Document ID: EPA-HQ-OPP-2002-0202-0012
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2002-08-14T04:00Z

UNITED
STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
WASHINGTON,
D.
C.
20460
OFFICE
OF
PREVENTION,
PESTICIDES
AND
TOXIC
SUBSTANCES
July
31,
2002
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
Revised
EFED
RED
Chapter
for
Lindane
PC
Code
No.
009001;
Case
No.
818566;
DP
Barcodes:
D254764
TO:
B.
Shackleford,
Branch
Chief
M.
Howard,
Team
Leader
Special
Review
and
Reregistration
Division
(7508C)

FROM:
ERB
V
RED
Team
for
Lindane:
N.
E.
Federoff,
Wildlife
Biologist,
Ecological
Effects
Reviewer,
Team
Leader
F.
A
Khan,
Ph.
D.,
Environmental
Scientist,
Long­
range
Transport
Assessor
J.
Melendez,
Chemist,
Environmental
Fate
Reviewer
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
(7507C)

THROUGH:
Mah
T.
Shamim,
Ph.
D.,
Chief
Environmental
Risk
Branch
V­
EFED
(7507C)

The
EFED
Integrated
Environmental
Risk
Assessment
for
Lindane
is
attached.
The
following
is
an
overview
of
our
findings:

Major
Conclusions
Lindane
is
a
persistent
and
moderately
mobile
organochlorine
compound.
Lindane
is
a
potential
endocrine
disruptor
in
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
fish.
There
is
a
possibility
of
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
avian
and
mammalian
species
consuming
a
majority
of
their
body
weight
in
treated
seed
per
day.
Based
on
a
Tier
I
screening
assessment
(using
GENEEC),
the
aquatic
assessment
resulted
in
risks
to
aquatic
organisms.
For
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
possible
high
acute
risk
may
occur
even
at
the
low
application
rates
for
seed­
treatment
uses.
Restricted
use
LOC's
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
and
freshwater
fish.
Endangered
species
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
organisms
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.
Modeling
studies
showed
that
lindane
concentrations
in
both
surface
and
ground
water
may
reach
environmentally
significant
levels
(>
MCL),
even
when
lindane
is
restricted
to
seed­
treatment
uses
only.
However,
the
modeling
assumption
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface
may
have
produced
highly
conservative
estimates
and
has
thus
overestimated
the
EEC's
and
resulting
risks.
Nevertheless,
due
to
the
compound's
persistence,
residues
continue
to
last
in
various
environmental
media
and
probably
is
associated
with
longrange
transport.
Risk
Factors

Produces
significant
reproductive
effects
in
birds
(including
eggshell
thinning)
and
small
mammals.


Lindane
is
a
lipophilic
compound
and
has
been
found
in
milk
from
exposed
lactating
females.


Based
on
available
literature,
lindane
has
shown
endocrine
disrupting
effects
in
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
in
fish.


Very
persistent
and
moderately
mobile.
In
aerobic
soil
systems,
lindane
degrades
very
slowly.
The
registrant­
calculated
half­
life
was
980
days
(MRID
406225­
01).


Very
highly
toxic
to
a
broad
spectrum
of
aquatic
species.

Possible
Mitigating
Factors

Seeds
that
are
incorporated
in
soil
may
reduce
exposure
rates
to
terrestrial
wildlife.


Low
use
rates.


It
appears
that
at
least
two
bird
species
(quail
and
red­
winged
blackbird)
were
averse
to
consuming
lindane­
treated
seeds
in
laboratory
studies,
which
may
decrease
exposure,
thus
reducing
risk.


Lindane
is
bio­
concentrated
rapidly
in
microrganisms,
invertebrates,
fish,
birds
and
mammals,
however
bio­
transformation
and
elimination
are
relatively
rapid
when
exposure
is
discontinued

The
modeling
assumption
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface
has
likely
produced
highly
conservative
estimates
and
has
thus
overestimated
the
EEC's
and
resulting
risks.
EFED
believes
that
a
seed
leaching
study
would
greatly
increase
certainty
regarding
a
more
realistic
estimate
of
the
amount
of
available
lindane
on
the
seed
surface
and
leaching
from
the
seed
surface.
This
in
turn
would
allow
a
refinement
of
exposure
estimates
and
environmental
concentration
values
(EECs).

Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms

Seed
treatment
uses
present
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
birds
and
mammals.
Also,
due
to
lindane's
potential
endocrine­
disrupting
character,
mammals
and
birds
that
ingest
seeds
may
be
at
some
additional
risk.
Also,
in
addition,
there
is
a
possibility
of
acute
risk
to
small
mammals
with
high
metabolic
rates
that
dig
and
cache
seeds.
Chronic
risk
to
these
species
may
be
greater
during
breeding
season
due
to
high
seed
consumption
over
time
and
the
persistence
of
the
compound
in
soil.


There
is
a
reduced
acute
risk
to
waterfowl
and
upland
gamebirds
from
seed
treatment.
However,
there
is
acute
risk
to
songbirds
(passerines)
and
other
similar
seed
eating
avian
species.


Lindane
is
highly
toxic
(0.
2
to
0.
56
µ
g/
bee)
to
honeybees.
However,
since
this
is
a
seed
treatment
application,
low
risk
is
assumed
to
flying
insects,
although
beneficial
soil
dwelling
insects
may
be
at
some
risk.

Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms

Restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOC's
are
exceeded
(RQ=
0.40)
for
freshwater
fish.
No
chronic
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish.


The
acute
endangered
species
LOC
is
slightly
exceeded
(RQ=
0.07)
for
freshwater
invertebrates.
No
chronic
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates.


No
acute
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
fish.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
toxicity
data.


Acute,
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOC's
were
exceeded
(RQ=
8.7)
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
However,
there
are
no
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
listed
as
endangered.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
toxicity
data.

Risks
to
Endangered
Species

Endangered
birds
and
especially
small
mammals
that
eat
a
large
daily
proportion
of
seeds
may
be
at
risk
from
the
proposed
seed
treatment
use
pattern.
Endangered
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
may
also
be
at
acute
risk.
Also,
exposed
endangered
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
fish
may
be
at
risk
due
to
the
potential
endocrine
disrupting
properties
of
lindane
combined
with
already
limited
population
sizes
and/
or
losses
in
critical
habitat.

Incident
reports
Incident
reports
submitted
to
EPA
involving
lindane
have
been
tracked
by
Incident
Data
System
(IDS),
microfiched,
and
then
entered
into
a
second
database,
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(EIIS).
Since
1971,
only
four
incidents
which
involve
fish
kills
have
been
reported
that
are
related
to
lindane
use.
The
most
recent
incident
occurred
in
1995
in
which
hundreds
of
trout
were
killed
on
a
tree
farm
in
North
Carolina
after
a
spill
close
to
a
nearby
stream.
In
1993,
an
incident
was
reported
that
involved
approximately
60
trout
in
California,
and
the
other
two
incidents
were
reported
1971
and
1983.
However,
no
aquatic
incidents
have
been
reported
as
having
occurred
under
the
normal
use
conditions
of
seed
treatment
under
soil
incorporated
use
patterns.

Water
Resource
Assessment
Fate
studies
show
that
lindane
is
both
moderately
mobile
(mean
Koc
=
1368)
and
highly
persistent
(soil
half
life
of
2.
6
years).
Even
considering
lindane's
very
low
use
rate
under
the
current
use
restriction
to
seed
treatment
(maximum
of
0.
0512
lb
a.
i./
acre),
lindane
concentrations
may
be
expected
to
reach
water
resources
at
environmentally
significant
levels.
Modeling
studies
showed
that
lindane
concentrations
in
both
surface
and
ground
water
may
reach
environmentally
significant
levels
(>
MCL),
even
when
lindane
is
restricted
to
seed­
treatment
uses
only.
This
conclusion
is
based
solely
on
lindane's
use
as
a
seed
treatment
and
does
not
consider
past
uses
of
lindane.
However,
note
that
lindane
continues
to
persist
in
the
environment
from
past
uses.

Endocrine
Disruption
Based
on
available
scientific
literature,
lindane
has
the
potential
to
be
an
endocrine
disrupting
compound
in
birds,
mammals,
and
possibly
in
fish.
Thus
the
following
language
is
recommended:

EPA's
Interim
Policy
for
Potential
Endocrine
Disruptors
EPA
is
required
under
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(FFDCA),
as
amended
by
FQPA,
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturallyoccurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen­
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
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
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
Program
have
been
developed,
lindane
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

Other
Concerns
Formulations:
Many
formulated
products
containing
lindane
also
contain
other
active
ingredients
(Pentachloronitrobenzene,
Captan,
Diazanon,
Metalaxyl,
Thiram,
Carboxin,
Maneb
and
Mancozeb)
which
can
be
as
toxic
or
more
toxic
than
lindane
alone.
It
is
not
known
if
the
combination
of
lindane
and
these
other
actives
ingredients
are
more
toxic
than
either
is
separately
or
if
there
may
be
toxic
synergism.
Thus,
testing
with
certain
formulated
products
may
be
required.
The
registrant
is
requested
to
submit
any
available
information
on
the
toxic
synergism
of
these
chemicals.

Data
Gaps
Environmental
Fate:
The
environmental
fate
database
for
lindane
is
largely
complete
and
adequate
for
the
present
risk
assessment.
However,
an
anaerobic
soil
metabolism
study
is
required
for
outdoor
seed
treatment
uses
(Memo
from
Denise
Keehner
re:
EFED
policy
guidance
for
eco­
risk
and
drinking
water
assessments
of
seed
treatment
pesticides,
7/
30/
99).

EFED
also
believes
that
a
seed
leaching
study
would
greatly
increase
certainty
regarding
a
more
realistic
estimate
of
groundwater
leaching
and
runoff.
This
in
turn
would
allow
a
refinement
of
exposure
estimates
and
environmental
concentration
values
(EECs).
EFED
has
issued
a
guidance
for
this
study
(Memo
from
Denise
Keehner
re:
Standard
Method
for
Determining
the
Leachability
of
Pesticides
from
Treated
Seeds,
7/
6/
2000).

Ecotoxicity:
The
environmental
toxicity
database
for
lindane
is
largely
complete
and
adequate
for
the
present
risk
assessment.
However,
Tier
I
plant
toxicity
studies
(850.4100­
Seedling
emergence
in
10
species
and
850.5400­
Aquatic
plant
toxicity
tests
in
5
species)
are
required
for
outdoor
seed
treatment
uses
(Memo
from
Denise
Keehner
re:
EFED
policy
guidance
for
eco­
risk
and
drinking
water
assessments
of
seed
treatment
pesticides,
7/
30/
99).

In
addition,
the
avian
reproduction
study
(Mallard
duck)
needs
to
be
repeated.
Although
the
submitted
study
(MRID
448671­
01)
was
classified
as
being
supplemental
due
to
guideline
deviations
as
well
as
the
low
hatching
success
in
the
control
group,
the
study
should
be
repeated
to
determine
if
15
ppm
is
a
valid
NOAEL
value.
The
NOAEL
value
of
15
ppm
will
be
used
in
risk
assessments
until
further
data
is
provided.

Also,
due
to
the
acute
toxicity
of
lindane
(LC50s
or
EC50s
<
1
mg/
l)
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
concentrations
that
may
reach
estuarine/
marine
systems,
chronic
studies
are
required
(72­
4
a
and
b:
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
and
Estuarine/
Marine
invertebrate
life­
cycle).
An
estuarine/
marine
fish
early
life­
stage
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
are
required
for
lindane
because
the
end­
use
product
may
be
expected
to
be
transported
to
an
aquatic
environment
from
the
intended
use
site,
aquatic
acute
LC50/
EC50s
were
less
than
1
mg/
l
and
studies
of
other
organisms
indicate
the
reproductive
physiology
of
fish
and/
or
invertebrates
may
be
affected.
Also,
the
persistence
of
lindane
is
>
900
days.
The
preferred
test
species
are
sheepshead
minnow
and
mysid
shrimp.
Aquatic
testing
will
be
held
in
reserve
until
a
seed
leaching
study
is
submitted.

Lastly,
there
is
evidence
that
seed­
eating
birds
may
not
be
exposed
due
to
aversion
to
the
compound.
However,
The
Agency
does
NOT
have
any
such
data
for
seed­
eating
mammals.
Thus,
it
may
be
beneficial
for
submission
of
such
data
to
better
characterize
risk
to
seed­
eating
mammals.

Labeling
Recommendations
EFED
recommends
that
the
labels
for
all
lindane
products
carry
the
following
statements:

Environmental
Hazards
Manufacturing
Use:
This
pesticide
is
toxic
to
fish,
birds,
and
other
wildlife.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
into
lakes,
streams,
ponds,
estuaries,
oceans,
or
other
waters
unless
in
accordance
with
the
requirements
of
a
National
Pollutant
Discharge
Elimination
System
(NPDES)
permit
and
the
permitting
authority
has
been
notified
in
writing
prior
to
discharge.
Do
not
discharge
effluent
containing
this
product
into
sewer
systems
without
previously
notifying
the
sewage
treatment
plant
authority.
For
guidance
contact
your
State
Water
Board
or
Regional
Office
of
the
USEPA.

End
Use
Products:

Granular/
Seed
Treatment
This
product
is
toxic
to
fish,
birds,
and
other
wildlife.
Exposed
treated
seeds
may
be
hazardous
to
birds
and
other
wildlife.
Dispose
of
all
excess
treated
seeds
by
burial
away
from
bodies
of
water.
Do
not
apply
directly
to
water.
Do
not
contaminate
water
by
disposing
of
equipment
washwaters.
Apply
this
product
only
as
specified
on
the
label.
1
LINDANE
RED
Chapter:
Environmental
Fate
and
Ecological
Risk
Assessment:
Seed
treatment
Prepared
by:

N.
E.
Federoff,
Wildlife
Biologist,
Team
Leader
F.
A.
Khan
Environmental
Scientist
J.
L.
Melendez,
Chemist
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Environmental
Risk
Branch
V
401
M
Street,
SW
Mail
Code
7507C
Washington,
DC
20460
Reviewed
and
approved
by:

M.
Shamim,
Chief,
ERB
5
2
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Lindane
is
a
persistent
and
moderately
mobile
organochlorine
compound.
At
present,
there
is
only
one
agricultural
use
(seed
treatment)
that
might
affect
the
environment.
Lindane
is
a
potential
endocrine
disruptr
in
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
fish.
There
is
a
possibility
of
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
granivorous
avian
and
mammalian
species.
However,
at
least
two
bird
species
(quail
and
red­
winged
blackbird)
were
averse
to
consuming
lindane­
treated
seeds
in
a
laboratory
environment,
which
may
drastically
decrease
exposure,
thus
reducing
risk.
In
the
field
,
Blus
et
al.
(1985)
found
that
when
lindane
was
substituted
for
heptaclor
(HE)
for
treatment
of
seed
(Columbia
Basin
near
the
Umatilla
NWR,
in
Oregon
and
Washington
State,
USA),
lindane
did
not
produce
adverse
effects
in
birds
and
residues
were
not
detected
in
either
their
eggs
or
brains.
Also,
coincidental
with
the
decrease
in
HE
residues
in
Canada
geese,
mortality
decreased,
reproductive
success
improved,
and
the
population
increased
rapidly
(Blus
et
al.
1984).
There
was
no
evidence
for
either
bio­
magnification
of
lindane
residues
from
treated
seeds
to
goose
tissues
or
eggs,
or
for
induction
of
adverse
effects
to
avian
species.
This
may
be
due
to
the
fact
that
Canada
geese,
as
well
as
other
avian
species,
may
have
been
repelled
by
lindane
treated
seed
as
a
submitted
study
has
suggested
with
quail
and
red­
winged
blackbirds.
A
Tier
I
screening
assessment
(using
GENEEC)
indicated
risks
to
aquatic
organisms.
For
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
high
acute
risk
may
occur
even
at
the
low
application
rates
for
seed­
treatment
uses.
Restricted
use
LOC's
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
and
freshwater
fish.
Endangered
species
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
However,
there
are
no
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
listed
as
endangered.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
organisms
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.
Screening
level
Tier
I
modeling
studies
showed
that
lindane
concentrations
in
both
surface
and
ground
water
may
reach
environmentally
significant
levels
(>
MCL),
even
when
lindane
is
restricted
to
seed­
treatment
uses
only.
The
modeling
assumption
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface
may
have
produced
highly
conservative
estimates
and
may
have
overestimated
the
EEC's
and
resulting
risks.
A
seed
leaching
study
would
greatly
increase
certainty
regarding
a
more
realistic
estimate
groundwater
leaching
and
runoff.
This
in
turn
would
allow
a
refinement
of
exposure
estimates
and
environmental
concentration
values.

Mode
of
Action
Technical
HCH
consists
of
a
number
of
isomers:
alpha
(   
),
beta
(
),
and
gamma
(
)
(known
as
lindane).
The
approximate
composition
of
technical
HCH
is
55­
70%
 
­
HCH,
5­
14%,
 
­HCH,
10­
18%,
 
­HCH
and
impurities.
Lindane
(99.5%
 
­HCH)
is
the
most
biologically
active
insecticidal
isomer.

In
insects,
lindane
acts
through
the
inhibition
of
the
gamma­
aminobutyric
acid
(GABA)
receptor
of
the
CNS.
GABA
operates
by
increasing
chloride
ion
permeability
into
neurons
thereby
inhibiting
neurostimulation
inducing
overstimulation
of
the
CNS
causing
rapid
violent
convulsions.
The
a
isomer
is
much
less
active
at
inhibiting
binding
to
the
GABA
receptor
than
lindane
and
the
beta
isomer
seems
not
to
exhibit
inhibiting
binding
at
all.
3
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Alpha­
HCH
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Delta­
HCH
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Beta­
HCH
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Cl
Lindane
(gamma­
HCH)
Figure
1:
Chemical
Structure
of
Lindane
and
Isomers
Use
Characterization
Although
the
only
current
agricultural
use
of
lindane
is
for
seed
treatment,
lindane
has
been
extensively
used
in
the
past
as
an
insecticide
on
a
variety
of
crops,
for
home
termite
control,
and
as
a
wood
preservative.
Table
1
summarizes
the
current
use
rates
for
seed
treatment
that
were
used
in
this
risk
assessment.

