Naptalam
and
Naptalam
Sodium
Reregistration
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Prepared
by:

Michelle
Embry,
Biologist
Dana
Spatz,
Chemist
United
States
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division
Environmental
Risk
Branch
2
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
N.
W.
Mail
Code
7507C
Washington,
DC
20460
Reviewed
by:

Thomas
Bailey,
Ph.
D
Chief,
Environmental
Risk
Branch
2
­
ii­
Table
of
Contents
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
1.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
1­
2.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­
3.
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
2­

II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
1.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
2.
Mode
of
Action
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
B.
Assessment
Endpoints
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
3­
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
2.
Ecological
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
4­
C.
Conceptual
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
6­
2.
Diagram
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
7­
D.
Analysis
Plan
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­
1.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­
2.
Measures
of
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­
3.
Measures
of
Effect
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­
4.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
9­

III.
ANALYSIS
PHASE
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
A.
Use
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
B.
Exposure
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
12­
2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
a.
Aquatic
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
14­
b.
Aquatic
Organism
Exposure
Monitoring
(
Field
Data)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
16­
4.
Non­
target
Plant
Exposures
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
1.
Aquatic
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
a.
Aquatic
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
18­
b.
Aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
19­
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
20­
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
20­
b.
Terrestrial
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­

IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­
A.
Risk
Estimation
 
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
21­
1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
22­
2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
22­
3.
Avian
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
22­
­
iii­
4.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
aquatic
Plants
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
5.
Freshwater
Fish
and
Invertebrates
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
23­
6.
Mammals
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
24­
B.
Risk
Description
 
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­
2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
27­
3.
Review
of
Incident
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
28­
4.
Endocrine
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
28­
5.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
29­
a.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
29­
b.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
30­
c.
Critical
Habitat
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
d.
Indirect
Effect
Analysis
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
31­
C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
32­

V.
Literature
Cited
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
34­

Appendices
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
A­
1­

APPENDIX
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
B­
1­

APPENDIX
C.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
C­
1­

APPENDIX
D.
TerrPlant
Model
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
D­
1­

APPENDIX
E.
Ecological
Effects
Data
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
E­
1­

APPENDIX
F.
The
Risk
Quotient
Method
and
Levels
of
Concern
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
F­
1­

APPENDIX
G.
Summary
of
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
G­
1­

APPENDIX
H.
Data
Requirements
Tables
 
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
­
H­
1­
­
1­
I.
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A.
Potential
Risks
to
Non­
target
Organisms
A
Tier
1
screening
level
risk
assessment
focusing
on
maximum
proposed
uses
of
naptalam
on
curcubits
(
cucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba)
and
ornamental
woody
plant
stock
suggests
that
concentrations
of
naptalam
in
the
environment,
when
compared
with
minimum
toxicity
values,
are
unlikely
to
result
in
acute
adverse
effects
to
freshwater
aquatic
organisms.
Insufficient
toxicity
data
are
available
to
characterize
the
risk
of
chronic
adverse
effects
to
freshwater
organisms
and
no
data
are
available
to
characterize
the
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
Risks
to
terrestrial
species
may
occur
and
are
summarized
below.

°
The
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
from
curcubit
application
exceeds
the
endangered
species
and
acute
restricted
use
levels
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
maximum
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals.
Additionally,
the
acute
risk
LOC
is
exceeded
for
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass.
The
acute
restricted
use
LOC
is
exceeded
for
mean
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass.

°
The
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
resulting
from
ornamental
woody
plant
application
exceeds
endangered
species
and
acute
restricted
use
levels
of
concern
for
maximum
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals,
and
for
1000
gram
mammals
on
short
grass.
Additionally,
the
acute
LOC
is
exceeded
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
based
on
maximum
residues
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
Exposure
to
naptalam
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
from
ornamental
woody
plant
application
also
exceeds
the
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
for
mean
residue
conditions.

°
Chronic
exposure
to
naptalam
from
curcubit
application
on
short
grass
for
maximum
residue
conditions
poses
a
chronic
risk
to
wild
mammals
(
RQ
=
1.74).

°
Chronic
exposure
to
naptalam
from
ornamental
woody
plant
application
exceeded
the
LOC
based
on
maximum
residue
conditions
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
Additionally,
the
LOC
is
exceeded
based
on
mean
residue
conditions
on
short
grass.

The
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species.
Due
to
its
environmental
fate
properties,
it
is
assumed
that
most
of
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
will
dissociate
at
environmental
pH
levels
to
form
the
non­
toxic
naptalam
acid
and
sodium
cations.
It
is
therefore
possible
that
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
acute
endpoint
(
1,700
mg/
kg
bw)
overestimates
risk,
due
to
the
fact
that
very
little
of
this
chemical
will
persist
in
the
environment
long
enough
to
lead
to
mammalian
exposure.

