
to
Tier
2
testing.
Tier
2
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
and
five
or
more
test
concentrations.

Tier
2
Terrestrial
plant
data
were
submitted
for
both
the
seedling
emergence
and
the
vegetative
vigor
tests
for
technical
propiconazole
(
MRID
41673201,
41673203).
The
seedling
emergence
study
considered
percent
emergence,
plant
height,
and
plant
dry
weight
to
determine
the
EC25
and
NOAEC
for
each
of
the
species
tested,
and
propiconazole
was
applied
at
use
rates
of
0.0185,
0.056,
0.167,
0.5,
and
1.5
lb
ai/
A.
The
monocots
tested
included
onion,
corn,
oats,
and
ryegrass.
The
dicot
species
included
carrot,
soybean,
lettuce,
cucumber,
tomato,
and
cabbage.
Only
one
of
the
dicots
(
cabbage)
exhibited
enough
of
a
dose
response
to
obtain
an
EC25.
Consequently,
the
EC25
is
>
1.5
lb
ai/
A
for
all
of
these
species
except
cabbage.
The
EC25
for
cabbage
is
0.18
lb
ai/
A,
and
the
NOAEC
was
0.056
lb
ai/
A
based
on
plant
dry
weight.

The
vegetative
vigor
study
was
performed
using
the
same
species
as
the
seedling
emergence
studies
(
onion,
corn,
oat,
and
ryegrass
as
representatives
of
moncots
and
soybean,
lettuce,
carrot,
tomato,
cabbage,
and
cucumber).
The
same
application
concentrations
were
applied
to
the
plants.
Plant
height
and
plant
dry
weight
were
the
parameters
considered
to
measure
dose
response
to
plants.
Lettuce,
carrot,
tomato,
and
oat
EC25s
could
not
be
determined
and
these
species
appeared
to
be
unaffected
by
the
treatments.
The
most
sensitive
monocot
based
on
plant
height
was
ryegrass
(
EC25
=
0.315
lb
ai/
A,
NOAEC
=
0.0185
lb
ai/
A).
The
most
sensitive
dicot
based
on
plant
dry
weight
was
cabbage
(
EC25
=
0.039
lb
ai/
A,
NOAEC
=
0.056
lb
ai/
A).
Page
47
of
206
IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Risk
Estimation
­
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
potential
for
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
propiconazole
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
nontarget
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.

1.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Animals
Among
the
aquatic
exposures
described
previously,
the
rice
use
represents
the
most
conservative
estimates,
which
estimates
the
concentrations
in
rice
paddy
discharge
water.
In
addition,
propiconazole
label
specifically
forbids
rice
use
in
California,
so
the
potential
rice
exposures
will
occur
in
Texas,
Arkansas,
and
Louisiana.
As
for
turf
exposure,
propiconazole
can
be
used
on
lawn,
sod
farm,
golf
course,
and
others.
EFED
just
published
(
June
1,
2005)
a
guidance
document
 
"
Golf
Course
Adjustment
Factors
for
Simulated
Aquatic
Exposure
Concentrations."
These
golf
course
adjustment
factors
should
only
be
used
to
refine
EECs
for
turf
in
a
golf
course
use
scenario.
Unless
the
golf
course
is
treated
100%
(
tees,
greens,
fairways
and
roughs),
the
aquatic
exposure
values
from
golf
course
use
need
to
be
adjusted
by
0.05,
0.29,
0.66,
and
0.34,
respectively
for
tees
and
greens,
fairways,
roughs,
and
the
combination
of
tees,
greens,
and
fairways.

Based
on
the
maximum
estimated
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
surface
water
concentration
on
turf
and
the
most
sensitive
96­
hour
LC50
values
for
fish,
propiconazole
does
not
appear
to
pose
an
acute
risk
to
non­
listed
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish.
Only
the
freshwater
fish
RQ
is
equivalent
to
the
acute
listed
species
LOC.
The
peak
concentration
below
was
estimated
from
the
maximum
use
rate
and
minimum
application
interval
for
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf,
using
a
Pennsylvania
scenario
in
the
PRZM
model.
The
listed
species
level
of
concern
is
not
exceeded
for
the
Florida
turf
scenario,
from
which
an
estimated
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
surface
water
concentration
of
34.77
µ
g/
L
was
derived.

The
acute
restricted
use
and
listed
species
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
use
on
rice
for
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
fish
LC50
value.
In
addition,
the
listed
species
LOC
was
exceeded
for
use
on
rice
for
estuarine/
marine
fish.
No
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
any
other
crop
to
which
propiconazole
is
applied,
since
the
EECs
from
the
other
applications
range
from
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
concentrations
of
1.92
ppb
(
barley)
to
13.28
(
corn).
Page
48
of
206
The
propiconazole
formulations
Tilt
3.6
E,
Tilt
EC
250
and
Tilt
CGA­
64250
SCW
125
do
not
appear
to
pose
a
risk
to
listed
or
non­
listed
freshwater
fish,
since
toxicity
data
for
these
formulations
showed
them
to
be
less
toxic
than
technical
propiconazole.
These
toxicity
studies,
which
were
performed
between
1979
and
1983
and
are
detailed
in
Appendix
D,
indicate
that
Tilt
3.6
E
is
the
most
toxic
of
the
three
formulations,
with
a
most
sensitive
96­
hour
LC50
value
of
1000
:
g/
L
for
rainbow
trout.
As
mentioned
in
the
Effects
Characterization,
however,
it
is
not
clear
whether
the
formulants
that
comprised
these
tested
formulations
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
formulations
of
propiconazole
today.
Current
formulations
of
propiconazole
could
be
more
or
less
toxic
than
they
were
more
than
20
years
ago.

The
1,2,4­
triazole
degradate
(
CGA­
98032)
of
propiconazole
is
much
less
toxic
than
the
parent
or
any
of
the
formulated
products
(
LC50
=
506,000
µ
g/
L).
This
degradate
is
currently
under
separate
review
with
other
triazole
compounds,
and
at
this
time
no
environmental
fate
data
is
available.
This
degradate
is
expected
to
be
in
very
low
concentrations
in
the
soil,
and
since
the
toxicity
is
quite
low,
the
resulting
acute
effects
to
freshwater
fish
would
also
be
expected
to
be
low.

These
maximum
RQs
are
presented
in
the
table
below.

Aquatic
Animal
Acute
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
­
Turf
Use
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
 
Rice
Use
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
 
Turf
Use
Acute
RQ
 
Rice
Use
Freshwater
fish
850
40.35
86.49
0.05***
0.1**

Estuarine/
marine
fish
2244
40.35
86.49
0.02
0.04***

Risk
Presumption
*
Acute
Risk
0.5
**
Acute
Restricted
Use
0.1
***
Acute
Listed
Species
0.05
Based
on
the
maximum
estimated
1­
in­
10­
year
60­
day
surface
water
concentration
and
the
NOAEC
from
the
fathead
minnow
early
life
stage
study
of
95
:
g/
L,
propiconazole
does
not
appear
to
pose
a
chronic
risk
to
freshwater
fish
and
aquaticphase
amphibians
when
used
on
turf
and
rice.
These
results
are
presented
below.

Aquatic
Animal
Chronic
NOEC
(:
g/
L)
60­
day
Water
Concentration
 
Turf
Use
(:
g/
L)
Water
Concentration
 
Rice
Use
(:
g/
L)
Chronic
RQ
Turf
Use
Chronic
RQ
Rice
Use
Page
49
of
206
Freshwater
fish
95
34.8
17.81
0.36
<
1
Estuarine/
marine
fish
N/
A
34.8
17.81
N/
A
N/
A
Risk
Presumption
+
Exceeds
Chronic
LOC
As
explained
in
the
Effects
Characterization
section,
valid
chronic
data
are
not
available
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
life
cycle
study,
and
chronic
risk
for
a
90­
day
exposure
period
can
not
be
evaluated
at
this
time.
However,
if
there
is
some
possibility
that
this
fish
full
life­
cycle
study
could
be
up­
graded
to
supplemental
status
as
described
in
the
Aquatic
Effects
characterization
section
above,
the
results
from
this
study
could
be
useful
in
this
risk
assessment.

The
results
from
this
study
show
that
the
most
sensitive
parameter
was
reproductive
success
(
eggs/
female/
day)
and
the
NOAEC
from
the
study
author's
analysis
is
68
µ
g/
L.
Since
the
surface
water
EECs
were
40.35
to
33.98
µ
g/
L
for
peak
and
90­
day
time
periods
respectively,
the
chronic
levels
of
concern
would
not
be
exceeded
for
any
of
the
turf
uses.
However,
the
chronic
LOC
would
be
exceeded
for
rice
since
the
EEC
for
the
rice
use
is
86.49
µ
g/
L.
Consequently,
EFED
will
await
the
results
of
this
submission
before
recommending
that
this
study
be
repeated.

Risk
to
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Based
on
the
maximum
estimated
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
surface
water
concentration
for
turf
use
and
the
most
sensitive
48­
or
96­
hour
EC50
values
for
invertebrates
(
daphnia
and
mysid
shrimp),
propiconazole
does
not
appear
to
pose
an
acute
risk
to
non­
listed
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Only
the
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQs
exceed
the
acute
listed
species
LOC.
The
peak
concentration
below
was
estimated
from
the
maximum
use
rate
and
minimum
application
interval
for
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf,
using
Florida
and
Pennsylvania
scenarios
in
the
PRZM
model.
Acute
restricted
use
and
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
use
on
rice
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
No
other
acute
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
any
other
crop
to
which
propiconazole
is
applied,
since
the
EECs
from
the
other
applications
range
from
1­
in­
10­
year
peak
concentrations
of
1.92
ppb
(
barley)
to
13.28
ppb
(
corn).
The
results
are
presented
in
the
table
below.

Aquatic
Animal
Acute
Toxicity
Value
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
 
Turf
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
 
Rice
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
Turf
Acute
RQ
Rice
Freshwater
Invertebrate
4800
40.35
86.49
0.008
0.02
Page
50
of
206
40.35
(
FL
turf)
0.08***

Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
510
34.77
(
PA
turf)
86.49
0.07***
0.17**

Risk
Presumption
*
Acute
Risk
0.5
**
Acute
Restricted
Use
0.1
***
Acute
Listed
Species
0.05
The
propiconazole
formulation
Tilt
3.6
E
appears
to
be
more
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
than
technical
propiconazole.
These
toxicity
studies,
which
were
performed
between
1979
and
1983
and
are
detailed
in
Appendix
D,
indicate
that
Tilt
3.6
E
is
most
toxic
to
the
eastern
oyster,
with
a
shell­
deposition
EC50
value
of
113
:
g
a.
i./
L.
As
mentioned
in
the
Effects
Characterization,
however,
it
is
not
clear
whether
the
formulants
which
comprised
this
formulation
are
the
same
as
those
used
in
formulations
of
propiconazole
today.
Current
formulations
of
propiconazole
could
be
more
or
less
toxic
than
they
were
more
than
20
years
ago.

Based
on
an
evaluation
of
potential
drift
of
propiconazole
to
an
adjacent
water
body,
this
formulation
does
not
pose
a
risk
to
listed
or
non­
listed
freshwater
or
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Formulated
products
are
mixtures,
and
while
the
mixture
can
be
transported
as
a
whole
via
spray
drift,
individual
formulants
would
not
be
expected
to
runoff
together
to
the
same
degree.

The
maximum
EEC
based
on
drift
from
the
use
on
turf
is
1
ppb,
which
results
in
an
RQ
well
below
the
LOC.
This
EEC
was
calculated
by
assuming
instantaneous
loading
and
complete
mixing
of
propiconazole
in
drift
in
a
20,000,000­
liter
pond.

concentration
(
mg/
L)
=
application
rate
(
mg
product/
ha
or
mg
ai
/
ha
a.
i.)
X
0.01
or
0.05
(
drift
percentage)
X
1
ha
/
20,000,000
L
For
the
proper
RQ
calculations,
the
units
of
EEC
(
Concentration
in
20,000,000
L
pond
­
mg
product/
L
or
mg
ai/
L)
and
LC50
(
mg
product/
L
or
mg
ai/
L)
need
to
be
compatible.

An
acceptable
mysid
shrimp
life­
cycle
study
found
the
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
based
on
mortality
and
the
number
of
offspring
produced
to
be
205
and
507
µ
g/
L,
respectively
(
MRID
072210).
The
resulting
chronic
RQs
of
0.16
(
rice)
and
0.18
(
turf)
do
not
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
using
the
21­
day
or
peak
water
concentrations
on
turf
or
rice.
This
is
illustrated
in
the
table
below.
Page
51
of
206
Aquatic
Animal
Chronic
NOAEC
(:
g/
L)
30­
day
Water
Concentration
 
Turf
Use
(:
g/
L)
Water
Concentration
 
Rice
Use
(:
g/
L)
Chronic
RQ
Turf
Use
Chronic
RQ
Rice
Use
Freshwater
Invertebrate
N/
A
34.24
86.49
N/
A
N/
A
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
205
34.24
86.49
0.18
0.16
Risk
Presumption
+
Exceeds
Chronic
LOC
Acceptable
chronic
data
have
not
been
submitted
for
freshwater
invertebrates.
However,
if
the
current
daphnid
life­
cycle
study
(
MRID
00163165)
is
up­
graded
to
acceptable,
the
resulting
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
based
on
mortality
and
number
of
offspring
produced
would
be
310
and
690
µ
g/
L,
respectively.
The
resulting
RQs
would
not
exceed
any
chronic
freshwater
invertebrate
LOCs.

2.
Risk
to
Aquatic
Plants
Based
on
the
toxicity
to
the
marine
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum),
the
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf
and
rice
may
pose
an
acute
risk
to
nonvascular
estuarine/
marine
plants.
The
EECs
from
both
the
PA
turf
and
FL
turf
scenarios
result
in
RQs
which
exceed
the
acute
and
listed
species
LOCs.
The
EECs
for
other
crops
do
not
result
in
RQs
that
exceed
the
acute
LOC,
since
the
highest
1in
10­
year
peak
concentration
is
13.28
:
g/
L
(
corn)
is
far
below
all
aquatic
plant
toxicity
values.
However,
since
a
NOAEC
could
not
be
established
in
the
marine
diatom
test,
one
cannot
preclude
the
possibility
that
exposure
to
propiconazole
from
all
uses
could
potentially
exceed
the
listed
species
LOC.
The
risk
quotients
for
the
freshwater
vascular
plant
Lemna
gibba
do
not
exceed
any
aquatic
plant
levels
of
concern.
These
results
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.

Table
4­
1.
Aquatic
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
Plant
type
Toxicity
Value
(:
g/
L)
Listed
Species
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Conc.
­
Turf
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Conc.
­
Rice
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
­
Turf
Acute
RQ
­
Rice
Listed
Species
RQ
­
Turf
Listed
Species
RQ
­
Rice
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
4828
<
2540
40.35
86.49
0.008
0.02
>
0.016
>
0.03
Nonvascular
Plants
Freshwater
Aquatic
Plants
93
51
40.35
86.49
0.43
0.93
0.79
1.7**
Page
52
of
206
Table
4­
1.
Aquatic
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
Plant
type
Toxicity
Value
(:
g/
L)
Listed
Species
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Conc.
­
Turf
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Conc.
­
Rice
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
­
Turf
Acute
RQ
­
Rice
Listed
Species
RQ
­
Turf
Listed
Species
RQ
­
Rice
40.35
(
PA
turf)
86.49
1.92*
4.12
*
>
2.24**
>
4.81**
Estuarine/
Marine
Aquatic
Plants
21
<
18
34.88
(
FL
turf)
86.49
1.66
*
4.12
*
>
1.93**
>
4.81**

Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
*
Acute
risk
1
**
Acute
Listed
Species
1
3.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
Risk
to
birds
and
mammals
were
evaluated
using
the
risk
quotient
methold
for
dietary
and
dose­
based
exposure
scenarios
using
the
T­
REX
program
(
version
1.2.3).
As
discussed
in
the
Measure
of
Exposure
Section,
a
35­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
was
deemed
most
appropriate
for
use
with
this
model.
However,
it
should
be
noted
that
some
of
these
RQs
are
reduced
below
all
levels
of
concern
when
a
foliar
disspation
half­
life
of
14.41
days
is
used
in
TREX
The
14.41
day
half­
life
is
derived
from
the
95th
percentile
from
time
zero
data
is
used
in
the
calculation
of
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life.
is
used.
There
are
many
uncertainties
associated
with
this
estimate.
These
uncertainties
are
discussed
in
the
Measure
of
Exposure
Section.

Birds
A
definitive
dietary
LC50
was
not
obtained
in
any
of
the
dietary
studies,
and
no
mortality
was
seen
up
to
doses
of
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
in
the
acceptable
bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
studies.
These
studies
suggest
that
propiconazole
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
basis.
Risk
quotients
of
<
0.2
on
turf
indicate
that
acute
listed
species
LOCs
may
be
triggered
when
a
35
day
foliar
half­
life
is
used.
However,
if
a
14.41
day
foliar
half­
life
is
used
to
calculate
the
RQs,
no
LOCs
are
exceeded
using
the
dietary
studies.

On
the
other
hand,
a
definitive
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
was
obtained
in
the
testing
of
the
bobwhite
quail.
In
addition
to
mortality,
effects
observed
included
lethargy,
loss
of
coordination,
lower
limb
weakness,
wing
droop,
and
reduced
body
weight
gain.
Regardless
of
the
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
used
(
35­
day
or
14.41­
day,
most
of
the
RQs
Page
53
of
206
indicate
that
the
listed
species
LOCs
are
equivalent
for
maximum
residue
concentrations
for
20
g
birds
foraging
in
short
grass
for
grasses
grown
for
seed
and
pecan.
The
listed
species
LOC
is
equivalent
for
1000
g
birds
foraging
short
grass
for
stone
fruit
and
peanut.
Turf
and
ornamental
uses
exceed
the
acute
risk
LOCs
for
all
weight
classes
of
birds
by
somewhat
higher
margins.
These
RQs
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.

Avian
Risk
Quotients
Exceeding
LOC
Based
on
Multiple
Applications
with
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
Use
site
Food
Type
Weight
Class
of
Bird
(
g)
Maximum
Residue
RQ
Mean
Residue
RQ
Pecan,
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval
Short
grass
20
0.08
***
­

Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
nonbearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
Short
grass
1000
0.06
***
­

Peanut
 
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
appl.;
10
day
intervals)
Short
grass
1000
0.06
***
­

20
0.7
*
0.25
**
100
0.31
**
0.11
***
Short
grass
1000
0.1
***
20
0.32
**
0.1
***
Tall
grass
100
0.14
***
0.1****
20
0.28
**
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
100
0.13
***
20
0.63
*
0.22
**
100
0.28
**
0.1
***
Short
grass
1000
0.1
***
20
0.29
**
Tall
grass
100
0.13
***
20
0.26
**
0.1
***
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf
,
golf
course,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
100
0.12
***
20
0.54
*
0.19
**
100
0.24
**
0.1
***
Short
grass
1000
0.1
***
20
0.25
**
0.1
***
Tall
grass
100
0.11
***
20
0.22
**
0.1
***
100
0.1
***
0.1****
turf
and
ornamentals
 
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
1000
0.1****

*
indicates
an
exceedance
(
or
equivlence)
of
Acute
Risk
LOC;
RQ
>
1.0.
**
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Acute
Restricted
Use
LOC;
RQ
>
0.20
***
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Listed
Species
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC);
RQ
>
0.10.
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.
Page
54
of
206
Chronic
data
for
birds
showed
no
treatment
related
effects
at
any
of
the
test
levels
up
to
1000
mg/
kg­
diet,
and
as
described
above,
a
definitive
LOAEL
could
not
be
determined.
Consequently,
the
actual
NOAEL
could
be
much
greater
than
observed
in
the
study.
Hence,
there
is
a
great
uncertainty
when
this
information
is
used
to
evaluate
chronic
risk
to
birds.

The
dietary­
based
chronic
risk
quotients,
which
are
presented
below,
show
that
the
chronic
level
of
concern
is
exceeded
for
birds
on
multiple
application
turf
use
sites
when
the
NOAEL
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
is
used
to
assess
chronic
risk.
The
turf
risk
quotients
are
summarized
in
the
table
below
and
range
from
1.0
to
1.3.
These
RQs
can
be
reduced
below
the
chronic
LOCs
if
the
14.41
day
foliar
half­
life
is
used.
To
reduce
uncertainty
and
reduce
the
chronic
RQs
below
the
level
of
concern,
a
chronic
study
following
the
EPA
guidelines
should
be
completed
which
includes
testing
to
higher
test
levels.
Due
to
the
uncertainty
with
regard
to
the
avian
chronic
NOAEL
and
LOAEL
a
dose­
based
risk
quotient
analysis
was
not
done.

Table
4­
2.
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
chronic
NOAEC
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Chronic
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Single
Application
Chronic
RQ
Multiple
Application
Chronic
RQ
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1301
1000
0.427
1.3
*^

tall
grass
196
596
1000
0.196
0.596
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
732
1000
0.24
0.732
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
81
1000
0.027
0.081
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1182
1000
0.427
1.18
*^

tall
grass
196
542
1000
0.196
0.542
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
665
1000
0.24
0.665
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
74
1000
0.027
0.074
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1008
1000
0.427
1.01
*^

tall
grass
196
466
1000
0.196
0.466
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
572
1000
0.24
0.572
Page
55
of
206
Table
4­
2.
Avian
Chronic
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
chronic
NOAEC
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Chronic
NOAEC
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Single
Application
Chronic
RQ
Multiple
Application
Chronic
RQ
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
64
1000
0.027
0.064
Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
*
Chronic
Risk
1
^
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

Mammals
The
mammalian
acute
LD50
values
are
1344,
1490,
and
1517
mg/
kg­
bw
for
the
rabbit,
mouse,
and
rat,
respectively.
Since
the
T­
REX
model
currently
does
not
adjust
the
bodyweight
for
any
other
mammals
other
than
laboratory
rats,
it
was
necessary
to
adjust
for
the
bodyweight
of
the
laboratory
rabbit
and
mouse.

Since
the
weight
of
the
rabbits
and
mice
were
not
referenced
in
the
studies
(
MRID
058594,
058592),
EFED
assumes
typical
weights
of
2.0
and
0.02
kg,
respectively.
2
The
typical
weight
of
the
laboratory
rat
is
0.35
kg.
The
LD50s
are
then
adjusted
according
to
the
following
equation:

Adjusted
LD50=
LD50*
(
TW/
AW)
0.25
where
TW
=
test
animal
weight
AW
=
body
weight
of
the
rat
Adj.
LD50
=
dose
in
mg/
kg/
bw
for
the
rat
The
adjusted
LD50s
for
the
rabbit
and
mouse
from
this
equation
are
2078
and
729
mg/
kg­
bw,
respectively.
Therefore,
when
mammalian
LD50
data
are
adjusted
for
bodyweight,
the
mouse
is
the
most
sensitive
(
LD50
=
729
mg/
kg­
bw),
and
this
value
and
the
Fletcher
residue
values
obtained
from
T­
REX
(
version
1.2.3)
were
used
to
calculate
the
acute
mammalian
RQs
based
on
the
fraction
of
the
body
weight
consumed
daily
for
15,
35,
and
1000
g
mammals.

Risk
quotients
for
herbivores/
insectivores
mostly
exceed
the
restricted
use
and
listed
species
acute
levels
of
concern
for
the
turf
use
sites
for
all
weight
classes
of
mammals
in
all
food
categories
with
the
exception
of
the
large
insect
category.
Additionally,
listed
species
levels
of
concern
were
exceeded
for
pecan,
stone
fruit,
and
grasses
grown
for
seed
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
for
multiple
applications
to
mammals
2
Appraisal
of
the
Safety
of
Chemicals
in
foods,
Drugs
and
Cosmetics.
Association
of
Food
and
Drug
Officials
of
the
United
States.
3rd
Printing,
1975.
Page
56
of
206
foraging
on
short
grass
and
small
insects.
The
RQ
for
peanut
exceeds
the
listed
species
LOC
for
15
g
mammals
under
the
multiple
application
scenario.
None
of
these
RQs
are
reduced
below
the
LOCs
when
a
14.41
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
used.
The
results
of
these
RQs
are
presented
below.
RQs
did
not
exceed
any
levels
of
concern
for
granivores.

Mammalian
Herbivore/
Insectivore
Risk
Quotients
Exceeding
LOC
Based
on
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
with
a
mouse
LD50
of
729
mg
ai/
kg­
bw
Use
site
Food
Type
Weight
Class
of
Mammal
(
g)
Single
Appl.
Residue
RQ
Multiple
Appl
Residue
RQ
15
­
0.07
***
Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
nonbearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
Short
grass
35
­
0.06
***

15
­
0.09
***
Pecan,
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval
Short
grass
35
­
0.08
***

Peanut
 
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
appl.;
10
day
intervals)
Short
grass
15
­
0.06***

15
0.25
**
0.77
*
35
0.22
**
0.66
*
Short
grass
1000
0.12
***
0.35
**
15
0.14
***
0.44
**
35
0.12
***
0.37
**
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)
Small
insects
1000
0.07
***
0.20
**
15
0.25
**
0.70
*
35
0.22
**
0.60
*
Short
grass
1000
0.12
***
0.32
**
15
0.14
***
0.40
**
35
0.12
***
0.24
**
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf
,
golf
course,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)
Small
insects
1000
0.07
***
0.18
**
15
0.25
**
0.61
*
35
0.22
**
0.52
**
Short
grass
1000
0.12
***
0.28
**
15
0.14
***
0.34
**
35
0.12
***
0.29
**
turf
and
ornamentals
 
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)
Small
insects
1000
0.07
***
0.16
**

*
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Acute
Risk
LOC;
RQ
>
1.0.
**
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Acute
Restricted
Use
LOC;
RQ
>
0.20
***
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Listed
Species
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC);
RQ
>
0.10.

Calculations
for
mammalian
organisms
use
both
dietary­
based
and
oral
dosebased
risk
quotients
for
calculation
of
chronic
mammalian
risk.
The
NOAEC
of
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gains
in
F0
and
F1
generations
in
a
2­
generation
Page
57
of
206
rat
study
was
used
for
the
dietary­
based
RQs.
No
clinical
mortality
was
observed
in
the
study
but
hepatic
"
clear
cell
change"
occurred
at
the
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
concentration
(
NOAEC
=
100
mg
ai/
kg­
diet)
in
the
F0
generation.
Since
the
hepatic
cell
change
was
only
observed
in
the
F0
generation,
chronic
RQs
were
calculated
with
the
NOAEC
of
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gains.
The
chronic
mammalian
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
use
sites
and
range
from
1.1
to
2.3.
However,
the
RQs
can
be
reduced
below
the
chronic
LOCs
if
a
14.41
foliar
half­
life
is
used
for
RQ
calculations.
These
RQs
are
summarized
below
for
the
turf
uses.
Page
58
of
206
Table
4­
3.
Mammal
Reproduction
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
NOEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Chronic
Threshold
(
mg/
kg­
diet)
Single
Application
Reproduction
RQ
Multiple
Application
Reproduction
RQ
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1301
500
0.85
2.6
 
tall
grass
196
596
0.39
0.92
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
732
0.48
1.4
 
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
81
0.054
0.16
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1182
500
0.85
2.3
*

tall
grass
196
542
0.39
1.1
*
 
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
665
0.48
1.33
*
 
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
74
0.054
0.148
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1008
500
0.85
2.0
*

tall
grass
196
466
0.39
2.0
*
 
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
572
0.48
1.14
*
 
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
64
0.054
0.128
RQ
=
Residue/
Toxicity
Threshold
Risk
Presumption
RQ
Level
of
Concern
*
Chronic
Risk
1
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

The
dose­
based
RQs
can
be
calculated
using
the
chronic
reproductive
effect
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg
diet.
This
dietary
NOAEC
was
converted
to
a
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg­
bw
according
to
the
following
formula
based
on
a
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion:

Adjusted
NOAEL=
NOAEL
*
(
test
species
body
weight/
assessed
body
weight)
0.25
The
RQs
are
calculated
by
obtaining
an
equivalent
dose
EEC
which
is
adjusted
for
the
percent
body
weight
consumed
for
a
15,
35,
and
1000
g
mammal
and
dividing
this
EEC
by
the
adjusted
NOAEL.
The
results
for
these
calculations
are
summarized
for
the
uses
which
exceed
Page
59
of
206
the
chronic
LOCs
and
indicate
that
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
level
of
concern
for
all
weight
classes
of
mammals
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
small
insects,
and
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects
and
range
from
1.2
to
22.6
for
use
on
turf.
Pecans
and
grasses
grown
for
seed
exceed
chronic
LOCs
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insect
categories.
LOCs
are
also
exceeded
for
1000
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass.
Similarly,
the
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
on
all
the
fore­
mentioned
food
types
plus
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects.
Finally,
LOCs
are
exceed
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass
and
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insect
food
categories
for
use
on
peanut
and
stone
fruit.
These
RQs
are
summarized
below.

Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
quotients
for
propiconazole
when
dietary
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
is
converted
to
a
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
a
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion1
Turf
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
1240
55
22.6+
857
44.5
19.3+
199
19.2
10.3+

Tall
Grass
569
55
10.4+
393
44.5
8.8+
91
19.2
4.7+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
698
55
12.7+
482
44.5
10.9+
112
19.2
5.8+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
78
55
1.41+
54
44.5
1.2+^
12
19.2
0.65
Seeds
(
granivores)
17
55
0.31
12
44.5
0.27
2.8
19.2
0.14
Pecans
and
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
14
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
142
55
2.6+
98
44.5
2.2+
23
19.2
1.2+

Tall
Grass
65
55
1.2+
45
44.5
1.0+
10
19.2
0.54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
80
55
1.5+
55
44.5
1.3+^
13
19.2
0.67
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
8.9
55
0.16
6.2
44.5
0.14
1.4
19.2
0.07
Seeds
(
granivores)
2.0
55
0.04
1.4
44.5
0.03
0.32
19.2
0.02
Peanut
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
93.72
55
1.7+
64.77
44.5
1.46+
15.02
19.2
0.78
Tall
Grass
42.95
55
0.87
29.69
44.5
0.67
6.88
19.2
0.36
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
52.72
55
0.96+^
36.45
44.5
0.82
8.45
19.2
0.44
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
5.86
55
0.11
4.05
44.5
0.09
0.94
19.2
0.05
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.30
55
0.02
0.90
44.5
0.02
0.21
19.2
0.01
Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
non­
bearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Page
60
of
206
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
106.5
55
1.94+
73.7
44.5
1.66+
17.1
19.2
0.89
Tall
Grass
48.9
55
0.89
33.8
44.5
0.76
7.8
19.2
0.41
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
60.0
55
1.09+
41.4
44.5
0.93
9.6
19.2
0.50
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6.6
55
0.12
4.6
44.5
0.1
1.1
19.2
0.06
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.48
55
0.03
1.0
44.5
0.02
0.24
19.2
0.01
1
The
oral
dose­
based
RQs
are
calculated
by
dividing
the
EEC
equivalent
dose
by
the
adjusted
NOAEL
for
chronic
values)
for
each
food
category
and
animal
class.
+
exceeds
Chronic
LOC
(>
1.0)
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

The
dose­
based
chronic
RQs
may
also
be
calculated
when
the
mammalian
chronic
study
reports
the
endpoint
as
mg
ai/
kg
­
bw/
day.
This
is
the
preferred
method
that
EFED
uses
for
interpretation
of
chronic
mammalian
risk.
This
study
reported
the
NOAEL
as
43
mg
ai/
kgbw
day.
When
this
NOAEL
is
adjusted
the
RQs
on
turf
range
from
3.3
to
13
for
all
weight
classes
of
mammals
foraging
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
The
RQs
for
pecan,
stone
fruits,
and
grasses
grown
for
seed
only
exceed
the
LOCs
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass.
Very
few
of
these
RQs
are
reduced
below
the
LOCs
when
the
14.41
day
foliar
half­
life
is
use
for
RQ
calculations.
The
results
are
presented
in
the
table
below.

The
chronic
LOC
is
not
exceeded
for
any
granivores.

Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
based
on
the
reported
NOAEL
of
43
mg
ai/
kg­
bw1
Turf
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
1240
95
13.0+
857
76
11.3+
199
33
5.9+

Tall
Grass
569
95
5.6+
393
76
5.18+
91
33
2.7+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
698
95
7.3+
482
76
6.36+
112
33
3.3+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
78
95
0.81
54
76
0.71
12
33
0.36
Seeds
(
granivores)
17
95
0.18
12
76
0.16
2.8
33
0.06
Pecans
and
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
14
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
142
95
1.51+
98
76
1.29+*
23
33
0.69
Tall
Grass
65
95
0.69
45
76
0.59
10
33
0.32
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
80
95
0.85
55
76
0.72
13
33
0.39
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
8.9
95
0.09
6.2
76
0.08
1.4
33
0.04
Seeds
(
granivores)
2.0
95
0.02
1.4
76
0.02
0.32
33
0.0
Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
non­
bearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Page
61
of
206
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
106.5
95
1.13+*
73.7
76
0.96
17.1
33
0.52
Tall
Grass
48.9
95
0.52
33.8
76
0.44
7.8
33
0.24
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
60.0
95
0.63
41.4
76
0.54
9.6
33
0.29
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6.6
95
0.07
4.6
76
0.06
1.1
33
0.03
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.48
95
0.02
1.0
76
0.01
0.24
33
0.01
1
The
oral
dose­
based
RQs
are
calculated
by
dividing
the
EEC
equivalent
dose
by
the
adjusted
NOAEL
for
chronic
values)
for
each
food
category
and
animal
class.
+
exceeds
Chronic
LOC
(>
1.0)
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

4.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Plants
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
is
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
RQ
(
EEC/
toxicity
value).
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
is
compared
to
the
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
acute
RQ.
Non­
listed
and
listed
species
RQs
resulting
from
single
applications
are
calculated
for
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
species
for
ground
and
aerial
applications.
The
non­
listed
terrestrial
plant
RQs
indicate
that
only
turf
use
sites
are
the
major
concern
for
dicot
species.
The
RQs
that
exceed
the
LOCs
range
from
2.1
to
4.6.
The
listed
terrestrial
plant
RQs
for
single
applications
exceed
the
LOC
for
for
grasses
grown
for
seed,
wild
rice,
and
peanut
in
addition
to
turf
use
sites
observed
for
the
non­
listed
plant
species.
The
RQs
ranged
from
1.0
to
8.0
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole1
Use
Site
Scenario
EC25
(
lb
ai/
A)
RQ
(
Plants
Adjacent
Treated
Site)
RQ
(
Plants
in
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas)
Drift
RQs
Method
of
Application
(
Aerial/
ground)

mono
>
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.18
2.1/
2.5
Chemigation/
Ground
mono
0.315
Turf
&
Ornamental
 
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.039
2.3/
4.6
Chemigation/
Ground
Acute
Listed
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole1
Use
Site
Scenario
NOAEC/
EC05
(
lb
ai/
A)
RQ
(
Plants
Adjacent
Treated
Site)
RQ
(
Plants
in
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas)
Drift
RQs
Method
of
Application
(
Aerial/
ground)

mono
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
1.01
Aerial
mono
0.0185
Grasses
grown
for
seed,
Wild
rice,
Peanut
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
Aerial
Page
62
of
206
mono
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
1.0/
2.3
6.7/
8.0
Chemigation/
ground
mono
0.0185
4.8/
9.6
Chemigation/
ground
Turf
&
Ornamental
 
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
1.6/
3.2
Chemigation/
ground
1
For
purposes
of
clairty,
only
the
RQs
which
exceed
the
LOCs
are
shown.

Acute
risk
quotients
are
derived
using
the
TerrPlant
model
(
Appendix
E)
and
use
the
EC25
as
the
toxicity
endpoint.
Single
applications
are
calculated
using
the
TerrPlant
EECs
and
are
based
on
the
highest
single
application
rate.
Runoff
exposure
estimates
are
based
on
the
water
solubility
and
the
amount
of
pesticide
present
on
the
soil
surface
and
its
top
one
inch.
It
can
be
characterized
as
"
sheet
runoff"
(
one
treated
acre
to
an
adjacent
acre)
for
dry
areas,
or
as
"
channelized
runoff"
(
10
treated
acres
to
a
distant
low­
lying
acre)
for
semi­
aquatic
areas.
The
percent
runoff
values
are
1,
2,
and
5
percent
for
a
water
solubility
of
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
and
>
100
ppm,
respectively.
To
account
for
the
amount
of
pesticide
in
the
top
one
inch
of
soil,
the
application
rate
is
reduced
proportionally
by
the
soil
depth
incorporation
in
centimeters.

Spray
drift
exposure
from
ground
and
overhead
chemigation
applications
is
assumed
to
be
1%
of
the
application
rate.
Drift
from
aerial,
airblast,
and
forced­
air
applications
is
assumed
to
be
5%
of
the
application
rate.
Since
EFED
does
not
have
data
to
show
residue
accumulation
from
multiple
applications
over
time,
the
effects
of
multiple
applications
are
addressed
by
summing
the
application
rates
from
individual
applications
and
inputing
these
values
in
the
TerrPlant
model.

There
are
several
uncertainties
regarding
risk
to
plants.
One
is
whether
the
default
assumption
of
5%
spray
drift
(
from
aerial
application)
in
TerrPlant
is
sufficiently
protective.
Estimates
made
from
actual
drift
assessments
range
to
higher
than
20%,
which
could
indicate
that
risk
to
plants
is
underestimated.
Another
uncertainty
regarding
the
model
used
in
this
assessment
is
an
assumption
that
a
certain
percentage
of
the
applied
chemical
might
be
attributed
to
runoff
after
an
aerial
or
chemigation
application.
Formerly
EFED
used
an
`
efficiency
factor'of
a
60%
to
runoff
after
aerial
application,
but
the
use
of
this
factor
appeared
to
leave
about
35%
of
the
applied
chemical
unaccounted
for
and
it
is
possible
that
risk
to
wetland
plants
is
underestimated.
Recently,
however,
EFED
dropped
the
use
of
this
60%
`
efficiency
factor'.

Chronic
or
reproductive
risks
to
plants
are
not
currently
evaluated.
Additionally,
because
of
the
proposed
use
on
turf
and
ground
cover,
RQs
for
direct
application
of
propiconazole
are
calculated
based
on
application
rate.
Federally
listed
plant
species
risk
quotients
are
calculated
using
the
NOAEC
or
EC05.

B.
Risk
Description
A
number
of
papers
suggest
that
conazole­
type
fungicides
can
potentiate
the
toxicity
of
other
pesticides.
The
mechanism
by
which
conazoles
increase
toxicity
is
not
well
understood
and
likely
varies
depending
on
the
class
of
the
co­
occurring
pesticide.
Conazole
fungicides
have
been
documented
to
induce
the
production
of
metabolic
enzymes
(
cytochrome
p450)
that
convert
phosphorothioate
insecticides
to
their
more
toxic
oxon
forms.
This
mechanism
has
been
Page
63
of
206
proposed
to
explain
the
synergistic
effects
to
birds
of
coexposure
to
phosphorothioates
and
conazoles
(
Walker
1998).
In
vivo
synergism
is
not
always
noted
with
co­
exposure
of
phosphorothioates
and
conazoles
with
varying
effects
noted
with
different
animal
species,
phosphorothioates,
and
conazole
fungicides
(
Ronis
and
Badger
1995,
Levine
and
Oris
1999).
Conazole
fungicides
have
been
noted
to
increase
the
toxicity
of
neonicotinoid
insectides
to
honey
bees
(
Iwasa
et
al
2004).
Propiconazole
increased
the
toxicity
of
three
neonicotinoids
by
a
factor
ranging
from
1
(
no
increase
in
toxicity)
to
559
(
increasing
the
toxicity
559
times)
depending
on
the
insecticide
tested.
P450
enzymes
are
not
required
to
activate
neonicotinoids
and
an
explanation
for
the
synergistic
effect
of
co­
exposure
to
conazoles
and
neonicotinoid
insecticides
was
not
provided.

The
available
literature
demonstrates
that
in
some
instances
co­
exposure
of
conazole
fungicides
and
at
least
two
classes
of
insecticides
can
result
in
greater
toxicity
to
fish,
birds,
and
mammals
than
would
be
expected
from
adding
the
effects
of
exposure
to
the
chemicals
alone.
Presently
information
is
not
available
to
determine
how
often
co­
exposure
to
potentially
synergistic
chemicals
occurs
nor
the
mechanism
of
synergism
understood
well
enough
to
determine
when
synergism
can
be
expected
or
the
magnitude
of
potentiation.
Thus,
this
assessment
does
not
quantitatively
address
the
effects
of
exposure
to
pesticides
in
combination
with
propiconazole
exposure.

1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
a.
Aquatic
Animals
Fish
and
Aquatic
Phase
Amphibians
As
described
in
the
Risk
Estimation
section,
the
risk
quotient
of
0.05
is
equivalent
to
the
listed
species
LOC
for
freshwater
fish
for
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf,
based
on
EECs
from
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario
using
the
maximum
application
rate
and
minimum
application
interval
for
this
use.
The
EECs
for
the
same
applications
in
the
Florida
turf
scenario
do
not
result
in
RQs
that
exceed
the
listed
species
LOC.
Therefore,
the
potential
for
risk
to
listed
fish
appears
to
be
dependent
in
part
on
the
soil
and
weather
conditions
of
the
area
in
which
propiconazole
is
applied
to
turf.

Since
the
RQ
from
the
Pennsylvania
turf
scenario
is
equivalent
to
the
LOC
of
0.05,
small
changes
in
the
modeling
input
to
PRZM/
EXAMS
would
reduce
the
RQ
below
the
LOC.
For
instance,
if
less
than
the
maximum
rate
or
number
of
applications
are
used,
or
if
a
longer
application
interval
is
used,
then
the
exposure
would
result
in
an
RQ
that
would
be
below
the
level
of
concern.
Furthermore,
submission
of
acceptable
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
data
could
result
in
a
half­
life
shorter
than
the
default
value
used
in
the
absence
of
data.

In
addition,
the
labeled
turf
use
includes
lawns,
sod
farms,
golf
courses,
and
other
types
of
turf
grass.
EFED
just
published
(
June
1,
2005)
a
guidance
document
 
"
Golf
Course
Adjustment
Factors
for
Simulated
Aquatic
Exposure
Concentrations."
These
golf
course
adjustment
factors
(
GCAF)
should
only
be
used
to
refine
EECs
for
turf
in
a
golf
course
use
scenario.
Therefore,
the
exposure
values
derived
from
turf
scenarios
would
need
to
be
adjusted
Page
64
of
206
specifically
to
represent
the
golf
course
uses.
Unless
the
golf
course
is
treated
100%
(
tees,
greens,
fairways
and
roughs),
the
aquatic
exposure
values
from
golf
course
use
need
to
be
adjusted
by
0.05,
0.29,
0.66,
and
0.34,
respectively
for
tees
and
greens,
fairways,
roughs,
and
the
combination
of
tees,
greens,
and
fairways.
When
the
proper
GCAF
was
considered,
the
listed
species
LOC
would
not
be
exceeded
for
golf
course
uses
of
propiconazole.

Among
the
aquatic
exposures
described
previously,
the
rice
use
represents
the
most
conservative
estimates,
which
assumes
the
exposure
concentrations
directly
from
the
rice
paddy
discharge
water.
As
a
result,
the
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish.
The
propiconazole
label
specifically
forbids
rice
use
in
California,
so
the
potential
rice
exposures
will
occur
in
Texas,
Arkansas,
and
Louisiana;
both
freshwater
and
estuarine
marine
fish
could
potentially
be
exposed
to
propiconazole
applied
to
rice
in
these
states.

The
finding
of
risk
from
use
on
rice
is
uncertain
because
the
model
does
not
simulate
degradation
of
the
pesticide
in
rice
paddy
water
before
the
water
is
released
to
drainage
canals.
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
data
are
not
available
to
estimate
how
quickly
propiconazole
might
degrade
in
paddy
water,
although
the
aqueous
photolysis
study
suggests
that
this
would
be
an
important
route
of
quick
dissipation.
A
supplemental
aqueous
dissipation
study
supports
that
dissipation
may
occur
quickly
in
the
paddy,
with
an
observed
half­
life
of
less
than
5
days.

Aquatic
Invertebrates
Risk
quotients
for
the
use
of
propiconazole
on
turf
(
both
scenarios)
and
rice
exceed
the
listed
species
level
of
concern
for
estuarine
and
marine
invertebrates,
based
on
the
results
of
the
mysid
shrimp
study.
The
RQs
for
the
turf
use
range
are
0.07
and
0.08.
Therefore,
since
the
RQs
are
so
near
the
listed
species
LOC,
additional
information
that
would
allow
a
refinement
of
input
parameters
to
PRZM/
EXAMS
could
lead
to
RQs
below
the
LOC,
as
described
above.
The
RQs
for
the
rice
use
are
more
than
5
times
the
LOC
(
RQ=
0.27),
but
the
potential
for
quick
aquatic
dissipation
renders
this
finding
of
potential
risk
uncertain,
as
described
in
the
paragraph
above.

Valid
chronic
data
on
freshwater
invertebrates
are
lacking
at
this
time
and
it
is
therefore
not
possible
to
evaluate
the
chronic
effects
to
aquatic
freshwater
invertebrates.
However,
as
described
above
if
the
available
chronic
daphnid
study
could
be
upgraded
to
supplemental
status,
the
NOAEC
based
on
mortality
and
reproduction
could
be
310
µ
g/
L.
A
chronic
study
such
as
this
would
put
RQs
based
on
peak
water
concentrations
below
chronic
levels
of
concern.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
Risk
quotients
for
propiconazole
only
exceeded
the
acute
and
listed
LOC
for
nonvascular
aquatic
plants,
based
on
toxicity
to
the
marine
diatom
Skeletonema
costatum
and
the
freshwater
diatom
Navicula
pelliculosa.
It
is
not
possible
to
determine
whether
the
listed
species
LOC
is
also
exceeded
for
vascular
plants
or
for
other
non­
vascular
plants,
because
NOAECs
could
not
be
established
in
some
toxicity
studies.
Effects
were
observed
at
the
lowest
concentration
tested
in
studies
with
vascular
aquatic
plant
Lemna
gibba,
and
in
studies
with
algae
species
Selenastrum
capricornutum
and
Anabena
flos­
aquae.
Therefore,
potential
indirect
effects
to
listed
aquatic
animals
that
depend
on
aquatic
plants
other
than
diatoms
cannot
be
dismissed.
Page
65
of
206
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Risk
to
birds
and
mammals
were
evaluated
using
the
risk
quotient
methold
for
dietary
and
dosebased
exposure
scenarios
using
the
T­
REX
program
(
version
1.2.3).
As
discussed
in
the
Measure
of
Exposure
Section,
a
35­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
was
deemed
most
appropriate
for
use
with
this
model.
However,
data
from
a
"
magnitude
of
the
residue"
studies
can
not
be
completely
ignored
as
studies
which
were
done
on
wheat
had
time
0
samples
and
no
indication
that
rainfall
had
occurred
during
the
studies.
The
resulting
foliar
dissipation
half­
lives
from
these
studies
is
14.41
days.
Therefore,
characterization
of
terrestrial
risk
examined
the
use
both
half­
life
values.
As
stated
in
the
Measure
of
Exposure
Section,
there
is
much
uncertainty
associated
with
the
use
of
a
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
from
the
"
magnitude
of
residue"
studies.

a.
Terrestrial
Animals
Birds
The
avian
oral
and
dietary
acute
toxicity
tests
indicated
that
propiconazole
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
However,
the
acute
dietary
LOC
for
birds
is
exceeded
for
turf
uses
due
to
the
high
use
rates
and
multiple
applications.
However,
there
is
much
uncertainty
associated
with
this
risk
since
a
definitive
LC50
was
not
obtained.
Dose­
based
RQs
based
on
the
oral
LD50
marginally
exceeded
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
a
number
of
additional
uses
and
reduction
in
use
rates
for
these
sites
might
help
to
reduce
RQs
below
these
levels
of
concern.
It
should
also
be
noted
that
most
all
of
these
RQs
could
be
reduced
below
all
acute
LOCs
if
the
14.41
day
foliar
half­
life
is
considered.

Both
dose­
based
and
dietary
risk
was
evaluated,
however,
because
a
definitive
LC50
could
not
be
determined,
some
uncertainties
are
associated
with
the
dietary
risk
quotients.
The
risk
quotients
which
led
to
the
finding
of
risk
were
based
on
the
results
of
the
bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
test,
since
a
definitive
LD50
could
not
be
established
in
the
mallard
duck
test.
Therefore,
there
is
some
uncertainty
about
how
broadly
applicable
the
risk
indicated
by
the
screening­
level
assessment
is
across
bird
species.
Two
additional
species
(
Japanese
quail
and
Peking
duck)
were
included
in
acute
dietary
toxicity
tests,
but
these
tests
do
not
reduce
the
uncertainty,
since
they
were
only
tested
at
one
concentration
in
the
diet
(
1000
mg/
kg­
diet)
that
was
below
the
level
recommended
in
the
study
guideline.

Although
the
acute
toxicity
tests
could
not
establish
firmly
that
mortality
would
occur
across
a
range
of
bird
species
from
exposure
to
propiconazole,
other
effects
were
observed
in
the
acute
studies
that
could
impact
the
ability
of
exposed
birds
to
survive
in
the
wild.
The
acute
dietary
study
for
bobwhite
quail
established
an
LD50
of
2825
mg/
kg­
bw.
No
mortality
was
observed
at
the
next
lowest
dose,
and
only
10%
mortality
was
observed
at
the
dose
below
that
(
reported
as
1590
and
1000
mg/
kg­
bw,
respectively).
However,
lethargy
was
observed
at
all
doses,
including
the
lowest
dose
of
398
mg/
kg­
bw.
Reduced
reaction
to
stimuli
was
observed
at
the
1000
mg/
kg­
bw
dose,
and
loss
of
coordination,
wing
droop,
and
lower
limb
weakness
were
observed
at
the
two
highest
doses.
Page
66
of
206
Such
effects
from
propiconazole
exposure
could
make
affected
birds
more
vulnerable
to
predation
and
less
able
to
forage
for
food,
care
for
young,
or
reproduce,
at
least
temporarily.
Surviving
bobwhite
quail
in
the
acute
oral
study
recovered
fully
from
these
effects
by
12
days
after
dosing.
Mallard
ducks
in
the
acute
oral
study
suffered
lethargy
at
the
highest
dose
of
2510
mg­
kg/
bw,
but
recovered
within
6
hours.
Mallards
and
bobwhite
quail
tested
in
the
acute
dietary
study
did
not
exhibit
these
effects,
but
exhibited
reduced
feed
consumption
at
higher
dose
levels.

Chronic
Risk
Chronic
data
for
birds
showed
no
treatment
related
effects
at
any
of
the
test
levels
up
to
1000
mg/
kg­
diet,
and
as
described
in
the
Effects
Characterization,
a
definitive
LOAEL
could
not
be
determined.
Consequently,
the
actual
NOAEL
could
be
much
greater
than
observed
in
the
study.
Hence,
there
is
a
great
uncertainty
when
this
information
is
used
to
evaluate
chronic
risk
to
birds.
Dietary­
based
chronic
RQs
to
birds
were
exceeded
only
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
and
the
highest
RQ
was
1.3.
Hence,
there
is
a
great
uncertainty
when
this
information
is
used
to
evaluate
chronic
risk
to
birds.
A
repeat
of
this
study
that
could
produce
a
NOAEC
at
a
higher
concentration
could
reduce
these
RQs
below
all
levels
of
concern.
It
should
be
noted
that
the
use
of
a
95th
percentile
14.41
day
half­
life
reduces
all
chronic
risk
below
all
chronic
LOC.

Mammals
Acute
risk
to
mammals
based
on
an
adjusted
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
demonstrated
risks
to
mammals
foraging
on
short
grass
and
small
insects;
however,
the
RQs
did
not
exceed
the
acute
risk
LOCs.
Only
restricted
use
and
listed
species
LOCs
were
exceeded.
Single
applications
only
demonstrated
listed
species
risk
to
turf
for
15
and
35
g
mammals,
but
only
for
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass.
However,
these
risks
could
be
reduced
below
all
LOCs
if
the
calculated
foliar
half­
life
of
14.41
days
was
considered.

Chronic
risks
to
mammals
were
calculated
using
both
the
dietary
and
dose­
based
RQs.
Dietary
based
RQs
only
exceeded
the
chronic
LOCs
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
and
ranged
from
1.1
to
2.6
when
a
default
foliar
half­
life
of
35
days
is
used
in
exposure
calculations.
However,
when
a
14.41
foliar
half­
life
is
used,
these
LOCs
are
not
exceeded.

Dose­
based
chronic
risk
demonstrated
RQs
ranging
from
as
high
as
13
to
22
for
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass.
To
better
understand
these
effects
it
is
useful
to
look
at
the
duration
of
the
effects.
The
tables
below
show
that
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
up
to
52
days
after
4
applications
for
mammals
foraging
on
short
grass
for
the
turf
scenario.
The
table
also
shows
that
chronic
LOCs
do
not
begin
to
be
exceeded
until
the
third
application,
and
these
residues
drop
below
the
LOCs
after
32
days.
However,
the
chronic
RQs
do
not
exceed
any
chronic
LOCs
after
two
applications.
Page
67
of
206
Page
68
of
206
Terrestrial
Residues
(
upper
bound
estimates)

vs
Mammalian
Herbivore/
Insectivore
LOCs
(
as
dietary
concentrations
0.00
200.00
400.00
600.00
800.00
1000.00
1200.00
1400.00
1600.00
1800.00
2000.00
0
4
8
12
16
20
24
28
32
36
40
44
48
52
56
60
64
68
72
76
80
84
88
92
96100
Days
Concentration
(

mg
ai/

kg
dietary
item)
Short
Grass
Tall
Grass
Broad
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
Chronic
LOC
15
g
M
35
g
Mammal
Acute
LOC
1000
g
Mammal
Acute
LOC
15
g
E
35
g
Endangered
Mammal
Acute
LOC
1000
g
Endangered
Mammal
Acute
LOC
Page
69
of
206
b.
Terrestrial
Plants
Although
propiconazole
is
manufactured
for
its
fungistatic
mode
of
action,
it
potentially
poses
a
risk
to
terrestrial
plants.
Risk
quotients
described
in
the
risk
estimation
section
indicate
a
risk
to
non­
listed
(
for
turf
uses)
and
listed
dicots
(
for
grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
peanut,
and
turf
uses)
when
considering
effects
endpoints
observed
in
seedling
emergence
tests.
It
is
notable
that
cabbage
(
EC25
0.18
lb
ai/
acre)
was
the
only
dicot
affected
in
the
seedling
emergence
studies.
No
other
plants
showed
any
effects
in
this
study,
in
which
the
highest
dose
tested
was
1.5
lb
ai/
acre.
TERR­
PLANT
(
version
1.2.1)
calculates
the
risk
to
terrestrial
plants
in
adjacent
dryland
and
semi­
aquatic
areas
by
comparing
the
runoff
and
drift
exposure
to
the
most
sensitive
endpoint
from
the
seedling
emergence
test.
Therefore,
while
risk
to
plants
from
runoff
exposure
was
indicated
for
all
crops
on
which
propiconazole
is
used,
the
risk
from
seedling
emergence
effects
may
possibly
be
limited
to
a
small
subset
of
sensitive
dicots.
The
reader
should
note
that
there
is
a
large
number
of
dicot
plant
families
in
the
United
States
and
the
limited
number
of
plant
species
included
in
the
existing
effects
database
may
or
may
not
be
fully
representative
of
all
these
families.

A
broader
range
of
monocots
and
dicots
exhibited
sensitivity
in
vegetative
vigor
tests.
Propiconazole
was
shown
to
be
toxic
to
6
of
10
crops
tested
in
the
Tier
II
vegetative
vigor
study.
The
NOAEC
and
EC25
for
corn,
for
instance,
were
0.167
and
0.968
lb
ai/
acre
respectively;
the
maximum
label
rate
for
use
of
propiconazole
on
corn
allows
four
annual
applications
of
0.45
lb
ai/
acre.
The
most
sensitive
endpoints
among
the
three
monocots
and
three
dicots
tested
were
reductions
in
plant
height
(
monocots)
and
reductions
in
plant
height,
shoot
length
and
dry
weight
(
dicots).
As
a
result,
RQs
calculated
for
the
aerial
application
to
corn
from
estimated
spray
drift
alone
exceed
the
listed
species
level
of
concern
for
monocots.
The
use
on
turf
is
the
only
use
for
which
spray
drift
alone
results
in
an
RQ
above
the
non­
listed
LOC
(
for
dicots
only).
Drift
from
the
use
on
turf
alone
also
exceeds
the
listed
species
levels
of
concern
for
monocots
and
dicots.
Although
these
listed
species
RQs
were
calculated
using
toxicity
data
for
the
most
sensitive
species,
the
LOC
would
still
be
exceeded
if
data
for
the
next
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
were
used.
While
this
represents
only
four
of
the
nine
species
tested,
this
suggests
that
a
broader
range
of
listed
plants
could
be
affected
by
vegetative
vigor
effects
from
exposure
to
propiconazole.

The
TERR­
PLANT
exposure
model
calculates
risk
quotients
such
as
those
reported
in
the
Risk
Estimation
section
for
terrestrial
plants
for
only
a
single
pesticide
application.
Since
propiconazole
labels
allow
multiple
applications
to
each
crop,
the
magnitude
of
the
risk
to
plants
is
uncertain,
and
potentially
underestimated.
The
upper
bound
to
the
magnitude
of
the
RQs
for
terrestrial
plants
would
be
to
sum
the
exposures
from
each
application
as
if
the
effect
to
nontarget
plants
were
additive.
The
resulting
RQs,
which
are
shown
in
the
table
below
for
the
purpose
of
risk
characterization
only,
would
indicate
a
potential
risk
to
non­
endangered
plants
a
wider
range
of
crops
than
had
been
calculated
for
a
single
application.

However,
additional
information
on
the
effect
of
propiconazole
on
terrestrial
plants
would
be
needed
to
evaluate
the
uncertainty
in
multiple
application
terrestrial
plant
RQs.
The
effects
of
multiple
applications
could
only
be
additive
if
the
affected
plants
could
not
recover
from
the
effects
of
successive
applications.
If
the
plants
could
recover
over
time,
the
effect
of
Page
70
of
206
multiple
applications
could
be
greater
for
crops
that
are
treated
at
the
shortest
application
intervals.

The
uncertainty
in
the
magnitude
of
exposure
to
multiple
applications
of
propiconazole
is
even
greater.
The
risk
quotients
for
terrestrial
plants
assume
exposure
both
through
spray
drift
and
runoff
from
a
treated
field
after
a
heavy
rain
event.
The
likelihood
of
co­
occurrence
of
such
events
is
uncertain,
especially
for
multiple
applications,
and
as
a
result
the
estimated
exposure
values
may
be
conservative.
In
addition,
while
the
likelihood
of
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
through
drift
alone
is
significantly
higher,
the
same
plants
may
not
be
exposed
to
spray
drift
from
each
application,
since
wind
speed
and
direction
could
be
different
at
the
time
of
each
application.

Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Use
Site
Scenario
EC25
(
Toxicity
Threshold)
(
lb
ai/
A)
RQ
(
Plants
Adjacent
Treated
Site)
RQ
(
Plants
in
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
Drift
RQ
Method
of
Application
(
Aerial/
ground)

mono
>
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.18
3.1
Aerial
mono
0.315
Citrus
(
nonbearing
 
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
3
apps.
at
30
day
intervals)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.039
1.8
Aerial
mono
>
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.18
1.05/
1.25
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.315
Aerial
Tree
nuts
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.039
1.15
Ground/
Aerial
Acute
Listed
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Use
Site
Scenario
NOEC/
EC05
(
Toxicity
Threshold)
(
lb
ai/
A)
RQ
(
Plants
Adjacent
Treated
Site)
RQ
(
Plants
in
Semi­
Aquatic
Areas
Drift
RQ
Method
of
Application
(
Aerial/
ground)

mono
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
2.1/
2.5
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.0185
1.5
Aerial
Stone
Fruit
(
0.1125
lb
ai/
A,
5
appl)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
mono
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
1.3
Aerial
3.4/
4.01
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.0185
1.1
Aerial
Grasses
Grown
for
seed
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A,
4
appl)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
2.4
Aerial
mono
1.5
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
1.7/
2.0
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.0185
4.9
Aerial
Corn,
celery
(
0.1125
lb
ai/
A,
4
appl)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
1.2
Aerial
Wild
rice
Seedling
mono
1.5
Page
71
of
206
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
1.3/
1.5
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.0185
(
0.225
lb
ai./
A,
3
appl)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
mono
1.5
1.0/
1.2
Ground/
Aerial
Seedling
emerg.
Dicot
0.056
3.8/
8.9
26.7/
31.8
Ground/
Aerial
mono
0.0185
3.9/
19.2
Ground/
Aerial
Turf
&
Ornamental
 
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A,
4
appl)
Veget.
Vigor.
Dicot
0.056
1.7/
6.4
Ground/
Aerial
The
risk
quotients
for
terrestrial
plants
assume
exposure
both
through
spray
drift
and
runoff
from
a
treated
field
after
a
heavy
rain
event.
The
likelihood
of
co­
occurrence
of
such
events
is
uncertain,
especially
for
multiple
applications,
and
as
a
result
the
estimated
exposure
values
may
be
conservative.
However,
the
likelihood
of
exposure
to
non­
target
plants
through
drift
alone
is
significantly
higher.

The
following
results
of
a
Tier
1
AgDrift
modeling
simulation
give
an
indication
of
the
risk
to
plants
that
might
occur
even
if
runoff
from
a
treated
field
does
not
occur
at
or
soon
after
the
time
of
application.
Pesticide
application
was
simulated
using
low­
boom
ground
spray
equipment
to
turf,
using
nozzles
which
produce
a
very
fine
to
fine
droplet
size
spectrum.
Using
the
90th
percentile
drift
data
generated
by
the
Spray
Drift
Task
Force
on
which
AgDrift
is
based,
the
model
predicted
the
distances
to
which
point
exposure
would
be
equivalent
to
the
EC25
values
for
various
crops
tested
in
the
propiconazole
vegetative
vigor
studies.

EC25
(
test
crop)
Turf
(
1.78
lb
ai/
a)
Application
0.968
lb
ai/
A
(
corn)
0.334
lb
ai/
A
(
onion)
0.16
lb
ai/
A
(
soybean)
0.039
lb
ai/
A
(
cabbage)
Distance
of
deposition
3.3
ft
6.6
ft
13.1
ft
42.7
ft
The
results
indicate
that
exposure
that
would
result
in
risk
quotients
at
the
acute
LOC
would
be
expected
to
occur
within
50
feet
of
turf
treated
with
propiconazole.
An
additional
calculation
was
done
to
determine
the
distance
at
which
point
deposition
would
be
equivalent
to
the
lowest
NOAEC
in
the
vegetative
vigor
test
(
0.0185
lb
ai/
A
for
ryegrass).
The
calculated
distance
of
91.86
suggests
that
listed
plants
more
than
100
feet
of
a
treated
field
may
be
at
less
risk.

The
next
highest
application
rate
for
propiconazole
after
turf
is
0.225
lb
ai/
acre
for
grasses
grown
for
seed,
pecan,
and
rice,
which
is
lower
than
the
EC25
for
all
but
soybeans
and
cabbage
in
the
vegetative
vigor
test.
However,
drift
from
aerial
application
of
0.225
lb
ai/
acre
could
result
in
point
deposition
equal
to
the
cabbage
vegetative
vigor
EC25
of
0.039
lb
ai/
A
up
to
a
distance
of
49
feet,
assuming
a
default
fine
to
medium
droplet
size
spectrum.
Drift
from
aerial
application
of
0.225
lb
ai/
acre
could
result
in
point
deposition
equal
to
the
ryegrass
vegetative
vigor
NOAEC
of
0.0185
lb
ai/
A
up
to
a
distance
of
118
feet,
assuming
the
same
fine
to
medium
droplet
size
spectrum.
Page
72
of
206
3.
Endocrine
Disruption
Assessment
The
potential
for
endocrine
disruptor
related
effects
was
observed
in
mammalian
and
avian
toxicity
studies
submitted
to
the
Agency.
In
the
2­
generation
reproduction
study
with
rats
(
MRIDs
00163164,
00151514),
reduced
body
weight
gains
in
F0
and
F1
generations
was
observed
with
a
reported
NOAEL
of
43
mg/
kg­
bw/
day
(
500
mg
ai/
kg­
diet).
Additionally,
hepatic
"
clear
cell
change"
was
observed
in
the
F0
generation.
Decreased
offspring
survival
and
body
weights
and
increased
incidence
of
hepatic
lesions
(
cellular
swelling)
at
the
2500
mg
ai/
kgdiet
level
were
also
observed.
Chronic
data
for
birds
showed
no
treatment
related
effects
at
any
of
the
test
levels
up
to
1000
mg/
kg­
diet,
but
a
definitive
LOAEL
could
not
be
determined.
Consequently,
the
actual
NOAEL
could
be
much
greater
than
observed
in
the
study.
Hence,
there
is
a
great
uncertainty
when
this
information
is
used
to
evaluate
chronic
risk
to
birds.
However,
based
on
the
data
available
for
mammals,
the
observed
reproductive
effects
could
be
an
indicator
of
potential
endocrine
disruption.