Table
1.
Lindane
seed­
treatment
uses
and
application
rates.

Seed
Type
Label
Rate
[lb
a.
i./
100
lb
seed]
Typical
Seeding
a
[lbs
seed/
acre]
Estimated
Application
Rate,
based
on
label
rate
and
maximum
seeding
[lb.
a.
i./
acre]

Barley
0.0375
60­
96
0.036
Corn
0.125
10­
14
0.018
Oats
0.03125
50­
80
0.025
Rye
0.
0328
56­
84
0.0276
Sorghum
0.0628
6.76
0.00425
Canola
1.075­
1.456
4
0.
043­
0.059
Wheat
0.0426
40­
120
0.0512
a
Based
on
information
from
BEAD.

ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
TRANSPORT
ASSESSMENT
Summary
Laboratory
studies
indicate
that
lindane
is
persistent
and
moderately
mobile.
It
is
resistant
to
photolysis
and
hydrolysis
(except
at
high
pH),
and
degrades
very
slowly
by
microbial
actions.
Table
2
summarizes
the
physical­
chemical
and
environmental
fate
properties
of
lindane.
Since
most
degradation
pathways
occur
slowly,
the
presence
of
the
degradates
is
generally
at
relatively
low
levels.
There
is
possible
evidence
that
lindane
transforms
to
the
alpha
isomer
of
hexachlorocyclohexane
by
biological
degradation
although
this
issue
remains
to
be
conclusively
resolved.
Possible
degradates
could
include
isomers
of
pentachlorocyclohexene,
1,2,4,­
trichlorobenzene,
and
1,
2,
3­
trichlorobenzene.

Lindane
is
transported
through
the
environment
by
both
hydrologic
and
atmospheric
means.
Lindane
has
often
been
detected
in
surface
and
ground
water,
and
in
areas
of
non
use
(e.
g.,
the
arctic),
indicating
global
4
atmospheric
transport
(see
long­
range
transport
section).
Most
of
these
detections
have
likely
resulted
from
a
combination
of
lindane's
past
widespread
use
and
its
extreme
persistence.
Currently,
U.
S.
agricultural
uses
of
lindane
are
restricted
to
seed
treatments,
and
application
rates
are
quite
low.
Based
on
a
screening
level
assessment,
lindane
may
reach
water
resources
at
levels
above
the
MCL
of
0.
2
µg/
L.

Table
2.
Physical­
chemical
properties
of
lindane.

Parameters
Value
Chemical
name
­
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6­
hexachlorocyclohexane
CAS
No..
58­
89­
9
Molecular
Weight
290.82
Solubility
7
mg/
l
Vapor
Pressure
9.4
x
10
­6
torr
Henry's
Law
Constant
@
2
5
C
10
­2.49
pH
5
Hydrolysis
half
life
stable
pH
7
Hydrolysis
half
life
stable
pH
9
Hydrolysis
half
life
43­
53
days
Soil
Photolysis
half
life
stable
Aquatic
photolysis
half
life
stable
Aerobic
soil
dissipation
half
life
980
days
Soil
organic
carbon
partitioning
(Koc
)
1368
mL/
g
(mean
of
4
soils)

Octanol­
water
partition
coefficient
(Kow
)10
3.78
Hydrolysis
Lindane
is
stable
to
hydrolysis
at
pH
5
and
7
and
has
a
half
life
of
from
43
­53
days
at
pH
of
9
(MRID
00161630).
At
pH
9,
the
degradates
were
pentachlorocyclohexane,
1,2,4,­
trichlorobenzene,
and
1,
2,
3trichlorobenzene
Quantitative
data
were
not
provided
for
the
degradates
in
the
submitted
document.

Aqueous
Photolysis
Lindane
is
stable
to
photolysis
in
aqueous
systems.
These
studies
(MRIDs
0016457;
001645545;
447931)
showed
no
evidence
of
aqueous
photodegradation
during
the
30­
day
study
period,
even
when
acetone
was
used
as
a
photosensitizer
(MRID
001645545).

Soil
Photolysis
Lindane
in
contact
with
soil
does
not
photodegrade
significantly.
On
a
1­
mm
thick
soil
specimen
exposed
to
artificial
sunlight
for
12
hour
per
day,
lindane
degraded
only
very
slightly
over
the
30­
day
test
period.
The
extrapolated
half­
life
was
greater
than
150
days
(MRID
444406­
05).
The
dark
control
showed
a
5%
loss
over
the
30­
day
study.
The
soil
degradation
half
life
with
consideration
for
the
dark
control
losses
is
200
days.
Because
of
the
extreme
extrapolation
to
obtain
a
half
life,
this
study
essentially
gives
no
evidence
of
lindane
photodegradation
on
soil.

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
In
a
336­
day
aerobic
soil
metabolism
study,
lindane
degraded
very
slowly,
with
a
registrant­
calculated
half
life
of
980
days
(MRID
406225­
01).
Minor
degradation
products
were
PCCH
and
BHC,
which
reached
maximums
of
3.
84%
and
0.
77%
of
applied
radioactivity,
respectively.
Total
CO2
production
was
4.
81%
of
the
applied
parent
radioactivity
at
day
336.
It
was
confirmed
that
both
compounds
were
present
at
the
beginning
of
the
study;
however,
it
was
also
observed
that,
even
though
there
was
some
variability
in
the
data,
pentachlorocyclohexene
(PCCH)
showed
a
continuous
increment
in
concentration
from
day
0
to
day
336
(last
test
interval)
of
the
study.
In
general,
it
appeared
that
there
was
metabolic
transformation
during
5
the
study,
where
pentachlorocyclohexene
was
formed
slowly.
Although
microbial
transformation
of
lindane
to

­HCH
is
technically
possible,
it
does
not
occur
to
a
significant
extent.
Lindane
can
isomerize
to

­HCH
by
both
photolysis
and
microbial
degradation,
although
significant
conversion
under
typical
environmental
conditions
has
not
been
demonstrated
for
either
pathway.

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
This
study
is
at
best
considered
only
marginally
useful,
mainly
because
the
material
balances
generally
decreased
throughout
the
study
period
and
were
unacceptably
low,
and
because
there
was
variability
of
in
the
data
for
the
parent
compound.
Lindane
degraded
with
a
DT50
of
36.5
days
in
anaerobic
(nitrogen)
flooded
sandy
loam
soil
that
was
incubated
in
darkness
up
to
60
days
following
a
31­
day
aerobic
incubation
period.
During
the
aerobic
phase,
the
parent
compound
was
sampled
only
at
the
initial,
14
days,
and
31
days
(prior
to
flooding).
During
that
time,
the
parent
decreased
from
97.6%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
to
69.6%
at
31
days
post­
treatment.
The
registrant
proposed
to
estimate
the
half­
life
of
the
aerobic
soil
metabolism
of
lindane
based
on
the
extrapolation
of
the
31
day
aerobic
portion
of
the
study.
However,
close
inspection
of
the
data
indicates
poor
recovery
of
the
radioactivity
(from
103.0%
at
the
initial
to
85.74%
at
31
days.
Furthermore,
only
three
data
points
are
available
for
the
calculation.
EFED
believes
that
to
estimate
a
half­
life
of
aerobic
soil
metabolism
under
these
conditions
is
inappropriate.
After
anaerobic
conditions
were
induced
by
flooding
and
nitrogen
gas,
the
parent
compound
in
the
total
soil/
water
system
was
initially
69.
6%
(at
day
0
prior
to
flooding),
but
it
increased
to
77.1%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
by
3
days.
Total
volatiles
(including
CO2
)
were
39.2%
at
60
days;
14
CO2
(NaOH
trap
only)
was
a
maximum
of
6.
0%
by
60
days.
At
60
days
following
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions,
12.
5%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
present
as
volatile
parent
compound.
In
the
volatile
phase,
a
major
degradate
to
11.
8%
by
60
days
following
the
initiation
of
anaerobic
conditions.
The
registrant
attempted
to
identify
the
degradate.
It
eluted
on
GC
trials
at
10.1
minutes.
When
the
sample
was
spiked
with

­HCH,
it
eluted
with
the
unknown,
suggesting
the
presence
of

­HCH.
However,
this
could
not
be
confirmed
by
a
second
analytical
technique,
namely,
HPLC.
In
addition,
the
registrant
provided
another
study,
MRID#
44867107,
which
is
a
non­
guideline
study.

Mobility
The
registrant­
calculated
organic
carbon
partitioning
coefficient
(Koc
)
ranged
from
942
to
1798
mL/
g
with
a
mean
of
1368
mL/
g
for
the
four
soils
tested
(MRID
00164346).
EFED
considers
compounds
with
this
range
of
Koc
values
to
be
moderately
mobile.
Sorption
of
lindane
was
assessed
in
24­
hour
batch
sorption
studies.
Soil
characteristics
and
results
are
presented
in
Table
3.

Table
3.
Soil
descriptions
and
results
of
24­
hour
batch
adsorption
studies
of
lindane.

Texture
Clay
Loam
Loam
Loamy
Sand
Sand
Sand
46
46
82
88
Silt
25
29
8
7
Clay
29
25
10
5
Organic
Carbon
(%)
0.99
1.58
1.58
0.39
CEC
[meq/
100
g]
19.4
22.2
18.2
8.
9
pH
7.84
7.22
6.9
7.
75
Kf
[(
ml/
g)(
mg/
L)
1­
n
]
a
16.8
14.9
28.4
3.
83
N
a
0.96
0.92
0.93
0.89
Koc
[mL/
g]
b
1696
942
1798
1037
a
Defined
by
the
Freundlich
isotherm:
S=
KF
C
N
where
S
is
sorbed
concentration
[mg/
kg],
and
C
is
aqueous
concentration
[mg/
L].
b
Koc
is
taken
as
the
organic
carbon
partitioning
coefficient
at
an
aqueous
concentration
of
1
mg/
L.
6
Laboratory
Volatility
The
submitted
study
provides
only
supplemental
information
about
the
volatility
of
lindane.
The
study
was
initially
designed
and
submitted
to
European
agencies.
The
registrant
submitted
supplemental
calculations
along
with
the
original
submission.
Lindane
volatilized
moderately
after
application.
Immediately
after
application,
a
1.
5
cm
layer
of
soil
was
placed
on
top
of
the
treated
soil
(according
to
the
registrant
this
would
simulate
soil
incorporation
similar
to
the
actual
use
as
a
seed
protectant).
During
the
first
hour
2.
19%
of
the
applied
lindane
was
found
in
the
volatile
traps.
The
calculated
mean
volatilization
rate
of
lindane
was
0.
290
µg/
cm
2
/hr.
The
rate
of
volatilization
decreased
with
time
to
an
average
of
0.
0347
µg/
cm
2
/hr
in
the
6­
24
hour
interval.
After
24
hours,
about
13%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
was
volatilized.
Lindane
represented
>86%
of
the
radioactivity
extracted
from
the
traps
(MRID#
44445301).

Terrestrial
Dissipation
Lindane,
at
0.61
lbs
a.
i./
A,
was
applied
at
once
to
two
test
plots
(loamy
sand,
pH
5.2)
cropped
with
peaches
and
bareground,
located
in
Georgia.
Lindane
dissipated
slowly,
with
calculated
half­
lives
of
65
and
107
days
for
cropped
and
bareground
soils,
respectively,
based
on
the
average
of
3
values
of
lindane
in
the
0­
5
cm
soil
depth.
Lindane
was
reported
to
be
in
the
5­
10
cm
soil
depth
between
days
120
and
185,
at
levels
between
0.04­
0.05
ppm.
(MRID
40622502)

In
another
terrestrial
field
dissipation
study
(MRID
448671­
03),
lindane
was
applied
uniformly
to
a
field
in
California
at
a
target
rate
that
was
8
times
higher
than
the
label
application
rate
for
seed
treatment.
Results
from
day
0
measurements
indicated
that
58%
of
the
target
rate
was
actually
applied.
Lindane
residues
were
not
detected
below
6
inches.
However,
the
quantification
limit
was
0.
02
ppm,
which
is
only
about
5%
of
the
original
concentration;
thus
lindane
in
this
study
that
leached
below
the
6
inches
could
have
easily
remain
unquantified,
and
thus
dissipation
half
lives
may
be
underestimated.
The
registrant­
calculated
dissipation
half
life
was
25
days.
Dissipation
half­
lives
are
typically
shorter
in
the
field
than
data
from
laboratory
studies
due
to
volatilization,
run­
off
and
other
such
variables.
Degradates
were
not
monitored.

Bioconcentration
Lindane
bioconcentrates
appreciably,
but
depurates
rapidly.
Bioconcentration
studies
were
conducted
with
bluegill
sunfish
(Lepomis
macrochirus)
at
nominal
concentration
of
0.
54
µg/
L
of
lindane
for
28
days,
followed
by
14
days
of
depuration
(MRID
400561­
01).
Bioconcentration
factors
were
780
for
fillet,
2500
for
viscera,
and
1400
for
whole
fish
tissues.
After
the
14
days
of
depuration,
14
C
levels
were
reduced
by
96%
in
fillet,
95%
in
viscera,
and
85%
in
whole
fish.

Once
released
into
the
environment,
lindane
can
partition
into
all
environmental
media.
Lindane
has
been
detected
in
air,
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediment,
soil,
ice,
snowpack,
fish,
wildlife
and
humans.
Lindane
can
bio­
accumulate
easily
in
the
food
chain
due
to
its
high
lipid
solubility
and
can
bio­
concentrate
rapidly
in
microrganisms,
invertebrates,
fish,
birds
and
mammals,
however
bio­
transformation
and
elimination
are
relatively
rapid
when
exposure
is
discontinued
(WHO
1991).

Water
Resource
Assessment
Lindane
may
reach
surface
and
ground
waters
when
used
as
a
seed
treatment,
although
concentrations
are
expected
to
be
low.
Fate
studies
show
that
lindane
is
both
moderately
mobile
(mean
Koc
=
1368)
and
persistent
(soil
half
life
of
2.
6
years).
Based
on
a
screening
level
assessment,
even
at
its
very
low
use
rate
under
the
current
use
restriction
to
seed
treatment
(maximum
of
0.
0512
lb
a.
i./
acre),
lindane
may
reach
water
resources
at
environmentally
significant
concentrations.
7
Surface
Water
(Farm
Pond)
Surface
water
concentrations
resulting
from
lindane
use
as
a
seed
treatment
were
predicted
with
the
Tier1
assessment
model,
GENEEC.
Table
4
presents
a
summary
of
GENEEC
inputs
and
results.
The
entire
output
file
can
be
found
in
Appendix
III.

Table
4.
GENEEC
input
parameters
and
results
for
lindane.

Application
Rate
1
x
0.
051
lb
ai/
acre*

Aerobic
Soil
Half
Life
980
days
(single
value)

Organic
Carbon
Partitioning
Coefficient
(Koc
)
942
mL/
g
(lowest
value)

Peak
0.67
µg/
L
4­
day
average
0.66
µg/
L
21­
day
average
0.58
µg/
L
56­
day
average
0.48
µg/
L
*The
highest
effective
application
rate
was
for
wheat
at
0.0512
lb
a.
i.
/acre
(see
Table
1).

Ground
Water
Ground
water
concentrations
were
predicted
with
SCIGROW.
Input
parameters
and
output
and
the
resulting
EEC
are
summarized
in
Table
5.
The
entire
SCIGROW
output
file
is
located
in
Appendix
III.

Table
5.
SCIGROW
input
parameters
and
results
for
lindane.

Application
Rate
1
@
0.
051
lb/
acre
Aerobic
Soil
Half
Life
980
days
(mean
Value)

Organic
Carbon
Partitioning
Coefficient
(Koc
)
1367
mL/
g
(median
Value)

EEC
0.011
µg/
L
Drinking
Water
Recommendations
to
HED
EFED
recommends
that
the
Health
Effects
Division
(HED)
use
the
concentrations
presented
in
Table
6
for
drinking
water
EECs.
The
drinking
water
EECs
were
based
on
the
GENEEC
(surface
water)
and
SCIGROW
(groundwater)
simulations
described
above.

Table
6.
Drinking
water
EECs
for
lindane
for
use
by
HED.

Acute
Chronic
Groundwater
0.011
µ
g/
L
0.
011
µ
g/
L
Surface
Water
0.67
µ
g/
L
0.
48
µ
g/
L
Monitoring
Data
The
presence
of
lindane
in
the
environment,
due
to
previous
widespread
agricultural
use,
is
well
documented
in
U.
S.
data
bases.
For
example,
In
the
U.
S.
EPA
STORET
data
base,
720
detections
(after
culling
of
data
to
eliminate
dubious
data,
e.
g.
K
and
U
codes)
in
ground
water
were
reported
between
the
years
1968
and
1995,
in
nearly
all
regions
of
the
country,
with
especially
high
numbers
of
detections
in
the
South
and
West.
For
these
720
detections,
the
median
and
mean
concentrations
were
0.01
and
11
µg/
L,
respectively.
For
surface
waters,
8775
detections
were
reported
with
median
and
mean
concentrations
of
0.005
and
0.
18
µg/
L.
STORET
Dectections
were
reported
in
nearly
all
regions
of
the
conterminous
U.
S.
In
the
USGS
NAWQA
study,
lindane
was
detected
in
2.58%
of
surface
water
samples
(0.
67%
at
levels
greater
than
0.05
µ
g/
L,
maximum
concentration
reported
was
0.13
µ
g/
L).
For
groundwater,
USGS
NAWQA
reported
a
detection
frequency
of
0.
1
%
(0.07%
at
levels
greater
than
0.01
µ
g/
L,
maximum
concentration
reported
was
0.032
µ
g/
L).
8
EFED
would
like
to
stress
some
basic
general
parameters
when
considering
the
possible
use
of
these
types
of
monitoring
data
for
lindane:


EFED
believes
that
utilizing
"NAWQA"
and/
or
"STORET"
data
exclusively
to
establish
exposures
or
to
define
aquatic
risk
is
not
appropriate
in
most
cases.
Both
databases
indicate
that
lindane
has
been
found
in
surface
and
ground
water.
There
is
no
indication
that
this
has
changed.