1.
Nature
of
Chemical
Stressor
Naptalam
(
CAS
number
132­
66­
1;
132­
67­
2
[
naptalam
sodium])
is
a
soil
acting
herbicide
that
controls
broadleaf
weeds
at
germination
and
early
growth
stage.
It
is
absorbed
by
seeds
and
primary
roots
and
­
2­
interferes
with
normal
growth.
Naptalam
exhibits
minimal
foliar
activity
and
minimal
activity
on
grassy
weeds.
This
report
focused
on
assessing
and
characterizing
potential
risks
resulting
from
the
agricultural
uses
of
naptalam
on
cucumber,
watermelon,
honeydew,
and
cantaloupe.

2.
Exposure
Characterization
Conclusions
The
environmental
fate
and
mobility
of
naptalam
is
pH
dependent.
Naptalam
is
formulated
as
a
sodium
salt
and
predominantly
exists
as
an
anion
in
the
environment.
Based
on
the
pKa
(
4.6),
naptalam
sodium
salt
will
dissociate
under
most
environmental
conditions
and
the
predominant
species
will
be
the
naptalam
acid.
Anions
often
possess
high
mobility
in
soils,
tend
to
have
significant
leaching
potential
and
will
not
volatilize
from
water
or
soil
surfaces.
The
hydrolysis
of
naptalam
appears
to
occur
slowly
under
alkaline
and
neutral
conditions
but
proceeds
rapidly
under
acidic
conditions
with
a
half­
life
on
the
order
of
a
few
days.
Biodegradation
appears
to
be
insignificant
under
anaerobic
conditions,
but
may
be
an
important
environmental
fate
process
in
soil
and
water
under
aerobic
conditions.
A
major
degradation
product
of
naptalam
is
1­
naphthylamine
which
has
been
classified
as
a
carcinogen
by
the
Occupational
Safety
and
Health
Administration
(
OSHA).

3.
Effects
Characterization
Conclusions
Results
of
acute
toxicity
studies
suggest
that
naptalam
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
No
chronic
toxicity
data
were
submitted
for
freshwater
organisms
and
no
acute
or
chronic
testing
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates
was
submitted.

Naptalam
sodium
salt
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
and
the
potential
for
chronic
reproductive
effects
appears
to
be
low,
whereas
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis.
Results
of
acute
oral
toxicity
studies
suggest
that
naptalam
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
Results
of
reproductive
studies
of
naptalam
in
birds
are
not
available.
Based
on
contact
LD50
studies
for
the
honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera),
naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
nontoxic
on
an
acute
contact
basis.

Because
naptalam
is
an
herbicide,
it
is
anticipated
that
non­
target
plants
may
be
particularly
susceptible
to
adverse
effects;
however,
no
data
were
submitted
to
assess
the
toxicity
of
naptalam
toward
aquatic
or
terrestrial
non­
target
plants.
­
3­
II.
PROBLEM
FORMULATION
A.
Stressor
Source
and
Distribution
1.
Chemical
and
Physical
Properties
Naptalam
is
formulated
as
a
sodium
salt
in
order
to
increase
its
solubility.
Based
on
the
pKa
(
4.6),
the
salt
will
dissociate
under
most
environmental
conditions
and
the
predominant
species
will
be
the
naptalam
acid.
Therefore,
naptalam
will
exist
primarily
as
an
anion
in
water
and
moist
soils.
Since
the
vapor
pressure
and
Henry's
law
constant
of
anions
are
infinitesimally
small,
no
volatilization
from
soil
or
water
surfaces
will
occur.
Anions
tend
to
have
much
greater
mobility
in
soils
than
neutral
species
or
cations;
therefore,
it
is
expected
that
naptalam
will
be
highly
mobile
and
may
have
the
potential
to
leach
into
groundwater.
Hydrolysis
occurs
in
a
matter
of
a
few
days
under
acidic
conditions,
in
distilled
water,
but
metal
ions
that
are
ubiquitous
in
natural
waters
tend
to
retard
the
rate
of
hydrolysis.
Photolysis
and
biodegradation
under
aerobic
conditions
also
occur
in
a
matter
of
days
to
a
few
weeks,
however
under
anaerobic
conditions
naptalam
appears
to
be
stable.

The
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species,
and
due
to
its
environmental
fate
properties,
it
is
assumed
that
most
of
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
will
dissociate
at
environmental
pH
levels
to
form
the
non­
toxic
naptalam
acid
and
sodium
cations.
It
is
therefore
possible
that
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
acute
endpoint
(
1,700
mg/
kg
bw)
overestimates
risk,
due
to
the
fact
that
very
little
of
this
chemical
will
persist
in
the
environment
long
enough
to
lead
to
mammalian
exposure.