There
are
a
number
of
degradates
of
tetraconazole,
including
1,2,4­
triazole,
which
are
formed
by
biotic
and
abiotic
processes.
To
date,
none
of
these
degradates
have
been
identified
as
possessing
the
potential
for
endocrine
disruption.
In
addition,
the
registrant
has
not
submitted,
nor
has
the
Agency
requested,
studies
on
the
potential
for
endocrine
disruption
for
any
of
these
degradates
resulting
from
the
use
of
tetraconazole.
Until
such
time
as
the
Agency
determines
that
any
of
these
degradates
have
the
potential
to
be
an
endocrine
disruptor,
this
risk
assessment
has
not
included
an
evaluation
of
the
relative
risk
of
propiconazole
degradates
for
endocrine
disruption
and
as
such
is
a
source
of
uncertainty
in
this
assessment.

EPA
is
required
under
the
Federal
Food,
Drug,
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
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
were
scientific
bases
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
The
Federal
Insecticide,
Fungicide,
and
Rodenticide
Act
(
FIFRA)
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
authority
to
require
the
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,
propiconazole
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and/
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

4.
Review
of
Incident
Data
Incident
information
from
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS)
database
was
available
and
indicated
that
a
total
of
six
incidents
occurred
in
conjunction
with
the
use
of
Page
73
of
206
propiconazole.
Four
of
these
6(
a)
2
incident
data
involved
damage
to
terrestrial
plants,
and
the
remaining
two
reported
damage
to
fish
and
shrimp.
There
is
a
great
deal
of
uncertainty
concerning
the
credibility
of
these
incidents
since
measured
environmental
residue
data
were
not
reported
at
any
of
these
sites.
All
events
were
rated
"
possible"
as
opposed
to
probable
or
highly
probable.
In
addition,
the
incident
involving
a
kill
of
1500
fish
(#
I014538­
013)
appears
to
result
from
an
attempt
to
clean
up
a
spill
of
several
products
(
Daconil,
Banner,
and
Dylox)
at
a
golf
course
in
Indiana.
Clearly,
this
incident
resulted
from
a
misuse
of
the
product(
s)
which
were
rinsed
into
a
creek.
The
other
aquatic
incident
reported
to
have
taken
place
at
a
shrimp
farm
(#
I004697­
061)
had
scant
information
and
could
have
resulted
from
contamination
from
benlate
as
well
as
propiconazole.
No
other
details
were
available
from
the
report
including
the
location
of
the
incident
(
county,
state,
etc.),
how
or
why
the
spray
occurred,
or
if
the
shrimp
farm
was
in
close
proximity
to
the
application
site.

Regarding
the
four
incidents
to
terrestrial
plants,
detailed
information
about
the
damage
to
the
crops/
plants
was
not
provided.
It
was
reported
that
12
of
the
16
acres
of
nectarines
sprayed
by
propiconazole
(
Break)
were
"
damaged;"
however,
the
description,
extent
of
the
damage,
or
if
recovery
occurred
was
not
reported
(#
I007644­
16).
Another
reported
incident
took
place
in
France,
and
it
appears
that
80%
leaf
damaged
occurred
on
19
rose
trees
(#
I12786­
002).
Again,
details
are
not
provided
regarding
the
extent
of
the
damage
or
the
impact
on
the
roses.
The
remaining
incidents
appear
to
be
related
to
a
misuse
of
the
product
even
though
the
details
regarding
application
are
somewhat
vague.
The
reported
incident
of
leaf
burn
to
120
acres
of
spring
wheat
in
North
Dakota
(#
I015291­
045)
was
due
to
the
application
of
the
product
STRATEGO
during
unfavorable
weather
conditions
(
cool
prior
to
application).
The
final
incident
(#
I014029­
99­
006)
involving
STRATEGO
applied
to
winter
wheat
in
Virginia
reported
the
primary
cause
as
poor
mixing
of
the
adjuvant.

5.
Federally
Threatened
and
Endangered
(
Listed)
Species
Concerns
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.
At
the
initial
Level
I
screening
assessment,
broadly
described
taxonomic
groups
are
considered
and
thus
conservatively
assumes
that
listed
species
within
those
broad
groups
are
co­
located
with
the
pesticide
treatment
area.
This
means
that
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.
The
assessment
also
assumes
that
the
listed
species
are
located
within
an
assumed
area
that
has
the
relatively
highest
potential
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
and
that
exposures
are
likely
to
decrease
with
distance
from
the
treatment
area.
The
Use
Characterization
section
of
this
risk
assessment
presents
the
pesticide
use
sites
that
are
used
to
establish
initial
co­
location
of
species
with
treatment
areas.

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
description
of
an
action
area
is
necessary.
Furthermore,
RQs
below
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
a
given
taxonomic
group
indicate
no
concern
for
indirect
Page
74
of
206
effects
upon
listed
species
that
depend
upon
the
taxonomic
group
covered
by
the
RQ
as
a
resource.

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,
fate
and
transport
properties
of
the
chemical,
and
the
locations
of
use
sites
could
be
considered
to
determine
the
extent
to
which
screening
assumptions
regarding
an
action
area
apply
to
a
particular
listed
organism.
These
subsequent
refinement
steps
could
consider
how
this
information
would
impact
the
action
area
for
a
particular
listed
organism
and
may
potentially
include
areas
of
exposure
that
are
downwind
and
downstream
of
the
pesticide
use
site.

b.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
The
Level
I
screening
assessment
process
for
listed
species
uses
the
generic
taxonomic
group­
based
process
to
make
inferences
on
direct
effect
concerns
for
listed
species.
The
first
iteration
of
reporting
the
results
of
the
Level
I
screen
is
a
listing
of
pesticide
use
sites
and
taxonomic
groups
for
which
RQ
calculations
reveal
values
that
meet
or
exceed
the
listed
species
LOCs.
In
the
majority
of
cases,
the
screening­
level
risk
assessment
process
reports
RQ
calculations
for
the
following
broad
taxonomic
groupings:

!
Birds
(
also
used
as
surrogate
for
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians
and
reptiles)

!
Mammals
!
Freshwater
fish
(
also
used
as
a
surrogate
for
aquatic
phase
amphibians)

!
Freshwater
invertebrates
!
Estuarine/
marine
fish
!
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
!
Terrestrial
plants
!
Algae
and
aquatic
plants
There
may
also
be
taxonomic
groups
of
listed
species
for
which
screening
tools
are
not
fully
developed
nor
represented
through
surrogacy
with
existing
tools.
For
example,
there
is
no
RQ
calculation
process
for
terrestrial
invertebrates.

The
available
screening­
level
information
for
propiconazole
suggests
a
potential
concern
for
direct
effects
on
listed
freshwater
fish,
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
and
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants
only
associated
with
the
use
on
turf.
A
potential
concern
for
direct
effects
on
birds
and
mammals
is
suggested
for
use
on
grasses
grown
for
seed,
stone
fruit,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
turf
and
ornamentals.
In
addition,
there
is
a
potential
concern
for
a
direct
effect
on
terrestrial
plants
for
uses
associated
with
barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
grasses
grown
for
seed,
corn,
celery,
wild
rice
and
turf.

1.
Discussion
of
Risk
Quotients
Page
75
of
206
As
summarized
in
the
Risk
Characterization
section
of
this
assessment,
listed
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish,
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
non­
vascular
aquatic
plants,
birds,
mammals,
and
terrestrial
plants.
The
LOCATES
database
was
used
to
identify
those
U.
S.
counties
where
both,
all
the
use
sites
occur,
and
have
federally­
listed
species.
A
preliminary
analysis
has
been
conducted
of
this
county
overlap
of
crop
and
listed
species.

Freshwater
Animals
and
Aquatic
Plants
Listed
species
acute
risk
RQs
exceed
the
listed
species
LOCs
for
freshwater
fish,
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates,
and
aquatic
plants
only
for
rice
and
turf
and
ornament
use
sites.
For
the
turf
and
ornamental
use
sites
the
freshwater
fish
RQ
of
0.05
is
equivalent
to
the
listed
species
LOC
and
risk
to
these
species
could
be
eliminated
by
slightly
reducing
the
use
rate
for
turf.
The
same
reasoning
applies
to
the
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
of
0.15
which
just
exceeds
the
acute
LOCs
for
listed
species
and
restricted
use.
However,
there
are
currently
no
listed
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
and
it
is
safe
to
say
that
this
group
of
aquatic
animals
could
be
eliminated
from
listed
species
concerns.
Aquatic
plant
risk
RQs
did
not
exceed
acute
or
listed
species
LOCs
for
the
turf
use
sites.

When
propiconazole
is
used
on
rice
the
RQ
of
0.16
exceeds
the
acute
restricted
use
LOC
for
freshwater
fish.
The
estuarine/
marine
fish
RQ
of
0.06
just
exceeds
the
listed
species
LOC.
Modicum
reductions
in
the
use
rate
could
reduce
these
RQs
below
the
listed
species
LOCs.
The
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
RQ
of
0.27
exceeds
the
acute
restricted
use
and
listed
species
LOC,
but
as
previously
mentioned
there
are
currently
no
listed
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Birds
The
RQs
only
exceed
the
listed
species
LOC
for
20
g
birds
foraging
in
short
grass
at
the
corn,
celery,
stone
fruit,
rice,
and
grasses
grown
for
seed
sites,
and
only
when
maximum
residues
are
considered.
The
RQs
range
from
0.05
to
0.08
and
are
only
exceeded
if
the
RQs
are
rounded
to
the
first
decimal.
The
mean
residue
LOCs
are
not
exceeded
for
any
of
these
use
sites.
These
use
sites
could
be
eliminated
from
listed
species
concerns
if
the
use
rates
were
slightly
reduced.

The
acute
listed
species
RQs
for
the
turf
use
sites
exceed
the
acute
LOCs
for
all
weight
classes
of
birds
when
maximum
residues
are
considered.
The
RQs
range
from
0.1
to
0.7.
If
the
mean
residue
values
are
considered,
the
LOCs
are
exceeded
only
for
20
and
100
g
birds
and
range
from
0.1
to
0.25.
Chronic
risk
to
birds
could
not
be
evaluated
due
to
the
uncertainty
of
the
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values.
The
dietary
based
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
only
for
birds
foraging
in
short
grass
and
ranged
from
1.0
to
1.3.

Mammals
Listed
species
dose­
based
RQs
exceed
the
acute
mammalian
LOCs
only
for
multiple
applications
on
grasses
grown
for
seed,
stone
fruit,
rice,
and
wild
rice
for
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass.
These
RQs
range
from
0.06
to0.09.
As
stated
for
birds,
a
slight
reduction
in
these
rates
could
reduce
the
RQs
below
all
the
LOCs.
Page
76
of
206
The
acute
risk
quotients
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
exceed
all
LOCs
for
all
weight
classes
of
mammals
foraging
on
short
grass
and
small
insects.
These
RQs
range
from
0.16
to
0.77.
The
acute
RQs
for
single
applications
are
restricted
to
15
and
35
g
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass
and
range
from
0.1
to
0.3.
Mammalian
dietary­
based
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOCs
only
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
and
range
from
1.3
to
2.6
for
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
forage,
and
small
insects.
However,
the
dose­
based
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
herbivore/
insectivore
mammals
foraging
in
all
food
categories
in
all
weight
classes
with
the
exception
of
1000
g
mammals
foraging
in
the
fruit/
pods/
large
insect
food
category.
These
RQs
range
from
3.3
to
13.

Terrestrial
Plants
Risk
quotients
for
terrestrial
plants
exceed
the
LOC
for
barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
wheat,
corn,
celery,
grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
turf
use
sites.
These
RQs
range
from
1.0
to
16.2.

2.
Probit
Dose
Response
Relationship
Because
screening­
level
acute
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
Acute
Risk,
Restricted
Use
and
Acute
Listed
Species
for
freshwater
fish,
aquatic
plants,
birds,
mammals,
and
terrestrial
plants,
the
Agency
uses
the
dose
response
relationship
from
the
toxicity
study
used
for
calculating
the
RQ
to
estimate
the
probability
of
acute
effects
associated
with
an
exposure
equivalent
to
the
EEC.
This
information
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analysis
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
site,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).

The
Agency
uses
the
probit
dose
response
relationship
as
a
tool
for
providing
additional
information
on
the
listed
animal
species
acute
levels
of
concern.
The
acute
Listed
Species
LOCs
of
0.1
and
0.05
are
used
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals,
respectively.
As
part
of
the
risk
characterization,
an
interpretation
of
acute
LOCs
for
listed
species
is
discussed.
This
interpretation
is
presented
in
terms
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
(
i.
e.,
mortality
or
immobilization)
should
exposure
at
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
actually
occur
for
a
species
with
sensitivity
to
propiconazole
on
par
with
the
acute
toxicity
endpoint
selected
for
RQ
calculation.
To
accomplish
this
interpretation,
the
Agency
uses
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship
available
from
the
toxicity
study
used
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
measurement
endpoints
for
each
taxonomic
group.
The
individual
effects
probability
associated
with
the
LOCs
is
based
on
the
mean
estimate
of
the
slope
and
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship.
In
addition
to
a
single
effects
probability
estimate
based
on
the
mean,
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects,
probabilities
are
also
provided
to
account
for
variance
Page
77
of
206
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.
Confidence
in
the
applicability
of
the
assumed
probit
dose
response
relationship
for
predicting
individual
event
probabilities
is
also
relevant.
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
estimate
(
i.
e.,
large
95%
confidence
intervals),
despite
good
probit
fit
characteristics.

For
fish,
aquatic
invertebrates,
birds,
and
mammals,
the
individual
effect
probabilities
were
calculated
based
on
an
Excel
spreadsheet
tool
IECV1.1
(
Individual
Effect
Chance
Model
Version
1.1)
developed
by
U.
S.
EPA,
OPP,
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(
June
22,
2004).
The
model
allows
for
such
calculations
by
entering
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
and
the
95%
confidence
bounds
of
that
estimate)
as
the
slope
parameter
for
the
spreadsheet.

With
regard
to
birds
and
the
calculation
of
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
occurrence
associated
with
an
LOC
of
0.1
is
based
on
an
assumption
of
a
probit
dose
response
relationship
with
a
mean
estimated
slope
of
4.1
(
MRID
00079689).
The
corresponding
estimated
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.1
the
acute
toxic
endpoint
for
birds
is
1
in
4.84
x
103.
It
is
recognized
that
extrapolation
of
very
low
probability
events
is
associated
with
considerable
uncertainty
in
the
resulting
estimates.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
the
estimated
the
95%
confidence
intervals
of
0.72
and
7.48
were
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
These
values
are
1
in
4.24
and
1
in
2.67
x1013,
respectively.
Since
acute
RQs
exceed
the
levels
of
concern
up
to
0.7
for
20
g
birds
foraging
in
short
grass
the
probabilities
of
occurrences
can
be
as
high
as
1
in
3.8
for
these
birds.

These
same
calculations
from
the
adjusted
mammalian
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
and
a
default
mean
slope
of
4.5
estimate
the
chance
of
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC
of
0.1
is
1
in
2.94
x
105.

The
slope
for
the
most
sensitive
freshwater
fish
DER
is
7.28
with
upper
and
lower
bound
confidence
limits
of
2.27
and
12.28
(
MRID
0067923).
The
chance
of
an
individual
event
occurrence
associated
with
a
LOC
of
0.05
and
a
LC50
of
846
µ
g/
L
is
1
in
1
x
105,
the
limit
of
Excel
reporting.
Since
the
highest
freshwater
fish
LOC
is
0.05,
it
is
unlikely
that
a
slope
of
7.28
with
will
result
in
a
high
probability
of
occurrence
for
this
maximum
LOC
of
0.05.
The
95%
confidence
limit
occurrences
are
1
in
864
and
1
in
1
x
1016.

The
most
sensitive
marine/
estuarine
eastern
oyster
slope
was
3.35
with
confidence
limits
of
2.89
and
3.83
and
a
LC50
of
113
µ
g
a.
i./
L
(
MRID
132933).
The
chance
of
an
individual
event
occurrence
associated
with
a
LOC
of
0.05
and
a
LC50
of
113
µ
g/
L
is
1
in
1
x
105.
The
95%
confidence
limit
occurrences
are
1.18
in
104
and
3.19
x
106.

3.
Data
Related
to
Under­
represented
Taxa
Page
78
of
206
Although
the
Level
I
screening
assessment
process
relies
on
RQ
calculations
that
use
toxicity
endpoints
selected
from
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
within
broad
taxonomic
groups,
there
may
be
situations
in
which
additional
effects
data
from
one
or
more
sources
may
suggest
that
a
given
suite
of
listed
taxa
may
be
more
or
less
sensitive
than
suggested
by
the
effects
data
used
for
RQ
calculations.
In
these
circumstances,
the
screening­
level
RQs
are
not
changed,
but
effects
data
more
specific
to
listed
species
may
be
used
to
evaluate
the
extent
to
which
screening­
level
RQs
adequately
represent
conclusions
regarding
effects
on
specific
listed
taxa.
An
example
of
this
is
illustrated
in
the
analysis
for
listed
amphibians.
Fish
effects
data
are
commonly
used
to
evaluate
impacts
to
aquatic­
phase
amphibians
at
the
screening
level.
But,
if
toxicity
data
were
available
on
amphibians,
and
they
were
markedly
different
from
the
surrogate
fish
data
used
to
estimate
RQs,
these
effects
data
may
be
compared
with
estimated
exposures
for
the
following
purposes:

°
Determine
our
level
of
confidence
in
the
ability
of
listed
species
conclusions
based
on
the
fish­
based
RQs
to
provide
appropriate
protection
for
listed
amphibians,
and
to
°
More
fully
discuss
any
concerns
for
listed
amphibians.

With
regard
to
available
toxicity
data
for
propiconazole,
data
are
available
for
the
estuarine/
marine
mollusc.
The
LC50
of
113
µ
g
a.
i./
L
indicates
that
propiconazole
is
highly
toxic
to
mollusks
and
this
value
can
be
applied
as
a
potential
surrogate
species
for
freshwater
mollusks.
Since
this
mollusk
value
is
the
most
sensitive
species
tested
and
was
already
used
to
calculate
RQs
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
risk
to
listed
mollusks
can
be
assumed
for
all
applications
to
turf.

4.
Implications
of
Sub­
lethal
Effects
The
Level
I
screening
assessment
relies
on
the
acute
mortality
endpoint
as
well
as
a
suite
of
sub­
lethal
responses
to
the
chemical
stressor,
as
determined
by
the
testing
of
species
response
to
chronic
exposure
conditions
and
subsequent
chronic
risk
assessment.

Examples
of
these
sub­
lethal
endpoints
include
the
following:

Aquatic
Organisms
Test
Type
Sub­
lethal
Measures
of
Effect
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
Production
of
young
by
first
generation
Length
of
first
generation
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
Embryo
hatch
rate
Time
to
hatch
Time
to
swim­
up
Growth
(
length
and
weight)
Pathological
or
histological
effects
Observations
of
other
clinical
signs
Fish
Life­
Cycle
Embryo
hatch
rate
Time
to
hatch
Page
79
of
206
Growth
(
length)
Exposed
adult
egg
production
Second
generation
hatch
rate
Second
generation
growth
Birds
Reproduction
Maternal
weight
Eggs
laid/
hen
Eggs
cracked
Eggshell
thickness
Viable
embryos
Hatchling
number
14­
day
survivors
Gross
necropsy
(
organ
lesions,
fat
and
muscle
deterioration)
Observations
of
other
clinical
signs
Mammals
Two­
Generation
Total
panel
of
reproduction
parameters
including:
Reproduction
histopathology,
parental
and
offspring
growth,
weight,
mating,
lactation,
gonadal
development
milestones,
sexual
organ
performance,
and
offspring
production
The
dietary­
based
chronic
risk
quotients,
which
are
presented
in
detail
in
Appendix
XX,
show
that
chronic
levels
of
concern
are
exceeded
for
birds
for
multiple
applications
of
propiconazole
to
turf
use
sites
when
the
NOAEL
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
is
used
to
assess
chronic
risk.
In
addition,
mammalian
dietary­
based
chronic
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
only
for
multiple
applications
to
turf
use
sites
and
range
from
1.3
to
2.6
for
mammals
foraging
in
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
forage,
and
small
insects.
However,
the
dose­
based
RQs
exceed
the
chronic
LOC
for
herbivore/
insectivore
mammals
foraging
in
all
food
categories
in
all
weight
classes
with
the
exception
of
1000
g
mammals
foraging
in
the
fruit/
pods/
large
insect
food
category.
These
RQs
range
from
1.2
to
13.

c.
Indirect
Effects
Analysis
In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
used
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
listed
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.
Pesticide­
use
scenarios,
resulting
in
RQs
that
are
below
all
direct
effect
listed
species
LOCs
for
all
taxonomic
groups
assessed
are
considered
of
no
concern
for
risks
to
listed
species
either
by
direct
or
indirect
effects.
However,
there
may
be
situations
where
a
taxonomic
group
is
not
quantitatively
assessed
(
e.
g.,
terrestrial
insects),
but
other
lines
of
evidence
are
sufficiently
supportive
of
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
organisms
that
are
dependant
upon
that
taxonomic
group.

The
Level
I
screening
indirect
effects
analysis
documents
those
types
of
dependencies
upon
non­
listed
organisms
that
could
be
important
sources
of
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms
Page
80
of
206
should
effective
levels
of
the
pesticide
coincide
with
locations
of
listed
species
and
the
biologically
based
resources
upon
which
they
depend.
Generally
speaking,
when
a
taxonomic
group
shows
a
RQ
higher
than
the
listed
species
LOC,
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
to
any
listed
species
in
any
taxonomic
group
that
has
a
dependency
on
the
taxa
for
which
the
RQ
is
in
excess
of
the
LOC
and
which
is
co­
located
with
the
pesticide
use
site
is
established.

For
listed
species
LOCs
for
animals,
the
RQs
vary
with
the
slope
of
the
dose
response
relationship.
So,
when
an
RQ
for
an
animal
taxonomic
group
exceeds
the
listed
species
LOC,
one
is
concerned
for
a
potential
for
indirect
effects
in
any
listed
species
in
any
taxonomic
group
that
is
co­
located
with
the
pesticide
use
site.
This
information
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analysis
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
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
site,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).
Greatest
concerns
would
exist
when
exposure
is
associated
with
a
risk
higher
than
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
non­
listed
LOC
for
a
pesticide
with
an
average
slope
of
4.5.

The
average
slopes
for
birds
and
mammals
are
4.1
and
4.5,
respectively.
As
discussed
above
in
the
Probit
Dose
Response
Relationship
section,
these
slopes
represent
an
estimated
chance
of
individual
listed
species
mortality
of
1
in
1.84
x
103
for
birds
and
1
in
2.94
x
105
for
mammals
and.
Although
this
probability
is
less
than
the
probability
of
a
slope
of
4.5,
the
lower
bounds
of
these
slopes
are
1
in
4.24
for
birds.

Listed
species
LOCs
for
propiconazole
are
exceeded
for
herbivore/
insectivorous
mammals,
birds,
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
and
listed
freshwater
fish
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
for
use
on
turf.
In
addition,
RQs
for
the
use
on
rice
exceed
the
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
plants
LOCs,
based
on
toxicity
to
freshwater
and
marine
diatoms.
This
means
that
there
are
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effect
on
animals
that
eat
birds,
mammals,
fish,
or
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates;
plants
that
require
mammals,
birds,
or
insects
as
pollinators
or
seed
dispersers;
and
listed
animals
that
use
mammal
or
reptile
burrows
for
shelter
or
breeding
habitat.

d.
Critical
Habitat
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
Page
81
of
206
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
mammals,
birds,
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
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
is
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
listed
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.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
the
following:
mammals,
birds,
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants,
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
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.

e.
Co­
occurrence
Analysis
The
goal
of
the
analysis
for
co­
location
is
to
determine
whether
sites
of
pesticide
use
are
geographically
associated
with
known
locations
of
listed
species.
At
the
screening
level,
this
analysis
is
accomplished
using
the
LOCATES
database.
The
database
uses
location
information
for
listed
species
at
the
county
level
and
compares
it
to
agricultural
census
data
for
crop
production
at
the
same
county
level
of
resolution.
The
product
is
a
listing
of
federally
listed
species
that
are
located
within
counties
known
to
produce
the
crop
upon
which
the
pesticide
will
be
used.
Because
the
Level
I
screening
assessment
considers
both
direct
and
indirect
effects
across
generic
taxonomic
groupings,
it
is
not
possible
to
exclude
any
taxonomic
group
from
a
LOCATES
database
run
for
a
screening
risk
assessment.
The
complete
results
are
listed
in
Appendix
X.
However,
it
must
be
noted
that
the
LOCATES
database
is
currently
unable
to
correlate
the
locations
of
listed
species
with
turf
use
sites,
and
since
the
turf
use
site
represents
the
greatest
potential
risk
to
listed
species,
there
is
a
great
uncertainty
in
the
evaluation
of
listed
species
associated
with
the
use
of
propiconazole.
This
assessment
consequently
only
deals
with
the
use
sites
for
which
data
have
direct
association
vis­
à­
vis
the
LOCATES
database.
Therefore,
the
use
sites
represented
in
the
report
include
corn,
celery,
rice,
barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
and
grasses
grown
for
seed.
Page
82
of
206
Although
this
list
is
repetitive
because
it
lists
the
species
within
each
county,
this
list
could
be
refined
by
consideration
of
the
biology
of
listed
species,
the
locations
of
these
species,
fate
and
transport
properties
of
the
chemical,
and
the
locations
of
use
sites.
In
the
case
of
propiconazole,
the
possible
reduction
of
use
rates
and/
or
number
of
applications
could
shorten
the
list
significantly.

C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Limitations,
Uncertainties,
Strengths
and
Data
Gaps
The
results
of
the
risk
assessment
suggest
a
limited
concern
for
avian
acute
or
chronic
risks
to
non­
listed
species.

There
are
a
number
of
areas
of
uncertainty
in
the
avian
risk
assessment
that
merit
discussion.
These
include
the
following:

1.
Only
dietary
exposure
is
included
in
the
exposure
assessment.
Other
exposure
routes
are
possible
for
birds
in
treated
areas.
These
routes
include
ingestion
of
contaminated
soils,
ingestion
of
contaminated
drinking
water,
preening,
dermal
contact,
and
inhalation.
Consumption
of
drinking
water
would
appear
to
be
inconsequential
if
water
concentrations
were
equivalent
to
the
low
concentrations
from
PRZM/
EXAMS.
However,
direct
application
to
puddles
or
to
dew
on
plant
surfaces
could
be
expected
to
be
higher,
and
so
the
drinking
water
route
remains
an
unquantified
concern.
Finally,
preening
exposures,
involving
the
oral
ingestion
of
material
preened
from
the
feathers,
remains
an
unquantified
but
potentially
important
exposure
route.

2.
The
risk
assessment
only
considers
the
most
sensitive
species
tested.
Avian
acute
and
chronic
risks
are
based
on
toxicity
data
for
the
most
sensitive
bird
species
tested.
Bird
responses
to
a
toxicant
can
be
expected
to
be
variable
across
species.
In
the
case
of
propiconazole
additional
species
tested
were
not
tested
to
high
enough
levels
to
determine
a
definitive
LC50.
The
position
of
the
two
tested
species
relative
to
the
distribution
of
all
species'
sensitivities
to
propiconazole
is
unknown.

3.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
100%
of
the
avian
diet
is
relegated
to
single
food
types
foraged
only
from
treated
fields.
These
assumptions
are
likely
to
be
conservative
for
many
species.
The
assumption
of
100%
diet
from
a
treated
area
may
be
realistic
for
acute
exposures,
but
long­
term
exposures
modeled
as
single
food
types
composed
entirely
of
material
from
a
treated
field
is
uncertain.

4.
The
exposure
assessment
used
95th
percentile
residue
values.
The
residue
values
used
from
Fletcher
et
al.
(
1994)
represent
values
that
ensure
5%
or
less
of
the
residue
measurements
included
in
the
study
are
greater
(
i.
e.
a
95th
percentile).
Values
selected
from
points
lower
on
the
distribution
would
yield
lower
exposure
estimates
and
lower
resultant
RQs.
Page
83
of
206
The
risk
quotient
calculations
suggest
limited
concern
for
acute
risks
in
populations
of
small
mammals.
In
the
case
of
small
insectivorous/
herbivorous
mammals
in
treated
areas,
the
risk
quotients
suggest
that
restricted
use
provisions
on
the
label
could
reduce
these
concerns.

There
are
additional
concerns
for
reproduction/
developmental
effects.
Reproduction/
developmental
risks
are
of
concern
in
one
or
more
food
items
for
all
labeled
crops.
However,
the
types
of
effects
observed
in
dietary
developmental/
reproduction
studies
have
uncertain
implications
for
wild
mammals.

LITERATURE
CITED
Exposure
Analysis
Modeling
System
(
EXAMS):
User
Manual
and
System
Documentation.
Ecosystem
Research
Division,
National
Exposure
Research
Laboratory.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA
Carsel,
R.
F.,
J.
C.
Imhoff,
P.
R.
Humel,
J.
M.
Cheplick,
and
A.
S.
Donigian,
Jr.
1997.
PRZM­
3,
A
Model
for
Predicting
Pesticide
and
Nitrogen
Fate
in
the
Crop
Root
and
Unsaturated
Zones:
User's
Manual
for
Release
3.0.
National
Exposure
Research
Laboratory,
Office
of
Research
and
Development,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Athens,
GA.

Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division.
2002.
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides,
Version
II.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
Washington,
D.
C.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
oppefed1/
models/
water/
input_
guidance2_
28_
02.
htm
Gianessi,
L.
P.
and
M.
B.
Marcelli.
2000.
Pesticide
Use
in
U.
S.
Crop
Production:
1997
National
Summary
Report.
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy,
Washington
D.
C.
http://
www.
ncfap.
org/
database/
default.
htm
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.

Iwasa,
Takao.
et
al.,
2003.
Mechanism
for
the
differential
toxicity
of
neonicotinoid
insecticides
in
the
honey
bee,
Apis
mellifera.
Crop
Protection
23
(
2004)
371 
378.

Levine,
S.
L.
and
Oris,
James
T.
1999.
Enhancement
of
Acute
Parathion
Toxicity
to
Fathead
Minnows
Following
Pre­
exposure
to
Propiconazole.
Pesticide
Biochemistry
and
Physiology
65,
102 
109.

OPP
EFED.
1999.
Downwind
Deposition
Tolerance
Bounds
for
Orchards.
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
background
document.
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
scipoly/
sap/
1999/
july/
airblast.
pdf.
Page
84
of
206
Ronis,
M.
J.
and
Badger,
T.
M.
1994.
Toxic
Interactions
between
Fungicides
that
Inhibit
Ergosterl
Biosynthesis
and
Phosphorothioate
Insecticides
in
the
Male
Rat
and
Bobwhite
Quail
(
Colinus
virginianus).
Toxicology
and
Applied
Pharmacology
130,
pp.
221
 
228.

Teske,
M.,
S.
L.
Bird,
D.
M.
Esterly,
S.
L.
Ray,
and
S.
G.
Perry.
2001.
A
User's
Guide
for
AgDRIFT
2.01:
A
Tiered
Approach
for
the
Assessment
of
Spray
Drift
of
Pesticides.
Spray
Drift
Task
Force.
Macon,
MO.

Thelin,
G.
P
and
L.
P
Gianessi.
2000.
Method
for
Estimating
Pesticide
Use
for
County
Areas
of
the
Conterminous
United
States.
U.
S.
GEOLOGICAL
SURVEY.
Open­
File
Report
00­
250.
Sacramento,
CA.
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/
pesticide_
use_
maps_
1997/

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.
1998.
Guidelines
for
Ecological
Risk
Assessment.
Risk
Assessment
Forum,
Washington,
DC.
EPA
630/
R­
95/
002F
April
1998.

Walker,
C.
H.
1998.
Avian
forms
of
cytochrome
P450.
Comparative
Biochemistry
and
Physiology
Part
C
121
(
1998)
65 
72.

Willis,
G.
H.,
and
L.
L.
McDowell.
1987.
Pesticide
Persistence
on
Foliage
in
Reviews
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology.
100:
23­
73.
Page
85
of
206
Appendix
A
 
Environmental
Fate
Discussion
Propiconazole
[
1­[[
2­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
4­
propyl­
1,3­
dioxolan­
2­
yl]
methyl]­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole]
is
a
systemic
broad­
spectrum
fungicide
registered
for
treatment
of
disease
in
bananas,
barley,
celery,
corn
(
field,
pop,
and
sweet),
grasses
grown
for
seed,
mint,
oats,
peanuts,
pineapple,
plantains,
rice
and
wild
rice,
rye,
stone
fruits,
sugarcane,
and
wheat.