The
models
used
by
EFED
(FIRST
and
GENEEC2)
assume
the
chemical
is
applied
in
the
area
surrounding
the
water
body
from
which
exposures
may
occur.
Random
monitoring
of
agricultural
areas
does
not
automatically
assure
that
lindane
was
used
in
the
basin
surrounding
the
body
of
water
being
sampled.
Also,
neither
NAWQA
nor
STORET
monitoring
programs
are
designed
or
are
intended
to
establish
potential
risk
to
aquatic
organisms
from
agricultural
chemicals.


The
NAWQA
and
STORET
monitoring
programs
are
not
designed,
nor
are
they
intended
to
establish
potential
risk
to
human
health.
NAWQA
and
STORET
are
status
and
trends
program
for
general
water
quality.
Monitoring
is
not
"targeted"
to
specific
pesticides
and
no
validated
link
to
a
pesticides'
use
at
the
field
level
with
an
occurrence
in
either
ground
or
surface
water
has
been
made.


The
Agency
acknowledges
that
lindane's
use
has
decreased
over
time,
and
detections
should
decrease
accordingly,
but,
once
again,
the
purpose
of
the
estimation
of
EEC's
is
to
obtain
potential
concentrations
of
a
pesticide
when
they
are
applied
in
the
proximity
of
surface
water
intakes.


NAWQA
and
STORET
data
are
limited
by
the
extent
of
sampling
conducted
at
any
one
site.
Very
few
sites
were
sampled
more
than
a
few
times
in
a
year
and
still
fewer
for
more
than
one
year.
Information
such
as,
but
not
limited
to,
the
timing
of
lindane
application,
proximity
to
the
sampling
site
and
proximity
of
sampling
site
to
the
nearest
drinking
water
intake
are
necessary
to
better
characterize
the
usefulness
of
the
monitoring
data.

Long­
range
Transport
Potential
of
Lindane
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(HCH)
is
an
organochlorine
pesticide
used
throughout
the
world
and
is
commonly
available
in
two
formulations:
technical­
grade
HCH,
consists
of
mainly
 
­HCH
(55­
70%),
 
­HCH
1018
and
trace
amounts
of
 
­
 
­
and

­HCH
isomers
(5­
14%)
and
lindane
(almost
pure
99.
5%
 
­HCH).
The
United
States
and
many
other
developed
nations
discontinued
and
banned
 
­HCH
usage.
Although
the
only
current
agricultural
use
of
lindane
in
United
States
is
for
seed
treatment,
lindane
has
been
extensively
used
in
the
past
as
an
insecticide
on
a
variety
of
crops,
for
home
termite
control,
and
as
a
wood
preservative.
Numerous
studies
of
ambient
air
(Harner
et
al.,
2001
and
Waite
et
al.,
1999),
precipitation
(Barrie
et
al.,
1992
and
Norstrom
and
Muir,
1994),
and
surface
water
(Harner,
1997
and
Norstrom
and
Muir,
1994)
have
reported
HCH
residues,
particularly
 
and
 
isomers,
throughout
North
America.
One
concern
is
whether
the
current
use
of
lindane
in
the
United
States
has
the
potential
of
atmospheric
burdens
that
arise
from
secondary
emissions
owing
to
agricultural
practices
like
seed
treatment
and
consequently
their
potential
for
long­
range
transport
and
effects
on
the
ecosystem.
There
are
no
specific
studies
that
have
been
conducted
in
the
United
States
to
address
this
issue.
Therefore,
this
section
relied
on
available
literature
to
address
the
relative
influence
of
local
and
regional
sources
of
lindane
and
their
potential
for
long­
range
transport.

Lindane
is
a
relatively
volatile,
persistence
and
lipophilic
organochlorine
pesticide
and
it
can
migrate
over
a
long
distance
through
various
environmental
media
such
as
air,
water,
and
sediment.
Once
lindane
is
applied
to
soil,
it
can
either
persist
in
soil
as
a
sorbed
phase
or
be
removed
through
several
physical,
chemical,
and
biological
processes.
However,
volatilization
from
soil
and
surface
waters
is
the
major
9
dissipation
route
for
lindane.
The
Henry's
law
constant
for
lindane
suggests
that
it
will
volatilize
into
the
air,
although
microbial
and
chemical
degradation
and
uptake
by
crops
can
also
occur
(Walker
et
al.,
1999).
Lindane
can
also
enter
the
air
as
adsorbed
phase
onto
suspended
particulate
matter,
but
this
process
does
not
appear
to
be
a
major
contributor
like
volatilization
(Walker
et
al.,
1999
and
Bidlemen,
1998).
Lane
et
al.
(1992)
reported
that
95%
of
the
HCH
isomers
in
ambient
air
were
the
gaseous
phase.
Brubaker
and
Hites
(1998)
measured
the
gas
phase
kinetics
of
the
hydroxyl
radical
with
 
­HCH
and
 
­HCH,
and
reported
that
these
compounds
have
long
atmospheric
half­
lives
in
air
and
therefore
can
be
transported
long
distance.
Recently,
soil
and
air
samples
were
collected
for
organochlorine
pesticides
in
northwest
Alabama
to
estimate
soil­
to­
air
fluxes
and
their
contribution
to
the
atmospheric
concentration
(Harner
et
al.,
2001).
They
attributed
that
the
atmospheric
concentration
of
lindane
in
northwest
Alabama
is
possibly
due
to
atmospheric
advections
or
regional
sources
rather
than
the
studied
soils.
A
field
study
conducted
by
Waite
et
al.
(2001)
in
Saskatchewan,
Canada
demonstrated
volatilization
of
lindane
from
fields
planted
with
lindane­
treated
canola
seed.
They
reported
that
significant
quantities
(12­
30%)
of
applied
lindane
volatilize
from
treated
canola
seed
to
the
atmosphere
during
the
growing
seasons
and
have
direct
implications
on
regional
atmospheric
concentrations
of
lindane.
They
have
also
estimated
that
a
range
of
66.4
to188.8
tons
of
atmospheric
load
of
 
­HCH
occurred
during
1997
and
1998
following
the
planting
of
canola
in
the
region
of
the
Canadian­
prairies.
Poissant
and
Koprivnjak
(1996)
reported
that
90%
of
elevated
 
­HCH
concentration
in
the
atmosphere
at
Villeroy,
Quebec
in
1992
was
from
secondary
emissions
of
applied
lindane­
treated
corn,
while
the
rest
was
from
the
volatilization
of
residual
lindane
from
the
previous
year
seed
treatment.

The
production
and
usage
of
HCH
isomers
(especially
 
­HCH)
have
declined
worldwide
(except
India)
significantly
in
recent
years
(Li
et
al.,
1998).
However,
many
studies
suggest
that
secondary
emissions
of
residual
lindane
continue
to
recycle
in
the
global
system
while
they
slowly
migrated
and
redeposited
in
the
northern
Hemisphere.
Harner
et
al.
(1999)
attributed
the
substantial
increase
of
 
­HCH
compared
to
lindane
in
the
Arctic
to
the
differences
in
deposition
and
photochemical
degradation
of
lindane
to
 
­HCH.
However,
many
other
studies
did
not
find
substantial
evidence
of
photoisomerization
of
lindane
to
 
­HCH
(Walker
et
al.,
1999).
They
also
suggested
that
the
conversion
of
lindane
to
 
­HCH
in
soil
and
sediment
might
occur
and
contribute
a
small
fraction
of
 
­HCH
accumulation
in
atmosphere.
Cleeman
et
al.
(1995)
measured
the
deposition
of
HCH
isomers
at
four
sites
during
1990
to
1992
in
Denmark.
Elevated
levels
of
 
­and
 
­HCHs
were
detected
in
the
spring
and
summer
and
were
attributed
to
continuing
use
of
HCH
isomers
and
long­
range
transport
from
European
countries
south
and
west
of
Denmark.
Ockenden
et
al.
(1998)
observed
a
very
similar
trend
in
Norway.
Iwata
et
al.
(1993)
compared
surface
water
and
air
concentrations
of
HCH
isomers.
Results
indicate
that
HCHs
were
primarily
released
from
east
Asia
and
India
but
were
accumulating
in
the
northern
oceans.
They
suggested
that
HCH
isomers
were
able
to
atmospherically
transport
to
colder
regions
where
it
was
deposited
and
became
less
volatile
in
colder
sinks.
Atmospheric
concentrations
of
many
organochlorine
compounds
have
also
been
detected
in
the
Arctic,
but
the
highest
concentrations
are
generally
 
­and
 
­HCHs
(Harner,
1997).
Even
though,
high
concentrations
of
HCH
isomers
were
detected
in
surface
waters
of
the
Arctic,
bioaccumulation
in
the
aquatic
food
chains
was
significantly
less
than
the
other
organochlorine
compounds
(Norstrom
and
Muir,
1994).

The
behavior
of
HCH
isomers
in
the
environment
is
complex
because
they
are
multimedia
chemicals,
existing
and
exchanging
among
different
compartments
of
the
environment
such
as
atmosphere,
surface
water,
soil
and
sediment.
Post­
application
residual
volatilization
of
lindane
takes
place
over
a
much
longer
period.
Once
airborne,
lindane
may
move
into
the
upper
troposphere
for
more
widespread
regional,
and
possibly
transcontinental
distribution
as
a
result
of
large­
scale
vertical
perturbations
that
facilitate
air
mass
movement
out
of
the
near
surface.
Also,
it
may
reversibly
deposit
on
terrestrial
surfaces
close
to
the
source
and
still
be
transported
over
large
distances,
even
global
scales,
through
successive
cycles
of
deposition
and
10
re­
emission
as
result
of
ambient
temperature
and
latitude
differences
known
as
"global
distillation
or
fractionation"
(Wania
and
Mackay,
1996).
In
order
to
understand
the
long­
range
transport
potential
of
a
compound,
a
necessary
step
needs
to
consider
if
multimedia
environmental
partition
and
degradation
processes
can
substantially
remove
the
substance.
In
response,
a
number
of
multimedia
models
have
emerged.
Detailed
information
of
multimedia
model
evolution
and
their
significance
can
be
found
in
a
recent
article
by
Wania
and
Mackay
(1999).

Recently,
a
workgroup
was
initiated
by
Wania
and
Mackey
(2000)
to
compare
the
persistent
and
longrange
transport
potential
estimated
by
models
developed
and
used
by
various
research
groups.
Even
though
there
are
some
specific
differences
among
the
participants'
models,
all
participants
used
essentially
the
basic
multimedia
Level
III
fugacity
model
developed
by
Mackey
(1991).
The
Level
III
model
is
more
complex
and
realistic
than
Level
I
and
Level
II
fugacity
models.
A
Level
I
model
is
a
closed
system
mass
balance
of
a
defined
quantity
of
chemical
as
it
partitions
at
equilibrium
between
compartments.
A
Level
II
model
is
a
steady­
state
open
system
description
of
chemical
fate
at
equilibrium
with
a
constant
chemical
emission
rate.
The
Level
III
model
is
a
steady­
state
of
chemical
fate
between
a
number
of
well­
mixed
compartments
which
are
not
at
equilibrium.
This
model
also
assumes
a
simple,
evaluative
environment
with
user­
defined
volumes
and
densities
for
the
following
homogeneous
environmental
media
(or
compartments):
air,
water,
soil,
suspended
sediment,
sediment,
fish
and
aerosols.
This
model
gives
a
more
realistic
description
of
a
chemical's
fate
including
the
important
degradation
and
advection
losses
and
the
intermedia
transport
processes.

All
participants
of
the
workgroup
evaluated
the
persistent
and
long­
range
transport
of
lindane
and
25
other
chemicals
using
a
set
of
physical,
chemical,
and
environmental
fate
data
by
Mackey
et
al.
(1992­
1997).
They
calculated
values
termed
"fugacity
capacities"
for
selected
environmental
media
(air,
water,
soil)
in
the
model,
based
on
the
chemical
and
physical
properties
of
the
modeled
substances.
There
are
large
differences
in
the
absolute
persistence
value
estimated
by
the
various
models
ranging
from
546
days
to
1219
days
for
lindane
and
368
days
to
925
days
for
 
­HCH.
Similarly,
the
absolute
atmospheric
transport
distances
calculated
by
the
participants
are
also
large
ranging
from1000
km(
621
miles)
to58396
km
(36287
miles)
for
lindane
and
1014
km
(630
miles)
to
72441
km
(45014
miles)
for
 
­HCH.
Despite
the
large
difference
in
the
absolute
values,
the
correlation
between
the
overall
persistence
and
long­
range
transport
values
obtained
by
various
models
were
high,
with
correlation
coefficients
averaging
higher
than
0.
80.
The
differences
between
models
can
be
attributed
to
the
differences
in
the
numbers
and
relative
dimensions
of
the
model
compartments.
In
addition,
environmental
degradation
rates,
which
can
vary
with
temperature,
humidity,
and
other
environmental
properties,
may
have
significant
influence
on
the
variation
among
model
results.

Currently,
the
EPA
is
developing
a
PBT
Profiler
that
estimates
environmental
persistence
(P),
bioconcentration
potential
(B),
and
aquatic
toxicity
(T).
When
a
user
accesses
the
PBT
Profiler
on
the
Internet,
the
program
prompts
the
user
to
enter
the
Chemical
Abstract
Service
(CAS)
number
of
chemicals
under
consideration.
The
PBT
Profiler
is
linked
to
a
database
containing
CAS
numbers
and
associated
chemical
structure
for
more
than
100,000
discrete
chemical
substances.
If
the
CAS
number
is
in
the
database,
the
PBT
Profiler
will
translate
the
CAS
number
into
a
chemical
structure,
predict
the
PBT
characteristics,
and
provide
a
PBT
Profile
in
an
easy
to
understand
format.
The
PBT
profiler
also
uses
the
Level
III
fugacity
model
as
described
earlier
to
determine
the
percentage
of
a
chemical
in
defined
media.
More
information
can
be
obtained
from
EPA's
website
(www.
epa.
gov/
opptintr/
p2framework/
docs/
profile.
htm).
A
beta
test
of
the
PBT
Profiler
has
been
completed
and
the
peer
review
phase
is
in
progress.
The
PBT
profiler
was
used
to
estimate
PBT
characteristics
of
lindane.
The
following
italicized
or
underlined
highlights
in
PBT
outputs
of
lindane
11
indicate
that
the
persistence
and
aquatic
toxicity
criteria
have
been
exceeded
and
characteristics
travel
distance
(CTD)
or
a
half­
distance
(analogous
to
half­
life)
was
15000
km
(9321miles).

In
summary,
the
presence
of
 
­HCH
and
lindane
in
surface
water,
atmosphere
and
precipitation
from
sites
remote
from
industrial
and
agricultural
activities
implies
long­
range
atmospheric
migrations
of
these
compounds.
Concerns
have
been
raised
for
their
potential
effects
on
human
and
ecosystem
health
of
the
northern
hemisphere.
It
is
conceivable
that
the
elevated
levels
of
lindane
and
 
­HCH
in
the
northern
hemisphere,
especially
in
the
Arctic,
resulted
from
long­
range
transport.
Persistence
and
long­
range
transport
of
lindane
was
also
reflected
in
monitoring
data
and
various
modeling
efforts.
Despite
the
progress
made
in
recent
years
in
estimating
the
persistence
and
long­
ranged
transport
using
models
for
chemicals,
a
validated
global
model
has
not
yet
been
published
because
of
uncertainties
involved
in
the
source
inventories,
chemical
fate
data,
degradative
pathways
and
exposure
analyses.
Future
work
should
be
aimed
at
developing
a
comprehensive
screening
tool
that
can
be
used
reliably
in
risk
assessments
for
regulatory
purposes.
12
ECOLOGICAL
EFFECTS
TOXICITY
ASSESSMENT
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
bird,
mammal,
or
aquatic
organism.
Only
two
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(2000+)
and
bird
(680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
the
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
assessment
of
risk
or
hazard
makes
the
assumption
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicity
are
similar,
and
that
fish
and
amphibians
toxicity
are
similar.
Generally,
the
most
toxic
endpoints
for
the
technical
grade
active
ingredient
(TGAI)
are
used
in
the
assessment
to
represent
each
group
of
organism.

Based
on
ecological
effects
data,
the
toxicity
endpoints
+
used
in
the
assessment
of
lindane
can
be
characterized
as
follows:

*
Avian
acute
oral
­
Moderately
toxic
(LD50=
56
mg/
Kg)
*
Avian
acute
dietary
­
Highly
toxic
(LC50=
425
ppm)
*
Avian
chronic
(reproduction)­
(NOAEC=
15
ppm)
*
Mammalian
acute
oral
­
Moderately
toxic
(LD50=
88
mg/
Kg)
*
Mammalian
chronic
(reproduction)­(
NOAEL=
20
ppm)
*
Honey
bee
acute
­
Highly
toxic
(LD50=
0.2
ug/
bee)
*
Fish
(freshwater)
acute
­
Very
highly
toxic
(LC50=
1.7
ppb)
*
Fish
(freshwater)
chronic
­
Reduced
larval
growth
(NOAEC=
2.
9
ppb)
*
Fish
(estuarine)
acute
­
Very
highly
toxic
(48
hr
LC50=
23.0
ppb)
*
Fish
(estuarine)
chronic
­
No
data
*
Invertebrate
(freshwater)
acute
­
Very
highly
toxic
(96
hr
LC50=
10.
0
ppb)
*
Invertebrate
(freshwater)
chronic­
Decreased
reproduction
(21­
day
NOAEC=
54.0
ppb)
*
Invertebrate
(estuarine)
acute
­
Very
highly
toxic
(96
hr
LC50/
EC50=
0.077
ppb)
*
Invertebrate
(estuarine)
chronic
­
No
data
*Plants­
Nodata
+
For
a
complete
listing
of
these
and
other
toxicity
studies
for
lindane,
please
see
Appendix
I.

Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Bird
and
mammal
overview
Lindane
is
moderately
toxic
to
birds
and
mammals
on
an
acute
exposure
basis.
Chronic
reproductive
effects
include
significant
reductions
in
egg
production,
growth
and
survival
parameters
in
birds,
and
decreased
body
weight
gain
in
mammals.

Avian
Species
(Acute
Oral,
Subacute
Dietary
and
Reproduction)
In
acute
oral
toxicity
studies
conducted
on
bobwhite
quail,
starlings,
red­
winged
blackbirds
and
sparrows,
the
LD50s
for
lindane
are
122,
100,
75
and
56
mg/
kg,
respectively.
The
results
suggest
that
lindane
is
moderately
toxic
to
birds
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Subacute
dietary
toxicity
studies
conducted
on
mallard
duck,
bobwhite
quail,
ring­
necked
pheasant,
and
Japanese
quail
suggest
that
lindane
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
highly
toxic,
with
LC50s
of
>5000,
882,
561
and
425
ppm,
respectively.
An
avian
reproduction
study
on
bobwhite
quail
indicated
that
significant
reductions
occurred
in
the
number
of
eggs
laid,
eggs
set,
viable
embryos,
live
3­
week
embryos,
normal
hatchlings
and
14­
day
old
survivors,
percentage
of
normal
hatchlings/
eggs
laid,
normal
hatchlings/
eggs
set,
normal
hatchlings/
live
3
week
embryos,
14­
day
13
survivors/
eggs
set,
14­
day
survivors/
normal
hatchlings,
eggshell
thickness
and
hatchling
weights.
The
No
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration
(NOAEC)
and
the
Lowest
Observable
Adverse
Effect
Concentration
(LOAEC)
were
determined
to
be
80
and
320
ppm,
respectively.

Also,
an
avian
reproduction
study
using
mallard
ducks
showed
significant
reductions
in
the
number
of
viable
embryos,
live
3­
week
embryos,
and
normal
hatchlings
at
the
two
highest
concentrations
(45
and
135
ppm).
The
NOAEC
and
the
LOAEC
were
determined
to
be
15
and
45
ppm,
respectively.
However,
due
to
low
hatching
success
in
the
control
group,
the
study
should
be
repeated
to
determine
if
15
ppm
is
a
valid
NOAEL
value.
The
NOAEL
value
of
15
ppm
will
be
used
in
risk
assessments
until
further
data
is
provided.

In
addition,
the
registrant
submitted
two
14­
day
free
choice
avian
dietary
toxicity
studies
(400561­
03
and
400561­
04).
Results
suggested
that
bobwhite
quail
and
red­
winged
blackbirds
were
repelled
by
treated
sorghum
seed.
These
studies
clearly
suggested
that
birds
avoided
lindane
treated
food
when
given
a
choice
and
even
in
a
no­
choice
situation,
birds
did
not
readily
eat
and
were
emaciated
at
study
termination.

Mammalian
Species
(Acute
Oral
and
Reproduction)
In
toxicity
studies
conducted
on
laboratory
rats
for
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(HED),
lindane
is
moderately
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(LD50
of
88
mg/
kg).
Results
from
a
chronic
reproduction
study
indicate
reproductive
toxicity
at
a
LOAEL
of
150
ppm
(NOAEL
of
20
ppm)
with
decreased
body
weight
gain,
viability
up
to
PP4
in
both
generation
offspring
and
delayed
onset
and
completion
of
tooth
eruption
and
hair
growth
in
F2
pups
being
the
endpoints
affected.

Insects
Lindane
is
highly
toxic
to
bees
on
an
acute
contact
basis
(LD50s
ranged
from
0.20
to
0.56
µg/
bee).

Toxicity
to
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
Freshwater
organism
toxicity
overview
Lindane
exhibits
high
to
very
high
acute
toxicity
to
freshwater
fish
(LC50
ranges
of
1.7
to
131
ppb)
and
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
(LC50
ranges
of
10.0
to
520
ppb).
Chronic
effects
include
reduction
in
larval
growth
in
freshwater
fish
(NOAEC=
2.9
µg/
L)
and
decreased
reproduction
in
aquatic
invertebrates
(NOAEC=
54
µg/
L).

Freshwater
fish
In
acute
toxicity
studies
conducted
on
coldwater
and
warmwater
species,
the
96­
hour
LC50
values
for
the
technical
grade
material
ranged
from
1.
7
to
131
ppb,
suggesting
that
lindane
will
be
highly
to
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
Early
life­
stage
toxicity
tests
conducted
on
rainbow
trout
show
that
lindane
significantly
affected
larval
growth
at
concentrations
greater
than
or
equal
to
6.
0
µg/
L.

Freshwater
invertebrates
Acute
toxicity
studies
conducted
on
a
variety
of
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrates
suggest
that
the
active
ingredient
of
lindane
is
highly
to
very
highly
toxic
on
an
acute
basis.
48­
and
96­
hour
LC50
or
EC50
values
ranged
from
10.0
to
520
µg/
L
in
6
studies.
A
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
conducted
with
the
active
ingredient
(99.5%
ai)
on
waterflea
(Daphnia
magna)
found
a
21­
day
NOAEC
of
54.0
µg/
L
and
a
LOAEC
of
110.0
µg/
L.
Decreased
reproduction
was
the
affected
endpoint
in
the
study.
14
Estuarine/
Marine
organism
toxicity
overview
Lindane
exhibits
high
to
very
high
acute
toxicity
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
ranges
from
moderately
to
very
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates.
No
data
were
submitted
to
assess
chronic
effects
to
either
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
estuarine/
marine
aquatic
invertebrates.

Estuarine/
Marine
fish
Testing
on
a
variety
of
species
resulted
in
48­
and
96­
hour
LC50
range
of
23.0
to
190.0
µg/
L,
which
is
considered
to
be
very
highly
to
highly
toxic
on
an
acute
basis.
No
data
on
the
chronic
effects
of
lindane
estuarine/
marine
fish
have
been
submitted.

Estuarine/
Marine
invertebrates
Acute
toxicity
testing
on
a
variety
of
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
species
with
the
technical
product
resulted
in
48­
and
96­
hour
LC50
/EC50
values
ranging
from
0.
077
to
2800.0
µg/
L
which
fall
into
the
highly
to
very
highly
toxic
acute
classes
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
No
data
on
the
chronic
effects
of
lindane
have
been
submitted.

Toxicity
to
Plants
Currently,
plant
testing
is
not
required
for
pesticides
other
than
herbicides
and
fungicides
except
on
a
caseby
case
basis
(e.
g.,
labeling
bears
phytotoxicity
warnings,
incident
data
or
literature
that
demonstrates
phytotoxicity).
Because
of
the
current
low
application
rate,
lack
of
incident
data
on
plants
and
no
available
literature
suggesting
phytotoxicity,
no
plant
data
would
normally
be
required.
However,
Tier
I
plant
toxicity
studies
(850.4100­
Seedling
emergence
in
10
species
and
850.5400­
Aquatic
plant
toxicity
tests
in
5
species)
are
required
for
outdoor
seed
treatment
uses
(Memo
from
Denise
Keehner
re:
EFED
policy
guidance
for
eco­
risk
and
drinking
water
assessments
of
seed
treatment
pesticides,
7/
30/
99).

Ecological
Incident
Data
Incidents
have
been
reported
from
the
use
of
lindane
and
are
on
the
USEPA
incident
database.
These
incidents
are
listed
in
a
table
in
Appendix
II.
The
incidents
all
involved
fish
and
lindane
was
not
the
definite
cause
for
most,
however,
one
definite
incident
was
an
accidental
spill
that
did
kill
trout.

ENVIRONMENTAL
RISK
ASSESSMENT
In
order
to
evaluate
the
potential
risk
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
from
the
use
of
lindane,
risk
quotients
(RQs)
are
calculated
from
the
ratio
of
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(EECs)
to
generally
the
most
toxic
ecotoxicity
value
(acute)
or
no­
effect
level
(chronic)
for
that
group
of
organisms.
These
RQs
are
then
compared
to
levels
of
concern
(LOCs)
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
EECs
are
based
on
the
maximum
application
rates
(worst
case)
for
selected
modeled
crop
uses
for
lindane.

Ecological
effects
data
requirements
and
assessments
for
seed
treatment
pesticides
are
normally
based
on
the
granular
risk
assessment
strategy.
The
seed
treatment
assessment
process
is
designed
to
assess
toxicological
endpoints
according
to
application
rates,
application
method,
and
soil
incorporation
depth.
Granules
(seeds)
are
assumed
to
be
consumed
by
terrestrial
wildlife,
and
exposure
may
be
limited
by
type
of
application
method.

Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Organisms
Ecological
risks
from
seed
treatments
can
be
assessed
by
the
same
methods
used
for
granular
and
bait
products.
The
standard
assessment
is
to
calculate
the
number
of
LD50
per
square
foot
of
seeds
exposed
at
the
soil
surface,
accounting
for
incorporation
of
the
seeds
in
the
soil
(Felthousen
1977).
The
number
of
15
seeds
that
must
be
consumed
by
the
non­
target
organism
to
reach
the
LD50
can
be
calculated
if
the
amount
of
active
ingredient
(AI)
on
each
seed
is
known
or
can
be
estimated.
If
the
concentration
of
active
ingredient
on
the
seed
is
known
or
can
be
estimated,
then
this
concentration
can
be
used
as
an
EEC
to
assess
risk
to
granivorous
birds
and
mammals.
For
avian
species,
this
EEC
can
be
compared
directly
to
the
dietary
LC50
value.
For
mammals,
this
EEC
can
be
compared
to
the
concentration
of
toxicant
in
food
lethal
to
50%
of
the
population,
which
is
calculated
by
dividing
the
LD50
value
by
the
fraction
of
body
weight
consumed
per
day
(McCann
1987).

Birds
and
small
mammals
actively
probe
the
soil
while
searching
for
food.
While
foraging,
they
are
known
to
ingest
soil,
both
intentionally
and
incidentally.
Beyer,
et
al.
(1994)
estimated
the
soil
content
of
the
diet
of
a
number
of
bird
and
mammal
species
to
range
from
<2%
to
30%.
Nevertheless,
soil
incorporation
will
reduce
overall
species
risk
and/
or
access
to
the
compound.

Terrestrial
assessment
The
labels
with
the
highest
rates
(lb
lindane/
100
lb
seed)
were
used
to
evaluate
potential
maximum
consumption
of
lindane
by
terrestrial
animals.
The
current
approach
uses
daily
food
intake
calculated
using
the
relationships
described
in
Nagy
(1987
as
cited
in
USEPA,
1993).
Acute
risk
quotients
(RQ)
were
then
calculated
based
on
animals
receiving
their
full
diet
from
lindane­
treated
seeds
for
a
1­
day
time
period
B
that
is,

mass
of
lindane
consumed
in
1
day
from
treated
seeds
RQ
=
species­
specific
mass
of
lindane
required
to
reach
LD50
An
RQ
>
0.5
is
defined
as
the
level
of
possible
acute
risk.
Details
of
the
calculations
are
given
in
Appendix
II.
Results
suggest
that
there
may
be
potential
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
both
endangered
and
nonendangered
birds
and
mammals.
Smaller
birds
and
mammals
(i.
e.,
those
with
high
food
intake
rates
per
body
mass)
are
at
greater
risk
than
larger
animals.
The
calculation
pertains
to
consumption
of
food
in
dry
weight.
Seeds
used
for
planting
are
expected
to
possess
low
water
content,
thus
no
adjustments
were
made
for
wet
weight.

Aquatic
assessment
The
EFED
model
GENEEC
was
used
to
determine
aquatic
EECs.
Wheat
has
the
highest
application
rate
in
terms
of
lbs
a.
i
per
acre
(see
Table
1)
and
was
used
as
the
model
crop
scenario.
Results
of
this
assessment
are
listed
in
Appendix
II
and
the
GENEEC
output
file
is
in
Appendix
III.
An
analysis
of
the
results
suggest
that
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates,
high
acute
risk
(RQ
=
8.7)
may
occur
even
at
the
low
application
rates
for
seed­
treatment
uses.
Restricted
use
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
and
freshwater
fish.
Endangered
species
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
and
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
organisms
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.

Exposure
and
Risk
to
Endangered
Species
In
1983,
the
Agency
requested
a
"case­
by­
case"
opinion
for
a
Section
18
(emergency
use
exemption)
for
sugarcane
use
in
Florida.
Jeopardy
to
the
snail
kite,
bald
eagle
and
Florida
panther
was
found
from
potential
lindane
use.
The
Agency
agrees
with
the
jeopardy
to
the
snail
kite
due
to
reductions
to
its
food
source
(apple
snails)
from
the
sugarcane
use.
However,
even
though
lindane
exhibits
toxicity
to
birds
and
mammals,
under
the
proposed
seed
treatment
use
patterns,
low
risk
is
assumed
for
most
endangered
species
of
these
taxa
based
on
their
lifestyles,
feeding
habits
and
natural
environments.
16
When
the
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
this
IRED
are
implemented
and
the
ecological
effects
and
environmental
fate
data
are
submitted
and
accepted
by
the
Agency,
the
Reasonable
and
Prudent
Alternatives
may
need
to
be
reassessed
and
modified
based
on
the
new
information.

The
Agency
is
currently
engaged
in
a
Proactive
Conservation
Review
with
FWS
and
the
National
Marine
Fisheries
Service
under
section
7(
a)(
1)
of
the
Endangered
Species
Act.
The
objective
of
this
review
is
to
clarify
and
develop
consistent
processes
for
endangered
species
risk
assessments
and
consultations.
Subsequent
to
the
completion
of
this
process,
the
Agency
will
reassess
the
potential
effects
of
lindane
use
to
federally
listed
threatened
and
endangered
species.
At
that
time
the
Agency
will
also
consider
any
regulatory
changes
recommended
in
the
IRED
that
are
being
implemented.
Until
such
time
as
this
analysis
is
completed,
the
overall
environmental
effects
mitigation
strategy
articulated
in
this
document
and
any
County
Specific
Pamphlets
described
in
Section
IV
which
address
lindane,
will
serve
as
interim
protection
measures
to
reduce
the
likelihood
that
endangered
and
threatened
species
may
be
exposed
to
lindane
at
levels
of
concern.

RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
Summary
of
Risk
Lindane
is
a
persistent,
moderately
mobile
organochlorine
and
a
potential
endocrine
disruptor
in
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
fish.
There
is
a
possiblity
of
acute
and
chronic
reproductive
risk
from
the
use
of
lindane­
treated
seed
to
endangered
and
non­
endangered
avian
and
especially
mammalian
species
consuming
a
majority
of
their
body
weight
in
seed
per
day.
The
assessment
suggests
acute
risk
to
endangered
and
nonendangered
freshwater
fish
may
occur
even
at
the
low
application
rates
for
seed­
treatment
uses.
However,
the
aquatic
assessment
is
based
on
the
conservative
assumption
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface.
Thus,
these
risks
may
be
overestimated
somewhat.

Based
on
a
screening
level
assessment,
both
surface
and
ground
water
simulations
show
that
lindane
concentrations
in
water
resulting
from
seed
treatments
may
reach
levels
of
environmental
concern
and
may
exceed
the
MCL
for
drinking
water
(0.
2ppb).
Lindane
in
water
bodies
due
to
past
uses
will
likely
remain
for
long
periods,
due
to
lindane's
extreme
persistence.

Avian
and
Mammalian
Species
Based
on
available
scientific
literature,
lindane
has
shown
adverse
endocrine
effects
in
mammals
(Raizada
et
al.
1980;
Uphouse
1987;
Cooper
et
al.
1989)
and
has
been
reported
to
disturb
male
mammalian
reproductive
functioning
(Chowdhury
et
al.,
1987;
Chowdhury
and
Gautam
1994;
Dalsenter
et
al.
1997;
Dalsenter
et
al.
1996).
Lindane
is
also
known
to
accumulate
in
fat
tissues
and
to
be
slowly
eliminated
in
milk
during
lactation
(Pompa
et
al.
1994).
Neurological
and
behavioral
alterations
are
principal
toxic
effects
of
lindane
in
animals
(Hulth
et
al.
1976;
Joy
1982).
Chakravarty
et
al.
(1986)
and
Chakravarty
and
Lahiri
(1986)
found
that
when
domestic
ducks
were
force
fed
lindane
(20
mg/
kg
of
body
weight
for
8
wks),
significant
egg­
shell
thinning,
reduced
clutch
size,
and
reduced
laying
frequencies
were
observed.
They
suggested
that
lindane
induced
estradiol
insufficiency
which
causes
inhibition
of
hepatic
RNA
and
yolk
protein
synthesis,
thereby
preventing
transformation
of
moderately
differentiated
oocytes
to
mature
vitellogenic
follicles,
delaying
ovulation
and
thus
drastically
reducing
clutch
size.
Hoffman
and
Eastin
(1982)
found
that
lindane
was
teratogenic
to
mallard
ducks
only
at
doses
that
were
greater
than
five
times
the
field
level
of
application,
but
did
find
that
lindane
was
much
more
toxic
on
a
lbs
per
acre
basis
when
administered
in
oil.
However,
lindane
in
the
diet
of
laying
hens
at
100
ppm
caused
reduced
hatchability
(Whitehead
et
al.
1972)
and
at
25
ppm
the
same
effect
was
noted
in
Japanese
quail
(Dewitt
and
George
1957).
In
the
field
,
Blus
et
al.
(1985)
found
that
when
lindane
was
substituted
for
heptaclor
(HE)
for
treatment
of
seed
(Columbia
Basin
near
the
Umatilla
NWR,
in
Oregon
and
Washington
State,
USA),
lindane
did
not
produce
adverse
effects
in
birds
and
residues
were
not
detected
in
either
their
eggs
or
17
brains.
Also,
coincidental
with
the
decrease
in
HE
residues
in
Canada
geese,
mortality
decreased,
reproductive
success
improved,
and
the
population
increased
rapidly
(Blus
et
al.
1984).
There
was
no
evidence
for
either
bio­
magnification
of
lindane
residues
from
treated
seeds
to
goose
tissues
or
eggs
or
for
induction
of
adverse
effects
to
avian
species.
This
may
be
due
to
the
fact
that
Canada
geese,
as
well
as
other
avian
species,
may
have
been
repelled
by
lindane
treated
seed
as
a
submitted
study
has
suggested
with
quail
and
red­
winged
blackbirds.