2.
Mode
of
Action
Naptalam
is
a
selective
herbicide
absorbed
predominantly
by
the
roots,
but
also
to
some
extent
by
the
foliage,
with
accumulation
in
the
meristematic
tissue.
It
works
by
inhibiting
seed
germination
and
IAA
transport.

3.
Overview
of
Pesticide
Usage
Naptalam
use
is
largely
limited
to
the
eastern
region
of
the
United
States
with
its
highest
use
in
the
southeastern
states
particularly
in
Florida
and
Georgia.
It
is
most
frequently
applied
to
cucumber
and
watermelon,
but
has
also
been
used
as
a
selective
herbicide
in
honeydew
and
cantaloupe.
It
has
additional
uses
on
ornamental
woody
plant
nursery
stock.

B.
Assessment
Endpoints
Assessment
endpoints
are
defined
as
"
explicit
expressions
of
the
actual
environmental
value
that
is
to
be
protected."
Defining
an
assessment
endpoint
involves
two
steps:
1)
identifying
the
valued
attributes
of
the
environment
that
are
considered
to
be
at
risk;
and
2)
operationally
defining
the
assessment
endpoint
in
terms
of
an
ecological
entity
(
i.
e.,
a
community
of
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates)
and
its
attributes
(
i.
e.,
survival
and
reproduction).
Therefore,
selection
of
the
assessment
endpoints
is
based
on
valued
entities
(
i.
e.,
ecological
receptors),
the
ecosystems
potentially
at
risk,
the
migration
pathways
of
pesticides,
and
the
routes
by
which
ecological
receptors
are
exposed
to
pesticide­
related
contamination.
The
selection
of
clearly
defined
assessment
endpoints
is
important
because
they
provide
direction
and
boundaries
in
the
risk
assessment
for
addressing
risk
management
issues
of
concern.
­
4­
1.
Ecosystems
Potentially
at
Risk
Ecosystems
potentially
at
risk
are
expressed
in
terms
of
the
selected
assessment
endpoints.
The
typical
assessment
endpoints
for
screening­
level
pesticide
ecological
risks
are
reduced
survival,
and
reproductive
and
growth
impairment
for
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species.
Aquatic
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates,
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates,
and
amphibians.
Terrestrial
animal
species
of
potential
concern
include
birds,
mammals,
beneficial
insects,
and
earthworms.
For
both
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animal
species,
direct
acute
and
direct
chronic
exposures
are
considered.
In
order
to
protect
threatened
and
endangered
species,
all
assessment
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level.
Although
all
endpoints
are
measured
at
the
individual
level,
they
provide
insight
about
risks
at
higher
levels
of
biological
organization
(
e.
g.
populations
and
communities).
For
example,
pesticide
effects
on
individual
survivorship
have
important
implications
for
both
population
rates
of
increase
and
habitat
carrying
capacity.

For
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plants,
the
screening
assessment
endpoint
is
the
perpetuation
of
populations
of
non­
target
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species).
Existing
testing
requirements
have
the
capacity
to
evaluate
emergence
of
seedlings
and
vegetative
vigor.
Although
it
is
recognized
that
the
endpoints
of
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
may
not
address
all
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
plant
life
cycle
components,
it
is
assumed
that
impacts
at
emergence
and
in
active
growth
have
the
potential
to
impact
individual
competitive
ability
and
reproductive
success.

For
aquatic
plants,
the
assessment
endpoint
is
the
maintenance
and
growth
of
standing
crop
or
biomass.
Measurement
endpoints
for
this
assessment
endpoint
focus
on
algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
growth
rates
and
biomass
measurements.

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

2.
Ecological
Effects
Table
1
gives
examples
of
taxonomic
groups
and
test
species
evaluated
for
ecological
effects
in
screening
level
risk
assessments.
­
5­
Table
1.
Taxonomic
groups
and
test
species
evaluated
for
ecological
effects
in
screening
level
risk
assessments.

Taxonomic
group
Example(
s)
of
representative
species
Birdsa
Mallard
duck
(
Anus
playtrhynchos)
Bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)

Mammals
Laboratory
rat
Freshwater
fishb
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lopomis
macrochirus)
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)

Freshwater
invertebrates
Water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna)

Estuarine/
marine
fish
Sheepshead
minnow
(
Cypridodon
variegatus)

Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
Eastern
Oyster
(
Crassostrea
virginica)
Mysid
Shrimp
(
Americamysis
bahia)

Terrestrial
plantsc
Monocots
 
corn
(
Zea
mays)
Dicots
 
soybean
(
Glycine
max)

Aquatic
plants
and
algae
Duckweed
(
Lemna
gibba)
Green
algae
(
Selenastrum
capricornutum)

aBirds
may
be
surrogates
for
amphibians
(
terrestrial
phase)
and
reptiles.
bFreshwater
fish
may
be
surrogates
for
amphibians
(
aquatic
phase).
cFour
species
of
two
families
of
monocots,
of
which
one
is
corn;
six
species
of
at
least
four
dicot
families,
of
which
one
is
soybeans.