Empirical
Formula:
C15H17Cl2N3O2
Molecular
Weight:
342.23
CAS
Registry
No.:
60207­
90­
1
PC
Code:
122101
Trade
Name
Banner,
Orbit,
Tilt
Mode
of
Action
Sterol
biosynthesis
(
ergosterol
biosynthesis)
inhibitor
Systemic
foliar
fungicide
with
protective
and
curative
action
Acropetal
xylem
translocation
Formulation
Emulsifier
Concentrate,
Flowable
Concentrate,
Liquid,
Liquid­
Ready
To
Use,
Soluble
Concentrate/
Liquid,
Wettable
Powder
Product
Chemistry
Propiconazole
is
an
amber
to
yellow
viscous
liquid
with
a
boiling
point
of
95
C,
density
of
1.27
g/
cm3,
octanol/
water
partition
coefficient
(
log
Kow)
of
2.95,
and
vapor
pressure
of
1.0
x
10­
6
Torr
at
20
C.
Propiconazole
is
slightly
soluble
in
water
(
110
ppm
at
20
C),
practically
insoluble
in
hexane
(
0.06
ppm),
and
is
miscible
with
most
organic
solvents,
including
methanol,
isopropanol,
acetone,
methylene
chloride,
toluene,
and
n­
octanol.
Cl
Cl
O
O
N
N
N
CH
3
OH
Page
86
of
206
Environmental
Fate
Summary
Propiconazole
appears
to
be
persistent
and
moderately
mobile
to
relative
immobile
in
most
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
For
aquatic
environment,
propiconazole
degradation
appears
to
be
dependent
solely
on
aqueous
photolysis
in
the
presence
of
photo
sensitizers.
In
soil
environment,
propiconazole
dissipation
appears
to
be
depending
on
incorporation
or
binging
into
soil
organic
matter
content.

Laboratory
and
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
indicate
that
propiconazole
is
stable
in
soil
and
aqueous
environments.
Propiconazole
was
stable
to
hydrolysis
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aqueous
photolysis
(<
10%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
soil
photolysis
(<
8%
of
applied
degraded
in
30
days),
aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
>
30
days),
aerobic
soil
metabolism
(
t
½
=
30
to
112
days),
and
anaerobic
aquatic
metabolism
(
t
½
=
363
days).
The
terrestrial
field
dissipation
data
were
consistent
with
reported
half­
lives
of
>
100
days
for
four
soil
textures.
However,
in
supplemental
aquatic
dissipation
data
using
basin­
irrigation
and
flow
through
irrigation
systems
in
rice
fields,
propiconazole
was
found
to
be
dissipating
rapidly
(
t
½
<
5
days).
Aqueous
photolysis
studies
using
sensitizers
indicated
rapid
degradation
(
t
½
<
1
days)
of
propiconazole,
which
appears
to
be
the
case
in
rice
field.
Furthermore,
aquatic
metabolism
and
dissipation
studies
indicate
propiconazole
dissipates
by
incorporation
or
binding
into
the
organic
matter
content
of
soil/
sediment.

Propiconazole
mobility
in
soil
appears
to
be
dependent
on
the
soil's
organic
matter
content.
In
general,
propiconazole
appears
to
be
moderately
mobile
(
Kd
<
5)
in
soils
with
a
low
organic
matter
content
(<
1%).
However,
in
soils
with
higher
organic
matter
content
(>
1%),
propiconazole
appears
to
be
relatively
immobile
(
Kd
>
5).
Therefore,
propiconazole
may
reach
ground
water
in
soils
with
low
organic
contents.
More
importantly,
propiconazole
may
contaminate
surface
water
through
off­
site
runoff
and
spray
drift.

161­
1
Hydrolysis
(
MRID:
00067901
/
42238201)

Propiconazole
appears
to
be
stable
(<
5%
degradation)
to
hydrolysis
in
aqueous
buffered
solutions
at
pH
5,
7,
and
9.
The
studies
were
conducted
at
70oC
with
a
concentration
of
10
ppm.
The
mean
value
of
the
recovered
propiconazole
as
parent
in
test
samples
was
100
±
3.1%.

161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
(
MRID:
41811901)

Phenyl
ring­
labeled
[
14C]
propiconazole
photodegraded
slowly
( 
10%
of
applied
radioactivity)
in
an
aqueous
pH
7
solution
exposed
to
an
intermittent
(
12
light
on/
12
light
off)
artificial
light
(
xenon
lamp)
source
for
30
days
at
25
oC.
There
were
no
major
degradates
in
either
the
light
exposed
or
dark
controls.
Four
unidentified
degradates
were
detected
in
the
light
exposed
samples
at
 
3.4%
( 
0.37
ppm)
of
the
recovered.

161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
(
MRID:
41811902)
Page
87
of
206
Phenyl
ring­
labeled
[
14C]
propiconazole
photodegraded
slowly
(< 
8
%
of
applied
radioactivity)
on
sandy
loam
soil
expososed
to
an
intermittent
(
12
light
on/
12
light
off)
artificial
light
(
xenon
lamp)
source
for
30
days
at
25
oC.
In
the
light
samples,
two
degradates,
1­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
2­(
1H­
1,2,4­
triazol­
1­
yl)
ethanone
(
CGA­
91304)
and
1­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole­
1­
ethanol
(
CGA­
91305)
were
identified
at
concentrations
<
10%
of
applied
radioactivity.

162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
MRID:
129912)

The
degradation
of
the
fungicide
CGA­
64250
was
studied
at
a
concentration
of
1
ppm
in
a
silty
loam
soil
(
sand
33.5%,
silt
61.7%,
clay
4.8%,
organic
carbon
2.7%,
pH
7.6)
under
aerobic,
aerobic/
anaerobic
and
sterile/
aerobic
conditions.
CGA­
64250
disappeared
in
the
aerobic
experiment
with
a
half­
life
of
70
days
and
was
not
significantly
degraded
under
the
anaerobic
and
sterile/
aerobic
conditions.
Most
of
the
material
became
bound
to
soil.
The
metabolite
CGA­
118245
accounted
for
23.6%
of
the
14C
after
52
weeks
of
aerobic
conditions.
The
metabolite
CGA­
136735
reached
a
maximum
amount
of
22.2%
after
12
weeks
aerobic
incubation,
which
decreased
thereafter
to
5.4%
after
52
weeks.

162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
(
MRID:
129914)

The
degradation
of
the
propiconazole
was
studied
in
a
silty
loam
with
14C­
dioxolane
and
14Cphenylring
labeled
CGA­
64250.
The
half­
life
values
are
43
days
and
47
days,
respectively.
The
main
metabolite
found
in
both
experiments
was
14CO2.
Its
amount
increased
steadily
during
the
experiments
reaching
values
of
42.0
and
45.8%
of
the
applied
radioactively
for
14C­
dioxolane
and
14C­
phenylring
CGA­
64250,
respectively,
after
168
days
of
aerobic
incubation.
This
indicated
that
both
dioxolane
and
the
phenylring­
moieties
are
mineralized
at
about
the
same
rate
by
soil
microorganisms.
The
metabolite
CGA­
136735
reached
a
maximum
amount
of
13.8
and
16.9%
of
the
dose
applied
after
24
days
with
the
14C­
dioxolane
and
the
14C­
phenylring
labeled
materials,
respectively.

162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
MRID:
42347902)

Propiconazole
had
a
calculated
half­
life
of
363
days
when
applied
to
an
aquatic
sediment
system
and
incubated
under
anaerobic
conditions.
However,
degradation
appeared
to
slow
down
after
the
first
30
days
indicating
a
biphasic
degradation
of
propiconazole.
The
half­
life
calculation
reported
was
based
on
the
linear
(
kinetic)
phase
of
the
study
(
0
to
30
days
post­
treatment
period).
In
addition,
propiconazole
appears
to
readily
bind
to
soil/
sediment.
As
radioactivity
in
the
water
phase
dropped
from
an
initial
concentration
of
93.2%
to
3.1%
of
applied
at
day
360
posttreatment
the
radioactivity
in
the
soil
extracts
increased
from
an
initial
concentration
of
6.7%
to
89.3%
of
applied
at
day
360
post­
treatment.

162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
(
MRID:
42347901)

Propiconazole
had
an
extrapolated
half­
life
of
>>
30
days
when
incubated
under
aerobic
aquatic
(
sediment)
conditions.
The
total
concentration
(
in
water
and
sediment)
of
parent
propiconazole
declined
from
an
initial
value
of
94.6%
to
88.79%
by
30
day
post­
treatment.
Propiconazole
did
Page
88
of
206
appear
to
readily
bind
to
soil/
sediment,
as
well.
As
the
radioactivity
in
the
aqueous
phase
dropped
from
an
initial
concentration
of
92.8%
to
10.0%
of
applied
at
30
day
post­
treatment,
the
radioactivity
in
the
soil
extracts
increased
from
an
initial
concentrations
of
6.5%
to
84.7%
at
30
day
post­
treatment.

163­
1
Column
Leaching
and
Adosprtion/
desorption
(
MRID:
67906)

14C­
CGA­
64250
was
applied
to
the
top
of
a
30
cm
soil
column
at
a
rate
equivalent
to
5
kg/
ha.
Two
hundred
mm
of
water
were
applied
over
a
2
day
period.
Four
different
types
of
soil
were
used
in
this
study:
sand,
loamy
sand,
sandy
clay
loam
and
loam.
The
study
demonstrates
that
CGA­
64250
is
capable
of
leaching
through
sandy
soil,
which
is
low
in
organic
matter.

163­
1
Column
Leaching
and
Adosprtion/
desorption
(
MRID:
67907)

14C­
CGA­
64250
was
applied
to
loamy
sand
and
loam
soils
and
the
mixture
was
aged
aerobically
for
30
days
at
25oC.
Two
cm
layer
of
the
treated
soils
were
placed
on
top
of
28
cm
columns
of
untreated
soils,
which
were
eluted
daily
with
16
ml
of
water
for
45
days.
The
leaching
of
aged
residues
of
CGA­
64250
was
minimal.

163­
1
Column
Leaching
and
Adosprtion/
desorption
(
MRID:
41727001)

The
adsorption
Kd
values
were
1.2,
2.81,
4.49,
8.88
and
9.34,
respectively
for
Plainfield
sand,
Mississippi
silt
loam,
California
sandy
loam,
Hagerstown
silty
clay
loam,
and
Arizona
silty
clay
loam.
The
Koc
values
calculated
for
each
soil
was
685,
436,
382,
604,
and
1134.

The
desorption
Kd
values
were
1.57
(
Plainfield
sand),
3.00
(
Mississippi
silt
loam),
5.35
(
California
sandy
loam),
10.3
(
Hagerstown
silty
clay
loam),
and
10.1
(
Arizona
silty
clay
loam).
The
desorption
Kd
value
was
greater
than
the
adsorption
Kd
for
all
the
soils.
The
Koc
values
were
893,
464,
455,
703,
and
1229,
respectively
for
the
above
soils.

163­
1
Column
Leaching
and
Adosprtion/
desorption
(
MRID:
44701801)

This
aged
leaching
study
is
scientifically
valid
and
provides
useful
information
on
the
soil
mobility
of
propiconazole
in
four
soils.
However,
due
to
the
relative
long
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
288
days
to
3.2
years
as
reported
in
the
study
for
four
soils
and
60­
84
days
fro
silt
loam
as
reported
in
MRID
67908
and
MRID
133376),
the
incubation
period
of
30
days
prior
to
column
leaching
did
not
provide
sufficient
information
on
the
mobility
of
propiconazole
degradates.

The
soil
mobility
of
triazole
ring­
labelled
propiconazole,
applied
at
nominal
rate
of
1.8
ppm
(
equivalent
to
the
recommended
maximum
application
rate
of
1.8
lb
a.
i./
acre
applied
with
0"
to
3"
soil
incorporations)
and
aged
(
30
days),
was
studied
in
sand,
sandy
loam,
silty
loam,
and
clay
soil
columns
which
were
leached
with
0.01
M
CaCl2
solution
over
#
25
hours.
Total
[
14C]
residues
in
the
leachate
were
2.5%,
2.9%,
5.8%
and
2.9%
of
the
applied
radioactivity,
respectively
for
sand,
sandy
loam,
silt
loam
and
clay
loam
soil
columns.
Page
89
of
206
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID:
45528701,
45528702)

Soil
dissipation/
accumulation
of
cis­
trans­
1­[
2­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
4­
propyl­
1,3­
dioxolan­
2­
ylmethyl]­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole
(
propiconazole;
CGA­
64250)
under
U.
S.
field
conditions
was
conducted
in
a
bare
plot
and
a
turf
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
California.
Propiconazole
was
broadcast
sprayed
four
times
(
at
21­
day
intervals)
to
both
test
plots
at
a
target
application
rate
of
1.98
kg
a.
i./
ha/
application
(
1.77
lb
a.
i./
A/
application)
in
separate
bare
ground
and
turf
test
plots
measuring
approximately
90
x
6
m
that
were
each
divided
into
three
subplots
for
sampling.
The
test
substance
was
applied
at
100%
of
the
proposed
maximum
label
rate.
Rainfall
was
supplemented
with
irrigation
to
reach
450%
of
the
10­
year
average
rainfall
during
the
study
period.

Soil
samples
were
taken
prior
to
and
following
each
application
and
at
1,
3,
7,
14,
30,
60,
90,
120,
180,
270,
360,
450,
and
540
days
following
the
fourth
application
to
a
depth
of
0­
120
cm
in
both
the
bare
ground
and
turf
plots.
Grass
and
thatch
samples
were
also
collected
from
the
turf
plot
at
each
sampling
interval.
Soil
samples
were
reflux
extracted
with
70%
methanol:
deionized
water,
passed
through
a
SAX
SPE
column,
and
then
applied
to
an
ENV
SPE
column
attached
on
top
of
a
SCX
SPE
column.
The
SPE
columns
were
disconnected
and
eluted
separately
for
propiconazole,
CGA­
217495,
CGA­
91305,
CGA­
71019,
and
Hydroxy
Isomers,
CGA­
118244,
CGA­
118245,
and
CGA­
136735.
Samples
collected
from
the
bare
plot
were
analyzed
following
up
to
a
maximum
of
216
days
of
storage.
Samples
collected
from
the
turf
plot
were
analyzed
following
up
to
a
maximum
of
217
days
of
storage.
The
LOQ
was
5.0
ppb
for
all
analytes
in
soil.
Grass
samples
were
extracted
by
shaking
with
acetone
and
were
analyzed
for
propiconazole
using
LC/
MS/
MS.
The
LOQ
was
50
ppb.

In
the
bare
plot,
propiconazole
was
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
463
ppb
following
the
first
application,
696
ppb
following
the
second
application,
1256
ppb
following
the
third
application,
and
a
maximum
of
1556
ppb
at
3
days
following
the
fourth
application.
Following
the
fourth
application,
propiconazole
decreased
to
687
ppb
by
120
days
and
313
ppb
by
270
days,
and
was
75.4
ppb
at
540
days
post­
treatment,
the
last
sampling
interval.
Propiconazole
was
detected
sporadically
in
the
15­
30
cm
soil
depth,
and
was
not
detected
below
the
30­
45
cm
soil
depth.
The
major
transformation
products
detected
were
CGA­
217495,
CGA­
91305,
and
CGA­
71019.
CGA­
217495
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
20.6
ppb
prior
to
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
254
ppb
at
90
days
after
the
fourth
application,
and
decreased
to
60.3
ppb
by
540
days.
CGA­
217495
was
detected
in
the
15­
30
cm,
30­
45
cm,
and
45­
60
cm
depths
at
maximum
concentrations
of
37.5
ppb
(
270
days),
16.8
ppb
(
270
days),
and
10.1
ppb
(
120
days),
respectively.
CGA­
91305
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
6.53
ppb
prior
to
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
48.0
ppb
at
90
days
after
the
fourth
application,
and
decreased
to
11.7
ppb
by
540
days.
CGA­
91305
was
detected
in
the
15­
30
cm
and
30­
45
cm
depths
at
maximum
concentrations
of
11.0
ppb
(
270
days)
and
6.0
ppb
(
270
days),
respectively.
CGA­
71019
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
5.13
ppb
prior
to
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
87.5
ppb
at
90
days
after
the
fourth
application,
and
decreased
to
21.5
ppb
by
540
days.
CGA­
71019
was
detected
in
the
15­
30
cm,
30­
45
cm,
and
45­
60
cm
depths
at
maximum
concentrations
of
14.6
ppb
(
270
days),
12.2
ppb
(
360
days),
and
11.9
ppb
(
360
days),
respectively.
Page
90
of
206
Under
field
conditions
in
the
bare
plot,
the
total
carryover
of
residues
of
propiconazole
and
its
transformation
products
was
4.8%
and
8.3%
of
the
maximum
propiconazole
detection
in
soil
(
1556
ppb),
respectively,
at
the
end
of
the
study
period,
540
days
after
the
fourth
application.

In
the
turf
plot,
propiconazole
was
detected
below
the
thatch
in
the
7.5­
15
cm
soil
depth
twice,
at
50.3
ppb
at
1
day,
and
11.4
ppb
at
7
days
after
the
last
application,
and
was
detected
once
in
the
15­
30
cm
depth.
Propiconazole
was
detected
in
the
grass
at
93542
ppb
following
the
first
application,
60717
ppb
following
the
second
application,
64492
ppb
following
the
third
application,
and
70867
ppb
following
the
fourth
application.
Following
the
fourth
application,
propiconazole
decreased
to
33533
ppb
by
3
days,
7000
ppb
by
30
days,
and
was
last
detected
at
352.3
ppb
at
120
days
post­
treatment.
Propiconazole
was
detected
in
the
0­
7.5
cm
thatch
layer
at
a
maximum
of
541
ppb
at
7
days
after
the
fourth
application,
decreased
to
101­
177
ppb
by
14­
90
days,
and
was
detected
at
11.9
ppb
at
540
days
post­
treatment,
the
last
sampling
interval.
The
major
transformation
products
detected
in
soil
(
defined
as
detection
>
10
ppb)
were
CGA­
217495
and
CGA­
71019.
CGA­
217495
was
detected
sporadically
in
the
7.5­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
concentrations
up
to
6.5
ppb
(
120
days),
and
was
detected
once
each
in
the
15­
30
cm
and
30­
45
cm
soil
depths
at
concentrations
of
11.1
ppb
and
5.5
ppb,
respectively,
at
180
days.
CGA­
71019
was
detected
in
the
7.5­
15
cm,
15­
30
cm,
30­
45
cm,
and
45­
60
cm
soil
depths
at
maximum
concentrations
of
22.4
ppb
(
90
days),
8.2
ppb
(
180
days),
6.0
ppb
(
180
days),
and
9.9
ppb
(
360
days),
respectively.
The
major
transformation
products
detected
in
thatch
were
CGA­
217495,
CGA­
91305,
and
CGA­
71019.
CGA­
217495
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
7.5
cm
thatch
layer
at
30.0
ppb
prior
to
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
155
ppb
at
60
days
after
the
fourth
application,
and
was
last
detected
at
7.7
ppb
at
450
days.
CGA­
91305
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
7.5
cm
thatch
layer
at
36.8
ppb
prior
to
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
122
ppb
at
60
days
after
the
fourth
application,
and
decreased
to
5.5
ppb
by
540
days.
CGA­
71019
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
7.5
cm
thatch
layer
at
5.4
ppb
following
the
second
application,
increased
to
a
maximum
of
200
ppb
prior
to
the
fourth
application,
and
decreased
to
18.3
ppb
by
540
days.

Under
field
conditions
in
the
turf
plot,
the
total
carryover
of
residues
of
propiconazole
and
its
transformation
products
from
thatch
was
2.2%
and
5.5%
of
the
maximum
propiconazole
detection
in
the
0­
7.5
cm
thatch
layer
(
541
ppb),
respectively,
at
the
end
of
the
study
period,
540
days
after
the
fourth
application.

164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID:
45528703)

Soil
dissipation/
accumulation
of
cis­
trans­
1­[
2­(
2,4­
dichlorophenyl)­
4­
propyl­
1,3­
dioxolan­
2­
ylmethyl]­
1H­
1,2,4­
triazole
(
propiconazole;
CGA­
64250)
under
U.
S.
field
conditions
was
conducted
in
a
bare
plot
of
sandy
loam
soil
in
California.
Propiconazole
was
broadcast
sprayed
four
times
(
at
7­
day
intervals)
at
a
target
application
rate
of
0.137
kg
a.
i./
ha/
application
(
0.122
lb
a.
i./
A/
application)
in
a
test
plot
measuring
approximately
43
x
24
m
that
was
divided
into
five
sampling
zones.
The
test
substance
was
applied
at
110%
of
the
maximum
use
rate
according
to
the
product
label.
Rainfall
was
supplemented
with
irrigation
to
reach
114%
of
the
target
moisture
input
during
the
study
period.
Page
91
of
206
Soil
samples
were
taken
prior
to
and
following
each
application
and
at
1,
3,
7,
14,
28,
61,
89,
118,
183,
278,
364,
479,
and
567
days
following
the
fourth
application
to
a
depth
of
0­
120
cm.
Soil
samples
were
reflux
extracted
with
70%
methanol:
deionized
water,
passed
through
a
SAX
SPE
column,
then
applied
to
a
ENV
SPE
column
attached
on
top
of
a
SCX
SPE
column.
The
SPE
columns
were
disconnected
and
eluted
separately
for
propiconazole,
CGA­
217495,
CGA­
91305,
CGA­
71019
and
Hydroxy
Isomers,
CGA­
118244,
CGA­
118245,
and
CGA­
136735.
Samples
were
analyzed
following
up
to
221
days
for
propiconazole,
CGA­
217495,
CGA­
91305,
and
Hydroxy
Isomers,
and
up
to
357
days
for
CGA­
71019.
The
LOQ
was
5.0
ppb
for
all
analytes
in
soil.

The
measured
zero­
time
concentration
of
propiconazole
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
was
54.7
ppb,
which
is
90%
of
the
applied
rate.
Propiconazole
was
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
75.6
ppb
following
the
second
application,
90.7
ppb
following
the
third
application,
and
a
maximum
of
192.0
ppb
following
the
fourth
application.
Following
the
fourth
application,
propiconazole
decreased
to
77.2
ppb
by
89
days
and
51.5
ppb
by
118
days,
and
ranged
from
58.3­
97.7
ppb
from
183­
479
days
post­
treatment.
Propiconazole
was
not
detected
below
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth.
The
major
transformation
products
detected
were
CGA­
217495
and
CGA­
91305.
CGA­
217495
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
5.2
ppb
following
the
fourth
application,
increased
to
10.0­
11.1
ppb
(
4.1­
4.5%
of
the
total
applied
propiconazole)
from
28­
118
days,
and
decreased
to
5.9
ppb
by
479
days,
the
last
sampling
interval.
CGA­
91305
was
initially
detected
in
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth
at
5.3
ppb
following
the
fourth
application
and
increased
to
a
maximum
of
10.6
ppb
(
4.3%
of
the
total
applied
propiconazole)
by
479
days.
No
transformation
products
were
detected
below
the
0­
15
cm
soil
depth.

164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID:
452560501)

Propiconazole
was
reported
to
dissipate
from
paddy
water
and
paddy
soil
(#
2.4
ppb
and
#
0.13
ppm
by
Day
28
post­
treatment
of
second
application,
respectively)
when
aerial
applied
to
rice
paddy
field
plots
at
Walnut
Ridge
and
Lonoke,
Arkansas.
However,
it
appears
that
only
propiconazole
was
determined
in
paddy
water,
paddy
soil,
and
drainage
waters.
The
half­
lives
for
propiconazole
in
paddy
water
at
Walnut
Ridge
were
reported
to
be
3.4
and
6.1
days
for
the
first
and
second
application,
respectively.
The
half­
lives
for
propiconazole
in
paddy
water
at
Lonoke
were
reported
to
be
5.4
and
16.1
days
for
first
and
second
application,
respectively.

Propiconazole
detected
in
storm
drainage
from
the
Walnut
Ridge
and
Lonoke
plots
reached
a
maximum
level
of
57
and
97
ppb,
respectively.
However,
at
harvest
time
the
drainage
water
was
reported
to
contain
propiconazole
at
levels
of
#
0.01
ppb
and
#
14
ppb
for
Walnut
Ridge
and
Lonoke
sites,
respectively.

164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
(
MRID:
452560502)
Propiconazole
was
reported
to
dissipate
from
paddy
water
and
paddy
soil
(#
13.0
ppb
and
#
0.02
ppm,
respectively)
when
aerial
applied
to
two
rice
paddy
field
plots
(
B.
C.
and
M.
O.)
in
Bay
City,
Texas.
However,
it
appears
that
only
propiconazole
was
determined
in
paddy
water,
paddy
soil,
and
drainage
waters.
The
half­
lives
for
propiconazole
in
paddy
water
at
the
B.
C.
site
were
reported
to
be
3.04
and
2.40
days
for
the
first
and
second
application,
respectively.
The
half
Page
92
of
206
lives
for
propiconazole
in
paddy
water
at
the
M.
O.
site
were
reported
to
be
4.58
and
3.22
days
for
first
and
second
application,
respectively.

Propiconazole
detected
in
drainage
water
from
the
B.
C.
and
M.
O.
sites
reached
a
maximum
level
of
26
and
149
ppb,
respectively.
However,
at
harvest
time
the
drainage
water
was
reported
to
contain
propiconazole
at
levels
of
#
2.0
ppb
and
#
9.2
ppb
for
B.
C.
and
M.
O.
sites,
respectively.

165­
4
Accumulation
in
Fish
(
MRID:
40963502)

The
bioconcentration
factor
(
BCF)
values
are
24X,
138­
516X,
and
68­
203X,
respectively
for
edible,
viscera,
and
whole
body
of
bluegill.
The
depuration
half­
life
is
7
days.
Page
93
of
206
Appendix
B
 
Modeling
Inputs
and
Attachments
Attachment
1:
Input
values
of
PRZM,
EXAMS,
and
SCIGROW
Table
1­
1.
Input
Parameters
for
PRZM
with
Propiconazole
(
version
3.12)

Variable
(
units)
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Source
of
Info/
Reference
DWRATE(
1)
1
(
day­
1)
Dissolved
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
surface
horizon
DSRATE(
1)
1
(
day­
1)
Adsorbed
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
surface
horizon
DWRATE(
1)
=
DSRATE(
1)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
values
of
70,
43
and
47
days
(
MRID:
129912,
129914)

DWRATE(
2)
(
day­
1)
DWRATE(
3)
(
day­
1)
Dissolved
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
1st,
and
2nd
subsurface
horizon
DSRATE(
2)
(
day­
1)
DSRATE(
3)
(
day­
1)
Adsorbed
phase
pesticide
decay
rate
in
1st
and
2nd
subsurface
horizon
DWRATE(
2)
=
DSRATE(
2)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
DWRATE(
3)
=
DSRATE(
3)

The
90th
percentile
half­
life
value
of
69.2
days
same
as
above
KD(
1)
KD(
2)
KD(
3)
(
cm3
gm­
1
or
mL
g­
1
or
L
kg­
1)
Pesticide
partition
or
distribution
coefficients
for
each
horizon
assume
average
KOC
of
648
Mobility
­
Adsorption/
Desorptio
n
study
:
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)

PLDKRT
(
day­
1)
Foliar
decay
rate
35
days
(
only
applicable
to
foliar
applications)
default
value
TAPP
(
kg
ha­
1)
Application
rate
Depending
on
the
labels
with
the
maximum
rate
and
number
of
applications
Product
label
APPEFF
(
decimal)
Application
efficiency
0.95
for
aerial
spray;
0.99
for
ground
spray
input
guidance
document
DRFT
Spray
drift
fraction
0.05
for
aerial
spray;
0.01
for
ground
spray
input
guidance
document
Page
94
of
206
Table
1­
2.
Input
Parameters
for
EXAMS
with
Propiconazole
(
Version
2.98)

Variable
(
units)
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Source
of
Info/
Reference
HENRY
(
atm­
m3mole­
1)
Henry's
law
constant
no
input,
let
EXAMS
computes
KBACW1
(
cfu/
mL)­
1
hour­
1
Bacterial
biolysis
in
water
column
138.4
days
2
x
aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
KBACS1
(
cfu/
mL)­
1
hour­
1
Bacterial
biolysis
in
benthic
sediment
stable
aquatic
anaerobic
halflife
=
363
days
(
MRID:
42347902)

KDP
(
hour­
1)
Direct
photolysis
0.0
Stable
(
MRID:
41811901)

KBH
(
mole­
1
hour­
1)
KNH
(
hour­
1)
KAH
(
mole­
1
hour­
1)
Base
hydrolysis
Neutral
hydrolysis
Acid
hydrolysis
0.0
0.0
0.0
Stable
(
MRID:
00067901
/
42238201)

KOC
(
mL
g­
1
O.
C.)
Partition
coefficient
for
organic
carbon
assume
a
mean
KOC
of
648
Mobility
­
Adsorption/
Desorption
study
:
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)

MWT
(
g
mole­
1)
Molecular
weight
342.23
product
chemistry
SOL
(
mg
L­
1)
Aqueous
solubility
110
product
chemistry
QUANT
Reaction
quantum
yield
for
direct
photolysis
1.0
VAPR
(
torr)
Vapor
pressure
1.0
x
10­
6
product
chemistry
Page
95
of
206
Table
1­
3.
Input
Parameters
for
SCIGROW
Variable
Description
Input
Value
Soil
half­
life
(
day)
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
values
of
70,
43
and
47
days
(
MRID:
129912,
129914)

Use
the
average
value
of
53
days
Pesticide
partition
or
distribution
coefficients,
Koc
KOC
values
of
685,
436,
382,
604
and
1134.
(
MRID:
41727001)*

Use
the
median
value
of
604
Application
rate
Depending
on
the
labels
with
the
maximum
rate
and
number
of
applications
 