The
registrant
submitted
two
14­
day
free
choice
avian
dietary
toxicity
studies
(400561­
03
and
400561­
04)
using
40%
lindane.
Results
suggested
that
bobwhite
quail
and
red­
winged
blackbirds
were
repelled
by
treated
sorghum
seed.
These
studies
clearly
suggested
that
birds
avoided
lindane
treated
food
when
given
a
choice
and
even
in
a
no­
choice
situation,
birds
did
not
readily
eat
and
were
emaciated
at
study
termination.
Other
avian
species
may
possibly
also
show
aversion
to
lindane
treated
seed.
However,
birds
of
prey
that
consume
small
mammals
that
have
accumulated
lindane
may
be
at
risk
from
some
level
of
secondary
toxicity
from
chronic
exposure
over
time.
Also,
lindane
can
be
stored
in
the
fat
of
birds;
birds
of
prey
in
the
Netherlands
contained
up
to
89
ppm
in
their
fat
(Ulman
1972).

Earthworms
are
known
to
accumulate
lipophilic
substances
(such
as
lindane)
through
the
epidermis
and
the
intestine
(Belfroid
et
al.
1994).
In
nature,
worms
constitute
a
link
in
the
transport
of
environmental
pollutants
from
soil
to
organisms
higher
up
in
the
terrestrial
food
web.
Avian
and
mammalian
species
may
eat
worms
that
have
accumulated
lindane,
thus
providing
some
level
of
risk
to
those
species.
Also,
many
young
birds
eat
diets
rich
in
animal
foods
(including
worms),
even
though
they
may
be
strict
vegetarians
as
adults.
Many
newly­
hatched
young
that
feed
themselves,
instinctively
select
protein­
rich
foods
such
as
worms.

Lindane­
treated
seed
will
most
likely
be
planted
in
the
spring
during,
or
just
prior
to,
breeding
season.
Higher
energy
expenditures
and
higher
caloric
need
in
mammals
during
gestation
and
lactation
imply
a
need
for
either
more
total
food
and/
or
food
with
a
higher
caloric
content.
Conditions
during
breeding
season
present
a
need
to
keep
in
close
proximity
to
the
den
and
subsequent
offspring.
Because
of
this,
mammals
living
near
fields
planted
with
lindane
treated
seed
may
not
have
the
option
of
traveling
to
non­
treated
areas
and
may
in
fact
cache
these
readily
available
treated
seeds.
Most
uses
do
not
present
high
acute
risk
to
larger
seed
eating
mammals.
However,
due
to
the
compound
exhibiting
endocrine­
disrupting
effects
and
being
lipophilic
and
eliminated
in
milk
during
lactation,
mammals
in
general
that
may
ingest
seeds
may
be
at
some
risk.
Milk
is
known
to
be
a
major
route
of
elimination
for
lipophilic
persistent
substances
stored
in
adipose
tissue.
The
milk:
plasma
concentration
ratio
for
lindane
indicates
a
much
more
efficient
excretion
of
the
compound
in
milk
(Dalsenter
et
al.
1997).
Milk
possesses
a
great
affinity
on
liposoluble
substances
due
to
its
high
fat
content.
The
presence
of
lindane
in
mammalian
milk
exposes
nursing
offspring
during
critical
periods
of
post­
natal
development
(Dalsenter
et
al.
1997).
Small
mammals
with
high
metabolic
rates
that
dig
and
cache
seeds,
may
be
at
acute
and
especially
chronic
risk,
due
to
consumption
over
time
and
the
persistence
of
the
compound
in
soil.
Dalsenter
et
al.
(1997)
indicated
that
treatment
of
female
rats
on
day
15
of
pregnancy
with
only
a
single
dose
(30
mg
lindane/
Kg
of
body
weight)
affects
the
sexual
behavior
of
adult
male
offspring
by
altering
libido
and
by
reducing
testosterone
concentration
without
compromising
fertility.
Effects
to
offspring
may
be
due
to
the
indirect
interference
of
lindane
on
hormonal
regulation
in
males.
Pertubation
of
the
endocrine
system
during
early
stages
of
development
can
be
influenced
by
small
changes
of
hormonal
imbalance.

Aquatic
Organisms
Generally,
from
the
results
of
the
aquatic
assessment,
risks
to
aquatic
organisms
were
low.
The
highest
use
rate
(wheat)
was
modeled.
Based
on
a
Tier
I
screening
assessment
(using
GENEEC)
and
assuming
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface,
the
aquatic
assessment
resulted
in
risks
to
18
aquatic
organisms.
The
greatest
risk,
due
mainly
to
the
toxicity
of
the
compound,
was
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
from
an
acute
exposure
(RQ=
8.
7).
There
were
no
data
available
to
assess
chronic
risk
to
these
invertebrates.
These
data
are
especially
important
since
the
compound
is
persistent
and
can
result
in
significant
bio­
accumulation
(bioconcentration
factor
is
1400
times
the
ambient
water
concentration).
Acute
risk
to
endangered
and
non­
endangered
freshwater
fish
may
also
occur
even
at
the
low
application
rates
for
seed­
treatment
uses.
In
addition,
Petit
et
al.
(1997)
found
that
lindane
exhibited
estrogenic
activity
in
two
in
vitro
bioassays.
Thus,
lindane
may
also
be
an
endocrine
disrupting
compound
in
aquatic
species.
EFED
believes
that
a
seed
leaching
study
would
greatly
increase
certainty
regarding
a
more
realistic
estimate
of
the
amount
of
available
lindane
on
the
seed
surface.
This
in
turn
would
allow
a
refinement
of
exposure
estimates
and
environmental
concentration
values
(EECs).
However,
the
assumption
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface
has
likely
produced
highly
conservative
estimates
and
has
thus
overestimated
the
EEC's
and
resulting
risks.

Reproductive
and
population
effects
in
other
species
of
invertebrates
have
also
been
suggested.
Blockwell
et
al.
(1999)
found
that
populations
of
H.
azteca
(a
detritivorous
crustacean)
exposed
to
(LOAEL=
13.5
ug
lindane/
L;
NOAEC=
6.9
ug
lindane/
L)
lindane
were
significantly
(ANOVA,
p
<
0.
001;
Tukey­
Kramer,
p
<0.05)
smaller
than
control
populations
in
a
35
day
chronic
study.
Reduction
in
population
growth
was
observed
and
resulted
from
a
combination
of
toxicant
effects:
disruption
of
the
reproductive
behavior
patterns
of
adult
H.
azteca
and
a
reduction
in
the
growth
of
recruited
individuals
and
consequently
their
delayed
sexual
development.
This
value
is
similar
to
the
LOAECs
produced
from
other
chronic
lindane
toxicity
studies
conducted
with
freshwater
crustaceans:
19
µg/
L
for
Daphnia
magna
in
a
64­
d
study
and
8.6
µg/
L
in
a
17­
week
study
conducted
with
Gammarus
fasciatus
based
on
survivorship
and
reproductive
success
(Macek
et
al.,
1976).
Furthermore,
an
LOAEC
of
9.9
ug
lindane/
L
was
generated
in
a
life
cycle
study
conducted
using
Chironomous
riparius
(Insecta)
(Taylor
et
al.
1993).
Lindane
has
also
previously
been
reported
to
reduce
juvenile
growth
of
the
European
amphipod
Gammarus
pulex
(L.)
at
6.1
µg/
L
in
a
14­
d
study
(Blockwell
et
al.
1996).
However,
data
shows
that
concentrations
of
lindane
above
2.
5
µg/
L
(found
in
Lake
Michigan
tributary
stream)
were
not
reported
as
occurring
in
any
aquatic
system
tested
(ATSDR
1997).

Incidents
have
been
reported
from
the
use
of
lindane
and
are
in
the
EPA
incident
database.
An
incident
classified
as
"highly
probable"
was
reported
as
killing
hundreds
of
trout
on
a
tree
farm
in
Watauga,
North
Carolina
after
a
spill
close
to
a
nearby
stream.
However,
no
aquatic
incidents
have
been
reported
as
having
occurred
under
normal
use
conditions
of
seed
treatment
under
soil
incorporated
use
patterns.

Endocrine
Disruption
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
Disrupting
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen­
and
thyroid­
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen­
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticidal
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
has
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).
19
Based
on
available
scientific
literature,
lindane
has
characteristics
of
an
endocrine
disrupting
compound.
The
compound
exhibits
effects
on
birds,
mammals
and
possibly
fish.
As
stated
previously,
effects
included
disruption
in
male
reproductive
behavior
and
functioning
in
mammals
(LD50=
88
mg/
kg
with
levels
of
only
30
mg/
kg
resulting
in
effects),
eggshell
thinning
possibly
from
estrogen
deficiency
in
female
birds,
and
estradiol
insufficiency
which
may
cause
a
delay
in
ovulation
resulting
in
a
drastic
reduction
in
clutch
size
in
birds
(NOAEL/
LOAEC=
80/
320
ppm
with
calculated
EEC
levels
of
51.5
to
206.2
ppm
resulting
in
a
possibility
of
effects).
In
the
submitted
avian
reproduction
study
using
the
mallard
duck
(MRID
448671­
01),
thyroid
weights
for
males
in
the
135
ppm
test
concentration
were
significantly
higher
than
those
measured
in
the
control.
Histopathology
revealed
microscopic
lesions
in
the
thyroid
glands
consisting
of
thyroid
follicular
distension
and
coalescence,
follicular
hypertrophy
and
follicular
hyperplasia.
These
lesions
were
more
apparent
at
the
135
ppm
than
at
45
ppm.
Analysis
of
the
gonads
of
either
sex
were
unremarkable
with
the
exception
of
the
possibility
of
reduced
spermatogenesis
in
the
group
receiving
45
ppm.
Exposure
of
mammalian
neonates
to
lindane
during
lactation
induces
reproductive
hazards
to
male
offspring
rats
which
are
detectable
at
adulthood.

Based
on
all
these
data,
EFED
recommends
that
when
appropriate
screening
and
or
testing
protocols
being
considered
under
the
Agency's
EDSP
have
been
developed,
lindane
be
subjected
to
more
definitive
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
its
endocrine
disruptor
activity
under
the
current
use
pattern.

Presence
in
the
Environment
Lindane,
as
well
as
other
HCH
isomers,
do
not
naturally
occur
in
the
environment.
Once
released
into
the
environment,
lindane
can
partition
into
various
environmental
media.
Because
of
long­
range
transport,
lindane
has
been
detected
in
air,
surface
water,
groundwater,
sediment,
soil,
ice,
snowpack,
fish,
wildlife
and
humans.
HCH­
isomers
(mainly
 
and
 
)
were
the
major
organochlorine
insecticide
detected
in
arctic
air,
snow
and
seawater
(Barrie
et
al.
1991).
The
Arctic
is
considered
a
"sink"
for
persistent
organic
pollutants.
Once
in
the
Arctic,
lindane
bio­
accumulates
in
the
food
chain
due
to
its
high
lipid
solubility.
Lindane
is
bio­
concentrated
rapidly
in
microrganisms,
invertebrates,
fish,
birds
and
mammals,
however
biotransformation
and
elimination
are
relatively
rapid
when
exposure
is
discontinued
(WHO
1991).

Lindane
is
strongly
adsorbed
on
soils
that
contain
large
amounts
of
organic
matter,
however
it
can
leach
with
water
from
rainfall
or
artificial
irrigation.
Lindane
sorbed
to
soil
can
get
into
the
atmosphere
either
by
wind
erosion
of
the
soil
particulates
or
by
volatilization.
Volatilization
seems
to
be
an
important
route
of
dissipation
under
higher
temperature
conditions
such
as
those
occurring
in
tropical
regions
(WHO
1991).
Levels
of
lindane
in
the
atmosphere
seem
to
be
seasonal
and
temperature
dependent,
with
the
highest
air
concentrations
in
the
summer
and
lowest
during
winter,
as
would
be
expected
from
agricultural
uses
(Whitmore
et
al.,
1994).
Removal
of
foliar
and
broadcast
type
applications
and
uses
in
favor
of
low
rate
seed
treatments
will
most
likely
limit
the
amount
of
available
lindane
for
release
into
the
environment.
However,
Waite
et
al.
(1998)
did
find
that
release
of
lindane
to
the
atmosphere
begins
within
the
first
week
the
treated
seed
is
sown.
Most
recently,
Waite
et
al.
(2001)
found
that
between
30%
(in
1997)
and
12%
(in
1998)
of
the
lindane
applied
to
canola
fields
(as
treated
seed)
was
lost
through
volatilization
that
began
immediately
after
planting.

Lindane
is
more
soluble
in
water
than
most
other
OC
compounds,
therefore
it
has
a
greater
possibility
of
remaining
in
the
water
column.
Agricultural
run­
off
is
likely
the
major
contamination
route
of
lindane
to
surface
water.
The
three
main
transport
pathways
for
atmospheric
input
to
surface
waters
are
wet
deposition,
dry
deposition
and
gas
exchange
across
the
air­
water
interface,
although
evaporative
loss
from
surface
water
is
not
considered
significant.
Apart
from
atmospheric
deposition
and
surface
run­
off,
point
source
discharges
are
also
contributors
of
surface
water
contamination.
In
Canada,
run­
off
from
canola
fields
was
reported
to
contaminate
surface
water
with
maximum
concentrations
of
0.011
ppb
and
0.
004
20
ppb
for
lindane
and
 
­HCH,
respectively
(Donald
et
al.,
1997).
As
stated
previously,
both
surface
and
ground
water
simulations,
based
on
a
screening
level
assessment,
show
that
lindane
concentrations
in
water
resulting
from
seed
treatment
may
reach
levels
of
environmental
concern
and
may
exceed
the
MCL
for
drinking
water
(0.2
ppb).
Lindane
in
water
bodies
due
to
past
uses
will
likely
remain
for
long
periods,
due
to
lindane's
extreme
persistence.

Persistence
and
long­
range
transport
of
HCH­
isomers
were
also
reflected
in
monitoring
data
and
various
modeling
efforts.
The
most
common
hexachlorocyclohexane
isomers
found
in
the
environment
are
lindane
(
 
­),
 
­,
and
 
­HCHs,
with
 
­HCH
as
the
predominant
isomer
in
air
and
ocean
water
and
 
­HCH
the
predominant
isomer
in
soils,
animal
tissues
and
fluids
(Willett
et
al.,
1998).
Recent
data
suggest
that
the
declines
of
 
­HCH
isomer
concentrations
in
the
environment
have
resulted
from
reduced
use
of
technical
HCH,
especially
in
Asian
countries
(Iwata
et
al.,
1993).
However,
Oehme
et
al.,
(1995)
have
suggested
that
while
there
are
some
indications
that
total
HCH
in
Arctic
air
has
declined,
mean
levels
of
lindane
have
increased
slightly,
which
likely
reflects
the
increase
in
lindane
use
in
northern
hemisphere
after
the
ban
of
technical
HCH
was
imposed.

Literature
cited
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry
(ATSDR).
1997.
Toxicological
profile
for
Alpha­,
Beta­,
Gamma­,
and
Delta­
Hexachlorocyclohexane.
U.
S.
Department
of
Health
and
Human
Services,
Public
Health
Service,
Agency
for
Toxic
Substances
and
Disease
Registry.
September
1997.

Barrie
L.
A.,
D.
Gregor,
B.
Hargrave,
R.
Lake,
D.
Muir,
R.
Shearer,
B.
Tracey
and
T.
Bidleman.
1991.
Arctic
contaminants:
sources,
occurrence
and
pathways.
The
Science
of
the
Total
Environment
122:
1­
74.

Belfroid
A.,
J.
Meiling,
D.
Sijm,
W.
Hermens,
K.
van
Gestel.
1994.
Uptake
of
hydrophobic
halogenated
aromatic
compounds
from
food
by
earthworms
(Eisenia
andrei).
Archives
of
Environmental
Contaminants
and
Toxicology
27:
260­
265.

Beyer,
W.
N.,
E.
E.
Conner
and
S.
Gerould.
1994.
Estimates
of
soil
ingestion
by
wildlife.
J.
Wild.
Management
58(
2):
375­
382.

Blockwell,
S.
J.,
D.
Pascoe
,
and
S.
J.
Maund.
1999.
Effects
of
the
organochlorine
insecticide
lindane
on
the
population
responses
of
the
freshwater
amphipod
Hyalella
azteca.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
18(
6):
1264­
1269.

Blockwell
SJ,
D.
Pascoe,
E.
J.
Taylor.
1996.
Effects
of
lindane
on
the
growth
of
the
freshwater
amphipod
Gammarus
pulex
(L.).
Chemosphere
32:
1795­
1803.