Within
each
of
these
very
broad
taxonomic
groups,
an
acute
and/
or
chronic
endpoint
is
selected
from
the
available
test
data.
Additional
ecological
effects
data
for
naptalam
are
available
for
honey
bees
(
Apis
mellifera)
and
have
been
incorporated
into
the
risk
characterization
as
an
additional
line
of
evidence.
Studies
on
acute
toxicity
to
plants
that
were
classified
as
invalid
were
not
included
in
the
risk
characterization.

A
complete
discussion
of
all
toxicity
data
available
for
this
risk
assessment
and
the
resulting
measurement
endpoints
selected
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
included
in
Appendix
E.
A
summary
of
the
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints
selected
to
characterize
potential
ecological
risks
associated
with
exposure
to
naptalam
is
provided
in
Table
2.
­
6­
Table
2.
Summary
of
assessment
and
measurement
endpoints.

Assessment
Endpoint
Measurement
Endpoint
1.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
birds.
1a.
Bobwhite
quail
acute
oral
LD50.
1b.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
subacute
dietary
LD50.
1c.
Bobwhite
quail
and
mallard
duck
chronic
reproduction
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.

2.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
individuals
and
populations
of
mammals.
2a.
Laboratory
rat
acute
oral
LD50.
2b.
Laboratory
rat
developmental
and
chronic
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.

3.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates.
3a.
Rainbow
trout
and
bluegill
sunfish
acute
LC50.
3b.
Rainbow
trout
chronic
(
early­
life)
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.
3c.
Water
flea
(
and
other
freshwater
invertebrates)
acute
EC50.
3d.
Water
flea
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.

4.
Survival
and
reproduction
of
individuals
and
communities
of
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.
4a.
Sheepshead
minnow
acute
LC50.
4b.
Estimated
chronic
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
for
freshwater
fish.
4c.
Eastern
oyster
and
mysid
shrimp
acute
LC50.
4d.
Mysid
shrimp
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEC
and
LOAEC.
4e.
Estimated
NOAEC
and
LOAEC
values
for
mollusks
based
on
the
acute­
to­
chronic
ratio
for
mysids.

5.
Perpetuation
of
individuals
and
populations
of
non­
target
terrestrial
and
semi­
aquatic
species
(
crops
and
non­
crop
plant
species).
5a.
Monocot
and
dicot
seedling
emergence
and
vegetative
vigor
EC25
values.

6.
Survival
of
beneficial
insect
populations.
6a.
Honeybee
acute
contact
LD50.

7.
Abundance
(
i.
e.,
survival,
reproduction,
and
growth)
of
earthworm
populations.
7a.
Acute
and
subchronic
earthworm
LC50
values.

8.
Maintenance
and
growth
of
individuals
and
populations
of
aquatic
plants
from
standing
crop
or
biomass.
8a.
Algal
and
vascular
plant
(
i.
e.,
duckweed)
EC50
values
for
growth
rate
and
biomass
measurements.

LD50
=
Lethal
dose
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
NOAEC
=
No­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level.
LOAEC
=
Lowest­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level.
LC50
=
Lethal
concentration
to
50%
of
the
test
population.
EC50/
EC25
=
Effect
concentration
to
50/
25%
of
the
test
population.

C.
Conceptual
Model
1.
Risk
Hypotheses
In
order
for
a
chemical
to
pose
an
ecological
risk,
it
must
reach
ecological
receptors
in
biologically
­
7­
significant
concentrations.
An
exposure
pathway
is
the
means
by
which
a
contaminant
moves
in
the
environment
from
a
source
to
an
ecological
receptor.
For
an
ecological
exposure
pathway
to
be
complete,
it
must
have
a
source,
a
release
mechanism,
an
environmental
transport
medium,
a
point
of
exposure
for
ecological
receptors,
and
a
feasible
route
of
exposure.
In
addition,
the
potential
mechanisms
of
transformation
(
i.
e.,
which
degradates
may
form
in
the
environment,
in
which
media,
and
how
much)
must
be
known,
especially
for
a
chemical
whose
metabolites/
degradates
are
of
greater
toxicological
concern.
The
assessment
of
ecological
exposure
pathways,
therefore,
includes
an
examination
of
the
source
and
potential
migration
pathways
for
constituents,
and
the
determination
of
potential
exposure
routes
(
e.
g.,
ingestion,
inhalation,
dermal
absorption).