The
Koc
value
is
outside
the
range
of
32
­
180
mL/
g.
Page
96
of
206
Attachment
2:
PE4
(
PRZM/
EXAMS)
Outputs
stored
as
PPZNDWhE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
NDwheatC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
15:
08
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14914.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
52
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.7825
0.7691
0.73
0.6742
0.6455
0.3181
1962
1.786
1.752
1.644
1.522
1.46
0.9746
1963
1.975
1.943
1.843
1.685
1.608
1.324
1964
3.484
3.412
3.147
2.719
2.61
1.901
1965
2.448
2.423
2.351
2.277
2.239
2.086
1966
2.324
2.3
2.218
2.125
2.133
1.993
1967
2.301
2.278
2.191
2.068
1.987
1.823
1968
2.064
2.041
1.971
1.864
1.799
1.626
1969
2.891
2.842
2.696
2.451
2.327
1.829
1970
2.616
2.585
2.464
2.242
2.148
2.014
1971
2.333
2.317
2.252
2.153
2.081
2.005
1972
2.243
2.219
2.129
2.053
2.04
1.928
1973
2.177
2.162
2.114
2.069
2.039
1.888
1974
3.35
3.3
3.122
2.88
2.801
2.241
1975
5.028
4.969
4.639
4.174
3.943
3.003
1976
3.231
3.202
3.109
3.082
3.062
2.754
1977
3.693
3.632
3.409
3.092
2.975
2.561
1978
4.03
3.97
3.748
3.433
3.31
2.779
1979
3.218
3.184
3.093
3.034
2.953
2.71
1980
2.819
2.798
2.721
2.654
2.616
2.507
1981
2.69
2.666
2.576
2.507
2.45
2.306
1982
2.421
2.4
2.318
2.238
2.182
2.089
1983
2.694
2.656
2.585
2.454
2.392
2.145
1984
3.105
3.062
2.928
2.691
2.535
2.227
1985
2.645
2.616
2.539
2.455
2.436
2.256
1986
3.228
3.18
3.02
2.824
2.727
2.33
1987
2.502
2.476
2.377
2.313
2.307
2.203
1988
2.295
2.267
2.188
2.107
2.071
1.998
1989
2.522
2.498
2.421
2.297
2.239
2.029
1990
3.157
3.111
2.952
2.687
2.572
2.184
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
5.028
4.969
4.639
4.174
3.943
3.003
0.0645161290322581
4.03
3.97
3.748
3.433
3.31
2.779
0.0967741935483871
3.693
3.632
3.409
3.092
3.062
2.754
0.129032258064516
3.484
3.412
3.147
3.082
2.975
2.71
0.161290322580645
3.35
3.3
3.122
3.034
2.953
2.561
0.193548387096774
3.231
3.202
3.109
2.88
2.801
2.507
0.225806451612903
3.228
3.184
3.093
2.824
2.727
2.33
0.258064516129032
3.218
3.18
3.02
2.719
2.616
2.306
0.290322580645161
3.157
3.111
2.952
2.691
2.61
2.256
0.32258064516129
3.105
3.062
2.928
2.687
2.572
2.241
0.354838709677419
2.891
2.842
2.721
2.654
2.535
2.227
0.387096774193548
2.819
2.798
2.696
2.507
2.45
2.203
Page
97
of
206
0.419354838709677
2.694
2.666
2.585
2.455
2.436
2.184
0.451612903225806
2.69
2.656
2.576
2.454
2.392
2.145
0.483870967741936
2.645
2.616
2.539
2.451
2.327
2.089
0.516129032258065
2.616
2.585
2.464
2.313
2.307
2.086
0.548387096774194
2.522
2.498
2.421
2.297
2.239
2.029
0.580645161290323
2.502
2.476
2.377
2.277
2.239
2.014
0.612903225806452
2.448
2.423
2.351
2.242
2.182
2.005
0.645161290322581
2.421
2.4
2.318
2.238
2.148
1.998
0.67741935483871
2.333
2.317
2.252
2.153
2.133
1.993
0.709677419354839
2.324
2.3
2.218
2.125
2.081
1.928
0.741935483870968
2.301
2.278
2.191
2.107
2.071
1.901
0.774193548387097
2.295
2.267
2.188
2.069
2.04
1.888
0.806451612903226
2.243
2.219
2.129
2.068
2.039
1.829
0.838709677419355
2.177
2.162
2.114
2.053
1.987
1.823
0.870967741935484
2.064
2.041
1.971
1.864
1.799
1.626
0.903225806451613
1.975
1.943
1.843
1.685
1.608
1.324
0.935483870967742
1.786
1.752
1.644
1.522
1.46
0.9746
0.967741935483871
0.7825
0.7691
0.73
0.6742
0.6455
0.3181
0.1
3.6721
3.61
3.3828
3.091
3.0533
2.7496
Average
of
yearly
averages:
2.06772333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZNDWhE
Metfile:
w14914.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NDwheatC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
100
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.125
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
06
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Page
98
of
206
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZORGsE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
ORgrassseedC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
18:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.983
1.936
1.767
1.609
1.505
0.8175
1962
2.936
2.887
2.709
2.491
2.355
1.742
1963
4.108
4.05
3.839
3.614
3.484
2.654
1964
4.314
4.26
4.064
3.828
3.687
3.042
1965
4.537
4.497
4.308
4.06
3.912
3.262
1966
4.68
4.624
4.42
4.184
4.044
3.406
1967
4.762
4.703
4.488
4.249
4.105
3.447
1968
4.806
4.749
4.542
4.298
4.149
3.66
1969
5.085
5.029
4.93
4.729
4.58
3.981
1970
5.282
5.221
4.997
4.767
4.61
3.986
1971
5.227
5.172
5.019
4.774
4.619
4.093
1972
5.532
5.472
5.253
5.021
4.852
4.145
1973
5.307
5.25
5.039
4.797
4.648
4.034
1974
5.228
5.169
4.955
4.716
4.574
3.931
1975
5.191
5.135
4.93
4.684
4.541
3.896
1976
5.144
5.09
4.893
4.651
4.506
3.829
1977
5.029
4.971
4.757
4.521
4.38
3.733
1978
5.119
5.056
4.825
4.607
4.461
3.777
1979
5.042
4.985
4.774
4.533
4.384
3.881
1980
5.315
5.264
5.074
4.801
4.647
3.984
1981
5.491
5.429
5.202
4.913
4.74
4.114
1982
5.392
5.331
5.103
4.879
4.728
4.085
1983
5.166
5.11
4.908
4.706
4.574
3.963
1984
5.318
5.26
5.161
4.883
4.711
4.005
1985
5.94
5.864
5.598
5.211
4.978
4.188
1986
5.356
5.295
5.072
4.902
4.766
4.099
1987
5.862
5.789
5.518
5.063
4.965
4.259
1988
5.704
5.646
5.432
5.19
5.029
4.375
1989
5.37
5.31
5.091
4.859
4.716
4.1
1990
5.281
5.223
5.009
4.766
4.605
3.976
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
5.94
5.864
5.598
5.211
5.029
4.375
0.0645161290322581
5.862
5.789
5.518
5.19
4.978
4.259
0.0967741935483871
5.704
5.646
5.432
5.063
4.965
4.188
0.129032258064516
5.532
5.472
5.253
5.021
4.852
4.145
0.161290322580645
5.491
5.429
5.202
4.913
4.766
4.114
0.193548387096774
5.392
5.331
5.161
4.902
4.74
4.1
0.225806451612903
5.37
5.31
5.103
4.883
4.728
4.099
0.258064516129032
5.356
5.295
5.091
4.879
4.716
4.093
Page
99
of
206
0.290322580645161
5.318
5.264
5.074
4.859
4.711
4.085
0.32258064516129
5.315
5.26
5.072
4.801
4.648
4.034
0.354838709677419
5.307
5.25
5.039
4.797
4.647
4.005
0.387096774193548
5.282
5.223
5.019
4.774
4.619
3.986
0.419354838709677
5.281
5.221
5.009
4.767
4.61
3.984
0.451612903225806
5.228
5.172
4.997
4.766
4.605
3.981
0.483870967741936
5.227
5.169
4.955
4.729
4.58
3.976
0.516129032258065
5.191
5.135
4.93
4.716
4.574
3.963
0.548387096774194
5.166
5.11
4.93
4.706
4.574
3.931
0.580645161290323
5.144
5.09
4.908
4.684
4.541
3.896
0.612903225806452
5.119
5.056
4.893
4.651
4.506
3.881
0.645161290322581
5.085
5.029
4.825
4.607
4.461
3.829
0.67741935483871
5.042
4.985
4.774
4.533
4.384
3.777
0.709677419354839
5.029
4.971
4.757
4.521
4.38
3.733
0.741935483870968
4.806
4.749
4.542
4.298
4.149
3.66
0.774193548387097
4.762
4.703
4.488
4.249
4.105
3.447
0.806451612903226
4.68
4.624
4.42
4.184
4.044
3.406
0.838709677419355
4.537
4.497
4.308
4.06
3.912
3.262
0.870967741935484
4.314
4.26
4.064
3.828
3.687
3.042
0.903225806451613
4.108
4.05
3.839
3.614
3.484
2.654
0.935483870967742
2.936
2.887
2.709
2.491
2.355
1.742
0.967741935483871
1.983
1.936
1.767
1.609
1.505
0.8175
0.1
5.6868
5.6286
5.4141
5.0588
4.9537
4.1837
Average
of
yearly
averages:
3.68215
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZORGsE
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORgrassseedC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.252
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
Page
100
of
206
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

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

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.051
1.997
1.815
1.601
1.505
0.8493
1962
2.902
2.843
2.743
2.524
2.43
1.656
1963
3.812
3.753
3.516
3.355
3.159
2.224
1964
7.302
7.138
6.58
6.122
6.012
3.917
1965
11.59
11.34
10.41
9.155
8.429
5.89
1966
10.03
9.847
9.184
8.644
8.091
6.144
1967
9.457
9.284
8.64
7.729
7.337
5.689
1968
6.531
6.438
6.187
5.803
5.549
4.478
1969
5.016
4.946
4.747
4.538
4.376
3.512
1970
5.582
5.482
5.118
4.812
4.695
3.605
1971
4.84
4.772
4.574
4.381
4.25
3.363
1972
8.954
8.838
8.402
7.98
7.56
4.8
1973
14.2
13.92
13.18
11.97
11.36
7.722
1974
12.21
11.99
11.26
10.23
9.559
7.286
1975
9.911
9.795
9.529
9.179
8.908
6.699
1976
9.564
9.396
8.873
7.935
7.406
5.758
1977
8.212
8.074
7.523
6.854
6.625
5.235
1978
5.949
5.869
5.618
5.438
5.274
4.301
1979
11.43
11.19
10.79
9.435
8.806
5.866
1980
8.32
8.191
7.726
7.089
6.836
5.391
1981
5.619
5.547
5.285
5.053
4.932
4.062
1982
8.717
8.512
7.801
6.783
6.221
4.487
1983
9.043
8.872
8.253
7.897
7.431
5.383
1984
8.851
8.717
8.396
8.065
7.872
5.742
1985
7.977
7.825
7.263
6.496
6.075
4.929
1986
7.177
7.039
6.744
6.1
5.723
4.577
1987
13
12.82
11.77
10.51
9.671
6.207
1988
8.093
7.987
7.768
7.425
7.002
5.53
1989
7.732
7.605
7.295
6.907
6.651
5.013
1990
6.493
6.394
6.187
5.84
5.626
4.386
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
14.2
13.92
13.18
11.97
11.36
7.722
0.0645161290322581
13
12.82
11.77
10.51
9.671
7.286
0.0967741935483871
12.21
11.99
11.26
10.23
9.559
6.699
Page
101
of
206
0.129032258064516
11.59
11.34
10.79
9.435
8.908
6.207
0.161290322580645
11.43
11.19
10.41
9.179
8.806
6.144
0.193548387096774
10.03
9.847
9.529
9.155
8.429
5.89
0.225806451612903
9.911
9.795
9.184
8.644
8.091
5.866
0.258064516129032
9.564
9.396
8.873
8.065
7.872
5.758
0.290322580645161
9.457
9.284
8.64
7.98
7.56
5.742
0.32258064516129
9.043
8.872
8.402
7.935
7.431
5.689
0.354838709677419
8.954
8.838
8.396
7.897
7.406
5.53
0.387096774193548
8.851
8.717
8.253
7.729
7.337
5.391
0.419354838709677
8.717
8.512
7.801
7.425
7.002
5.383
0.451612903225806
8.32
8.191
7.768
7.089
6.836
5.235
0.483870967741936
8.212
8.074
7.726
6.907
6.651
5.013
0.516129032258065
8.093
7.987
7.523
6.854
6.625
4.929
0.548387096774194
7.977
7.825
7.295
6.783
6.221
4.8
0.580645161290323
7.732
7.605
7.263
6.496
6.075
4.577
0.612903225806452
7.302
7.138
6.744
6.122
6.012
4.487
0.645161290322581
7.177
7.039
6.58
6.1
5.723
4.478
0.67741935483871
6.531
6.438
6.187
5.84
5.626
4.386
0.709677419354839
6.493
6.394
6.187
5.803
5.549
4.301
0.741935483870968
5.949
5.869
5.618
5.438
5.274
4.062
0.774193548387097
5.619
5.547
5.285
5.053
4.932
3.917
0.806451612903226
5.582
5.482
5.118
4.812
4.695
3.605
0.838709677419355
5.016
4.946
4.747
4.538
4.376
3.512
0.870967741935484
4.84
4.772
4.574
4.381
4.25
3.363
0.903225806451613
3.812
3.753
3.516
3.355
3.159
2.224
0.935483870967742
2.902
2.843
2.743
2.524
2.43
1.656
0.967741935483871
2.051
1.997
1.815
1.601
1.505
0.8493
0.1
12.148
11.925
11.213
10.1505
9.4939
6.6498
Average
of
yearly
averages:
4.82337666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZGAPnE
Metfile:
w93805.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
GAPecansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.252
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Page
102
of
206
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZGAPhE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
GAPeachesC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
59:
56
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w03813.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
32
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.142
1.109
0.9917
0.8388
0.7544
0.367
1962
2.309
2.246
2.022
1.676
1.536
0.9092
1963
2.281
2.234
2.05
1.826
1.697
1.178
1964
2.651
2.595
2.436
2.165
1.992
1.369
1965
2.113
2.073
1.936
1.799
1.702
1.301
1966
2.463
2.432
2.284
2.012
1.856
1.334
1967
2.33
2.286
2.129
1.987
1.874
1.387
1968
3.374
3.304
3.073
2.631
2.401
1.641
1969
2.368
2.329
2.195
1.988
1.857
1.47
1970
2.126
2.087
1.955
1.761
1.638
1.243
1971
2.665
2.606
2.405
2.061
1.889
1.288
1972
2.044
2.008
1.876
1.741
1.648
1.227
1973
3.167
3.097
2.82
2.386
2.199
1.476
1974
2.959
2.897
2.672
2.34
2.173
1.569
1975
2.326
2.284
2.132
1.942
1.82
1.41
1976
4.822
4.704
4.39
3.712
3.347
2.047
1977
2.732
2.69
2.549
2.315
2.171
1.782
1978
2.306
2.267
2.132
1.921
1.794
1.398
1979
2.224
2.182
2.04
1.812
1.682
1.241
1980
1.987
1.95
1.816
1.619
1.494
1.1
1981
3.062
2.981
2.693
2.25
2.064
1.387
1982
2.218
2.18
2.06
1.857
1.73
1.335
1983
2.502
2.449
2.265
2.017
1.904
1.355
1984
3.395
3.32
3.026
2.567
2.368
1.621
1985
2.327
2.287
2.151
1.936
1.808
1.42
1986
2.059
2.02
1.885
1.679
1.549
1.165
1987
1.926
1.887
1.749
1.566
1.451
1.057
1988
1.873
1.837
1.706
1.518
1.416
1.028
1989
2.087
2.044
1.904
1.674
1.543
1.078
1990
1.897
1.86
1.727
1.53
1.409
1.022
Page
103
of
206
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
4.822
4.704
4.39
3.712
3.347
2.047
0.0645161290322581
3.395
3.32
3.073
2.631
2.401
1.782
0.0967741935483871
3.374
3.304
3.026
2.567
2.368
1.641
0.129032258064516
3.167
3.097
2.82
2.386
2.199
1.621
0.161290322580645
3.062
2.981
2.693
2.34
2.173
1.569
0.193548387096774
2.959
2.897
2.672
2.315
2.171
1.476
0.225806451612903
2.732
2.69
2.549
2.25
2.064
1.47
0.258064516129032
2.665
2.606
2.436
2.165
1.992
1.42
0.290322580645161
2.651
2.595
2.405
2.061
1.904
1.41
0.32258064516129
2.502
2.449
2.284
2.017
1.889
1.398
0.354838709677419
2.463
2.432
2.265
2.012
1.874
1.387
0.387096774193548
2.368
2.329
2.195
1.988
1.857
1.387
0.419354838709677
2.33
2.287
2.151
1.987
1.856
1.369
0.451612903225806
2.327
2.286
2.132
1.942
1.82
1.355
0.483870967741936
2.326
2.284
2.132
1.936
1.808
1.335
0.516129032258065
2.309
2.267
2.129
1.921
1.794
1.334
0.548387096774194
2.306
2.246
2.06
1.857
1.73
1.301
0.580645161290323
2.281
2.234
2.05
1.826
1.702
1.288
0.612903225806452
2.224
2.182
2.04
1.812
1.697
1.243
0.645161290322581
2.218
2.18
2.022
1.799
1.682
1.241
0.67741935483871
2.126
2.087
1.955
1.761
1.648
1.227
0.709677419354839
2.113
2.073
1.936
1.741
1.638
1.178
0.741935483870968
2.087
2.044
1.904
1.679
1.549
1.165
0.774193548387097
2.059
2.02
1.885
1.676
1.543
1.1
0.806451612903226
2.044
2.008
1.876
1.674
1.536
1.078
0.838709677419355
1.987
1.95
1.816
1.619
1.494
1.057
0.870967741935484
1.926
1.887
1.749
1.566
1.451
1.028
0.903225806451613
1.897
1.86
1.727
1.53
1.416
1.022
0.935483870967742
1.873
1.837
1.706
1.518
1.409
0.9092
0.967741935483871
1.142
1.109
0.9917
0.8388
0.7544
0.367
0.1
3.3533
3.2833
3.0054
2.5489
2.3511
1.639
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.30684
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZGAPhE
Metfile:
w03813.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
GAPeachesC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Page
104
of
206
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
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
5
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
2
interval
5
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Interval
3
interval
5
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZFLScE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
FLsweetcornC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
16:
43:
14
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
3.491
3.39
3.064
2.467
1.656
0.4083
1962
4.464
4.366
4.023
3.473
2.67
1.869
1963
6.436
5.336
4.928
4.447
3.467
2.61
1964
12.84
12.63
11.67
8.586
6.54
4.591
1965
9.131
9.011
8.57
7.875
7.475
5.673
1966
7.924
7.82
7.558
7.145
6.931
5.336
1967
6.264
6.153
5.756
5.364
5.273
4.284
1968
5.934
5.827
5.569
4.922
4.362
3.672
1969
7.428
7.3
6.89
5.77
5.006
4.147
1970
6.956
6.87
6.584
6.195
6.043
4.676
1971
8.224
8.065
7.62
6.894
5.387
4.015
1972
8.55
8.365
7.918
7.011
5.541
4.508
1973
6.457
6.385
6.166
5.839
5.605
4.371
1974
8.014
7.846
7.396
6.381
5.84
4.653
1975
6.536
6.445
6.136
5.624
5.342
4.242
1976
6.674
6.548
6.255
5.707
4.665
4.034
1977
11.23
11.05
10.38
8.252
6.405
4.743
1978
10.7
10.49
10.03
9.248
7.783
6.316
1979
9.397
9.311
8.937
8.305
7.939
6.137
1980
8.03
7.932
7.452
6.762
6.65
5.313
1981
7.954
7.808
7.378
6.701
5.706
4.706
1982
13.23
12.92
12.34
10.75
8.253
5.831
1983
10.48
10.41
10.06
9.645
9.274
7.074
1984
27.03
26.34
23.89
16.56
12.28
7.396
Page
105
of
206
1985
17.76
17.53
16.69
15.28
14.49
10.42
1986
13.28
13.01
12.11
10.27
9.813
7.758
1987
11.42
11.28
10.76
9.872
9.381
7.27
1988
8.105
8.067
7.905
7.471
7.216
5.605
1989
5.831
5.721
5.504
5.16
4.98
4.042
1990
5.408
5.301
4.942
4.53
4.34
3.442
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
27.03
26.34
23.89
16.56
14.49
10.42
0.0645161290322581
17.76
17.53
16.69
15.28
12.28
7.758
0.0967741935483871
13.28
13.01
12.34
10.75
9.813
7.396
0.129032258064516
13.23
12.92
12.11
10.27
9.381
7.27
0.161290322580645
12.84
12.63
11.67
9.872
9.274
7.074
0.193548387096774
11.42
11.28
10.76
9.645
8.253
6.316
0.225806451612903
11.23
11.05
10.38
9.248
7.939
6.137
0.258064516129032
10.7
10.49
10.06
8.586
7.783
5.831
0.290322580645161
10.48
10.41
10.03
8.305
7.475
5.673
0.32258064516129
9.397
9.311
8.937
8.252
7.216
5.605
0.354838709677419
9.131
9.011
8.57
7.875
6.931
5.336
0.387096774193548
8.55
8.365
7.918
7.471
6.65
5.313
0.419354838709677
8.224
8.067
7.905
7.145
6.54
4.743
0.451612903225806
8.105
8.065
7.62
7.011
6.405
4.706
0.483870967741936
8.03
7.932
7.558
6.894
6.043
4.676
0.516129032258065
8.014
7.846
7.452
6.762
5.84
4.653
0.548387096774194
7.954
7.82
7.396
6.701
5.706
4.591
0.580645161290323
7.924
7.808
7.378
6.381
5.605
4.508
0.612903225806452
7.428
7.3
6.89
6.195
5.541
4.371
0.645161290322581
6.956
6.87
6.584
5.839
5.387
4.284
0.67741935483871
6.674
6.548
6.255
5.77
5.342
4.242
0.709677419354839
6.536
6.445
6.166
5.707
5.273
4.147
0.741935483870968
6.457
6.385
6.136
5.624
5.006
4.042
0.774193548387097
6.436
6.153
5.756
5.364
4.98
4.034
0.806451612903226
6.264
5.827
5.569
5.16
4.665
4.015
0.838709677419355
5.934
5.721
5.504
4.922
4.362
3.672
0.870967741935484
5.831
5.336
4.942
4.53
4.34
3.442
0.903225806451613
5.408
5.301
4.928
4.447
3.467
2.61
0.935483870967742
4.464
4.366
4.023
3.473
2.67
1.869
0.967741935483871
3.491
3.39
3.064
2.467
1.656
0.4083
0.1
13.275
13.001
12.317
10.702
9.7698
7.3834
Average
of
yearly
averages:
4.97141
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZFLScE
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLsweetcornC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Page
106
of
206
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.16
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
11
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.
Interval
3
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZORScE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
ORswcornC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
21:
42
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
10
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
1.153
1.123
1.043
0.8989
0.837
0.443
1962
2.127
2.11
2.066
2
1.961
1.3
1963
2.653
2.636
2.582
2.508
2.381
2.045
1964
3.047
3.008
2.874
2.701
2.593
2.382
1965
3.302
3.261
3.124
2.937
2.817
2.631
1966
3.431
3.392
3.258
3.079
2.961
2.789
1967
3.463
3.423
3.287
3.097
2.97
2.827
1968
3.744
3.73
3.674
3.586
3.531
3.102
1969
4.491
4.466
4.382
4.327
4.309
3.626
1970
4.464
4.419
4.28
4.08
4.017
3.885
1971
4.556
4.505
4.361
4.15
4.139
3.904
1972
4.393
4.347
4.206
3.992
3.876
3.746
1973
4.237
4.193
4.053
3.888
3.757
3.649
1974
4.163
4.121
3.985
3.79
3.661
3.526
1975
4.095
4.052
3.914
3.716
3.596
3.439
1976
3.95
3.909
3.769
3.578
3.457
3.199
1977
3.54
3.501
3.369
3.188
3.079
2.898
1978
3.508
3.466
3.34
3.178
3.072
2.858
1979
3.554
3.537
3.483
3.429
3.308
2.92
Page
107
of
206
1980
3.816
3.773
3.635
3.44
3.32
3.127
1981
4.276
4.249
4.192
4.095
4.064
3.429
1982
4.273
4.231
4.097
3.901
3.802
3.622
1983
4.021
3.979
3.882
3.717
3.623
3.386
1984
4.123
4.074
3.933
3.715
3.567
3.338
1985
3.998
3.952
3.81
3.599
3.475
3.353
1986
3.902
3.862
3.746
3.545
3.412
3.233
1987
4.565
4.508
4.299
3.946
3.806
3.373
1988
4.209
4.165
4.025
3.818
3.719
3.544
1989
3.959
3.92
3.786
3.601
3.48
3.347
1990
3.917
3.872
3.732
3.523
3.393
3.284
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
4.565
4.508
4.382
4.327
4.309
3.904
0.0645161290322581
4.556
4.505
4.361
4.15
4.139
3.885
0.0967741935483871
4.491
4.466
4.299
4.095
4.064
3.746
0.129032258064516
4.464
4.419
4.28
4.08
4.017
3.649
0.161290322580645
4.393
4.347
4.206
3.992
3.876
3.626
0.193548387096774
4.276
4.249
4.192
3.946
3.806
3.622
0.225806451612903
4.273
4.231
4.097
3.901
3.802
3.544
0.258064516129032
4.237
4.193
4.053
3.888
3.757
3.526
0.290322580645161
4.209
4.165
4.025
3.818
3.719
3.439
0.32258064516129
4.163
4.121
3.985
3.79
3.661
3.429
0.354838709677419
4.123
4.074
3.933
3.717
3.623
3.386
0.387096774193548
4.095
4.052
3.914
3.716
3.596
3.373
0.419354838709677
4.021
3.979
3.882
3.715
3.567
3.353
0.451612903225806
3.998
3.952
3.81
3.601
3.531
3.347
0.483870967741936
3.959
3.92
3.786
3.599
3.48
3.338
0.516129032258065
3.95
3.909
3.769
3.586
3.475
3.284
0.548387096774194
3.917
3.872
3.746
3.578
3.457
3.233
0.580645161290323
3.902
3.862
3.732
3.545
3.412
3.199
0.612903225806452
3.816
3.773
3.674
3.523
3.393
3.127
0.645161290322581
3.744
3.73
3.635
3.44
3.32
3.102
0.67741935483871
3.554
3.537
3.483
3.429
3.308
2.92
0.709677419354839
3.54
3.501
3.369
3.188
3.079
2.898
0.741935483870968
3.508
3.466
3.34
3.178
3.072
2.858
0.774193548387097
3.463
3.423
3.287
3.097
2.97
2.827
0.806451612903226
3.431
3.392
3.258
3.079
2.961
2.789
0.838709677419355
3.302
3.261
3.124
2.937
2.817
2.631
0.870967741935484
3.047
3.008
2.874
2.701
2.593
2.382
0.903225806451613
2.653
2.636
2.582
2.508
2.381
2.045
0.935483870967742
2.127
2.11
2.066
2
1.961
1.3
0.967741935483871
1.153
1.123
1.043
0.8989
0.837
0.443
0.1
4.4883
4.4613
4.2971
4.0935
4.0593
3.7363
Average
of
yearly
averages:
3.0735
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZORScE
Metfile:
w24232.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
ORswcornC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Page
108
of
206
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
10­
06
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.
Interval
3
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZMIBnE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
MIbeansC.
txt
modified
Monday,
10
May
2004
at
07:
24:
24
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14826.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
38
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
2.402
2.354
2.23
2.041
1.95
0.8785
1962
3.049
3.012
2.876
2.772
2.692
2.109
1963
2.71
2.683
2.639
2.583
2.56
2.359
1964
4.483
4.421
4.187
3.886
3.768
2.914
1965
4.208
4.16
3.985
3.804
3.699
3.351
1966
3.654
3.617
3.522
3.388
3.335
3.216
1967
4.484
4.432
4.251
4.049
3.985
3.383
1968
6.707
6.616
6.278
5.791
5.577
4.396
1969
6.456
6.384
6.177
5.864
5.639
5.037
1970
6.411
6.333
6.046
5.681
5.571
5.029
1971
5.924
5.867
5.702
5.391
5.233
4.892
1972
6.494
6.41
6.103
5.749
5.611
4.923
1973
5.082
5.076
5.053
5.004
4.958
4.591
1974
4.4
4.358
4.263
4.226
4.195
3.958
Page
109
of
206
1975
6.722
6.664
6.571
6.165
5.927
4.452
1976
6
5.934
5.802
5.455
5.271
4.984
1977
5.388
5.328
5.219
5.006
4.864
4.587
1978
4.387
4.349
4.334
4.297
4.27
4.07
1979
5.201
5.138
4.935
4.732
4.566
3.959
1980
6.167
6.079
5.833
5.62
5.457
4.452
1981
5.479
5.456
5.377
5.299
5.243
4.888
1982
5.315
5.263
5.075
4.916
4.882
4.696
1983
5.232
5.17
5.068
4.942
4.82
4.423
1984
4.934
4.884
4.752
4.56
4.468
4.22
1985
5.668
5.601
5.375
5.062
4.928
4.199
1986
6.156
6.107
6.013
5.829
5.742
4.906
1987
5.499
5.457
5.343
5.26
5.214
4.978
1988
5.169
5.121
4.994
4.915
4.848
4.628
1989
5.465
5.427
5.29
5.186
5.118
4.638
1990
4.735
4.715
4.7
4.657
4.621
4.41
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
6.722
6.664
6.571
6.165
5.927
5.037
0.0645161290322581
6.707
6.616
6.278
5.864
5.742
5.029
0.0967741935483871
6.494
6.41
6.177
5.829
5.639
4.984
0.129032258064516
6.456
6.384
6.103
5.791
5.611
4.978
0.161290322580645
6.411
6.333
6.046
5.749
5.577
4.923
0.193548387096774
6.167
6.107
6.013
5.681
5.571
4.906
0.225806451612903
6.156
6.079
5.833
5.62
5.457
4.892
0.258064516129032
6
5.934
5.802
5.455
5.271
4.888
0.290322580645161
5.924
5.867
5.702
5.391
5.243
4.696
0.32258064516129
5.668
5.601
5.377
5.299
5.233
4.638
0.354838709677419
5.499
5.457
5.375
5.26
5.214
4.628
0.387096774193548
5.479
5.456
5.343
5.186
5.118
4.591
0.419354838709677
5.465
5.427
5.29
5.062
4.958
4.587
0.451612903225806
5.388
5.328
5.219
5.006
4.928
4.452
0.483870967741936
5.315
5.263
5.075
5.004
4.882
4.452
0.516129032258065
5.232
5.17
5.068
4.942
4.864
4.423
0.548387096774194
5.201
5.138
5.053
4.916
4.848
4.41
0.580645161290323
5.169
5.121
4.994
4.915
4.82
4.396
0.612903225806452
5.082
5.076
4.935
4.732
4.621
4.22
0.645161290322581
4.934
4.884
4.752
4.657
4.566
4.199
0.67741935483871
4.735
4.715
4.7
4.56
4.468
4.07
0.709677419354839
4.484
4.432
4.334
4.297
4.27
3.959
0.741935483870968
4.483
4.421
4.263
4.226
4.195
3.958
0.774193548387097
4.4
4.358
4.251
4.049
3.985
3.383
0.806451612903226
4.387
4.349
4.187
3.886
3.768
3.351
0.838709677419355
4.208
4.16
3.985
3.804
3.699
3.216
0.870967741935484
3.654
3.617
3.522
3.388
3.335
2.914
0.903225806451613
3.049
3.012
2.876
2.772
2.692
2.359
0.935483870967742
2.71
2.683
2.639
2.583
2.56
2.109
0.967741935483871
2.402
2.354
2.23
2.041
1.95
0.8785
0.1
6.4902
6.4074
6.1696
5.8252
5.6362
4.9834
Average
of
yearly
averages:
4.11755
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Page
110
of
206
Output
File:
PPZMIBnE
Metfile:
w14826.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
MIbeansC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
10­
06
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
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZNCPtE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
NCpeanutC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
12:
46
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w13737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
3.197
3.112
2.767
2.549
2.427
1.146
1962
4.663
4.559
4.238
3.828
3.569
2.437
1963
10.03
9.791
9.339
8.083
7.387
4.666
1964
6.767
6.666
6.363
6.188
5.933
5.113
1965
7.02
6.906
6.495
5.895
5.558
4.645
1966
6.025
5.927
5.657
5.154
4.889
4.22
1967
5.431
5.345
5.034
4.734
4.535
4.025
1968
4.416
4.357
4.167
4.032
3.86
3.456
1969
5.667
5.55
5.174
4.857
4.666
3.504
Page
111
of
206
1970
6.814
6.706
6.447
5.877
5.456
4.061
1971
4.371
4.313
4.172
4.01
3.93
3.67
1972
4.518
4.455
4.358
4.106
3.884
3.235
1973
5.308
5.205
5.047
4.681
4.428
3.348
1974
5.329
5.255
5.108
4.742
4.635
3.644
1975
7.693
7.527
7.022
6.206
5.774
4.24
1976
4.634
4.572
4.457
4.145
4.155
3.884
1977
3.987
3.934
3.739
3.502
3.439
3.218
1978
6.293
6.17
5.752
5.256
4.946
3.561
1979
4.841
4.769
4.508
4.167
4.028
3.523
1980
4.42
4.34
4.052
3.637
3.497
3.212
1981
6.429
6.334
5.838
5.172
4.935
3.713
1982
4.499
4.433
4.32
4.099
4.005
3.563
1983
4.055
3.998
3.827
3.53
3.339
2.957
1984
3.273
3.229
3.085
3.027
2.959
2.555
1985
5.518
5.407
5.187
4.619
4.333
3.015
1986
3.595
3.543
3.353
3.119
3.003
2.727
1987
3.523
3.461
3.235
2.954
2.776
2.338
1988
3.873
3.803
3.558
3.183
3.046
2.387
1989
3.891
3.814
3.556
3.374
3.292
2.583
1990
3.877
3.809
3.617
3.493
3.418
2.726
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
10.03
9.791
9.339
8.083
7.387
5.113
0.0645161290322581
7.693
7.527
7.022
6.206
5.933
4.666
0.0967741935483871
7.02
6.906
6.495
6.188
5.774
4.645
0.129032258064516
6.814
6.706
6.447
5.895
5.558
4.24
0.161290322580645
6.767
6.666
6.363
5.877
5.456
4.22
0.193548387096774
6.429
6.334
5.838
5.256
4.946
4.061
0.225806451612903
6.293
6.17
5.752
5.172
4.935
4.025
0.258064516129032
6.025
5.927
5.657
5.154
4.889
3.884
0.290322580645161
5.667
5.55
5.187
4.857
4.666
3.713
0.32258064516129
5.518
5.407
5.174
4.742
4.635
3.67
0.354838709677419
5.431
5.345
5.108
4.734
4.535
3.644
0.387096774193548
5.329
5.255
5.047
4.681
4.428
3.563
0.419354838709677
5.308
5.205
5.034
4.619
4.333
3.561
0.451612903225806
4.841
4.769
4.508
4.167
4.155
3.523
0.483870967741936
4.663
4.572
4.457
4.145
4.028
3.504
0.516129032258065
4.634
4.559
4.358
4.106
4.005
3.456
0.548387096774194
4.518
4.455
4.32
4.099
3.93
3.348
0.580645161290323
4.499
4.433
4.238
4.032
3.884
3.235
0.612903225806452
4.42
4.357
4.172
4.01
3.86
3.218
0.645161290322581
4.416
4.34
4.167
3.828
3.569
3.212
0.67741935483871
4.371
4.313
4.052
3.637
3.497
3.015
0.709677419354839
4.055
3.998
3.827
3.53
3.439
2.957
0.741935483870968
3.987
3.934
3.739
3.502
3.418
2.727
0.774193548387097
3.891
3.814
3.617
3.493
3.339
2.726
0.806451612903226
3.877
3.809
3.558
3.374
3.292
2.583
0.838709677419355
3.873
3.803
3.556
3.183
3.046
2.555
0.870967741935484
3.595
3.543
3.353
3.119
3.003
2.437
0.903225806451613
3.523
3.461
3.235
3.027
2.959
2.387
0.935483870967742
3.273
3.229
3.085
2.954
2.776
2.338
0.967741935483871
3.197
3.112
2.767
2.549
2.427
1.146
0.1
6.9994
6.886
6.4902
6.1587
5.7524
4.6045
Page
112
of
206
Average
of
yearly
averages:
3.37906666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZNCPtE
Metfile:
w13737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NCpeanutC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.252
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
01­
06
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Interval
1
interval
10
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZNDByE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
NDwheatC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
15:
08
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14914.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
05:
52
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
0.4586
0.4504
0.4262
0.3918
0.374
0.173
1962
1.006
0.9869
0.9248
0.865
0.8362
0.5412
1963
1.166
1.146
1.084
0.9874
0.9401
0.7537
1964
1.048
1.036
0.9933
0.9402
0.9153
0.8257
1965
1.045
1.032
1.005
0.991
0.9763
0.8758
Page
113
of
206
1966
1.122
1.111
1.083
1.038
1.017
0.9132
1967
1.116
1.103
1.056
0.9728
0.9286
0.8672
1968
1.004
0.9923
0.9631
0.8971
0.8591
0.7812
1969
1.598
1.569
1.48
1.336
1.263
0.9393
1970
1.311
1.297
1.247
1.18
1.152
1.035
1971
1.219
1.205
1.179
1.13
1.125
1.061
1972
1.217
1.203
1.151
1.123
1.118
1.045
1973
1.252
1.242
1.212
1.181
1.162
1.041
1974
1.95
1.92
1.813
1.667
1.62
1.272
1975
2.478
2.447
2.287
2.043
1.943
1.57
1976
1.657
1.641
1.585
1.571
1.561
1.4
1977
2.081
2.043
1.907
1.714
1.644
1.358
1978
1.523
1.513
1.46
1.406
1.41
1.343
1979
1.589
1.569
1.506
1.442
1.406
1.275
1980
1.49
1.477
1.429
1.383
1.36
1.239
1981
1.399
1.383
1.328
1.299
1.26
1.187
1982
1.302
1.295
1.26
1.209
1.18
1.095
1983
1.516
1.494
1.447
1.365
1.33
1.165
1984
1.313
1.302
1.269
1.22
1.172
1.104
1985
1.375
1.358
1.315
1.269
1.245
1.128
1986
1.251
1.237
1.206
1.192
1.182
1.095
1987
1.224
1.208
1.154
1.132
1.121
1.038
1988
1.191
1.18
1.144
1.095
1.073
0.9883
1989
1.372
1.357
1.312
1.238
1.204
1.055
1990
1.249
1.236
1.191
1.099
1.074
1.019
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
2.478
2.447
2.287
2.043
1.943
1.57
0.0645161290322581
2.081
2.043
1.907
1.714
1.644
1.4
0.0967741935483871
1.95
1.92
1.813
1.667
1.62
1.358
0.129032258064516
1.657
1.641
1.585
1.571
1.561
1.343
0.161290322580645
1.598
1.569
1.506
1.442
1.41
1.275
0.193548387096774
1.589
1.569
1.48
1.406
1.406
1.272
0.225806451612903
1.523
1.513
1.46
1.383
1.36
1.239
0.258064516129032
1.516
1.494
1.447
1.365
1.33
1.187
0.290322580645161
1.49
1.477
1.429
1.336
1.263
1.165
0.32258064516129
1.399
1.383
1.328
1.299
1.26
1.128
0.354838709677419
1.375
1.358
1.315
1.269
1.245
1.104
0.387096774193548
1.372
1.357
1.312
1.238
1.204
1.095
0.419354838709677
1.313
1.302
1.269
1.22
1.182
1.095
0.451612903225806
1.311
1.297
1.26
1.209
1.18
1.061
0.483870967741936
1.302
1.295
1.247
1.192
1.172
1.055
0.516129032258065
1.252
1.242
1.212
1.181
1.162
1.045
0.548387096774194
1.251
1.237
1.206
1.18
1.152
1.041
0.580645161290323
1.249
1.236
1.191
1.132
1.125
1.038
0.612903225806452
1.224
1.208
1.179
1.13
1.121
1.035
0.645161290322581
1.219
1.205
1.154
1.123
1.118
1.019
0.67741935483871
1.217
1.203
1.151
1.099
1.074
0.9883
0.709677419354839
1.191
1.18
1.144
1.095
1.073
0.9393
0.741935483870968
1.166
1.146
1.084
1.038
1.017
0.9132
0.774193548387097
1.122
1.111
1.083
0.991
0.9763
0.8758
0.806451612903226
1.116
1.103
1.056
0.9874
0.9401
0.8672
0.838709677419355
1.048
1.036
1.005
0.9728
0.9286
0.8257
0.870967741935484
1.045
1.032
0.9933
0.9402
0.9153
0.7812
0.903225806451613
1.006
0.9923
0.9631
0.8971
0.8591
0.7537
Page
114
of
206
0.935483870967742
1.004
0.9869
0.9248
0.865
0.8362
0.5412
0.967741935483871
0.4586
0.4504
0.4262
0.3918
0.374
0.173
0.1
1.9207
1.8921
1.7902
1.6574
1.6141
1.3565
Average
of
yearly
averages:
1.03945333333333
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZNDByE
Metfile:
w14914.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
NDwheatC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
20­
06
dd/
mm
or
dd/
mmm
or
dd­
mm
or
dd­
mmm
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZFLCyE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
FLcarrotC.
txt
modified
Tueday,
28
January
2003
at
15:
47:
50
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
30
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
Page
115
of
206
1961
1.137
1.106
0.9942
0.688
0.4586
0.1131
1962
1.653
1.626
1.453
1.188
0.9616
0.7984
1963
4.523
2.985
2.34
1.755
1.406
1.167
1964
6.332
6.193
5.791
4.317
3.58
2.842
1965
5.009
4.943
4.699
4.356
4.154
3.034
1966
5.166
5.076
4.89
4.626
4.515
3.256
1967
3.399
3.364
3.224
3.12
3.048
2.391
1968
2.441
2.421
2.344
2.227
2.212
1.801
1969
4.002
3.935
3.801
3.148
3.09
2.438
1970
4.94
4.861
4.606
4.316
4.191
3.034
1971
2.57
2.552
2.49
2.375
2.297
1.937
1972
2.484
2.449
2.321
2.184
2.108
1.653
1973
2.145
2.109
2.016
1.966
1.902
1.486
1974
4.761
4.647
4.377
3.823
3.548
2.581
1975
3.728
3.674
3.477
3.158
2.986
2.253
1976
3.075
3.03
2.946
2.68
2.532
2.04
1977
6.685
6.545
6.084
4.171
3.252
2.457
1978
5.778
5.687
5.409
5.051
4.786
3.504
1979
5.136
5.084
4.843
4.433
4.204
3.212
1980
4.96
4.89
4.646
4.419
4.204
3.218
1981
4.142
3.513
3.387
3.289
3.268
2.473
1982
4.206
4.133
3.925
3.528
3.485
2.708
1983
5.529
5.431
5.177
4.688
4.394
3.177
1984
12.17
11.92
11.02
7.415
5.581
3.668
1985
8.299
8.19
7.792
7.129
6.816
4.996
1986
11.49
11.2
10.29
6.497
6.01
4.724
1987
10
9.847
9.264
8.3
7.816
5.456
1988
4.635
4.599
4.513
4.327
4.217
3.158
1989
2.957
2.912
2.633
2.479
2.416
1.977
1990
2.768
2.725
2.597
2.367
2.277
1.709
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
12.17
11.92
11.02
8.3
7.816
5.456
0.0645161290322581
11.49
11.2
10.29
7.415
6.816
4.996
0.0967741935483871
10
9.847
9.264
7.129
6.01
4.724
0.129032258064516
8.299
8.19
7.792
6.497
5.581
3.668
0.161290322580645
6.685
6.545
6.084
5.051
4.786
3.504
0.193548387096774
6.332
6.193
5.791
4.688
4.515
3.256
0.225806451612903
5.778
5.687
5.409
4.626
4.394
3.218
0.258064516129032
5.529
5.431
5.177
4.433
4.217
3.212
0.290322580645161
5.166
5.084
4.89
4.419
4.204
3.177
0.32258064516129
5.136
5.076
4.843
4.356
4.204
3.158
0.354838709677419
5.009
4.943
4.699
4.327
4.191
3.034
0.387096774193548
4.96
4.89
4.646
4.317
4.154
3.034
0.419354838709677
4.94
4.861
4.606
4.316
3.58
2.842
0.451612903225806
4.761
4.647
4.513
4.171
3.548
2.708
0.483870967741936
4.635
4.599
4.377
3.823
3.485
2.581
0.516129032258065
4.523
4.133
3.925
3.528
3.268
2.473
0.548387096774194
4.206
3.935
3.801
3.289
3.252
2.457
0.580645161290323
4.142
3.674
3.477
3.158
3.09
2.438
0.612903225806452
4.002
3.513
3.387
3.148
3.048
2.391
0.645161290322581
3.728
3.364
3.224
3.12
2.986
2.253
0.67741935483871
3.399
3.03
2.946
2.68
2.532
2.04
0.709677419354839
3.075
2.985
2.633
2.479
2.416
1.977
0.741935483870968
2.957
2.912
2.597
2.375
2.297
1.937
Page
116
of
206
0.774193548387097
2.768
2.725
2.49
2.367
2.277
1.801
0.806451612903226
2.57
2.552
2.344
2.227
2.212
1.709
0.838709677419355
2.484
2.449
2.34
2.184
2.108
1.653
0.870967741935484
2.441
2.421
2.321
1.966
1.902
1.486
0.903225806451613
2.145
2.109
2.016
1.755
1.406
1.167
0.935483870967742
1.653
1.626
1.453
1.188
0.9616
0.7984
0.967741935483871
1.137
1.106
0.9942
0.688
0.4586
0.1131
0.1
9.8299
9.6813
9.1168
7.0658
5.9671
4.6184
Average
of
yearly
averages:
2.64205
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZFLCyE
Metfile:
w12844.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLcarrotC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
0.126
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.95
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.05
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
10­
11
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.
Interval
3
interval
7
days
Set
to
0
or
delete
line
for
single
app.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
FEXTRC
0.5
Flag
for
Index
Res.
Run
IR
Pond
Flag
for
runoff
calc.
RUNOFF
none
none,
monthly
or
total(
average
of
entire
run)