Blus,
L.
J.,
C.
J.
Henny,
and
A.
J.
Krynitsky.
1985.
The
effects
of
heptachlor
and
lindane
on
birds,
Columbia
Basin,
Oregon
and
Washington,
1976­
1981.
Science
of
the
Total
Environment
46:
73­
81.

Blus,
L.
J.,
C.
J.
Henny,
D.
J.
Lenhart,
and
T.
E.
Kaiser.
1984.
Effects
of
heptachlor
and
lindane
treated
seed
on
Canada
geese.
Journal
of
Wildlife
Management
48(
4):
1097­
1111.

Brubaker,
W.
W.,
and
R.
A.
Hites
Jr.
1998.
OH
reaction
kinetics
of
gas­
phase
a­
and
ghexachlorocyclohexane
and
hexachlorobenzene.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
32:
766­
769.
21
Chakravarty,
S.
and
P.
Lahiri.
1986.
Effect
of
lindane
on
eggshell
characteristics
and
calcium
level
in
the
domestic
duck.
Toxicology
42:
245­
258.

Chakravarty,
S.,
A.
Mandal,
and
P.
Lahiri.
1986.
Effect
of
lindane
on
clutch
size
and
level
of
egg
yolk
protein
in
domestic
duck.
Toxicology
39:
93­
103.

Chowdhury,
A.
R.
and
A.
K.
Gautam.
1994.
Steroidogenic
impairment
after
lindane
treatment
in
male
rats.
Sangyo­
Ika­
Daigaku­
Zasshi
16:
145­
152.

Chowdhury,
A.
R.,
H.
Venkatakrishna­
Bhatt,
and
A.
K.
Gautam.
1987.
Testicular
changes
of
rats
under
lindane
treatment.
Bulletin
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
38:
154­
156.

Cleemann,
M.,
Poulsen
M.
E.,
and
G.
Hilbert.
1995.
Deposition
of
lindane
in
Danmark.
Chemosphere
30:
2039­
2049.

Clench,
M.
H.
and
R.
C.
Leberman.
1978.
Weights
of
151
species
of
Pennsylvanian
birds
analyzed
by
month,
age
and
sex.
Bulletin
of
the
Carnegie
Museum
of
Natural
History:
5;
Tomlinson,
R.
E.
1975.
Weights
and
wing
lengths
of
wild
Sonoran
Masked
bobwhites
during
fall
and
winter.
Wilson
Bulletin
87:
180­
18
Cooper,
R.
L.,
R.
W.
Chadwick,
G.
L.
Goldman,
K.
C.
Booth,
J.
F.
Hein,
and
W.
K.
McElroy.
1989.
Effect
of
lindane
on
hormonal
control
of
reproductive
function
in
the
female
rat.
Toxicology
and
Applied
Pharmacology
99:
384­
394.

Dalsenter,
P.
R.,
A.
S.
Faqi,
J.
Webb,
H­
J.
Merker
and
I.
Chahoud.
1997.
Reproductive
toxicity
and
toxicokenetics
of
lindane
in
the
male
offspring
of
rats
exposed
during
lactation.
Human
and
Experimental
Toxicology
16:
146­
153.

Dalsenter,
P.
R.,
A.
S.
Faqi,
J.
Webb,
H­
J.
Merker
and
I.
Chahoud.
1996.
Reproductive
toxicity
and
tissue
concentrations
of
lindane
in
adult
male
rats.
Human
and
Experimental
Toxicology
15:
406­
410.

Dalsenter,
P.
R.,
A.
S.
Faqi,
and
I.
Chahoud.
1997.
Serum
testosterone
and
sexual
behavior
in
rats
after
prenatal
exposure
to
lindane.
Bulletin
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
59:
360­
366.

Dewitt,
J.
B.
and
J.
L.
George.
1957.
Pesticide
wildlife
review.
U.
S.
Fish
and
Wildlife
Service,
USDI,
Washington,
D.
C.

Donald,
D.
B.,
H.
Block
and
J.
Wood.
1997.
Role
of
groundwater
on
lindane
detections
in
surface
water
in
western
Canada.
Environmental
Toxicology
and
Chemistry
16(
9):
1867­
1872.

Felthousen,
R.
W.
1977.
Classification
of
granulated
formulations.
Internal
EPA
memo:
Environmental
Safety
Section,
9/
9/
77,
USEPA,
pp.
1­
20.

Harner
T.
1997.
Organochlorine
contamination
of
the
Canadian
Arctic,
and
speculation
on
further
trends,
Int.
J.
Environ.
And
Poll.
8:
51­
73.

Harner,
T,
T.
F.
Bidleman,
L.
M.
M
Jantunen,
and
D.
Mackay.
2001.
Soil­
air
exchange
model
of
pesticides
in
the
United
States
cotton
belt.
Environ
Toxi
Chem
20:
1612­
1621.
22
Harner,
T.,
H.
Kylin,
T.
F.
Bidleman,
and
W.
M.
J.
Strachan.
1999.
Removal
of
(­
and
hexachlorocyclohexane
and
enentiomers
of
(­
hexachlocyclohexane
in
the
eastern
Arctic
ocean.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
33:
1157­
1164.

Hoffman,
D.
J.
and
W.
C.
Eastin.
1982.
Effects
of
lindane,
paraquat,
toxaphene,
and
2,4,5­
trichlorophenoxyacetic
acid
on
mallard
embryo
development.
Archives
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
11(
2):
79­
86.

Hulth,
L.,
R.
Larsson,
R.
Carlsson,
and
J.
E.
Kihlstron.
1976.
Convulsive
action
of
small
single
oral
doses
of
the
insecticide
lindane.
Bulletin
of
Environmental
Contamination
and
Toxicology
16:
133­
137.

Iwata,
H.,
S.
Tanabe,
N.
Sakai
and
R.
Tatsukawa.
1993.
Distribution
of
persistent
organochlorines
in
the
oceanic
air
and
surface
seawater
and
the
role
of
ocean
on
their
global
transport
and
fate.
Environmental
Science
and
Technology
27:
1080­
1098.

Joy,
R.
M.
1982.
Mode
of
action
of
lindane,
dieldrin
and
related
insecticides
in
the
central
nervous
system.
Neurobehavioral
Toxicology
and
Teratology
4:
813­
823.

Lane,
D.
A.,
N.
D.
Johnson,
M.
J.
Hanley,
Schroeder
W.
H.,
and
D.
T.
Ord
.
1992.
Gas­
and
particle
­phase
concentrations
 
­hexachlorocyclohexane
and
 
­hexachlorocyclohexane
and
hexachlorobenzene
in
Ontario
air.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
26:
126­
133.

Li,
Y.
F.,
T.
F.
Bidleman,
L.
A.
Barrie,
and
L.
L.
McConnell.
1998.
Global
hexachlorocyclohexane
use
trends
and
their
impact
on
the
arctic
atmospheric
environment.
Geophys
Res
Lett.
25:
39­
41.

Macek
K.
J.,
K.
S.
Buxton,
S.
K.
Derr,
J.
W.
Dean,
and
S.
Sauter.
1976.
Chronic
toxicity
of
lindane
to
selected
aquatic
invertebrates
and
fishes.
EPA­
60013­
76­
047.
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
DC.

Mackey,
D.
1991.
Multimedia
environmental
models.
The
fugacity
approach.
Lewis
Publication,
Boca
Raton,
FL.

Mackey,
D.,
W.
Y.
Shiu,
K.
C.
Ma.
1992­
1997.
Illustrated
handbook
of
physical­
chemical
properties
and
environmental
fate
for
organic
chemicals.
Vol.
I
to
V.
Lewis
Publication,
Chelsea,
MI
McCann,
J.
A.,
W.
Teeters,
D.
J.
Urban,
and
N.
Cook.
1981.
A
short­
term
dietary
toxicity
test
on
small
mammals.
In
Avian
and
Mammalian
Wildlife
Toxicology:
Second
Conference,
ASTM
STP,
pp.
132­
142.

Nagy,
K.
A.
1987.
Field
metabolic
rate
and
food
requirement
scaling
in
mammals
and
birds.
Ecology
Monographs
57:
111­
128.

Norstrom,
R.
J.,
and
D.
C.
G.
Muir.
1994.
Chlorinated
hydrocarbon
contaminants
in
arctic
marine
mammals.
Sci
Total
Environ.
154:
107­
128.

Ockenden,
W.
A.,
E.
Steinnes,
C.
Parker,
and
K.
C.
Jones.
1998.
Observations
on
persistent
organic
pollutants
in
plants:
implications
of
their
use
as
passive
air
samplers
and
POP
cycling.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
33:
3482­
3488.
23
Oehme,
M.,
J.­
E.
Haugen
and
M.
Schlabach.
1995.
Ambient
levels
of
POPs
in
spring
1992
at
Spitzbergan
and
the
Norwegian
mainland:
comparison
with
1984
results
and
quality
control
measures.
Sci
Total
Environment
160/
161:
139­
152.

Petit,
F.,
P.
Le
Goff,
J.
P.
Cravedi,
Y.
Valotaire,
and
F.
Pakdel.
1997.
Two
complementary
bioassays
for
screening
the
estrogenic
potency
of
xenobiotics:
recombinant
yeast
for
trout
estrogen
receptor
and
trout
hepatocyte
cultures.
Journal
of
Molecular
Endocrinology
19(
3):
321­
335.

Poissant,
L.
and
J.
F.
Koprivnjak.
1996.
Fate
and
atmospheric
concentrations
of
a­
and
ghexachlorocyclohexane
in
Quebec,
Canada.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
30:
845­
851.

Pompa,
G.,
L.
Fadini,
F.
Di­
Lauro,
and
F.
Caloni.
1994.
Transfer
of
lindane
and
pentachlorobenzene
from
mother
to
newborn
rabbits.
Pharmacology
and
Toxicology
74:
28­
34.

Raizada,
R.
B.,
P.
Misra,
I.
Saxena,
K.
K.
Datta,
and
T.
S.
Dikshitt.
1980.
Weak
estrogenic
activity
of
lindane
in
rats.
Journal
of
Toxicology
and
Environmental
Health
6:
483­
492.

Taylor
E.
J.,
S.
J.
Blockwell,
S.
J.
Maund,
and
D.
Pascoe.
1993.
Effects
of
lindane
on
the
life­
cycle
of
a
freshwater
macroinvertebrate
Chironomous
riparius
Meigen
(Insecta:
Diptera).
Archives
of
Environmental
Contaminants
and
Toxicology
24:
145–
150.

Ulman,
E.
1972.
Monograph
of
an
insecticide.
Schillinger
Verlag,
Federal
Republic
of
Germany.

Uphouse,
L.
1987.
Decreased
rodent
sexual
receptivity
after
lindane.
Toxicology
Letters
39:
4­
14.

USEPA.
1993.
Wildlife
exposure
factors
handbook
(Volume
I).
EPA/
600/
R­
93/
187a.

Waite,
D.,
N.
P.
Gurprasad
and
T.
Thompson.
1998.
Atmospheric
studies
of
Hexachlorobenzene
(HCB)
and
y­
Hexachlorocyclohexane
(lindane
or
y­
HCH)
in
the
prairies.
EAD
Seminar
10/
22/
98.

Waite,
D.,
N.
P.
Gurprasad,
J.
F.
Sproull,
D.
V.
Quiring
and
M.
W.
Kotylak.
(2001).
Atmospheric
movements
of
lindane
from
canola
fields
planted
with
treated
seed.
Journal
of
Environmental
Quality
30:
768­
775.

Walker,
K.,
D.
A.
Vallero
and
R.
G.
Lewis.
1999.
Factors
influencing
the
distribution
of
lindane
and
other
hexachlorocyclohexanes
in
the
environment.
Environ
Sci
Technol
33,
pp.
4373­
4378.

Wania,
F.
and
Mackay,
D.
2000.
A
comparison
of
overall
persistence
values
and
atmospheric
travel
distances
calculated
by
various
multimedia
fate
models.
WECC
Report2/
2000.
WECC
Wania
Environmental
Chemists
Corp.
Toronto,
Canada.

Wania,
F.
and
Mackay,
D.
1999.
The
evolution
of
mass
balance
models
of
persistent
organic
pollutant
fate
in
the
environment.
Environ
Poll.
100:
223­
240.

Wania,
F.
and
Mackay,
D.
1996.
Tracking
the
distribution
of
persistent
organic
pollutants.
Environ
Sci
Technol.
30:
390A­
396A.

Whitehead,
C.
C.,
A.
G.
Downing,
and
R.
J.
Pettigrew.
1972.
The
effects
of
lindane
on
laying
hens.
Br.
Poultry
Science
13:
293
24
Willet,
K.,
E.
M.
Ulrich
and
R.
A.
Hites.
1998.
Differential
toxicity
and
environmental
fates
of
hexachlorocyclohexane
isomers.
Environmental
Science
and
Technology
32
(15):
2197­
2207.

Whitmore,
R.
W.,
F.
W.
Immerman,
D.
E.
Camann,
A.
E.
Bond,
R.
G.
Lewis
and
J.
L.
Schaum.
1994.
Nonoccupational
exposures
to
pesticides
for
residents
of
two
US
cities.
Archives
of
Environmental
Contaminants
and
Toxicology
26:
47­
59.

World
Health
Organization
(WHO).
1991.
Lindane
(Environmental
Health
Criteria
124).
208
pp.
25
Appendix
I:
Ecological
Effects
Data
Ecological
toxicity
studies
required
by
the
Agency
for
the
registration/
re­
registration
of
a
pesticide,
and
the
rational
behind
these
requirements,
are
listed
in
40
CFR
158.
The
following
studies
submitted
by
the
registrant
were
used
to
develop
an
ecological
toxicity
assessment
for
lindane.

Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
Birds,
Acute
and
Subacute
Avian
Acute
Oral
Toxicity
Species
%ai
LD50
(mg/
kg)
Toxicity
Category
Acc
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
1
Bobwhite
quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
95.5
122
Moderately
toxic
00263944
Bio­
life,
1986
Core
Red­
winged
BB
(Agelaius
phoeniceus)
Tech
75
Moderately
toxic
00020560,
Schafer,
1972
Supplemental
Starling
(Sturnus
vulgaris)
Tech
100
Moderately
toxic
00020560,
Schafer,
1972
Supplemental
House
Sparrow
(Passer
domesticus)
Tech
56
Moderately
toxic
00020560,
Schafer,
1972
Supplemental
Common
Grackle
(Quiscalus
quisula)
Tech
>100
Moderately
toxic
00020560,
Schafer,
1972
Supplemental
Mallard
Duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
25
2000
practically
non
toxic
00160000
Hudson
et
al,
1984
Supplemental
1
Core
(study
satisfies
guideline).

Since
the
LD50s
using
the
technical
grade
range
from
56
to
122
mg/
kg,
lindane
is
considered
to
be
moderately
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
The
guideline
(71­
1)
is
fulfilled
(ACC#
00263944).

Avian
Subacute
Dietary
Toxicity
Species
%ai
5­
Day
LC50
(ppm)
1
Toxicity
Category
Acc
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Mallard
duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
>95
>5000
prac.
non­
toxic
00022923
Hill
et
al,
1975
core
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
>95
882
moderately
toxic
00022923
Hill
et
al,
1975
core
Ring­
necked
pheasant
(Phasianus
colchicus)
>95
561
moderately
toxic
00022923
Hill
et
al,
1975
core
Japanese
quail
(Coturnix
japonica)
>95
425
highly
toxic
00022923
Hill
et
al,
1975
supplemental
1
Test
organisms
observed
an
additional
three
days
while
on
untreated
feed.

Since
the
LC50
falls
in
the
range
of
425
to
>5000
ppm,
lindane
is
considered
to
be
highly
to
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
The
guideline
(71­
2)
is
fulfilled.
(ACC#
00022923).
26
In
addition,
the
registrant
submitted
two
14­
day
free
choice
avian
dietary
toxicity
studies
(MRIDs
400561­
03
and
400561­
04).
Results
suggested
that
bobwhite
quail
and
red­
winged
blackbirds
in
a
laboratory
environment
were
repelled
by
treated
sorghum
seed.
When
given
a
choice
and
even
in
a
no­
choice
situation,
these
birds
did
not
readily
eat
and
were
emaciated
at
study
termination.

Birds,
Chronic
Avian
Reproduction
Species/
Study
Duration
%ai
NOAEC/
LOAE
C
1
(ppm)
LOAEC
Endpoints
MRID
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(Colinus
virginianus)
99.8
80/
320
egg
production,
survival,
eggshell
thickness
and
hatchling
wt.
448122­
01
Dreumel
and
Heijink,
1999
Core
Mallard
duck
(Anas
platyrhynchos)
99.8
15/
45
viable
embryos,
live
3wk
embryos
and
normal
hatchlings
448671­
01
Dreumel
and
Heijink,
1999
Supplemental
1
NOAEC
=
No
Observed
Effect
Concentration;
LOAEC
=
Lowest
Observed
Effect
Concentration,
ND
=
Not
Determined
The
guideline
(71­
4)
is
not
fulfilled
(MRID
448122­
01
and
448671­
01).
The
avian
reproduction
study
(Mallard
duck)
needs
to
be
repeated.
Although
the
submitted
study
(MRID
448671­
01)
was
classified
as
being
supplemental
due
to
guideline
deviations
as
well
as
the
low
hatching
success
in
the
control
group,
the
study
should
be
repeated
to
determine
if
15
ppm
is
a
valid
NOAEL
value.
The
NOAEL
value
of
15
ppm
will
be
used
in
risk
assessments
until
further
data
is
provided.

Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
In
most
cases,
rat
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
These
toxicity
values
are
reported
below.

Mammalian
Toxicity:
Acute
and
Chronic
Species
%ai
Test
Type
Toxicity
Value
Year
MRID/
Acc
No.