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

2.
Diagram
The
conceptual
site
model
shown
in
Figure
1
generically
depicts
the
potential
source
of
naptalam,
release
mechanisms,
abiotic
receiving
media,
biological
receptor
types,
and
effects
endpoints
of
potential
concern.
­
8­
Source:
spray
on
several
crops,
spray
drift,
and
runoff
Potential
Exposure:
runoff,
drift,
residue
in
the
water
column,
sediments
and/
or
pore
water
Potential
Exposure:
shortgrass,
tallgrass,
forage,
small
insects
Receptor:
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates
Receptor:
small
mammals,
birds
Predicted
Effects
(
Direct):
acute
morbidity
and
chronic
effects
on
growth,
development,
and
reproduction
1)
Possible
effects
to
recreational
fisheries
2)
Possible
effects
to
aquatic
population
3)
Possible
effects
to
commercial
aquaculture
Predicted
Effects
(
Indirect):
food
chain
alterations
that
could
affect
fish
populations
Predicted
Effects:
acute
morbidity,
chronic
effects
on
growth,
development,
and
reproduction
Figure
1.
General
conceptual
model
for
a
screening
level
ecological
risk
assessment.
­
9­
D.
Analysis
Plan
1.
Key
Uncertainties
and
Data
Gaps
The
adequacy
of
the
submitted
data
was
evaluated
relative
to
Agency
guidelines.
The
following
identified
data
gaps
for
environmental
fate
and
toxicity
endpoints
result
in
a
degree
of
uncertainty
in
evaluating
the
ecological
risk
of
naptalam.

°
Hydrolysis
half­
lives
are
not
available
at
neutral
and
alkaline
pH
levels.
However,
no
degradation
was
observed
in
the
dark
control
for
the
aqueous
photolysis
study
conducted
at
pH
7.
Therefore,
stability
to
hydrolysis
is
assumed
at
neutral
pH.

°
No
data
are
available
to
assess
the
acute
or
chronic
risk
of
naptalam
to
estuarine/
marine
fish
and
invertebrates.

°
No
data
are
available
to
assess
the
chronic
risk
of
naptalam
to
freshwater
fish
and
invertebrates
and
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants.

°
No
data
are
available
on
the
potential
for
naptalam
to
bioaccumulate
in
fish.
Given
the
very
high
log
Kow,
we
expect
that
naptalam,
once
dissociated,
will
accumulate
in
fish
tissue.

2.
Measures
of
Exposure
Exposure
concentrations
for
aquatic
ecosystems
assessments
were
estimated
based
on
EFED's
aquatic
Tier
I
model
GENEEC
Version
2.0
(
GENEEC2,
2001).
This
program
uses
the
soil/
water
partition
coefficient
and
degradation
kinetic
data
to
estimate
runoff
from
a
ten
hectare
field
into
a
one
hectare
by
two
meter
deep
`
standard'
pond.
This
Tier
I
model
was
designed
as
a
screen
and
estimates
protective
pesticide
concentrations
in
surface
water
from
a
few
basic
chemical
parameters
and
pesticide
label
use
and
application
information.
Residues
in
potential
dietary
sources
for
mammals
and
birds
(
e.
g.,
vegetation,
insects)
were
estimated
using
the
conceptual
approach
given
in
the
Tier
1
model
ELL­
FATE
Version
1.4
(
ELL­
FATE,
2004).

3.
Measures
of
Effect
Measures
of
effect
are
generally
based
on
the
results
of
a
toxicity
study,
although
monitoring
data
may
also
be
used
to
provide
supporting
lines
of
evidence
for
the
risk
characterization.
A
complete
summary
of
the
measures
of
effect
based
on
toxicity
studies
for
different
ecological
receptors
and
effect
endpoints
(
acute/
chronic)
is
given
in
Table
2.
Examples
of
measures
of
acute
effects
(
e.
g.,
lethality)
include
an
oral
LD50
for
mammals
and
LC50
for
fish
and
invertebrates.
Examples
of
measures
of
chronic
effects
include
a
NOAEL
for
birds
or
mammals
based
on
reproduction
or
developmental
endpoints,
and
an
EC50
for
plants
based
on
growth
rate
or
biomass
measurements.