stored
as
PPZPATfE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
PAturfC.
txt
modified
Satday,
12
October
2002
at
17:
27:
02
Page
117
of
206
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
06:
12
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
18.49
17.96
16.43
14.14
12.76
5.422
1962
17.43
17.09
16.28
14.86
14.59
11.09
1963
14.5
14.35
13.96
13.28
13.02
11.85
1964
13.63
13.49
13.12
12.55
12.2
11.25
1965
11.45
11.34
10.94
10.61
10.33
9.728
1966
11.16
11.05
10.84
10.43
10.22
9.279
1967
31.13
30.46
28.87
26.29
24.47
15.74
1968
27.51
27.13
25.93
23.97
22.54
18.53
1969
36.34
35.58
32.94
28.89
27.09
20.02
1970
22.3
22.07
21.62
21.42
21.27
19.95
1971
26.61
26.23
25.18
24.27
23.5
19.5
1972
51.46
50.44
47.3
42.46
39.61
28.39
1973
58.01
56.85
52.5
45.82
42.97
34.07
1974
33.9
33.88
33.78
33.52
33.25
30.83
1975
29.17
28.85
28.02
27.34
27.02
25.46
1976
30.45
30.13
28.45
26.52
25.79
22.62
1977
22.93
22.9
22.8
22.58
22.35
20.01
1978
25.2
24.8
23.39
21.5
20.6
17.85
1979
21.18
21.04
20.56
19.87
19.81
18.39
1980
18.05
18.04
17.98
17.83
17.69
15.65
1981
15.74
15.55
15.03
14.28
13.87
12.65
1982
32.75
32.17
30.15
27.05
25.76
18.24
1983
23.92
23.67
23.05
21.4
20.84
19.48
1984
40.8
40.04
37.67
34.98
34.06
24.31
1985
30.72
30.31
29.26
26.94
26.91
24.99
1986
24.56
24.54
24.44
24.22
24
21.59
1987
26.28
25.97
24.88
23.86
23.35
19.89
1988
30.4
29.98
28.92
27.08
26.63
22.4
1989
24.14
23.89
23.24
22.56
22.05
20.53
1990
34.38
33.84
31.88
29.27
28.39
23.02
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
58.01
56.85
52.5
45.82
42.97
34.07
0.0645161290322581
51.46
50.44
47.3
42.46
39.61
30.83
0.0967741935483871
40.8
40.04
37.67
34.98
34.06
28.39
0.129032258064516
36.34
35.58
33.78
33.52
33.25
25.46
0.161290322580645
34.38
33.88
32.94
29.27
28.39
24.99
0.193548387096774
33.9
33.84
31.88
28.89
27.09
24.31
0.225806451612903
32.75
32.17
30.15
27.34
27.02
23.02
0.258064516129032
31.13
30.46
29.26
27.08
26.91
22.62
0.290322580645161
30.72
30.31
28.92
27.05
26.63
22.4
0.32258064516129
30.45
30.13
28.87
26.94
25.79
21.59
0.354838709677419
30.4
29.98
28.45
26.52
25.76
20.53
0.387096774193548
29.17
28.85
28.02
26.29
24.47
20.02
0.419354838709677
27.51
27.13
25.93
24.27
24
20.01
0.451612903225806
26.61
26.23
25.18
24.22
23.5
19.95
0.483870967741936
26.28
25.97
24.88
23.97
23.35
19.89
0.516129032258065
25.2
24.8
24.44
23.86
22.54
19.5
0.548387096774194
24.56
24.54
23.39
22.58
22.35
19.48
0.580645161290323
24.14
23.89
23.24
22.56
22.05
18.53
Page
118
of
206
0.612903225806452
23.92
23.67
23.05
21.5
21.27
18.39
0.645161290322581
22.93
22.9
22.8
21.42
20.84
18.24
0.67741935483871
22.3
22.07
21.62
21.4
20.6
17.85
0.709677419354839
21.18
21.04
20.56
19.87
19.81
15.74
0.741935483870968
18.49
18.04
17.98
17.83
17.69
15.65
0.774193548387097
18.05
17.96
16.43
14.86
14.59
12.65
0.806451612903226
17.43
17.09
16.28
14.28
13.87
11.85
0.838709677419355
15.74
15.55
15.03
14.14
13.02
11.25
0.870967741935484
14.5
14.35
13.96
13.28
12.76
11.09
0.903225806451613
13.63
13.49
13.12
12.55
12.2
9.728
0.935483870967742
11.45
11.34
10.94
10.61
10.33
9.279
0.967741935483871
11.16
11.05
10.84
10.43
10.22
5.422
0.1
40.354
39.594
37.281
34.834
33.979
28.097
Average
of
yearly
averages:
19.0909666666667
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZPATfE
Metfile:
w14737.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
PAturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.9936
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
15­
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
PLDKRT
0.0198
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
119
of
206
stored
as
PPZFLTfE.
out
Chemical:
Propiconazole
PRZM
environment:
FLturfC.
txt
modified
Monday,
16
June
2003
at
14:
48:
06
EXAMS
environment:
pond298.
exv
modified
Thuday,
29
August
2002
at
16:
33:
30
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
modified
Wedday,
3
July
2002
at
09:
04:
28
Water
segment
concentrations
(
ppb)

Year
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
1961
7.986
7.766
7.344
6.431
5.986
3.227
1962
12.62
12.33
11.36
10.25
9.701
6.452
1963
20.75
20.25
18.56
16.13
14.82
10.2
1964
38.52
37.54
34.82
29.43
27.65
17.61
1965
25.32
24.84
23.12
20.54
19.18
15.5
1966
32.35
31.75
30.11
28.06
27.18
19.47
1967
18.7
18.47
17.66
16.93
16.55
15.21
1968
32.03
31.25
29.11
25.83
23.64
15.97
1969
21.42
21.05
20.09
18.92
17.72
14.52
1970
14.51
14.33
13.98
13.36
12.83
10.23
1971
17.75
17.42
16.22
14.48
14.32
10.9
1972
32.99
32.2
29.71
26.72
25.82
17.9
1973
17.04
16.88
16.58
15.93
15.41
12.82
1974
13.22
13.03
12.6
11.92
11.5
9.817
1975
11.56
11.4
11.12
10.3
10.19
8.142
1976
27.79
27.26
26
24.68
23.99
15.29
1977
15.98
15.8
15.15
14.07
13.89
12.53
1978
24.43
23.91
22.55
20.81
20.55
14.32
1979
34.97
34.3
31.25
26.42
25.02
16.81
1980
17.76
17.54
16.8
16.04
15.71
13.14
1981
11.74
11.62
11.25
11
10.85
9.642
1982
24.04
23.58
22.38
20.14
20.27
14.38
1983
26.69
26.2
24.47
22.2
20.86
16.38
1984
39.74
38.91
35.82
31.05
28.66
20.24
1985
19.84
19.62
19.17
17.99
17.85
14.97
1986
15.67
15.4
14.76
13.69
12.91
10.99
1987
19.91
19.54
18.54
17.23
16.07
11.28
1988
10.7
10.55
10.01
9.738
9.66
8.123
1989
12.86
12.59
11.71
10.2
9.413
7.098
1990
7.875
7.778
7.366
7.026
6.731
5.517
Sorted
results
Prob.
Peak
96
hr
21
Day
60
Day
90
Day
Yearly
0.032258064516129
39.74
38.91
35.82
31.05
28.66
20.24
0.0645161290322581
38.52
37.54
34.82
29.43
27.65
19.47
0.0967741935483871
34.97
34.3
31.25
28.06
27.18
17.9
0.129032258064516
32.99
32.2
30.11
26.72
25.82
17.61
0.161290322580645
32.35
31.75
29.71
26.42
25.02
16.81
0.193548387096774
32.03
31.25
29.11
25.83
23.99
16.38
0.225806451612903
27.79
27.26
26
24.68
23.64
15.97
0.258064516129032
26.69
26.2
24.47
22.2
20.86
15.5
0.290322580645161
25.32
24.84
23.12
20.81
20.55
15.29
0.32258064516129
24.43
23.91
22.55
20.54
20.27
15.21
0.354838709677419
24.04
23.58
22.38
20.14
19.18
14.97
Page
120
of
206
0.387096774193548
21.42
21.05
20.09
18.92
17.85
14.52
0.419354838709677
20.75
20.25
19.17
17.99
17.72
14.38
0.451612903225806
19.91
19.62
18.56
17.23
16.55
14.32
0.483870967741936
19.84
19.54
18.54
16.93
16.07
13.14
0.516129032258065
18.7
18.47
17.66
16.13
15.71
12.82
0.548387096774194
17.76
17.54
16.8
16.04
15.41
12.53
0.580645161290323
17.75
17.42
16.58
15.93
14.82
11.28
0.612903225806452
17.04
16.88
16.22
14.48
14.32
10.99
0.645161290322581
15.98
15.8
15.15
14.07
13.89
10.9
0.67741935483871
15.67
15.4
14.76
13.69
12.91
10.23
0.709677419354839
14.51
14.33
13.98
13.36
12.83
10.2
0.741935483870968
13.22
13.03
12.6
11.92
11.5
9.817
0.774193548387097
12.86
12.59
11.71
11
10.85
9.642
0.806451612903226
12.62
12.33
11.36
10.3
10.19
8.142
0.838709677419355
11.74
11.62
11.25
10.25
9.701
8.123
0.870967741935484
11.56
11.4
11.12
10.2
9.66
7.098
0.903225806451613
10.7
10.55
10.01
9.738
9.413
6.452
0.935483870967742
7.986
7.778
7.366
7.026
6.731
5.517
0.967741935483871
7.875
7.766
7.344
6.431
5.986
3.227
0.1
34.772
34.09
31.136
27.926
27.044
17.871
Average
of
yearly
averages:
12.6226
Inputs
generated
by
pe4.
pl
­
8­
August­
2003
Data
used
for
this
run:
Output
File:
PPZFLTfE
Metfile:
w12834.
dvf
PRZM
scenario:
FLturfC.
txt
EXAMS
environment
file:
pond298.
exv
Chemical
Name:
Propiconazole
Description
Variable
Name
Value
Units
Comments
Molecular
weight
mwt
342.23
g/
mol
Henry's
Law
Const.
henry
atm­
m^
3/
mol
Vapor
Pressure
vapr
1.0e­
6
torr
Solubility
sol
110
mg/
L
Kd
Kd
mg/
L
Koc
Koc
648
mg/
L
Photolysis
half­
life
kdp
0
days
Half­
life
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacw
138.4
days
Halfife
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
kbacs
0
days
Halfife
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
asm
69.2
days
Halfife
Hydrolysis:
pH
7
0
days
Half­
life
Method:
CAM
2
integer
See
PRZM
manual
Incorporation
Depth:
DEPI
0
cm
Application
Rate:
TAPP
1.9936
kg/
ha
Application
Efficiency:
APPEFF
0.99
fraction
Spray
Drift
DRFT
0.01
fraction
of
application
rate
applied
to
pond
Application
Date
Date
15­
03
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.
Record
17:
FILTRA
IPSCND
1
UPTKF
Record
18:
PLVKRT
Page
121
of
206
PLDKRT
0.0198
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
122
of
206
Attachment
3:
SCIGROW
Outputs
Wheat
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
36:
7
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.080
2.0
0.160
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.62E­
02
************************************************************************

Seed
Crops
(
Grasses)
and
Pecans
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
36:
34
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.225
4.0
0.900
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
9.11E­
02
************************************************************************
Page
123
of
206
Rice
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
58:
4
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.170
2.0
0.340
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
3.44E­
02
************************************************************************

Peaches
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
37:
16
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.112
5.0
0.562
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
5.70E­
02
************************************************************************
Page
124
of
206
Sweet
Corn
and
Celery
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
37:
33
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.112
4.0
0.450
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
4.56E­
02
************************************************************************

Dry
Beans
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
37:
54
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.112
3.0
0.337
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
3.42E­
02
************************************************************************
Page
125
of
206
Peanuts
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
38:
15
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.225
2.0
0.450
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
4.56E­
02
************************************************************************

Barley
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
38:
51
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
0.112
1.0
0.112
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.14E­
02
************************************************************************
Page
126
of
206
Turf
and
Ornamentals
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
Propiconazole
time
is
5/
27/
2005
6:
35:
26
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
1.780
4.0
7.120
6.04E+
02
53.0
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
7.21E­
01
************************************************************************
Page
127
of
206
Table
A­
1:
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Propiconazole
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
MRID
#=
s
Data
Requirement
Status
(
EFED
#)

161­
1
835.212
Hydrolysis
42238201
(
or
67901)
Satisfied
(
2001981)

161­
2
835.224
Photodegradation
in
Water
41811901
Satisfied
(
2001982)

161­
3
835.241
Photodegradation
on
Soil
41811902
Satisfied
(
2001983)

161­
4
835.237
Photodegradation
in
Air
NA
Not
Required
162­
1
835.41
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
129912*
129914
133375
Satisfied
162­
2
835.42
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
per
262­
3
Satisfied
162­
3
835.44
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
42347902
Satisfied
(
2002000)

162­
4
835.43
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
42347901
Satisfied
(
2001984)

163­
1
835.1240
835.1230
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
41727001
44701801
Satisfied
(
2001986)
(
2001009)

163­
2
835.141
Laboratory
Volatility
NA
Not
Required
163­
3
835.81
Field
Volatility
NA
Not
Required
164­
1
835.61
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
155642
159691
45528702
45528703
Satisfied
164­
2
835.62
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
42560501
42560502
Satisfied
(
2001987)
(
2001988)

164­
3
835.63
Forestry
Dissipation
NA
Not
Required
165­
4
850.173
Accumulation
in
Fish
40963502
Satisfied
201­
1
840.11
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
NA
 

202­
1
840.12
Drift
Field
Evaluation
NA
 

 
Member
of
Spray­
Drift
Task
Force.

*
also
MRIDs:
40424808,
40963501
Page
128
of
206
Appendix
C
 
Formulas
used
to
calculate
EEC
values
Formulas
used
to
calculate
EEC
values
(
8/
08/
01;
version
1.0)

To
calculate
EECs
for
terrestrial
plants
inhabiting
areas
adjacent
to
treatment
sites
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Non­
granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Incorporated
Ground
Application
with
Drift
(
Non­
granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorporation
Depth
(
cm)]
x
Runoff
Value
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.01
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Un­
incorporated
Ground
Application
(
Granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
Incorporated
Ground
Application
without
Drift
(
Granular):

Sheet
Runoff
=
EEC
=
[
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)/
Incorportion
Depth
(
inch)]

x
Runoff
Value
Aerial/
Airblast/
Spray
Chemigation
Applications:

Sheet
Runoff
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
Runoff
Value
x
Application
Efficiency
of
0.6
Drift
=
Application
Rate
(
lb
ai/
A)
x
0.05
Total
Loading
=
EEC
=
Sheet
Runoff
+
Drift
Runoff
Value
=
0.01,
0.02,
or
0.05
when
the
solubility
of
the
chemical
is
<
10
ppm,
10­
100
ppm,
or
>
100
ppm,
respectively
Incorporation
Depth:
Use
the
minimum
incorporation
depth
reported
on
the
label.
Page
129
of
206
Appendix
D
 
Ecological
Toxicity
Tables
Table
1:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Freshwater
Fish
Species
%
a.
i.
96­
hr
LC50,
µ
g/
L
(
confid.
int.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Toxicity
Classification
MRID/
Acc
#,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Rainbow
trout
91
850
(
670
­
1200)
320
M,
S
Highly
toxic
0067923,
Thompso
n.
C.,
1980.
Acceptable
Rainbow
trout
90
5200
(
4000
­
6700)
1500
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132926/
072209,
Hitz,
H.
R.,
1982.
Supplemental
b
Bluegill
sunfish
91
1300
(
1000
­
1800)
1000
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
0067922,
Thompso
n.
C.,
1980.
Acceptable
Bluegill
sunfish
90
5500
(
2500
­
9500)
2000
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132922/
072209,
Hitz,
H.
R.,
1981.
Acceptablec
Catfish
90
4876(
3776
­
6298)
3100
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132930/
077209,
de
Morsier
A.,
1982.
Supplemental
d
Catfish
91
1000
(
930
­
1300)
740
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
067924/
244273,
Thompso
n.
C.,
1980.
Supplemental
e
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
3.6E
Formulated
Producti
Bluegill
sunfish
41.8
3500
(
2800
­
5000)
<
2400
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132922/
072209
132922/
072209132
925,
Sousa,
J.
1983.
Acceptable
Page
130
of
206
Table
1:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Freshwater
Fish
Species
%
a.
i.
96­
hr
LC50,
µ
g/
L
(
confid.
int.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Toxicity
Classification
MRID/
Acc
#,
Author,
Year
Status
Rainbow
trout
41.8
1000
(
900
­
1200)
2200
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132928,
LeBlanc,
G.,
1983.
Acceptable
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
EC
250
(
A­
6079
A)
Formulated
Producti
Bluegill
sunfish
25.2
2470
(
1890
­
2948)
1638
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
172209,
Bathe,
R.,
1979.
Supplementa
lg
Brown
trout
25.2
854
(
705
­
1235)
706
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
172209,
Bathe,
R.,
1979..
Supplementa
lg
Rainbow
trout
25.2
1210
(
1764
­
2520)
1764
N,
S
Moderately
toxic
132927,
Buchanan,
J.,
1980.
Supplementa
lh
Carp
25.2
5292
(
4788
­
5796)
3780
N,
S
Slightly
toxic
132927,
Buchanan,
J.,
1980.
Supplementa
lh
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
CGA­
64250
SCW
125
(
A­
6079
A)
Formulated
Producti
Rainbow
trout
12.5
1650
(
1325
­
2000)
750
N,
S
Slightly
toxic
132927,
Buchanan,
J.,
1980.
Supplementa
lh
Carp
12.5
5750
(
5000
­
6500)
3750
N,
S
Slightly
toxic
132927,
Buchanan,
J.,
1980.
Supplementa
lh
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
metabolite
(
CGA­
98032)

Rainbow
trout
97.4
w:
w
506000
­
M,
S
Practically
non­
toxic
462035­
15,
Rufli,
H.,
1983.
Acceptable
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flowthrough
S=
static.
b
The
test
solutions
were
aerated.
c
The
test
system
was
aerated
and
should
have
been
classified
as
"
supplemental".
d
Although
this
study
was
classified
as
"
core"
(
acceptable)
it
was
not
conducted
with
the
required
test
species
for
"
acceptable"
classification.
e
The
review
noted
that
there
were
discrepancies
between
nominal
and
measured
concentrations
but
did
not
adequately
explain
the
discrepancies.
However,
it
was
not
noted
that
the
test
was
not
conducted
with
the
required
species
to
be
classified
as
"
acceptable".
f
Did
not
test
with
required
species
to
be
classified
as
"
acceptable".
Page
131
of
206
g
Not
tested
with
technical
grade
of
the
active
ingredient.
h
Did
not
test
with
the
required
species,
or
the
technical
grade
of
the
a.
i..,
and
test
systems
were
aerated
I
Based
on
toxicity
conversion
to
100%
ai
Page
132
of
206
Table
2:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Species
%
a.
i.
48­
hr
EC50,
µ
g/
L
(
confid.
int.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Toxicity
Classification
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Daphnia
magna
90
4800
(
3900
­
6200)
260
M,
S
Slightly
toxicb
00067925/
244273,
Forbis,
A.,
1980.
Acceptable
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
3.6E
Formulated
Productb
Daphnia
magna
41.8
1300
(
1070
­
1570)
500
M,
S
Slightly
toxic
132932/
72209,
Suprenant,
D.
C.,
1983.
Acceptable
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flow­
through;
S=
static.
b
Based
on
toxicity
conversion
to
100%
ai
Page
133
of
206
Table
3:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Estuarine
Fish
Species
%
a.
i.
96­
hr
LC50
µ
g/
L
(
confid.
int.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Toxicity
Classification
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Spot
90.7
2244
(
1800
­
2800)
1800
M,
S
moderately
toxic
132921,
Hone
ycutt,
R.
C.,
1981.
Supplement
albc
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
3.6E
Formulated
Product
d
Spot
41.8
3900
­
M,
S
moderately
toxic
132924,
Ward
G.,
1983.
Supplement
alc
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flow­
through;
S=
static.
b
Low
dissolved
oxygen
levels
may
have
contributed
to
mortality
and
the
required
test
species
was
not
used.
c
Although
this
study
was
classified
as
"
core"
(
acceptable)
it
was
not
conducted
with
the
required
test
species
for
"
acceptable"
classification.
d
Based
on
toxicity
conversion
to
100%
ai
Page
134
of
206
Table
4:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Species
%
a.
i.
96­
hr
LC50
µ
g/
L
(
confid.
int.)
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Toxicity
Classification
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Mysid
shrimp
90.7
510
(
370
­
670)
158
M,
S
Highly
toxic
260201,
Hollister,
T.,
1981.
Acceptable
Crayfish
90.7
49,000
(
35,000
­
88,000)
16000
M,
S
Slightly
toxic
132935/
260201,
Elwood
D.
et.
al.,
1981,
T.,
1981.
Supplementa
lb
Eastern
oyster­
Shell
deposition
90.7
1700
(
800
­
3600)
<
380
M,
F­
T
Moderately
toxic
260201,
Ward,
G.
S.,
1982.
Acceptable
Eastern
oysterlarvae
embryo
90.7
3400
(
3100
­
3700)
<
500
M,
F­
T
Moderately
toxic
260201,
Dionne,
E.
et.
al.,
1985.
Acceptable
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Tilt
3.6E
Formulated
Product
c
Mysid
shrimp
41.8
594
(
610
 
209)
108
M,
S
Moderately
toxic
132934/
72209,
Honeycutt,
RC.,
1983.
Supplementa
lh
Eastern
oyster­
Shell
deposition
41.8
113
(
121
­
100)
<
42.6
M,
S
Highly
toxic
132933/
72209,
Honeycutt,
RC.,
1983.
Supplementa
lh
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flow­
through;
S=
static.
b
The
test
was
not
conducted
with
the
required
species
to
be
classified
as
"
acceptable".
c
Based
on
toxicity
conversion
to
100%
ai
Page
135
of
206
Table
5:
Chronic
(
Early­
life)
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Fish
Species
%
a.
i.
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Most
sensitive
parameter
MRID
,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Fathead
minnow
91.7
NA
NA
M,
F­
T
Larval
length
and
weight
417203­
02,
Surprenant,
D.
C.,
1987.
Invalidb
Fathead
minnow
90.7
95
184
M,
F­
T
Mortality,
length
and
weight
072210,
Iley,
E.
S.,
1981.