Laboratory
rat
(Rattus
norvegicus)
technical
LD50
88
(males);
91
(females);
moderately
toxic
Gaines
1969.
Tox.
&
Appl.
Pharm.
14:
515­
534
00049330
Laboratory
rat
(Rattus
norvegicus)
99.5
2
Generation
reproduction
NOAEL=
20
ppm
LOAEL=
150
ppm
1991
422461­
01
27
Insects
Nontarget
Insect
Acute
Contact
Toxicity
Species
%ai
LD50
(g/
bee)
Toxicity
Category
ACC
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Honey
bee
(Apis
mellifera)

Honey
bee
(Apis
mellifera)
technical
technical
0.56
0.20
Highly
toxic
Highly
toxic
00036935,1975
05001991,1978
core
core
The
results
indicate
that
lindane
is
highly
toxic
to
bees
on
an
acute
contact
basis.
The
guideline
(141­
1)
is
fulfilled.
(ACC#
00036935
and
05001991).

Terrestrial
invertebrates
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%ai
LC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
ACC
No.
Author/
Year
Study
Classification
Sowbug
(Asellus
brevicaudus)
99
10.0
Moderately
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
The
results
indicate
that
lindane
is
moderately
toxic
to
terrestrial
invertebrates
on
an
acute
dietary
basis.
There
are
no
guideline
requirements
for
terrestrial
invertebrates
(MRID#
400946­
02).

Toxicity
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%ai
96­
hour
LC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
MRID/
Acc
No.
Study
Classification
Goldfish
(Carassius
auratus)
99
131.0
Highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Rainbow
trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
99
18.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Brown
trout
(Salmo
trutta)
99
1.7
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Bluegill
sunfish
(Lepomis
macrochirus)
99
25.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Black
bullhead
(Ictalurus
melas)
99
64.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Brown
trout
(Salmo
trutta)
99
22.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%ai
96­
hour
LC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
MRID/
Acc
No.
Study
Classification
28
Channel
catfish
(Ictalurus
punctatus)
99
44.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Yellow
perch
(Perca
flavescens)
99
68.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Fathead
minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
99
77.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Fathead
minnow
(Pimephales
promelas)
99
67.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Lake
trout
(Salvelinus
namaycush)
99
32.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Lake
trout
(Salvelinus
namaycush)
99
24.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Supplemental
Carp
(Cyprinus
carpio)
99
90.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Coho
salmon
(Oncorhynchus
kisutch)
99
23.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Green
sunfish
(Lepomis
cyanellus)
99
70.0
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Largemouth
bass
(Micropterus
salmoides)
99
32.0
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
MRID
400946­
02=
Macek
and
McAllister.
1970.
Insecticide
susceptibility
of
some
common
fish
family
representatives.
Trans.
Amer.
Fish
Soc.
99:
20­
27.

Because
the
96­
hour
LC50
for
the
technical
grade
material
falls
in
the
range
of
1.7
to
131
ppb,
lindane
is
considered
to
be
highly
to
very
highly
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
guideline
(72­
1)
is
fulfilled
(MRID/
Acc#
400946­
02
and
400980­
01).

Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
Toxicity
Under
Flow­
through
Conditions
Species
%ai
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(ppb)
MATC
1
(ppb)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Study
Classification
Rainbow
trout
(Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
99.5
2.
9/
6.
0
4.2
Larval
wet
wt.
444054­
01
and
400561­
05
Supplemental
1
MATC
=
Maximum
Allowed
Toxic
Concentration,
defined
as
the
geometric
mean
of
the
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.
29
This
study
was
scientifically
sound
but
did
not
fulfill
guideline
requirements.
The
study
contained
enough
information
that
if
repeated,
would
not
add
further
information.
The
guideline
(72­
4)
is
fulfilled
(MRID#
444054­
01
and
400561­
05).
The
data
indicate
that
lindane
significantly
affected
larval
growth
at
concentrations
equal
to
or
greater
than
6.0
ppb.
In
a
memo
dated
8/
27/
98,
after
review
by
the
EFED
Aquatic
Biology
Technical
Team,
it
was
concluded
that
the
study
produced
a
valid
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
even
with
the
problems
encountered
during
the
course
of
this
study,
thus,
even
though
the
study
was
classified
as
being
supplemental,
the
study
does
not
need
to
be
repeated.

Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
48­
hour
LC50/
EC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
MRID/
Acc
No.
Study
Classification
Waterflea
(Daphnia
pulex)
99
460.0
Highly
toxic
400946­
02
Core
Scud
(Gammarus
fasciatus)
99
10.0
(96
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Scud
(Gammarus
fasciatus)
100
88.0
(96
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Stonefly
(Pteronarcys
californica)
99
1.0
(96
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Stonefly
(Pteronarcys
californica)
99
4.5
(96
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
400980­
01
Core
Waterflea
(Simocephalus
serrulatus)
99
520.0
Highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Because
the
LC50/
EC50
of
the
TGAI
ranges
from
1.
0
to
520
ppb,
lindane
is
considered
to
be
very
highly
to
highly
toxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
The
guideline
(72­
2)
is
fulfilled
(MRID#
400946­
02).

Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
Freshwater
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
Toxicity
Species
%
ai
21­
day
NOAEC/
LOAEC
(ppb)
MATC
1
(ppb)
Endpoints
Affected
MRID
No.
Study
Classification
Waterflea
(Daphnia
magna)
99.5
54/
110
77
Reproduction
444054­
02/
400561­
06
Supplemental
1
Maximum
Allowed
Toxic
Concentration,
defined
as
the
geometric
mean
of
the
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.

The
data
indicate
that
lindane
significantly
reduced
reproduction
at
concentrations
equal
to
or
greater
than
110
ppb.
This
study
was
scientifically
sound
but
did
not
fulfill
guideline
(72­
4)
requirements
(MRID#
444054­
02/
400561­
06).
The
study
contained
enough
information
that
if
repeated,
would
not
add
further
information.
30
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Acute
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%ai
96­
hour
LC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
No.
Study
Classification
Pinfish
(Lagodon
rhomboides)
100
31.0
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Sheepshead
minnow
(Cyprinodon
variegatus)
100
100.0
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Longnose
killfish
(Fundulus
similis)
100
190.0
(48
hr)
Highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Spot
(Leiostomus
xanthurus)
100
23.0
(48
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Striped
mullet
(Mugil
cephalus)
100
23.0
(48
hr)
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Since
the
48
and
96
hr
LC50s
range
from
23.0
to
190.0
ppb,
lindane
is
considered
to
be
very
highly
toxic
to
highly
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
on
an
acute
basis.
The
data
above,
taken
together,
fulfill
the
guideline
(72­
3a)
requirements
(MRID
402284­
01).

Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish,
Chronic
No
data
were
submitted.

Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrate
Acute
Toxicity
Species
%ai.
96­
hour
LC50/
EC50
(ppb)
Toxicity
Category
MRID/
Acc
No.
Study
Classification
Eastern
oyster
(spat)
(Crassostrea
virginica)
100
240
Highly
toxic
402284­
01
Core
Eastern
oyster
(Emb/
Larval)
(Crassostrea
virginica)
99.5
2820
(48hr
EC50)
Moderately
toxic
00264036/
443555­
01
Supplemental
Brown
shrimp
(Penaeus
aztecus)
100
0.22
(48
hr
EC50)
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Mysid
(Mysidopsis
bahia)
100
6.3
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Grass
shrimp
(Palaemonetes
vulgaris)
100
4.4
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
Seed
Shrimp
(Cypridopsis
vidua)
99
3.2
(48
hr
LC50)
Very
highly
toxic
400946­
02
Supplemental
Pink
Shrimp
(Penaeus
duorarum)
100
0.077
Very
highly
toxic
402284­
01
Supplemental
31
Because
the
LC50s
range
from
0.
077
to
2820
ppb,
the
TGAI
of
lindane
is
considered
very
highly
to
moderately
toxic
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
on
an
acute
basis.
The
guideline
(72­
3b
and
72­
3c)
is
fulfilled
(MRID/
Acc#
s
264036,
400946­
02,
and
402284­
01).

Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrate,
Chronic
No
data
were
submitted.

Toxicity
to
Plants
Currently,
plant
testing
is
not
required
for
pesticides
other
than
herbicides
and
fungicides
except
on
a
caseby
case
basis
(e.
g.,
labeling
bears
phytotoxicity
warnings,
incident
data
or
literature
that
demonstrates
phytotoxicity).
Because
of
the
current
use
pattern
(incorporated
seed
treatment),
low
application
rate,
lack
of
incident
data
on
plants
and
no
available
literature
suggesting
phytotoxicity,
no
plant
data
are
required.
32
Appendix
II:
Risk
Assessment
A
means
of
integrating
the
results
of
exposure
and
ecotoxicity
data
is
called
the
quotient
method.
For
this
method,
risk
quotients
(RQs)
are
calculated
by
dividing
exposure
estimates
by
ecotoxicity
values,
both
acute
and
chronic.
RQ
=
EXPOSURE/
TOXICITY
RQs
are
then
compared
to
OPP's
levels
of
concern
(LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
criteria
used
by
OPP
to
indicate
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
The
criteria
indicate
that
a
pesticide
used
as
directed
has
the
potential
to
cause
adverse
effects
on
nontarget
organisms.
LOCs
currently
address
the
following
risk
presumption
categories:
(1)
acute
high
­
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted
in
addition
to
restricted
use
classification
(2)
acute
restricted
use
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
is
high,
but
this
may
be
mitigated
through
restricted
use
classification
(3)
acute
endangered
species
­
the
potential
for
acute
risk
to
endangered
species
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted,
and
(4)
chronic
risk
­
the
potential
for
chronic
risk
is
high,
regulatory
action
may
be
warranted.
Currently,
EFED
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants,
acute
or
chronic
risks
to
nontarget
insects,
or
chronic
risk
from
granular/
bait
formulations
to
mammalian
or
avian
species.

The
ecotoxicity
test
values
(i.
e.,
measurement
endpoints)
used
in
the
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
derived
from
the
results
of
required
studies.
Examples
of
ecotoxicity
values
derived
from
the
results
of
short­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
acute
effects
are:
(1)
LC50
(fish
and
birds)
(2)
LD50
(birds
and
mammals)
(3)
EC50
(aquatic
plants
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
(4)
EC25
(terrestrial
plants).
An
example
of
a
toxicity
test
effect
level
derived
from
the
results
of
long­
term
laboratory
studies
that
assess
chronic
effects
is:
(1)
NOAEC
(birds,
fish
and
aquatic
organisms).

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

Risk
Presumptions
for
Terrestrial
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Birds
Acute
High
Risk
EEC
1
/LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
3
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.
2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.
1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1
Wild
Mammals
Acute
High
Risk
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.
5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
(or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.
2
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sq
ft
or
LD50/
day
0.
1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOAEC
1
1
abbreviation
for
Estimated
Environmental
Concentration
(ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
2
mg/
ft
2
3
mg
of
toxicant
consumed/
day
LD50
*
wt.
of
bird
LD50
*
wt.
of
bird
33
Risk
Presumptions
for
Aquatic
Animals
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Acute
High
Risk
EEC
1
/LC50
or
EC50
0.
5
Acute
Restricted
Use
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
LC50
or
EC50
0.
05
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
MATC
or
NOAEC
1
1
EEC
=
(ppm
or
ppb)
in
water
Risk
Presumptions
for
Plants
Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC
1
/EC25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
High
Risk
EEC
2
/EC50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOAEC
1
1
EEC
=
lbs
ai/
A
2
EEC
=
(ppm/
ppb)
in
water
Terrestrial
Exposure
Assessment
The
terrestrial
exposure
assessment
for
lindane
seed
treatment
use
is
based
on
the
calculation
of
the
amount
of
seeds
that
a
bird
must
ingest
to
receive
a
lethal
LD50
dose
compared
to
the
amount
of
seeds
a
bird
could
ingests
(if
the
diet
consisted
of
only
lindane­
treated
seeds).

Other
Factors
Affecting
Risk
Only
two
bird
species
are
usually
required
to
be
tested
B
one
waterfowl
species
and
one
upland
gamebird
species
B
under
the
Fish
and
Wildlife
Data
Requirements
listed
in
CFR
158.
There
is
a
great
deal
of
uncertainty
associated
with
extrapolating
from
the
acute
oral
and
subacute
dietary
data
from
two
species
to
the
large
numbers
of
bird
species
associated
with
agricultural
areas.
Field
surveys
indicate
that
a
large
variety
of
birds
are
associated
with
these
areas,
including
a
multitude
of
songbirds
and
many
others.
Waterfowl
are
also
likely
to
be
present
in
these
regions.
As
the
EFED
ecological
database
indicates
that
songbirds
tend
to
be
more
sensitive
than
the
two
required
test
species,
using
the
maximum
estimated
environmental
concentration
to
calculate
risk
helps
to
compensate
for
this
uncertainty
in
the
toxicity
data.
However,
in
this
case,
actual
acute
data
are
available
for
songbirds
(Sparrow
LD50=
56
mg/
kg
and
Redwinged
blackbird
LD50=
75
mg/
kg).

The
lack
or
small
number
of
reported
incidents
involving
birds
or
mammals
does
not
prove
that
animals
are
not
dying
from
pesticide
exposure.
Finding
dead
animals
in
the
field
is
difficult,
even
when
experienced
field
biologists
are
searching
treated
fields.
Reporting
of
incident
data
is
still
rather
accidental,
and
only
carefully
designed
field
studies
can
confidently
indicate
the
likelihood
of
field
kill
incidents
occurring.
34
ECOLOGICAL
INCIDENTS
SUMMARY
The
number
of
documented
kills
in
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
is
believed
to
be
but
a
very
small
fraction
of
total
mortality
caused
by
pesticides.
Mortality
incidents
must
be
seen,
reported,
investigated,
and
have
investigation
reports
submitted
to
EPA
to
have
the
potential
for
entry
into
the
database.
Incidents
often
are
not
seen,
due
to
scavenger
removal
of
carcasses,
decay
in
the
field,
or
simply
because
carcasses
may
be
hard
to
see
on
many
sites
and/
or
few
people
are
systematically
looking.
Poisoned
birds
may
also
move
off­
site
to
less
conspicuous
areas
before
dying.
Incidents
seen
may
not
get
reported
to
appropriate
authorities
capable
of
investigating
the
incident
because
the
finder
may
not
know
of
the
importance
of
reporting
incidents,
may
not
know
who
to
call,
may
not
feel
they
have
the
time
or
desire
to
call,
may
hesitate
to
call
because
of
their
own
involvement
in
the
kill,
or
the
call
may
be
long­
distance
and
discourage
callers,
for
example.
Incidents
reported
may
not
get
investigated
if
resources
are
limited
or
may
not
get
investigated
thoroughly,
with
residue
and
ChE
analyses,
for
example.
Also,
if
kills
are
not
reported
and
investigated
promptly,
there
will
be
little
chance
of
documenting
the
cause,
since
tissues
and
residues
may
deteriorate
quickly.
Reports
of
investigated
incidents
often
do
not
get
submitted
to
EPA,
since
reporting
by
states
is
voluntary
and
some
investigators
may
believe
that
they
don't
have
the
resources
to
submit
incident
reports
to
EPA.

Incident
reports
submitted
to
EPA
since
approximately
1994
have
been
tracked
by
assignment
of
I­#
s
in
an
Incident
Data
System
(IDS),
microfiched,
and
then
entered
to
a
second
database,
the
Ecological
Incident
Information
System
(EIIS).
This
second
database
has
some
85
fields
for
potential
data
entry.
An
effort
has
also
been
made
to
enter
information
to
EIIS
on
incident
reports
received
prior
to
establishment
of
current
databases.
Although
many
of
these
have
been
added,
the
system
is
not
yet
a
complete
listing
of
all
incident
reports
received
by
EPA.
Incident
reports
are
not
received
in
a
consistent
format
(e.
g.,
states
and
various
labs
usually
have
their
own
formats),
may
involve
multiple
incidents
involving
multiple
chemicals
in
one
report,
and
may
report
on
only
part
of
a
given
incident
investigation
(e.
g.,
residues).
While
some
progress
has
been
made
in
recent
years,
both
in
getting
incident
reports
submitted
and
entered,
there
has
never
been
the
level
of
resources
assigned
to
incidents
that
there
has
been
to
the
tracking
and
review
of
laboratory
toxicity
studies,
for
example.
This
adds
to
the
reasons
cited
above
for
why
EPA
believes
the
documented
kills
are
but
a
fraction
of
total
mortality
caused
by
lindane
and
other
highly
toxic
pesticides.

Incidents
entered
into
EIIS
are
categorized
into
one
of
several
certainty
levels:
highly
probable,
probable,
possible,
unlikely,
or
unrelated.
In
brief,
"highly
probable"
incidents
usually
require
carcass
residues,
substantial
ChE
inhibition
in
avian
and/
or
mammalian
species,
and/
or
clear
circumstances
regarding
the
exposure.
"Probable"
incidents
include
those
where
residues
were
not
available
and/
or
circumstances
were
less
clear
than
for
"highly
probable."
"Possible"
incidents
include
those
where
multiple
chemicals
may
have
been
involved
and
it
is
not
clear
what
the
contribution
was
of
a
given
chemical.
The
"unlikely"
category
is
used,
for
example,
where
a
given
chemical
is
practically
nontoxic
to
the
category
of
organism
killed
and/
or
the
chemical
was
tested
for
but
not
detected
in
samples.
"Unrelated"
incidents
are
those
that
have
been
confirmed
to
be
not
pesticide­
related.