4.
Measures
of
Ecosystem
and
Receptor
Characteristics
For
the
Tier
1
assessment
using
GENEEC2
and
ELL­
FATE,
the
ecosystems
that
are
modeled
are
intended
to
be
generally
representative
of
any
aquatic
or
terrestrial
ecosystem
associated
with
areas
where
naptalam
­
10­
is
used.
The
receptors
addressed
by
the
aquatic
and
terrestrial
risk
assessments
are
summarized
in
Figure
2.
For
aquatic
assessments,
generally
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
in
both
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
environments
are
represented.
For
terrestrial
assessments,
three
different
size
classes
of
small
mammals
are
represented,
along
with
four
potential
foraging
categories
(
see
Appendix
E
for
a
detailed
description).
­
11­
Figure
2.
Agricultural
uses
of
naptalam
in
1992
(
USGS,
2004).
­
12­
III.
ANALYSIS
PHASE
A.
Use
Characterization
The
agricultural
uses
of
naptalam
in
the
United
States
are
for
watermelon,
cucumber,
cantaloupe,
and
honeydew
crops.
The
total
amount
of
naptalam
increased
from
1992
to
1997
according
to
data
supplied
by
the
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy
Pesticide
Use
Database
and
the
USGS
National
Pesticide
Use
Synthesis
project
illustrated
in
Table
3
and
Figure
2.
The
total
weight
of
naptalam
applied
to
watermelon,
the
crop
with
the
highest
naptalam
application,
increased
in
1992
from
approximately
88,000
to
97,000
pounds
in
1997.
Naptalam
use
is
limited
to
the
eastern
region
of
the
United
States
with
the
highest
use
in
the
southeastern
states,
particularly
in
Florida
and
Georgia.
Information
provided
by
the
registrant
(
EFED,
2004),
Crompton,
describes
the
highest
single
application
rate
of
naptalam
as
4
lb
a.
i./
A
with
a
maximum
of
two
applications
per
season.
Applications
may
occur
2
to
6
weeks
between
treatments.
The
highest
sales
of
naptalam
in
2003
were
in
Texas,
North
Carolina,
and
Georgia
for
use
on
watermelon,
cucumber,
cantaloupe,
and
honeydew
crops.
The
average
area
that
is
treated
with
naptalam
per
season
is
23,400
acres,
based
on
registrant
data
for
2000 
2003.
Naptalam
is
also
currently
approved
for
use
on
woody
ornamental
nursery
stock.

Table
3.
Agricultural
uses
of
naptalam
in
1997
(
NCFAP,
2004).

Crop
State
(
Top
3)
Pounds
of
naptalam
applied
per
state
Total
pounds
of
naptalam
applied
Watermelon
Florida
Georgia
Texas
37910.0
25011.3
8387.7
97133.2
Cucumber
Florida
Georgia
Michigan
19981.2
13812.0
10398.7
78895.0
Cantaloupe
Indiana
Colorado
Maryland
2235.3
2055.0
1194.0
8387.3
Honeydew
Texas
960.9
960.9
B.
Exposure
Characterization
1.
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
Characterization
Environmental
fate
properties
of
naptalam
are
shown
in
Table
4.
­
13­
Table
4.
Physical
and
chemical
properties
of
naptalam.

Property
Value
Reference
Structure
(
sodium
salt)

CAS
number
132­
66­
1
132­
67­
2
(
sodium
salt)

Pesticide
classification
Herbicide
SMILES
notation
OC(=
O)
c1ccccc1C(=
O)
Nc2cccc3ccccc23
(
naptalam)

[
Na]
OC(=
O)
c1ccccc1C(=
O)
Nc2cccc3ccc
cc23
(
sodium
salt)

Molecular
weight
291.3
g/
mol
(
naptalam)
313.3
g/
mol
(
sodium
salt)
Tomlin,
1997
Tomlin,
1997
Molecular
formula
C18H13NO3
(
naptalam)
C18H12NO3Na
(
sodium
salt)
Tomlin,
1997
Tomlin,
1997
Water
solubility
(
20
°
C)
200
mg/
L
(
naptalam)
300,000
mg/
L
(
sodium
salt)
249,000
mg/
L
at
25
°
C
(
sodium
salt)
Tomlin,
1997
Tomlin,
1997
Weed
Science
Society
of
America,
1994
Dissociation
constant
(
pKa)
4.6
Tomlin,
1997
Vapor
pressure
(
25
°
C)
9.1x10­
11
mm
Hg
EPIWIN
Henry's
law
constant
2.4x10­
15
atm­
m3/
mol
EPIWIN
log
Kow
5.42
(
naptalam)
­
0.39
(
sodium
salt)
Tomlin,
1997
EPIWIN
Hydrolysis
half­
life
pH
5
pH
7
pH
9
2.9
days
No
data
No
data
MRID
43647701
Na+

­
O
O
O
HN
Table
4.
Physical
and
chemical
properties
of
naptalam.