Acceptable
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flow­
through;
S=
static.
b
The
relative
standard
deviation
of
55%
for
fish
weight
in
one
of
the
controls
was
unacceptable.
The
results
of
this
study
can
not
be
used
in
a
risk
assessment.

Table
6:
Chronic
(
Life­
cycle)
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Invertebrates
Species
%
ai
NOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
LOAEC
(
µ
g/
L)
Study
Propertiesa
Most
sensitive
parameter
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Mysid
shrimp
90.7
205
507
M,
S
Mortality
and
number
of
offspring
072210,
Hollister,
T.,
1981.
Acceptable
a
M=
mean­
measured
chemical
concentrations,
N=
nominal
chemical
concentrations;
F­
T=
flow­
through;
S=
static.

Table
7:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Aquatic
Plants
Species
%
a.
i.
EC50,
(
µ
g
ai/
L)
NOAEC/
EC05
(
µ
g/
L)
a.
i.
Most
sensitive
parameter
Initial/
mean
measured
concentrations
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Vascular
Plant
Page
136
of
206
Table
7:
Acute
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Aquatic
Plants
Species
%
a.
i.
EC50,
(
µ
g
ai/
L)
NOAEC/
EC05
(
µ
g/
L)
a.
i.
Most
sensitive
parameter
Initial/
mean
measured
concentrations
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)

90.7
4828
(
4203
­
4828)
<
2540
/
Frond
count
mean
133363
Hollister
,
T.,
1981.
Supplementa
la
Nonvascular
Plants
Green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)

90.7
1574
(
1453
­
1783)
<
511
Dry
cell
weight
mean
132937,
Holliste
r,
T.,
1981.
Supplementa
la
Freshwater
diatom
(
Navicula
pelliculosa)
90.7
93
(
46
­
187)
51
Dry
cell
weight
mean
132938,
Hollister,
T.,
1981.
Acceptable
Blue­
green
algae
(
Anabaena
flosaquae
90.7
8636
(
7541
 
9818)
<
2940
Dry
cell
weight
mean
133362
,
Hollister,
T.,
1981.
Supplementa
la
Marine
diatom
(
Skeletonema
costatum)
90.7
21
(
14
­
31)
<
18
Growth
rate
&
Plant
biomass
mean
132939
,
Hollister,
T.,
1981.
Supplementa
la
a
A
definitive
NOEC
was
not
determined.

Table
8:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Propiconazole
to
Birds
(
oral
administration)

Species
%
a.
i.
LD50,
mg/
kg­
bw
(
conf.
interval)
NOAEC,
mg/
kgbw
Effects
Toxicity
Classification
(
based
on
a.
i.)
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

Bobwhite
quail
91
2825
(
2044
­
25069)
631
Lethargy,
loss
of
coordination,
lower
limb
weakness,
wing
droop,
body
weight
gain..
Practically
nontoxic
00079689,
(
Accession
#
244273),
Beavers,
J.,
1980.
Acceptable
Mallard
Duck
91
>
2510
>
2510
Lethargy
(
but
full
recovery
after
6
hours)
Practically
nontoxic
00067926,
(
Accession
#
244273),
Beavers,
J.,
1980.
Acceptable
Page
137
of
206
Table
9:
Acute
Toxicity
to
Propiconazole
to
Birds
(
dietary
administration)

Species
%
a.
i.
LC50,
mg/
kgdiet
(
conf.
interval)
NOAEC,
mg/
kg­
diet
Effects
Toxicity
Classificatio
n
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

B
obwhite
quail
91
>
5620
>
5620
Reduction
in
feed
consumption
and
body
weight
gain
Practically
non­
toxic
00097690,
(
Accessio
n
#
244273),
Beavers,
J.,
1980.
Acceptable
M
allard
duck
90.8
>
5620
1780
Reduction
in
feed
consumption
and
body
weight
gain
Practically
non­
toxic
00067927,
Accession
#
072210,
Beavers,
J.,
1980.
Acceptable
P
eking
duck
93
>
1000
>
1000
No
sub­
lethal
effects
were
observed.
Practically
non­
toxic
133367,
Accession
#
072210,
Ullmann,
L.,
1978.
Supplemental
a
Bobwhite
quail
90.7
>
4640
>
4640
No
sub­
lethal
effects
were
noted
in
the
study.
Practically
non­
toxic
Accession
#
072210
Beavers,
J.,
1980.
Supplemental
a
Japanese
quail
93
>
1000
>
1000
No
sub­
lethal
effects
were
observed.
Practically
non­
toxic
133366,
Accession
#
072210,
Ullmann,
L.,
1978.
Supplemental
ab
a
Did
not
test
with
required
species
to
be
classified
as
"
acceptable".
b
Sub­
acute
feeding
­
reproduction
study.
Six
birds
were
tested
at
each
dose
level
for
eight
weeks.
Page
138
of
206
Table
10:
Avian
Developmental
and
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Propiconazole
Test
Type
%
a.
i.
NOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kgdiet
LOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kgdiet
Effects
MRID
#,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

One­
generation
reproductive
­
Bobwhite
quail
90.7
1000
mg/
kg)
>
1000
mg/
kg
bw/
da)
b
No
effects
were
observed
at
any
of
the
test
levels.

No
treatment
related
effects
were
observed
at
any
of
the
test
levels.
One
mortality
occurred
at
1000
mg/
kg
concentration.
00133369,
Beavers,
J.
B.,
1982.
Acceptable
Table
10:
Mammalian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
to
Propiconazole
Species
%
a.
i.
LD50
(
mg
a.
i./
kg­
bw)
Toxicity
Classification
MRID
#,
Author,
Year
Statusa
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

laboratory
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
93
1517
(
958
­
2291)
Category
III
0058591,
Bathe,
R.
1978.
Acceptable
laboratory
mouse
93
1490
(
1138
­
1875)
Category
III
0058592,
Bathe,
R.
1978.
Acceptable
Chinese
hamster
93
3006
(
2152
­
3943)
Category
III
0058593,
Bathe,
R.
1978.
Acceptable
Rabbit
93
1344
(
1062
­
1710)
Category
III
0058594,
Sachsse,
K;
Ulmann,
L.
1978.
Acceptable
a
Status
(
acceptability)
based
on
HEDs
guidelines.
Page
139
of
206
Table
11:
Mammalian
Developmental
and
Chronic
Toxicity
to
Propiconazole
Test
Type
%
a.
i.
NOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kgdiet
LOAEC
(
mg
ai/
kgdiet
Effects
MRID
#,
Author,
Year
Statusa
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
(
CGA­
64250)

2­
generation
reproductive
(
rats)
89.7
500
ppm
(
43­
52
mg/
kg
bw/
da)
b
2500
(
192­
263
mg/
kg
bw/
da)
b
­
No
clinical
mortality
­
Reduced
Body
weight
gains
in
F0
and
F1
generations
­
Hepatic
"
clear
cell
change"
in
F0
generation
at
mid
doses
(
NOAEC
=
100ppm,
LOAEC
=
500
ppm)
­
decreased
offspring
survival
and
body
weights
and
an
increased
incidence
of
hepatic
lesions
(
cellular
swelling)
at
2500
ppm
in
F1b
and
F2b
generations
00163164,
00151514,
Borders,
CK;
Salmon,
CM.
1985.
Acceptable
a
Status
(
acceptability)
based
on
HEDs
guidelines.
b
Based
on
decreased
offspring
survival
and
body
weights
and
an
increased
incidence
of
hepatic
lesions
(
cellular
swelling)

Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
plant
testing
(
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor)
is
required
for
herbicides
that
have
terrestrial
non­
residential
outdoor
use
patterns
and
that
may
move
off
the
application
site
through
volatilization
(
vapor
pressure
>
1.0
x
10­
5mm
Hg
at
25oC)
or
drift
(
aerial
or
irrigation)
and/
or
that
may
have
endangered
or
threatened
plant
species
associated
with
the
application
site.

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).

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

Tier
1
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
at
a
test
level
that
is
equal
to
the
highest
use
rate
(
expressed
as
lbs
ai/
A).
If
effects
are
observed
in
this
test,
the
registrant
is
required
to
proceed
to
the
Tier
2
level.

Terrestrial
Tier
2
studies
are
required
for
all
low
dose
herbicides
(
those
with
the
maximum
use
rate
of
0.5
lbs
ai/
A
or
less)
and
any
pesticide
showing
a
negative
response
equal
to
or
greater
than
25%
in
Tier
1
tests.
The
registrant
may
opt
to
proceed
directly
to
Tier
2
testing.
Page
140
of
206
Tier
2
tests
measure
the
response
of
plants,
relative
to
a
control,
and
five
or
more
test
concentrations.
Results
of
Tier
1
and
2
toxicity
testing
on
the
technical/
TEP
material
are
tabulated
below.

Table
17:
Toxicity
of
Propiconazole
to
Terrestrial
Plants
(
Seedling
Emergence
­
Tier
2)

Species
%
a.
i.
EC25,
(
lbs
ai/
acre)
NOAEC/
EC05
(
lbs
ai/
acre)
Most
sensitive
parameter
MRID,
Author,
Year
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
Monocot
onion
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence
Supplement
al
corn
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
shoot
length,
dry
weight,
Supplement
al
oat
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence
Supplement
al
ryegrass
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
shoot
length,
dry
weight,
Supplement
al
Dicot
soybean
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
shoot
length,
dry
weight,
Supplement
al
carrot
(
root
crop
>
1.5
1.5/
shoot
length,
dry
weight
Supplement
al
lettuce
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
dry
weight
Supplement
al
cucumber
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
shoot
length,
dry
weight
Supplement
al
Tomato
>
1.5
1.5/
emergence,
shoot
length,
dry
weight
Supplement
al
cabbage
92.0
0.18
0.056/
plant
dry
weight
416732­
03,
Maggio,
R.
M..,
1990.

Acceptable
Page
141
of
206
Page
143
of
206
Table
18:
Toxicity
of
Propiconizole
to
Terrestrial
Plants
(
Vegetative
Vigor
­
Tier
2)

Species
%
a.
i.
EC25,

(
lbs
ai/
acre)
NOAEC
/

EC05
(
lbs
ai/
acre)
Most
sensitive
parameter
MRID
Status
EPA
PC
Code:
122101
­
Propiconazole
Technical
Monocot1
onion
0.334
0.056
Plant
height
Acceptable
corn
0.968
0.167
Plant
height
Acceptable
oat
ND1
0.5
Plant
height
Supplemental
ryegrass
0.315
0.0185
Plant
height
Acceptable
Dicot
soybean
0.16
0.056/
Plant
height
Acceptable
carrot
(
root
crop)
ND1
1.5
dry
weight
Supplemental
lettuce2
ND1
1.5
dry
weight
Supplemental
cucumber
0.787
0.167
dry
weight
Acceptable
tomato2
ND1
0.167
shoot
length
Supplemental
cabbage
92.0
0.039
0.056
Plant
dry
weight
416732­

01,
Maggio,
R
.
M.,
1990.
Acceptable
1Tier
2
tests
will
need
to
be
performed
to
determine
the
most
sensitive
monocot
species.

2Conducted
as
Tier
2
tests,
appeared
to
be
unaffected
by
the
treatments.
Page
144
of
206
Appendix
E
 
RQ
Tables
Table
1
.
Aquatic
Organism
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
to
Turf
(
Maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
10
days
interval
between
applications)

Aquatic
Animal
Acute
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Chronic
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
21_
day
Average
Water
Concentration
(:
g/
L)
60_
day
Average
Water
Concentration
(
g/
L)
Chronic
RQ
Freshwater
fish
850
95
40.35
0.05*
N/
A
34.8
0.36
Freshwater
Invertebrate
4800
2.5
40.35
0.008
37.3
N/
A
0.18
Estuarine
fish
2244
N/
A
40.35
0.02
N/
A
N/
A
­

Estuarine
invertebrate
510
205
40.35
0.08*
N/
A
N/
A
0.67
Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
***
Acute
High
Risk
0.5
**
Acute
Restricted
Use
0.1
*
Acute
Endangered
Species
0.05
Chronic
Risk
1
Page
145
of
206
Table
2
.
Aquatic
Organism
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
to
Rice
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Aquatic
Animal
Acute
Toxicity
(
µ
g/
L)
Chronic
Toxicity
(
µ
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Conc.

(
µ
g/
L)
60­
day
water
conc.

(
µ
g/
L)
30­
day
water
conc.

(
µ
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
Chronic
RQ
Freshwater
fish
850
95
86.49
17.81
­
0.1**
<
1
Freshwater
Invertebrate
4800
N/
A
86.49
­
34.24
0.02
N/
A
Estuarine
fish
2244
N/
A
86.49
17.81
­
0.04
N/
A
Estuarine
invertebrate
510
205
86.49
­
34.24
0.17**
0.16
Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
***
Acute
High
Risk
0.5
**
Acute
Restricted
Use
0.1
*
Acute
Endangered
Species
0.05
+
Chronic
Risk
1
Table
3.
Aquatic
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
to
Turf
(
Maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
10
days
interval
between
applications)
Page
146
of
206
Plant
type
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Listed
Species
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
Listed
Species
RQ
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibbaI)
4828
<
2540
40.35
0.008
>
0.016
Nonvascular
Plants
Freshwater
Aquatic
Plants
93
51
40.35
0.43
0.79
40.35
1.92
*
>
2.24
**

Estuarine
Aquatic
Plants
21
<
18
34.88
1.66*
>
1.93**

Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
*
Acute
risk
1
**
Acute
Listed
Species
1
Table
4.
Aquatic
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
to
Rice
(

Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Plant
type
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Listed
Species
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
Listed
Species
RQ
Vascular
Plants
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
4828
<
2540
86.49
0.02
>
0.03
Nonvascular
Plants
Freshwater
Aquatic
Plants
93
51
86.49
0.93
1.7**

Estuarine
Aquatic
21
<
18
86.49
4.12
*
>
4.81
**
Page
147
of
206
Table
4.
Aquatic
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Multiple
Aerial
Applications
to
Rice
(

Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Plant
type
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Listed
Species
Toxicity
(:
g/
L)
Peak
Water
Concentration
(:
g/
L)
Acute
RQ
Listed
Species
RQ
Plants
86.49
4.12
*
>
7.81
**

Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
*
Acute
risk
1
**
Acute
Listed
Species
1
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

20
2035
31
0.02
11
0.01
100
2591
18
0.01
6
0.00
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
8
0.00
3
0.00
20
2035
14
0.01
5
0.00
100
2591
8
0.00
3
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
3.6
0.00
1
0.00
20
2035
17
0.01
6
0.00
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
100
2591
10
0.00
3
0.00
Page
148
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
1000
3660
4
0.00
1.5
0.00
20
2035
1.9
0.00
0.9
0.00
100
2591
1.1
0.00
0.5
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
0.49
0.00
0.2
0.00
Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval
between
applications)

20
2035
54
0.03
19
0.01
100
2591
31
0.01
11
0.00
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
14
0.00
5
0.00
20
2035
25
0.01
8
0.00
100
2591
14
0.01
5
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
6
0.00
2
0.00
20
2035
30
0.01
10
0.00
100
2591
17
0.01
6
0.00
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
8
0.00
3
0.00
20
2035
3.4
0.00
1.6
0.00
100
2591
1.9
0.00
0.9
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
0.86
0.00
0.4
0.00
Pecan,
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

Short
grass
2825
20
2035
170
0.08
****
60
0.03
Page
149
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
100
2591
97
0.04
34
0.01
1000
3660
43
0.01
15
0.00
20
2035
78
0.04
26
0.01
100
2591
44
0.02
15
0.01
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
20
0.01
7
0.00
20
2035
96
0.05
32
0.02
100
2591
55
0.02
18
0.01
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
24
0.01
8
0.00
20
2035
11
0.01
5
0.00
100
2591
6
0.00
3
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
3
0.00
1
0.00
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
4
day
intervals
between
applications)

20
2035
59
0.03
21
0.01
100
2591
34
0.01
12
0.00
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
15
0.00
5
0.00
20
2035
27
0.01
9
0.00
100
2591
15
0.01
5
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
7
0.00
2
0.00
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
20
2035
33
0.02
11
0.01
Page
150
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
100
2591
19
0.01
6
0.00
1000
3660
9
0.00
3
0.00
20
2035
3
0.00
1.7
0.00
100
2591
2
0.00
0.98
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
1
0.00
0.44
0.00
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)

20
2035
112
0.06
****
40
0.02
100
2591
64
0.02
23
0.01
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
29
0.01
10
0.00
20
2035
51
0.03
17
0.01
100
2591
29
0.01
10
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
13
0.00
4
0.00
20
2035
63
0.03
21
0.01
100
2591
36
0.01
12
0.00
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
16
0.00
5
0.00
20
2035
7
0.00
3
0.00
100
2591
4
0.00
2
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
2
0.00
1
0.00
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
017
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
intervals
between
applications)
Page
151
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
20
2035
85
0.04
*
30
0.01
100
2591
48
0.02
17
0.01
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
22
0.01
8
0.00
20
2035
39
0.02
13
0.01
100
2591
22
0.01
7
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
9.9
0.00
3
0.00
20
2035
48
0.02
16
0.01
100
2591
27
0.01
9
0.00
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
12
0.00
4
0.00
20
2035
5
0.00
2.5
0.00
100
2591
3
0.00
1.4
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
1.4
0.00
0.6
0.00
Stone
fruits
 
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)

20
2035
127
0.06
***
45
0.02
100
2591
73
0.03
26
0.01
Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
33
0.01
11
0.00
20
2035
58
0.03
19
0.01
100
2591
33
0.01
11
0.00
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
15
0.00
5
0.00
Page
152
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
20
2035
72
0.04
24
0.01
100
2591
41
0.02
14
0.01
Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
18
0.00
6
0.00
20
2035
8
0.00
4
0.00
100
2591
5
0.00
2
0.00
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
2
0.00
1
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

20
2035
1482
0.70
*
525
0.26
**

100
2591
845
0.31
**
299
0.12
**

Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
378
0.10
***
134
0.04
20
2035
679
0.32
**
222
0.11
**

100
2591
388
0.14
***
127
0.05
****

Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
173
0.05
57
0.02
20
2035
833
0.41
**
278
0.14
***

100
2591
475
0.18
***
159
0.06
****

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
213
0.04
71
0.02
20
2035
93
0.03
43
0.02
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
100
2591
53
0.01
25
0.01
Page
153
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
1000
3660
24
0.00
11
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

20
2035
1346
0.63
*
477
0.23
**

100
2591
768
0.30
**
272
0.11
***

Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
344
0.1
***
121
0.03
20
2035
617
0.29
**
202
0.1
***

100
2591
352
0.13
***
115
0.04
Tall
grass
2825
1000
3660
158
0.04
51
0.01
20
2035
757
0.37
**
253
0.12
***

100
2591
432
0.17
***
144
0.06
****

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
194
0.05
****
64
0.02
20
2035
84
0.04
39
0.02
100
2591
48
0.03
22
0.01
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
21
0.01
10
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

20
2035
1159
0.54
*
411
0.20
**

100
2591
661
0.24
**
234
0.09
****

Short
grass
2825
1000
3660
296
0.1
****
105
0.03
Tall
grass
2825
20
2035
531
0.25
**
174
0.09
****
Page
154
of
206
Table
5:
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
(
based
on
multiple
and
single
applications
an
LD50
of
2825
mg
ai/
kg­
BW)

Predicted
Maximum
Residues
Predicted
Mean
Residues
Food
Type
LD50
Weight
Class
Adjusted
LD50
Exposure
(
mg/

kgbw
Acute
RQ
Exposure
(
mg/
kg­
BW)
Acute
RQ
100
2591
303
0.11
***
99
0.04
1000
3660
136
0.04
44
0.01
20
2035
652
0.32
**
218
0.11
***

100
2591
372
0.14
***
124
0.05
****

Broadleaf
forage,
small
insects
2825
1000
3660
166
0.05
****
55
0.02
20
2035
72
0.04
34
0.02
100
2591
41
0.02
19
0.01
Fruit,
pods,
seeds,
Large
insects
2825
1000
3660
18
0.01
9
0.00
*
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Endangered
Species
Level
of
Concern
(
LOC);
RQ
>
0.10.

**
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Acute
Restricted
Use
LOC;
RQ
>
0.20.

***
indicates
an
exceedance
of
Acute
Risk
LOC;
RQ
>
1.0.

*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
7­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Page
155
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Short
Grass
27.00
Tall
Grass
12.38
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
15.19
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
1.69
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.00
0.03
Tall
Grass
0.00
0.01
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.00
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
Wheat
(
maximum
01125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval
between
applications)

Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
47.46
Tall
Grass
21.75
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
26.70
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
2.97
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
RQs
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.01
0.05
Tall
Grass
0.00
0.02
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.00
0.03
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
Pecan,
grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)
Page
156
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
149.44
Tall
Grass
68.50
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
84.06
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
9.34
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.03
0.15
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.07
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.01
0.08
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.01
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)
Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
101.87
Tall
Grass
46.69
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
57.30
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
6.37
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.02
0.10
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.01
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.01
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)
Page
157
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
98.30
Tall
Grass
45.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
55.29
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
6.14
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.02
0.10
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.01
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.01
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.17
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
between
applications)

Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
74.27
Tall
Grass
34.04
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
41.78
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
4.64
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.01
0.07
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.03
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.01
0.04
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.00
Stone
fruits
 
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
Page
158
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
111.83
Tall
Grass
51.26
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
62.91
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
6.99
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.02
0.11
Tall
Grass
0.01
0.05
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.01
0.06
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.00
0.01
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
1300.97
Tall
Grass
596.28
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
731.79
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
81.31
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.23**
1.30+*

Tall
Grass
0.11*
0.60
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.13*
0.73
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.01
0.08
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)
Page
159
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
1182.27
Tall
Grass
541.87
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
665.03
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
73.89
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.21**
1.18+*

Tall
Grass
0.10*
0.54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.12*
0.67
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.01
0.07
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

Kenaga
Dietary­
based
EECs
(
ppm)
Values
Short
Grass
1017.68
Tall
Grass
466.44
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
572.44
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
63.60
RQs
Dietary­
based
RQs
(
Dietary­
based
EEC/
LC50
or
NOAEC)
Acute
Chronic
Short
Grass
0.18*
1.02+*

Tall
Grass
0.08*
0.47
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
Insects
0.10*
0.57
Fruits/
pods/
seeds/
lg
insects
0.01
0.06
Risk
Presumption
Level
of
Concern
Page
160
of
206
Table
6.
Avian
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
Dietary
LC50
of
>
5620
mg/
kg­
diet
an
Chronic
NOAEC
of
1000
mg/
kg­
diet
*
Listed
species
0.1
**
Restricted
Use
0.2
***
Acute
Risk
0.5
+
Chronic
Risk
1.0
EEC
calculated
from
T­
REX
using
35
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life.

*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
7­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

Table
7.
Herbivorous/
Insectivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Herbivore/
Insectivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Adjusted
LD50
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Multiple
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Single
App.

Forage/
Sm
all
Insect
RQ
Multiple
app.
Forage/
S
mall
Insect
RQ
Single
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
Multiple
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

15
0.95
729
25
14
1.6
0.02
0.01
0.001
35
0.66
0.01
0.007
0.0008
1000
0.15
0.003
0.0017
0.0002
Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval
between
applications)

15
0.95
729
26
45
14
25
1.6
3
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
35
0.66
18
31
10
18
1.1
2
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
1000
0.15
4
7
2
2
0.26
0.45
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Pecan,
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

15
0.95
729
51
142
29
80
3.2
8.91
0.03
0.09***

*
0.02
0.05***

*
0.00
0.01
35
0.66
36
98
20
55
2.2
6.15
0.03
0.08***

*
0.02
0.041
0.00
0.00
1000
0.15
8
23
5
13
0.5
1.3
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.00
0.00
Page
161
of
206
Table
7.
Herbivorous/
Insectivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Herbivore/
Insectivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Adjusted
LD50
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Multiple
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Single
App.

Forage/
Sm
all
Insect
RQ
Multiple
app.
Forage/
S
mall
Insect
RQ
Single
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
Multiple
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

15
0.95
729
25
50
14
28
1.6
3.1
0.08
0.03
0.04
0.03
0.005
0.01
35
0.66
0.053
0.02
0.03
0.01
0.003
0.01
1000
0.15
0.012
0.00
0.007
0.00
0.0008
0.00
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)

15
0.95
729
54
93.72
30
52.72
3.4
5.86
0.04
0.06***

*
0.02
0.00
0.002
0.00
35
0.66
0.027
0.05***

*
0.014
0.00
0.0016
0.00
1000
0.15
0.006
0.03
0.003
0.00
0.0004
0.00
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

15
0.95
729
54
77.09
30
43.37
3.4
4.82
0.04
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.002
0.00
35
0.66
0.03
0.02
0.015
0.00
0.002
0.00
1000
0.15
0.00
0.00
0.003
0.00
0.0008
0.00
stone
fruits
 
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)

15
0.95
729
27
112
15
63
1.69
7
0.02
0.08***

*
0.01
0.04
0.001
0.00
35
0.66
0.027
0.06***

*
0.007
0.03
0.0008
0.00
1000
0.15
0.003
0.013
0.002
0.007
0.0002
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

15
0.95
729
427
1301
240
732
27
81
0.30**
0.91*
0.17***
0.51***
0.02
0.06
35
0.66
0.21**
0.58*
0.12***
0.36**
0.013
0.04
Page
162
of
206
Table
7.
Herbivorous/
Insectivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Herbivore/
Insectivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Adjusted
LD50
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Short
Grass
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Forage/
Small
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Large
Insect
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Multiple
App.
Short
Grass
RQ
Single
App.

Forage/
Sm
all
Insect
RQ
Multiple
app.
Forage/
S
mall
Insect
RQ
Single
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
Multiple
App.
Large
Insect
RQ
1000
0.15
0.048
0.15***
0.027
0.08***

*
0.003
0.009
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

15
0.95
729
427
1182
240
665
27
74
0.3**
0.7*
0.17***
0.4**
0.02
0.05
35
0.66
0.21**
0.58*
0.12***
0.34**
0.013
0.036
1000
0.15
0.048
0.32**
0.027
0.18***
0.003
0.008
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

15
0.95
729
427
1008
240
572
27
64
0.3*
0.61*
0.17***
0.34**
0.02
0.045
35
0.66
0.21**
0.50*
0.12***
0.28**
0.013
0.031
1000
0.15
0.048
0.28***
0.027
0.16***
0.003
0.007
RQ
=
Residue/(
Toxicity
/
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed)

Risk
Presumption
*
Acute
High
Risk
**
Acute
Restricted
Use
***
Acute
Endangered
Species
RQ
Level
of
Concern
0.5
0.2
0.1
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
7­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

Table
8.
Granivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Granivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Acute
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Seed
RQ
Multiple
App.

Seed
RQ
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

15
0.21
729
1.6
­
0.0003
Page
163
of
206
Table
8.
Granivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Granivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Acute
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Seed
RQ
Multiple
App.

Seed
RQ
35
0.15
0.00017
1000
0.03
0.000036
Wheat
(
maximum
0.08
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval
between
applications)

15
0.21
729
2.1
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

15
0.21
729
3.4
19.8
0.0005
0.0031
35
0.15
0.00038
0.0022
1000
0.03
0.000076
0.0004
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

15
0.21
729
6.75
25
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)

15
0.21
729
3.4
8.41
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

15
0.21
729
3.4
8.41
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
Page
164
of
206
Table
8.
Granivorous
Mammal
Acute
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
for
Single
and
Multiple
Applications
Based
on
the
Mouse
LD50
of
729
mg/
kg­
bw
Granivore
Weight
Class
(
g)
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed
Daily
Acute
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
bw)
Single
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Multiple
App.

Seed
Residue
(
mg/
kg)
Single
App.

Seed
RQ
Multiple
App.

Seed
RQ
stone
fruits
 
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)

15
0.21
729
1.69
7
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

15
0.21
27
81
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

15
0.21
729
27
74
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

15
0.21
729
27
64
0.00
0.00
35
0.15
0.00
0.00
1000
0.03
0.00
0.00
RQ
=
Residue/(
Toxicity
/
Fraction
Bodyweight
Consumed)

Risk
Presumption
Acute
High
Risk
Acute
Restricted
Use
Acute
Endangered
Species
RQ
Level
of
Concern
0.5
0.2
0.1
Page
165
of
206
Table
9.
Mammal
Reproduction
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Chronic
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Single
Application
Reproduction
RQ
Multiple
Application
Reproduction
RQ
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

short
grass
27
­
500
0.05
­

tall
grass
12
­
0.024
­

broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
15
­
0.03
­

fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
1.6
­
0.003
­

Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)

short
grass
19
34
500
0.038
0.068
tall
grass
8.8
15
0.018
0.03
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
11
19
0.022
0.038
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
1.2
2.1
0.0024
0.0042
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

short
grass
54
149
500
0.11
0.298
tall
grass
25
69
0.05
0.138
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
30
84
0.06
0.168
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
3.4
9.34
0.0068
0.019
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

short
grass
108
101.87
500
0.216
0.20
tall
grass
50
46.69
0.1
0.09
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
61
57.3
0.12
0.11
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
25
6.37
0.05
0.01
Peanut
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
day
interval)

short
grass
54
454
500
0.11
0.91
tall
grass
25
208
0.05
0.42
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
30
256
0.06
0.51
Page
166
of
206
Table
9.
Mammal
Reproduction
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Chronic
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Single
Application
Reproduction
RQ
Multiple
Application
Reproduction
RQ
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
3.4
28
0.0068
0.06
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

short
grass
54
454
500
0.11
0.91
tall
grass
25
208
0.05
0.42
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
30
256
0.06
0.51
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
3.4
28
0.0068
0.06
stone
fruits
 
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)

short
grass
27
112
500
0.05
0.224
tall
grass
12
51
0.024
0.1
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
15
63
0.03
0.13
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
1.69
7
0.003
0.014
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1301
500
0.85
2.6
 
tall
grass
196
596
0.39
0.92
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
732
0.48
1.4
 
fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
81
0.054
0.16
turf
and
ornamentals
 
lawns
and
turf,
golf
course
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
14
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1182
500
0.85
2.3
 
tall
grass
196
542
0.39
1.1
 *

broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
665
0.48
1.33
 *

fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
74
0.054
0.148
turf
and
ornamentals
sod
farm
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
21
day
intervals)

short
grass
427
1008
500
0.85
2.0
 *

tall
grass
196
466
0.39
2.0
 *
Page
167
of
206
Table
9.
Mammal
Reproduction
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
based
on
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
Wildlife
Food
Item
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Single
Application
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Wildlife
Food
Item
Residue
Multiple
Applications
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Chronic
Threshold
(
mg/
kg_
diet)
Single
Application
Reproduction
RQ
Multiple
Application
Reproduction
RQ
broadleaf
forage/
small
insects
240
572
0.48
1.14
 *

fruit,
pods,
seeds,
large
insects
27
64
0.054
0.128
(
i)
RQ
=
Residue/
Toxicity
Threshold
Risk
Presumption
RQ
Level
of
Concern
 
Chronic
Risk
1
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
7­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.