Incidents
entered
into
the
EIIS
are
also
categorized
as
to
use/
misuse.
Unless
specifically
confirmed
by
a
state
or
federal
agency
to
be
misuse,
or
there
was
very
clear
misuse
such
as
intentional
baiting
to
kill
wildlife,
incidents
would
not
typically
be
considered
misuse.
Data
entry
personnel
often
do
not
have
a
copy
of
the
specific
label
used
in
a
given
application,
and
would
not
usually
be
able
to
detect
a
variety
of
labelspecific
violations,
for
example.
35
Incidents
have
been
reported
from
the
use
of
lindane
and
are
on
the
EPA
incident
database.
These
incidents
are
listed
in
the
table
below:

Incident
#
Date
State
Organism
Tissue
analysis
Tissue/
soil
Concentration
Use
Site
Certainty
index
I002166­
001
4/
28/
95
NC
Trout
(100s)
Yes+
0.43­
10.74
ppm
in
tissue
0.12­
1.6
ppm
in
soil
Tree
farm
Highly
Probable
(Accident)

B0000­
204
5/
1/
83
SC
Mullet
(100)
No
N/
A
Ag
area
Possible
I004632­
033
4/
29/
93
CA
Trout
(60)
No
N/
A
N/
R
Probable
B0000­
244­
01
8/
7/
71
MA
Fish
(15,000)
No
N/
A
Cranberries
Probable
+=
positive
Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Terrestrial
Organisms
Birds:
Acute
Granular
products/
Seed
Treatment:
Birds
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
and
seed
treatments
by
ingesting
granules
or
seeds
when
foraging
for
food
or
grit.
They
also
may
be
exposed
by
other
routes,
such
as
by
walking
on
exposed
granules
or
drinking
water
contaminated
by
granules
or
treated
seeds.
The
assessment
below
bases
acute
exposure
on
the
quantity
of
seeds
that
a
bird
could
ingest
in
one
day
and
that
the
bird
eats
only
lindanetreated
seeds.
This
approach
defines
a
risk
quotient
(RQ)
as
RQ=
Dose/
LD50
where
Dose
=
the
amount
of
lindane
that
a
bird
could
receive
by
ingesting
treated­
seeds
in
a
24­
hour
period
per
bird
mass
(dose
units
in
mg/
Kg).
Risk
is
assumed
to
occur
for
any
RQ
value
greater
than0.5.

The
dose
that
a
bird
could
receive
by
eating
treated
seeds
can
be
approximated
from
the
estimated
amount
of
food
that
a
bird
can
eat
in
a
day.
The
dose
can
be
described
as
Dose
=
(FI)(
C)(
T)/
Mbird
where
FI
=
the
food
ingestion
rate
[kg/
day]
C
=
active
ingredient
concentration
on
seed
(mg/
kg)
T
=
relevant
duration
time
for
food
consumption
(assumed
to
be
1
day
in
this
assessment)
[day].
Mbird
=
mass
(wet)
of
bird
[kg].

The
rate
of
food
consumption
(FI)
of
a
bird
can
be
estimated
by
the
method
of
Nagy
(1987;
also
see
EPA,
1993).
For
passerines,
the
Nagy
relationship
is
FI
=
0.
141
(Mbird)
0.850
and
for
non­
passerines
the
relationship
is
FI
=
0.
054
(Mbird)
0.751
36
RQ
results
for
this
analysis
are
summarized
in
the
table
below.
The
results
suggest
that
acute
risk
is
highest
for
for
birds
eating
seeds
for
broccoli,
brussel
sprouts,
cabbage,
and
cauliflower.
Small
birds,
which
consume
proportionally
larger
quantities
of
food
with
respect
to
their
body
weight,
are
at
greater
risk
than
larger
birds.
RQs
exceeded
0.5
for
the
sparrow
and
the
red­
winged
black
bird
under
for
all
seed
treatments.
For
the
quail,
RQ
indicated
risk
only
for
the
seeds
with
the
highest
application
rate
(broccoli,
brussel
sprouts,
cabbage,
and
cauliflower).

Table
Summary
of
RQ
evaluation.
RQs
in
bold
indicate
potential
risk..
Lindane
Seed
Conc
(per
label)
Dose
(mg
ai
consumed
per
day
/kg
bird)
RQ
=Dose/
LD50
crop
example
label
#
lb
ai/
100
lb
seed
mg
ai/
kg
seed
sparrow
(FI
=
0.00613
kg/
day)
a
RWBB
(FI
=
0.0114
kg/
day)
a
quail
(FI
=
0.0148
kg/
day)
a
sparrow
(LD50=56
mg/
kg)
RWBB
(LD50=75
mg/
kg)
quail
(LD50=122
mg/
kg)

barley
34704­
658
0.0375
375
92.0
82.4
31.1
1.64
1.10
0.25
corn
71096­
2
0.
125
1250
307
275.
103.
5.48
3.67
0.85
oats
2935­
0492
0.0313
313
76.6
68.7
25.9
1.37
0.92
0.21
rye
2935­
0492
0.0328
328
80.4
72.1
27.2
1.44
0.96
0.22
sorghum
8660­
53
0.0628
628
154.
138.
52.1
2.75
1.84
0.43
wheat
555­
144
0.0426
426
104.
93.5
35.3
1.87
1.25
0.29
a
Dose
=
seed
concentration
x
food
intake
rate,
where
food
intake
rate
(FI)
is
based
on
Nagy
equation
(see
text),
assuming
the
following
typical
bird
weights:
Sparrow
wt
=
25
g;
Red
winged
BB
wt
=
52
g,
Bobwhite
quail
wt
=
178
g
(Clench
and
Leberman.
1978).

Birds:
Chronic
To
determine
chronic
risk
to
birds,
the
concentration
on
the
food
item
(seeds)
was
determined
from
the
the
label.
Chronic
RQ
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
RQ
=
Concentration
on
seeds
/
NOAEC.
Results
are
given
in
the
table
below
and
suggest
a
potential
for
chronic
reproductive
risk
to
avian
species
from
the
use
of
lindane­
treated
seed.
Table
summary
of
chronic
RQ
evaluation.
RQs
in
bold
indicate
potential
risk..
Lindane
Seed
Conc
(per
label)
RQ
=Seed
Conc./
NOAEC
crop
example
label
#
lb
ai/
100
lb
seed
mg
ai/
kg
seed
mallard
(NOAEC=
15
mg/
kg)
Quail
(NOAEC
=
80
mg/
kg)

barley
34704­
658
0.0375
375
25
4.7
corn
71096­
2
0.
125
1250
83.3
15.6
oats
2935­
0492
0.0313
313
20.8
3.
9
rye
2935­
0492
0.0328
328
21.9
4.
1
sorghum
8660­
53
0.0628
628
41.9
7.
9
wheat
555­
144
0.0426
426
28.4
5.
3
Mammals:
Acute
Granular
products/
Seed
Treatment:
Mammals
may
be
exposed
to
granular
pesticides
ingesting
granules
or
seeds
when
foraging
for
food
or
grit.
They
also
may
be
exposed
by
other
routes,
such
as
by
walking
on
exposed
granules
or
drinking
water
contaminated
by
granules
or
treated
seeds.
The
assessment
was
performed
in
a
similar
manner
as
for
birds
as
given
above.
The
Nagy
relationship
for
the
general
case
of
all
mammals
is
FI
=
0.
0687
(Mmammals)
0.822
where
Mmammals
is
the
mammal
mass
in
kg.
Results
are
summarized
below.
Since
RQs
above
0.
5
indicate
potential
risk,
the
results
indicate
the
possibility
of
acute
risk
to
seed­
eating
mammals
for
all
seed
treatments,
with
smaller
mammals
being
more
vulnerable
than
larger
mammals..
37
Table
summary
of
RQ
evaluation.
RQs
in
bold
indicate
potential
risk..
Lindane
Seed
Conc
(per
label)
Dose
(mg
ai
consumed
per
day
/kg
mammal)
RQ
=Dose/
LD50
crop
example
label
#
lb
ai/
100
lb
seed
mg
ai/
kg
seed
0.015
kg
mammal
(FI
=
0.00218
kg/
day)
a
0.035
kg
mammal
(FI
=
0.00437
kg/
day)
a
1
kg
mammal
(FI
=
0.0687
kg/
day)
a
0.015
kg
mammal
LD50=88
mg/
kg)
b
0.035
kg
mammal
(LD50=88
mg/
kg)
b
1
kg
mammal
(LD50=88
mg/
kg)
b
barley
34704­
658
0.0375
375
54
47
26
0.62
0.53
0.29
corn
71096­
2
0.
125
1250
181
156
86
2.1
1.
8
0.98
oats
2935­
0492
0.0313
313
45
39
21
0.51
0.44
0..
24
rye
2935­
0492
0.0328
328
47
41
23
0.54
0.46
0.26
sorghum
8660­
53
0.0628
628
91
78
43
1.0
0.
89
0.49
wheat
555­
144
0.0426
426
62
53
29
0.70
0.60
0.33
a
Dose
=
seed
concentration
x
food
intake
rate,
where
food
intake
rate
(FI)
is
based
on
Nagy
equation
(see
text).
Weights
were
chosen
to
represent
typical
small
mammals.
b
AllLD50s
were
based
on
the
rat.

Mammals:
Chronic
To
determine
chronic
risk
to
mammals,
the
concentration
on
the
food
item
(seeds)
was
determined
from
the
the
label.
Chronic
RQ
was
calculated
using
the
following
equation:
RQ
=
Concentration
on
seeds
/
NOAEC.
The
NOAEC
for
the
rat
(20
mg/
L)
was
used
as
an
approximation
for
all
mammals.
Results
are
given
in
the
table
below
and
indicate
a
potential
for
chronic
reproductive
risk
to
mammalian
species
from
the
use
of
lindane­
treated
seed.

Table
summary
of
chronic
RQ
evaluation.
RQs
in
bold
indicate
potential
risk..
Lindane
Seed
Conc
(per
label)
RQ
=Seed
Conc./
NOAEC
crop
example
label
#
lb
ai/
100
lb
seed
mg
ai/
kg
seed
rat
(NOAEC=
20
mg/
kg)

barley
34704­
658
0.0375
375
19
corn
71096­
2
0.
125
1250
63
oats
2935­
0492
0.0313
313
16
rye
2935­
0492
0.0328
328
16
sorghum
8660­
53
0.0628
628
31
wheat
555­
144
0.0426
426
21
Insects
Currently,
EFED
does
not
assess
risk
to
nontarget
insects.
Results
of
acceptable
studies
are
used
for
recommending
appropriate
label
precautions.
As
lindane
is
highly
toxic
(0.2
to
0.
56
ug/
bee)
to
honeybees,
precautions
in
respect
to
spray
drift
to
flowering
plants
should
be
followed.
Since
this
is
a
seed
treatment
application,
low
risk
is
assumed
to
flying
insects,
however
beneficial
soil
dwelling
insects
may
be
at
risk.

Plants
No
data
was
available
for
lindane
to
assess
risk
to
terrestrial
or
aquatic
plants.

Exposure
and
Risk
to
Nontarget
Freshwater
Aquatic
Animals
38
EFED
uses
GENEEC
to
calculate
Tier
I
EECs
and
assumed
that
100%
of
the
compound
will
disassociate
from
the
seed
surface.
EECs
are
tabulated
in
Appendix
III.

I.
Freshwater
Fish
Acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
tabulated
below.

Risk
Quotients
for
Freshwater
Fish
Based
On
a
bluegill
LC50
of
1.7
ppb
and
a
fathead
minnow
NOAEC
of
2.9
ppb.

Site
LC50
(ppb)
NOAEC
(ppb)
EEC
Initial/
Peak
(ppb)
EEC
56­
Day
Ave.
(ppb)
Acute
RQ
(EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
RQ
(EEC/
NOAEC)

wheat
1.
7
2.
9
0.
67
0.
48
0.
40
0.
17
An
analysis
of
the
results
indicate
that
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish.
No
chronic
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
fish.

ii.
Freshwater
Invertebrates
The
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
tabulated
below.

Risk
Quotients
for
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Based
On
a
daphnia
EC50/
LC50
of
10.0
ppb
and
a
daphnia
NOAEC
of
54
ppb.

Site
LC50
(ppb)
21
day
NOAEC
(ppb)
EEC
Initial/
Peak
(ppb)
EEC
21­
Day
Average
Acute
RQ
(EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
RQ
(EEC/
NOAEC)

wheat
10
54
0.
67
0.
48
0.07
0.01
An
analysis
of
the
results
indicate
that
the
acute
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates.
No
chronic
LOC's
are
exceeded
for
freshwater
invertebrates.

iii.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Fish
The
acute
and
chronic
risk
quotients
are
tabulated
below.

Risk
Quotients
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
based
on
a
striped
mullet
LC50
of
23
ppb.
No
data
was
submitted
to
assess
chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish.

Site
LC50
(ppb)
NOAEC
(ppb)
EEC
Initial/
Peak
(ppb)
EEC
56­
Day
Average
Acute
RQ
(EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
RQ
(EEC/
NOAEC)

wheat
23
N/
A
0.67
0.48
0.03
N/
A
An
analysis
of
the
results
indicate
that
no
acute
LOCs
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
fish.

iv.
Estuarine
and
Marine
Invertebrates
39
Risk
Quotients
for
Estuarine/
Marine
Aquatic
Invertebrates
Based
on
a
pink
shrimp
LC50/
EC50
of
0.077
ppb.
No
data
was
submitted
to
assess
chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.

Site/
Application
Method
LC50
(ppb)
NOAEC/
(ppb)
EEC
Initial/
Peak
EEC
21­
Day
Average
Acute
RQ
(EEC/
LC50)
Chronic
RQ
(EEC/
NOAEC)

wheat
0.
077
N/
A
0.
67
0.
48
8.
70
N/
A
An
analysis
of
the
results
indicate
that
high
acute,
restricted
use
and
endangered
species
LOC's
were
exceeded
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates.
Chronic
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
could
not
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
toxicity
data.
40
Appendix
III:

GENEEC
OUTPUT
(FOR
SURFACE
WATER
ASSESSMENT)

RUN
No.
1
FOR
lindane
INPUT
VALUES
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

RATE
(#/
AC)
APPLICATIONS
SOIL
SOLUBILITY
%
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
NO.­
INTERVAL
KOC
(PPM)
DRIFT
DEPTH(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

.051(
.051)
1
1
942.0
7.0
.0
1.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(POND)
(POND­
EFF)
(POND)
(POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

980.00
2
N/
A
.00­
.00
.00
*******

GENERIC
EECs
(IN
PPT)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

PEAK
AVERAGE
4
AVERAGE
21
AVERAGE
56
GEEC
DAY
GEEC
DAY
GEEC
DAY
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

671.90
655.43
579.19
483.61
SCIGROW
OUTPUT
(FOR
GROUND
WATER
ASSESSMENT
RUN
No.
1
FOR
lindane
INPUT
VALUES
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

APPL
(#/
AC)
APPL.
URATE
SOIL
SOIL
AEROBIC
RATE
NO.
(#/
AC/
YR)
KOC
METABOLISM
(DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

.051
1
.051
1367.0
980.0
GROUND­
WATER
SCREENING
CONCENTRATIONS
IN
PPB
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

.010993
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­

A=
975.000
B=
1372.000
C=
2.989
D=
3.137
RILP=
2.578
F=
­.
668
G=
.215
URATE=
.051
GWSC=
.010993
41
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirements
for:
LINDANE
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'s
Study
Classification
71­
1
Avian
Oral
LD50
Yes
00263944
Core
71­
2
2
Avian
Dietary
LC50's
Yes
00022923
Core
71­
4
Avian
Reproduction
Yes
No
448122­
01
448671­
01
Core
Supplemental
72­
1
2
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
Yes
Yes
400946­
02
400980­
01
Core
Core
72­
2
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
LC50
Yes
400946­
02
Core
72­
3(
a)
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC50
Yes
in
combination
402284­
01
(5
studies)
Supplemental
72­
3(
b)
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
EC50
Yes
402284­
01
Core
72­
3(
c)
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
EC50
Yes
in
combination
402284­
01
400946­
02
(5
studies)
Supplemental
Supplemental
72­
4(
a)
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
Yes
444054­
01
400561­
05
Supplemental
72­
4(
b)
Estuarine
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
Required
72­
4(
c)
Estuarine
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
Required
72­
4(
d)
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
Yes
444054­
02
400561­
06
Supplemental
72­
5
Freshwater
Fish
Full
Life­
Cycle
Reserved
81­
1
Acute
Mammalian
LD50
Yes
00049330
Core
83­
5
2­
generation
mammalian
reproduction
Yes
422461­
01
Core
122­
1(
a)
Seed
Germ./
Seedling
Emergence
Required
122­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
Required
122­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
Required
123­
1(
a)
Seed
Germ./
Seedling
Emergence
Reserved
123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
Reserved
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
Reserved
144­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
LD50
Yes
Yes
00036935
05001991
Core
Core
Non­
guideline
14­
day
free
choice
avian
dietary
toxicity
test
(aversion)
Not
required
400561­
03;
400561­
04
Supplemental
42
Environmental
Fate
Data
Requirements
for:
LINDANE
Guideline
#
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
MRID
#'s
Study
Classification
161­
1
Hydrolysis
Yes
00161630
Accepted
161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
Yes
00164547
00164545
44793101
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
Yes
44440605
Acceptable
161­
4
Photodegradation
in
Air
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Yes
40622501
Accepted
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
No
44867102
Unacceptable
162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
163­
1
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
yes
00164346
00164538
40067301
Accepted
163­
2
Laboratory
Volatility
No
44445301
Unacceptable
1
163­
3
Field
Volatility
N/
A
N/
A
N/
A
164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Yes
44867103
Supplemental
165­
4
Accumulation
in
Fish/
Bioconcentration
Yes
40056101
40056102
Accepted
1.
Sorption
properties
of
lindane
and
the
soil
were
not
reported.
Additional
volatility
study
submissions
are
not
needed
to
assess
this
chemicals
fate,
since
lindane's
volatility
is
well
documented
in
open
literature.