Property
Value
Reference
­
14­
Aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
6.2 
6.9
days
10.3
days
MRID
41385401
MRID
41385401
Soil
photolysis
half­
life
15.9
days
MRID
41385402
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
36.7
days
MRID
41427201
Anaerobic
soil
half­
life
246
days
MRID
41427202
Adsorption
coefficient
(
Koc)
20
Weber,
1994
At
pH
7,
naptalam
appears
to
be
stable
to
chemical
hydrolysis
based
on
information
from
the
dark
control
in
the
aqueous
photolysis
study;
however,
at
pH
5
naptalam
hydrolyzed
with
a
half­
life
of
approximately
3
days.
Experiments
have
shown
that
metal
ions
such
as
copper
and
zinc
may
inhibit
the
rate
of
hydrolysis,
therefore,
this
reaction
may
occur
more
slowly
in
natural
waters
and
soils
than
under
laboratory
conditions
using
distilled,
deionized
water.
Three
degradation
products
have
been
observed
during
the
degradation
of
naptalam
:
1­
naphthylamine,
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide,
and
phthalic
acid.
Photolysis
of
naptalam
may
be
an
important
environmental
fate
process
based
on
aqueous
photolysis
half­
lives
in
the
range
of
6.2
to
10.3
days,
and
a
soil
photolysis
half­
life
of
15.9
days.
1­
Naphthylamine
and
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide
were
observed
as
degradation
products
in
both
aqueous
and
soil
photolysis
experiment.
Naptalam
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
36.7
days
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
under
aerobic
conditions.
Two
non­
volatile
degradates
were
identified
(
N­
1­
naphthylphtalimide
and
1­
naphthylamine).
Under
anaerobic
conditions
the
half­
life
of
naptalam
is
considerably
longer
(
246
days).

Naptalam
is
formulated
as
a
sodium
salt
in
order
to
increase
its
solubility.
Based
on
the
pKa
(
4.6),
the
salt
will
dissociate
under
most
environmental
conditions
and
the
predominant
species
will
be
the
naptalam
acid.
Therefore,
naptalam
will
exist
primarily
as
an
anion
in
water
and
moist
soils.
The
high
solubility
of
the
sodium
salt
and
a
reported
Koc
value
of
20
from
the
open
literature
indicates
that
naptalam
may
leach
into
groundwater.
Field
dissipation
experiments
submitted
to
EFED
do
not
satisfy
the
data
requirements
of
Guideline
164­
1
and
the
results
of
the
submitted
experiments
have
been
deemed
of
uncertain
value
due
to
experimental
deficiencies.

2.
Aquatic
Resource
Exposure
Assessment
a.
Aquatic
Organism
Exposure
Modeling
To
determine
ecological
risks
associated
with
agricultural
uses
of
naptalam,
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
in
surface
water
were
modeled
using
the
Tier
I
model
Generic
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations
(
GENEEC,
Version
2.0,
dated
August
1,
2001).
Input
parameter
values
are
based
on
the
data
presented
in
Table
5.
The
product
label
for
`
Alanap'
describes
an
aerial
and
ground
application.
Of
these
two
application
methods,
aerial
applications
are
more
likely
to
yield
higher
EECs
due
to
the
potential
for
spray
drift.
Therefore,
GENEEC2
was
run
for
aerial
applications
of
naptalam.
The
peak
(
24­
hour),
21­
day
and
60­
day
surface
water
EECs
for
curcubit
application
of
naptalam
are
452.4,
­
15­
442.2,
and
423.1
ppb,
respectively.
The
peak
(
24­
hour),
21­
day
and
60­
day
surface
water
EECs
for
ornamental
woody
plant
application
of
naptalam
are
470.7,
460.1,
and
440.2
ppb,
respectively.
Table
6
shows
the
output
of
the
model.

Table
5.
Input
parameters
for
naptalam
used
in
GENEEC2.

Parameter
Value
Source
Crop
Cucurbitsa
Ornamental
woody
plants
Master
label
Water
solubility
(
mg/
L
at
25
°
C)
249,000
Weed
Science
Society
of
America,
1994
Hydrolysis
half­
life
(
days)
stable
(
at
pH
7)
MRID
41385401
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
110b
36.7
days
x
3
(
MRID
41427201)
USEPA,
2002
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
220
No
study;
value
calculated
as
2
x
aerobic
soil
t
½
(
USEPA,
2002)

Aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
(
days)
6.2
MRID
41385401
Adsorption
coefficient
(
Koc)
c
20
Weber,
1994
Pesticide
is
wetted­
in
Yes
Master
label
Application
method
(
for
maximum
application
rate)
Aerial
Master
label
Application
rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A)
Cucurbitsa:
4
Ornamental
woody
plants:
8
Master
label
Maximum
number
of
applications
per
year
Cucurbitsa:
2
Ornamental
woody
plants:
1
Master
label
Application
interval
(
days)
14
Master
label
Depth
of
incorporation
(
cm)
0
Master
label
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.
bMRID
00145416
(
1978)
not
used
in
this
calculation
because
of
analytical
issues
and
extraction
problems.
cNo
study
available
on
the
adsorption/
desorption
coefficient
(
lowest
non­
sand
Kd).
­
16­
Table
6.
Summary
of
crop
application
scenario
and
estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
of
naptalam
obtained
from
GENEEC2.