Table
10.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
quotients
for
propiconazole
when
dietary
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
is
converted
to
a
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
a
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion1
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
25
55
0.47
17
44.5
.40
4
19.2
0.21
Tall
Grass
11
55
0.21
8
44.5
.018
1
19.2
0.10
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
14
55
0.26
10
44.5
0.23
2
19.2
0.12
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
1
55
0.03
1
44.5
0.03
0.3
19.2
0.01
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.36
55
0.01
0.25
44.5
0.01
0.06
19.2
0.00
Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)

Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Page
168
of
206
Table
10.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
quotients
for
propiconazole
when
dietary
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
is
converted
to
a
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
a
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion1
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
454
55
0.82
31
44.5
0.70
7
19.2
0.38
Tall
Grass
21
55
0.32
14
44.5
0.32
3
19.2
0.17
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
25
55
0.46
18
44.5
0.40
4
19.2
0.21
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
2.8
55
0.05
2
44.5
0.04
0.45
19.2
0.02
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.63
55
0.01
0.43
44.5
0.01
0.10
19.2
0.01
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
95
55
1.8+
67
44.5
1.9+
16
19.2
0.81
Tall
Grass
45
55
0.81
31
44.5
0.69
7
19.2
0.37
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
55
55
0.99
38
44.5
0.85
9
19.2
0.46
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6
55
0.11
4.2
44.5
0.09
0.97
19.2
0.05
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.4
55
0.02
0.93
44.5
0.02
0.22
19.2
0.01
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.17
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
days
between
applications)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
68
55
1.2+
47
44.5
1.1+^
11
19.2
0.57
Tall
Grass
31
55
0.57
22
44.5
0.49
5
19.2
0.26
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
38
55
0.88
27
44.5
0.60
6
19.2
0.32
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
4.3
55
0.08
3
44.5
0.07
0.68
19.2
0.04
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.95
55
0.02
0.66
44.5
0.01
0.15
19.2
0.01
Turf
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)

Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Page
169
of
206
Table
10.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
quotients
for
propiconazole
when
dietary
NOAEC
of
500
mg/
kg­
diet
is
converted
to
a
NOAEL
of
25
mg/
kg­
bw
based
on
a
standard
FDA
lab
rat
conversion1
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
1240
55
22.6+
857
44.5
19.3+
199
19.2
10.3+

Tall
Grass
569
55
10.4+
393
44.5
8.8+
91
19.2
4.7+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
698
55
12.7+
482
44.5
10.9+
112
19.2
5.8+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
78
55
1.41+
54
44.5
1.2+^
12
19.2
0.65
Seeds
(
granivores)
17
55
0.31
12
44.5
0.27
2.8
19.2
0.14
Pecans
and
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
14
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
142
55
2.6+
98
44.5
2.2+
23
19.2
1.2+

Tall
Grass
65
55
1.2+
45
44.5
1.0+
10
19.2
0.54
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
80
55
1.5+
55
44.5
1.3+^
13
19.2
0.67
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
8.9
55
0.16
6.2
44.5
0.14
1.4
19.2
0.07
Seeds
(
granivores)
2.0
55
0.04
1.4
44.5
0.03
0.32
19.2
0.02
Peanut
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
93.72
55
1.7+
64.77
44.5
1.46+
15.02
19.2
0.78
Tall
Grass
42.95
55
0.87
29.69
44.5
0.67
6.88
19.2
0.36
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
52.72
55
0.96+^
36.45
44.5
0.82
8.45
19.2
0.44
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
5.86
55
0.11
4.05
44.5
0.09
0.94
19.2
0.05
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.30
55
0.02
0.90
44.5
0.02
0.21
19.2
0.01
Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
non­
bearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
106.5
55
1.94+
73.7
44.5
1.66+
17.1
19.2
0.89
Tall
Grass
48.9
55
0.89
33.8
44.5
0.76
7.8
19.2
0.41
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
60.0
55
1.09+
41.4
44.5
0.93
9.6
19.2
0.50
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6.6
55
0.12
4.6
44.5
0.1
1.1
19.2
0.06
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.48
55
0.03
1.0
44.5
0.02
0.24
19.2
0.01
1
The
oral
dose­
based
RQs
are
calculated
by
dividing
the
EEC
equivalent
dose
by
the
adjusted
NOAEL
for
chronic
values)
for
each
food
category
and
animal
class.
+
exceeds
Chronic
LOC
(>
1.0)
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.
Page
170
of
206
Table
11.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
based
on
the
reported
NOAEL
of
43
mg
ai/
kg­
bw1
Barley,
rye,
triticale
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
one
application)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
26
95
0.27
18
76
0.23
4
33
0.12
Tall
Grass
12
95
0.12
8
76
0.11
1
33
0.06
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
14
95
0.15
10
76
0.13
2
33
0.07
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
1.6
95
0.02
1
76
0.01
0.3
33
0.01
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.36
95
0.00
0.25
76
0.00
0.06
33
0.00
Wheat
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
45
95
0.48
31
76
0.41
7
33
0.22
Tall
Grass
21
95
0.22
14
76
0.19
3
33
0.10
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
25
95
0.27
18
76
0.23
4
33
0.12
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
2.8
95
0.03
1.6
76
0.03
0.45
33
0.01
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.63
95
0.01
0.43
76
0.01
0.10
33
0.00
Corn,
Celery
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
97
95
1.0+*
67
76
0.80
16
33
0.47
Tall
Grass
45
95
0.47
31
76
0.40
7
33
0.22
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
55
95
0.58
38
76
0.49
9
33
0.26
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6
95
0.06
4
76
0.05
.97
33
0.03
Page
171
of
206
Table
11.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
based
on
the
reported
NOAEL
of
43
mg
ai/
kg­
bw1
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.4
95
0.01
0.93
76
0.01
0.22
33
0.01
Rice,
Wild
rice
(
Maximum
0.17
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
10
days
between
applications)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
71
95
0.75
49
76
0.64
11
33
0.34
Tall
Grass
32
95
0.34
22
76
0.29
5
33
0.16
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
40
95
0.42
28
76
0.36
6
33
0.19
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
4
95
0.05
3
76
0.04
0.71
33
0.02
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.98
95
0.01
0.68
76
0.01
0.16
33
0.00
Turf
(
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)

15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
1240
95
13.0+
857
76
11.3+
199
33
5.9+

Tall
Grass
569
95
5.6+
393
76
5.18+
91
33
2.7+

Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
698
95
7.3+
482
76
6.36+
112
33
3.3+

Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
78
95
0.81
54
76
0.71
12
33
0.36
Seeds
(
granivores)
17
95
0.18
12
76
0.16
2.8
33
0.06
Pecans
and
Grasses
grown
for
seed
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications/
yr
at
14
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
142
95
1.51+
98
76
1.29+
23
33
0.69
Tall
Grass
65
95
0.69
45
76
0.59
10
33
0.32
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
80
95
0.85
55
76
0.72
13
33
0.39
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
8.9
95
0.09
6.2
76
0.08
1.4
33
0.04
Seeds
(
granivores)
2.0
95
0.02
1.4
76
0.02
0.32
33
0.0
Peanut
(
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications/
yr
at
10
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
93.72
95
1.7+
64.77
76
1.46+
15.02
33
0.78
Tall
Grass
42.95
95
0.87
29.69
76
0.67
6.88
33
0.36
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
52.72
95
0.96+*
36.45
76
0.82
8.45
33
0.44
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
5.86
95
0.11
4.05
76
0.09
0.94
33
0.05
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.30
95
0.02
0.90
76
0.02
0.21
33
0.01
Page
172
of
206
Table
11.
Mammalian
chronic
Oral
DOSE­
based
risk
based
on
the
reported
NOAEL
of
43
mg
ai/
kg­
bw1
Stone
fruits
 
(
apricot,
cherry,
nectarine,
peach,
and
plum)
and
non­
bearing
crops
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
5
appl.;
5
day
intervals)
15
g
mammal
35
g
mammal
1000
g
mammal
Oral
Dose­
based
RQs
(
daily
dose/
adjusted
NOAEL)
EEC
residue
Adj.
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
EEC
Residue
Adj
NOAEL
Chronic
RQ
Short
Grass
106.5
95
1.13+*
73.7
76
0.96
17.1
33
0.52
Tall
Grass
48.9
95
0.52
33.8
76
0.44
7.8
33
0.24
Broadleaf
plants/
sm
insects
60.0
95
0.63
41.4
76
0.54
9.6
33
0.29
Fruits/
pods/
lg
insects
6.6
95
0.07
4.6
76
0.06
1.1
33
0.03
Seeds
(
granivores)
1.48
95
0.02
1.0
76
0.01
0.24
33
0.01
1
The
oral
dose­
based
RQs
are
calculated
by
dividing
the
EEC
equivalent
dose
by
the
adjusted
NOAEL
for
chronic
values)
for
each
food
category
and
animal
class.
+
exceeds
Chronic
LOC
(>
1.0)
*
LOC
not
exceeded
if
14.41­
day
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
is
calculated
from
T­
REX.
Page
173
of
206
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
Non­
endangered
Plant
Risk
Quotients
­
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
is
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
RQ
(
EEC/
toxicity
value).
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
is
compared
to
the
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
acute
RQ.
RQs
are
calculated
for
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
species
for
ground
and
aerial
applications.

Table
12:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Sheet
runoff
+

Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
corn,
celery,
wheat
 
ground
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
Single
application)

Monocot
>
1.5
0.0011
0.0034
<
0.0022
0.0011
0.0236
<
0.016
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.18
0.0011
0.0034
0.018
0.0011
0.0236
0.13
Monocot
0.315
0.0011
N/
A
0.0035
0.0011
N/
A
0.0035
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.039
0.0011
N/
A
0.028
0.0011
N/
A
0.028
Barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
corn,
celery,
wheat
 
aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
Single
application)

Monocot
>
1.5
0.0056
0.0079
<
0.005
0.0056
0.0281
<
0.019
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.18
0.0056
0.0079
0.044
0.0056
0.0281
0.16
Monocot
0.315
0.0056
N/
A
0.018
0.0056
N/
A
0.018
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.039
0.0056
N/
A
0.14
0.0056
N/
A
0.14
Grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
peanut
 
Ground
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)
Page
174
of
206
Table
12:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Sheet
runoff
+

Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0023
0.0068
<
0.0045
0.0023
0.0473
<
0.03
Dicot
0.18
0.0023
0.0068
0.038
0.0023
0.0473
0.26
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0023
N/
A
0.007
0.0023
N/
A
0.007
Dicot
0.039
0.0023
N/
A
0.06
0.0023
N/
A
0.06
Grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
peanut
­
Aerial
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0113
0.0158
<
0.01
0.0113
0.0563
<
0.038
Dicot
0.18
0.0113
0.0158
0.088
0.0113
0.0563
0.31
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0113
N/
A
0.036
0.0113
N/
A
0.036
Dicot
0.039
0.0113
N/
A
0.30
0.0113
N/
A
0.30
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0178
0.0534
<
0.04
0.0178
0.3738
<
0.249
Dicot
0.18
0.0178
0.0534
0.03
0.0178
0.3738
2.08
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0178
­
0.06
0.0178
­
0.06
Dicot
0.039
0.0178
­
0.46
0.0178
­
0.46
Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Chemigation
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.089
0.1246
<
0.083
0.089
0.4450
<
0.297
Page
175
of
206
Table
12:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Sheet
runoff
+

Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Dicot
0.18
0.089
0.1246
0.69
0.089
0.4450
2.47
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.089
­
0.28
0.089
­
0.28
Dicot
0.039
0.089
­
2.28
*
0.089
­
2.28
*

*
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Risk
LOC.

Endangered
Plant
Risk
Quotients
­
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
The
endangered
plant
RQs
are
calculated
by
comparing
the
NOEC
or
EC05
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
study
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure
(
EEC/
toxicity
value).
The
NOEC
or
EC05
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
vegetative
vigor
study
is
compared
to
the
drift
exposure
to
determine
the
acute
RQ.
RQs
are
calculated
for
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
species.

Table
13:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
corn,
celery,
and
wheat
 
ground
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
Single
application)

Monocot
1.5
0.0011
0.0034
0.0023
0.0011
0.0236
0.016
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.056
0.0011
0.0034
0.06
0.0011
0.0236
0.42
Page
176
of
206
Table
13:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Monocot
0.0185
0.0011
N/
A
0.059
0.0011
N/
A
0.059
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.056
0.0011
N/
A
0.02
0.0011
N/
A
0.02
Barley,
rye,
triticale,
stone
fruit,
corn,
celery,
and
wheat
 
aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
Single
application)

Monocot
1.5
0.0056
0.0079
0.005
0.0056
0.0281
0.019
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.056
0.0056
0.0079
0.14
0.0056
0.0281
0.50
Monocot
0.0185
0.0056
N/
A
0.30
0.0056
N/
A
0.30
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.056
0.0056
N/
A
0.1
0.0056
N/
A
0.1
Grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
peanut
 
Ground
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0023
0.0068
0.005
0.0023
0.0473
0.03
Dicot
0.056
0.0023
0.0068
0.12
0.0023
0.0473
0.84
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0023
N/
A
0.12
0.0023
N/
A
0.12
Dicot
0.056
0.0023
N/
A
0.04
0.0023
N/
A
0.04
Grasses
grown
for
seed,
rice,
wild
rice,
and
peanut
­
Aerial
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0113
0.0158
0.01
0.0113
0.0563
0.038
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
0.0158
0.04
0.0113
0.0563
1.01
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0113
N/
A
0.61
0.0113
N/
A
0.61
Page
177
of
206
Table
13:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Single
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
N/
A
0.20
0.0113
N/
A
0.20
turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
Single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0178
0.0534
0.036
0.0178
0.3738
0.25
Dicot
0.056
0.0178
0.0534
0.95
*
0.0178
0.3738
6.68
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0178
N/
A
0.96
0.0178
N/
A
0.96
Dicot
0.056
0.0178
N/
A
0.32
0.0178
N/
A
0.32
Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Chemigation
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
single
application)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.089
0.1246
0.083
0.089
0.4450
0.30
Dicot
0.056
0.089
0.1246
2.23
*
0.089
0.4450
7.95
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.089
N/
A
4.81
*
0.089
N/
A
4.81
*

Dicot
0.056
0.089
N/
A
1.59
*
0.089
N/
A
1.59
*

*
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Risk
LOC
1)

Non­
endangered
Plant
Risk
Quotients
­
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
The
RQs
for
multiple
applications
are
determined
in
the
same
manner
as
single
applications.
The
EC25
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
studies
are
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure.)
The
RQs
are
calculated
for
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
species
for
aerial
and
ground
applications.
Page
178
of
206
Table
14:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Stone
fruit
 
ground
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
five
applications,
5
day
intervals)

Monocot
>
1.5
0.0055
0.0169
<
0.011
0.0055
0.1181
<
0.07
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.18
0.0055
0.0169
0.09
0.0055
0.1181
0.656
Monocot
0.315
0.0055
N/
A
0.017
0.0055
N/
A
0.017
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.039
0.0055
N/
A
0.141
0.0055
N/
A
0.141
Stone
fruit
 
aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
five
applications,
5
day
intervals)

Monocot
>
1.5
0.028
0.0394
<
0.03
0.028
0.1406
<
0.093
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.18
0.028
0.0394
0.23
0.028
0.1406
0.78
Monocot
0.315
0.028
N/
A
0.089
0.028
N/
A
0.089
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.039
0.028
N/
A
0.718
0.028
N/
A
0.718
Wheat
 
Ground
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0023
0.0068
<
0.0045
0.0023
0.0473
<
0.03
Dicot
0.18
0.0023
0.0068
0.04
0.0023
0.0473
0.26
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0023
N/
A
0.005
0.0023
N/
A
0.007
Dicot
0.039
0.0023
N/
A
0.041
0.0023
N/
A
0.06
Wheat
 
Aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)
Page
179
of
206
Table
14:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0113
0.0158
<
0.01
0.0080
0.0563
<
0.04
Dicot
0.18
0.0113
0.0158
0.09
0.0080
0.0563
0.31
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0113
N/
A
0.04
0.0080
N/
A
0.04
Dicot
0.039
0.0113
N/
A
0.29
0.0080
N/
A
0.29
Grasses
grown
for
seed
 
Ground
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0092
0.027
<
0.018
0.0092
0.189
<
0.126
Dicot
0.18
0.0092
0.027
0.15
0.0092
0.189
1.05
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0092
N/
A
0.029
0.0092
N/
A
0.029
Dicot
0.039
0.0092
N/
A
0.236
0.0092
N/
A
0.236
Grasses
grown
for
seed
­
Aerial
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0452
0.0630
<
0.048
0.0452
0.2250
<
0.21
Dicot
0.18
0.0452
0.0630
0.40
0.0452
0.2250
1.25
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0452
N/
A
0.143
0.0452
N/
A
0.143
Dicot
0.039
0.0452
N/
A
1.16
*
0.0452
N/
A
1.16
*

Corn,
Celery
 
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0045
0.0135
<
0.009
0.0045
0.0935
<
0.062
Page
180
of
206
Table
14:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Dicot
0.18
0.0045
0.0135
0.075
0.0045
0.0935
0.52
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0045
N/
A
0.01
0.0045
N/
A
0.01
Dicot
0.039
0.0045
N/
A
0.12
0.0045
N/
A
0.12
Corn,
Celery
 
Aerial
Applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0225
0.0315
<
0.02
0.0225
0.1125
<
0.075
Dicot
0.18
0.0225
0.0315
0.18
0.0225
0.1125
0.625
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0225
N/
A
0.07
0.0225
N/
A
0.07
Dicot
0.039
0.0225
N/
A
0.58
0.0225
N/
A
0.58
Rice,
Wild
rice
 
Ground
applications
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0034
0.0102
<
0.0068
0.0034
0.0714
<
0.048
Dicot
0.18
0.0034
0.0102
0.057
0.0034
0.0714
0.39
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0034
N/
A
0.01
0.0034
N/
A
0.01
Dicot
0.039
0.0034
N/
A
0.09
0.0034
N/
A
0.09
Rice,
Wild
rice
 
aerial
applications
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.017
0.0238
<
0.016
0.017
0.0805
<
0.05
Dicot
0.18
0.017
0.0238
0.13
0.017
0.0805
0.48
Page
181
of
206
Table
14:
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.017
N/
A
0.05
0.017
N/
A
0.05
Dicot
0.039
0.017
N/
A
0.44
0.017
N/
A
0.44
Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10,
14
or
21
day
intervals)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.0712
0.2136
<
0.14
0.0712
1.4952
<
0.996
Dicot
0.18
0.0712
0.2136
1.19
*
0.0712
1.4952
8.3
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.0712
N/
A
0.23
0.0712
N/
A
0.23
Dicot
0.039
0.0712
N/
A
1.83
*
0.0712
N/
A
1.83
*

Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Aerial
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10,
14,
or
21
day
intervals)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
>
1.5
0.356
0.4984
<
0.33
0.356
1.78
<
1.19
*

Dicot
0.18
0.356
0.4984
2.77
*
0.356
1.78
9.89
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.315
0.356
N/
A
1.13
*
0.356
N/
A
1.13
*

Dicot
0.039
0.356
N/
A
9.13
*
0.356
N/
A
9.13
*

*
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Risk
LOC
Endangered
Plant
Risk
Quotients
­
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
The
RQs
for
multiple
applications
of
propiconazole
are
determined
in
the
same
manner
as
single
applications.
The
NOEC
or
EC05
value
of
the
most
sensitive
species
in
the
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
studies
are
compared
to
runoff
and
drift
exposure.
RQs
are
calculated
for
the
most
sensitive
monocot
and
dicot
species
for
ground
and
aerial
applications.
Page
182
of
206
Table
15:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Stone
fruit
 
ground
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
5
applications;
5
day
interval
between
applications)

Monocot
1.5
0.0055
0.0169
0.011
0.0055
0.1181
0.08
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.056
0.0055
0.0169
0.30
0.0055
0.1181
2.1
*

Monocot
0.0185
0.0055
N/
A
0.30
0.0055
N/
A
0.30
Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.056
0.0055
N/
A
0.09
0.0055
N/
A
0.09
Stone
fruit
 
Aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai
/
A;
5
applications;
5
day
interval
between
applications)

Monocot
1.5
0.028
0.0394
0.03
0.028
0.1406
0.09
Seed
Emerg.
Dicot
0.056
0.028
0.0394
0.70
0.028
0.1406
2.51
*

Monocot
0.0185
0.028
N/
A
1.51
*
0.028
N/
A
1.51
*

Veg
Vigor
Dicot
0.056
0.028
N/
A
0.50
0.028
N/
A
0.50
Wheat
 
Ground
applications
(
maximum
01125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0113
0.0068
0.0045
0.0113
0.0473
0.03
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
0.0068
0.12
0.0113
0.0473
0.84
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0113
N/
A
0.12
0.0113
N/
A
0.12
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
N/
A
0.04
0.0113
N/
A
0.04
Wheat
 
Aerial
applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
2
applications;
14
day
interval)
Page
183
of
206
Table
15:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0113
0.0158
0.01
0.0113
0.0563
0.04
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
0.0158
0.28
0.0113
0.0563
1.00
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0113
N/
A
0.61
0.0113
N/
A
0.61
Dicot
0.056
0.0113
N/
A
0.20
0.0113
N/
A
0.20
Grasses
grown
for
seed
 
Ground
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0092
0.027
0.018
0.0092
0.189
0.126
Dicot
0.056
0.0092
0.027
0.48
0.0092
0.189
3.38
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0092
N/
A
0.50
0.0092
N/
A
0.50
Dicot
0.056
0.0092
N/
A
0.16
0.0092
N/
A
0.16
Grasses
grown
for
seed
­
Aerial
Applications
(
forage
fodder
grasses
(
maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
14
day
interval)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0452
0.0630
0.042
0.0452
0.2250
0.15
Dicot
0.056
0.0452
0.0630
1.13
*
0.0452
0.2250
4.01
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0452
N/
A
2.44
*
0.0452
N/
A
2.44
*

Dicot
0.056
0.0452
N/
A
0.81
0.0452
N/
A
0.81
Corn,
Celery
 
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0018
0.0135
0.009
0.0018
0.0935
0.062
Page
184
of
206
Table
15:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Dicot
0.056
0.0018
0.0135
0.24
0.0018
0.0935
1.67
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0018
N/
A
0.10
0.0018
N/
A
0.10
Dicot
0.056
0.0018
N/
A
0.032
0.0018
N/
A
0.032
Corn,
Celery
 
Aerial
Applications
(
maximum
0.1125
lb
ai/
A;
4
applications;
2
days
interval
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.09
0.0315
0.021
0.09
0.1125
0.075
Dicot
0.056
0.09
0.0315
0.56
0.09
0.1125
2.01
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.09
N/
A
1.22
*
0.09
N/
A
1.22
*

Dicot
0.056
0.09
N/
A
0.04
0.09
N/
A
.04
Rice,
Wild
rice
 
Ground
applications
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.0034
0.0102
0.0068
0.0034
0.0714
0.048
Dicot
0.056
0.0034
0.0102
0.18
0.0034
0.0714
1.28
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.0034
N/
A
0.18
0.0034
N/
A
0.18
Dicot
0.056
0.0034
N/
A
0.06
0.0034
N/
A
0.06
Rice,
wild
rice
 
Aerial
applications
(
Maximum
0.225
lb
ai/
A;
second
application
at
0.115
lb
ai/
A;
10
day
between
applications)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.017
0.0238
0.015
0.017
0.0805
0.054
Dicot
0.056
0.017
0.0238
0.425
0.017
0.0805
1.52
*
Page
185
of
206
Table
15:
Listed
(
Endangered)
Acute
Terrestrial
Plant
Risk
Quotient
Calculations
For
Multiple
Spray
Applications
of
Propiconazole
Plants
Adjacent
to
Treated
Sites
Plants
in
Semi­
aquatic
Areas
Scenario
Toxicity
Threshold,
EC25
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading(
Sheet
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Total
Drift
(
lb
ai/
ac)
Total
Loading
(
Channel
runoff
+
Drift)

(
lb
ai/
ac)
RQa
Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.017
N/
A
0.92
0.017
N/
A
0.92
Dicot
0.056
0.017
N/
A
0.30
0.017
N/
A
0.30
Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Ground
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10,
14,
or
21
day
intervals)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.7712
0.2136
0.14
0.7712
1.4952
0.997
*

Dicot
0.056
0.7712
0.2136
3.81
*
0.7712
1.4952
26.7
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.7712
N/
A
3.9
*
0.7712
N/
A
3.9
*

Dicot
0.056
0.7712
N/
A
1.27
*
0.7712
N/
A
1.27
*

Turf
and
ornamentals
 
ground
cover,
Aerial
Applications
(
maximum
1.78
lb
ai/
A;
4
appl.;
10,
14,
or
21
day
intervals)

Seed
Emerg.
Monocot
1.5
0.356
0.4984
0.33
0.356
1.78
1.19
*

Dicot
0.056
0.356
0.4984
8.90
*
0.356
1.78
31.79
*

Veg
Vigor
Monocot
0.0185
0.356
N/
A
19.24
*
0.356
N/
A
19.24
*

Dicot
0.056
0.356
N/
A
6.37
*
0.356
N/
A
6.37
*

*
indicates
an
exceedence
of
Acute
Risk
LOC
Page
186
of
206
Page
187
of
206
Appendix
F
 
Endangered
Species
State
Listing
Species
Taxa
Count
Report
for
Crops
Barley
for
grain
(
acres),
Corn
for
grain
(
acres),
Corn
for
silage
or
greenchop
(
acres),
Peanuts
for
nuts
(
acres),
Rice
(
acres),
RYE
FOR
GRAIN
(
BUSHELS),
TRITICALE
(
BUSHELS),
WILD
RICE
(
CWT),
BAHIA
GRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
BENTGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
BERMUDA
GRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
BIRDSFOOT
TREFOIL
SEED
(
POUNDS),
BROMEGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
CRIMSON
CLOVER
SEED
(
POUNDS),
FESCUE
SEED
(
POUNDS),
FIELD
AND
GRASS
SEED
CROPS,
ALL,
FOXTAIL
MILLET
SEED
(
POUNDS),
HAYLAGE
OR
GREENCHOP
FROM
ALFALFA
OR
ALFALFA
MIXTURES
(
TONS,
GREEN),
KENTUCKY
BLUEGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
LADINO
CLOVER
SEED
(
POUNDS),
LESPEDEZA
SEED
(
POUNDS),
ORCHARDGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
OTHER
FIELD
AND
GRASS
SEED
CROPS
(
POUNDS),
RED
CLOVER
SEED
(
POUNDS),
REDTOP
SEED
(
POUNDS),
RYEGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
SUDANGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
SWEETCLOVER
SEED
(
POUNDS),
TIMOTHY
SEED
(
POUNDS),
VETCH
SEED
(
POUNDS),
WHEATGRASS
SEED
(
POUNDS),
WHITE
CLOVER
SEED
(
POUNDS),
CELERY,
APPLES,
CHERRIES,
SWEET
(
SEE
TEXT),
CHERRIES,
TART
(
SEE
TEXT),
PEACHES,
ALL,
PEACHES,
CLINGSTONE
(
AZ
&
CA
only),
PEACHES,
FREESTONE
(
AZ
&
CA
only),
PECANS,
PLUMS
(
AZ
&
CA
only),
PLUMS
AND
PRUNES,
APRICOTS
No
species
were
excluded
Minimum
of
1
Acre.

AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
Alabama
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
30
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
15
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
1
of
16
Page
188
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Plant
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Alaska
The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arizona
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Arkansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

California
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
2
of
16
Page
189
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Crustacean
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
29
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
22
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
177
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Colorado
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Connecticut
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Delaware
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
3
of
16
Page
190
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Florida
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
52
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Georgia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
16
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
11
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Hawaii
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
4
of
16
Page
191
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bird
has
32
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
268
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Idaho
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Illinois
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Indiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
5
of
16
Page
192
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bivalve
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Iowa
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kansas
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Kentucky
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
21
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
6
of
16
Page
193
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Louisiana
The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maine
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Maryland
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Massachusetts
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
7
of
16
Page
194
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Michigan
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Minnesota
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Mississippi
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
8
of
16
Page
195
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Reptile
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Missouri
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Montana
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nebraska
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Nevada
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
23
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
9
of
16
Page
196
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Plant
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Hampshire
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Jersey
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
Mexico
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

New
York
8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
10
of
16
Page
197
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Carolina
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
27
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

North
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Ohio
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
11
of
16
Page
198
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bivalve
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oklahoma
The
taxa
Bird
has
7
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Oregon
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
24
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Pennsylvania
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
12
of
16
Page
199
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Rhode
Island
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Carolina
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
20
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

South
Dakota
The
taxa
Bird
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Tennessee
The
taxa
Arachnid
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
13
of
16
Page
200
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
29
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
14
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Texas
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Arachnid
has
10
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
12
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
9
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
27
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Utah
The
taxa
Bird
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
8
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
24
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
14
of
16
Page
201
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
Vermont
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
18
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Crustacean
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
13
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Reptile
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Washington
The
taxa
Bird
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
17
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

West
Virginia
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
01
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
15
of
16
Page
202
of
206
AL,
AK,
AZ,
AR,
CA,
CO,
CT,
DE,
DC,
FL,
GA,
HI,
ID,
IL,
IN,
IA,
KS,
KY,
LA,
ME,
MD,
MA,
MI,
MN,
MS,
MO,
MT,
NE,
NV,
NH,
NJ,
NM,
NY,
NC,
ND,
OH,
OK,
OR,
PA,
RI,
SC,
SD,
TN,
TX,
UT,
VT,
VA,
WA,
WV,
WI,
WY
The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Gastropod
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
5
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wisconsin
The
taxa
Bird
has
3
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bivalve
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Insect
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
6
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

Wyoming
The
taxa
Amphibian
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Bird
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Fish
has
1
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Mammal
has
4
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

The
taxa
Plant
has
2
species
affected
by
indicated
crops.

No
species
were
excluded.

8/
30/
2005
8:
40:
02
AM
Ver.
2.9.8
Page
16
of
16
Page
203
of
206
Appendix
G
 
Data
Requirement
Tables
Table
G­
1:
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Propiconazole
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
MRID
#=
s
Data
Requirement
Status
(
EFED
#)

161­
1
835.212
Hydrolysis
42238201
(
or
67901)
Satisfied
(
2001981)

161­
2
835.224
Photodegradation
in
Water
41811901
Satisfied
(
2001982)

161­
3
835.241
Photodegradation
on
Soil
41811902
Satisfied
(
2001983)

161­
4
835.237
Photodegradation
in
Air
NA
Not
Required
162­
1
835.41
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
129912*
129914
133375
Satisfied
162­
2
835.42
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
per
262­
3
Satisfied
162­
3
835.44
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
42415702
Satisfied
(
2001985)

162­
4
835.43
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
42347901
Satisfied
(
2001984)

163­
1
835.124
0
835.123
0
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
41727001
44701801
Supplemental
(
2001986)
(
2001009)

163­
2
835.141
Laboratory
Volatility
NA
Not
Required
163­
3
835.81
Field
Volatility
NA
Not
Required
164­
1
835.61
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
155642
159691
45528702
45528703
Satisfied
164­
2
835.62
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
164823
42560501
42560502
Satisfied
(
2001995)
(
2001987)
(
2001988)

164­
3
835.63
Forestry
Dissipation
NA
Not
Required
165­
4
850.173
Accumulation
in
Fish
40963502
Satisfied
Page
204
of
206
Table
G­
1:
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for
Propiconazole
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
MRID
#=
s
Data
Requirement
Status
(
EFED
#)

201­
1
840.11
Droplet
Size
Spectrum
NA
â
202­
1
840.12
Drift
Field
Evaluation
NA
â
â
Member
of
Spray­
Drift
Task
Force.

*
also
MRIDs:
40424808,
40963501
Table
G­
2
:
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirement
Table
for
Propiconazole
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Forumulatio
n
MRID
(
Accession
#)
Study
Classification
71­
1
850.21
Avian
Oral
LD50
TGAI
0079689,
(
Accession
#
244273)
0067926
(
Accession
#
244273)
Acceptable
Acceptable
71­
2
850.22
Avian
Dietary
LC50
TGAI
00097690
(
Accession
#
244273)
00067927
(
Accession
#
072210)
133367
(
Accession
#
072210)
(
Accession
#
072210)
133366
(
Accession
#
072210)
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
71­
4
850.23
Avian
Reproduction
TGAI
00133369
Acceptable
72­
1
850.1075
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
TGAI
Tilt
3.6E
Tilt
EC
250
Tilt
CGA­
64250
SCW
125
1,2,4­
triazole
metabolit
e
0067923
132926
Accession
#
072209)
0067922
132922
(
Accession
#
072209)
132930
(
Accession
#
072209)
067924
(
Accession
#
244273)
132925
132928
172209
172209
132927
132927
462035­
15
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
72­
2
850.101
Freshwater
Invertebrate
LC50
TGAI
00067925
(
Accession
#
244273)
132932
(
Accession
#
72209)
Acceptable
72­
3(
a)
850.1075
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC50
TGAI
Tilt
3.6E
132921
132924
Supplemental
Supplemental
72­
3(
b)
850.1025
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
EC50
TGAI
Tilt
3.6E
260201
132933
(
Accession
#
72209
)
Acceptable
Supplemental
72­
3
©
850.1035
850.1045
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
LC50
TGAI
Tilt
3.6E
260201
132935(
Accession
#
260201)
132934
(
Accession
#
72209
)
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Page
205
of
206
Table
G­
2
:
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirement
Table
for
Propiconazole
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Forumulatio
n
MRID
(
Accession
#)
Study
Classification
72­
4(
a)
850.14
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life
Stage
TGAI
072210
Acceptable
72­
4(
b)
850.1300
850.1350
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Lifecycle
TGAI
00163165
Invalid1
72­
5
850.15
Freshwater
Fish
Life­
Cycle
TGAI
N/
A
122­
1(
a)
850.41
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence
N/
A
122­
1(
b)
850.415
Vegetative
Vigor
N/
A
122­
2
850.44
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
TGAI
123­
1(
a)
850.4225
Seed
Germination/
Seedling
Emergence
Tier
2
TGAI
416732­
03
Acceptable/
Supplemental
123­
1(
b)
850.425
Vegetative
Vigor
Tier
2
TGAI
416732­
01
Acceptable/
Supplemental
123­
2
850.44
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
Tier
2
TGAI
133363
Acceptable/
Supplemental
141­
1
850.302
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
LD50
N/
A
141­
2
850.303
Honey
Bee
Residue
on
Foliage
N/
A
1This
study
could
be
up­
graded
to
supplemental
if
raw
data
to
verify
the
validity
of
the
mean­
measured
concentration
were
submitted.
Page
206
of
206