Crop
Application
rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A)
Maximum
#
of
applications
EEC
(
ppb)

Peak
21
day
60
day
Cucurbitsa
4
2
452.4
442.2
423.1
Ornamental
woody
plants
8
1
470.7
460.1
440.2
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba
b.
Aquatic
Organism
Exposure
Monitoring
(
Field
Data)

No
data
were
identified
to
provide
information
on
aquatic
organism
monitoring.

3.
Terrestrial
Organism
Exposure
The
EFED
terrestrial
exposure
model,
ELL­
FATE
(
ELL­
FATE,
Version
1.4,
dated
April
7,
2004),
is
used
to
estimate
exposures
and
risks
to
avian
and
mammalian
species.
Input
values
on
avian
and
mammalian
toxicity
as
well
as
chemical
application
and
foliar
half­
time
data
are
required
to
run
the
model.
The
model
provides
estimates
of
both
exposure
concentrations
and
risk
quotients
(
RQs).
Specifically,
the
model
provides
estimates
of
concentrations
(
maximum
and
average)
of
chemical
residues
on
the
surface
of
different
types
of
foliage
that
may
be
sources
of
exposure
to
avian,
mammalian,
reptilian,
or
terrestrial­
phase
amphibian
receptors.
The
surface
residue
concentration
(
ppm)
is
estimated
by
multiplying
the
application
rate
(
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre)
by
a
value
specific
to
each
food
item.
These
values
(
termed
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates)
along
with
a
more
detailed
discussion
of
the
methodology
implemented
by
ELL­
FATE,
are
presented
in
Appendix
C
(
ELL­
Fate
Model
and
Results).

For
multiple
applications,
the
EEC
is
determined
by
adding
the
mass
on
the
surface
immediately
following
the
application
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application
(
determined
based
on
first
order
kinetics
using
the
foliar
half­
life
as
the
rate
constant).
It
should
be
noted
that
because
the
EEC
represents
the
concentration
immediately
following
a
direct
application,
the
foliar
half­
life
variable
is
only
influential
for
scenarios
involving
multiple
applications.
The
following
table
describes
the
input
values
used
for
estimating
avian
and
mammalian
exposure
risks
to
naptalam.

A
maximum
single
application
rate
of
8
lbs
a.
i./
A
was
used
(
consistent
with
currently
labeled
uses
on
woody
ornamentals),
as
well
as
a
scenario
involving
an
application
rate
of
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
for
a
maximum
of
two
applications
per
season
with
a
minimum
interval
of
14
days
for
curcubit
crops.
Although
no
information
was
available
on
the
foliar
dissipation
rate
of
naptalam,
two
values
were
identified
from
a
study
of
dislodgable
foliar
residue.
The
upper
90%
confidence
interval
of
the
mean
of
the
two
values
is
approximately
4
days.
Given
the
uncertainty
in
using
data
from
a
dislodgable
foliar
residue
study
to
estimate
dissipation
rates,
two
scenarios
were
considered
to
explore
the
plausible
range
of
concentrations.
Scenarios
were
run
with
a
foliar
half
life
of
4
days.
­
17­
A
summary
of
the
input
parameters
used
in
ELL­
FATE
for
each
scenario
is
presented
in
Table
7.
Naptalam
concentrations
on
foliar
surfaces
ranged
from
65 
1,920
ppm
for
conditions
of
maximum
residues
and
30 
680
ppm
for
conditions
of
mean
residues.
Naptalam
concentrations
are
highest
on
the
surfaces
of
short
grass
and
lowest
on
the
surfaces
of
fruits,
pods,
and
large
insects.
Table
8
shows
the
EECs
of
naptalam
applied
to
cucurbits
and
Table
9
shows
the
output
for
ornamental
woody
crops.
A
thorough
description
of
the
ELL­
FATE
model
is
provided
in
Appendix
C.

Table
7.
Input
parameters
used
in
ELL­
FATE
v1.4
to
determine
terrestrial
EECs
for
naptalam.

Input
variable
Parameter
value
Source
Maximum
application
rate
Cucurbitsa:
4
lbs
a.
i./
A
Ornamental
woody
plants:
8
lbs
a.
i./
A
Product
label
Maximum
number
of
applications
per
year
Cucurbitsa:
2
Ornamental
woody
plants:
1
Product
label
Frequency
of
applicationb
14
days
Product
label
Foliar
half­
life
35
days
4
days
(
for
cucurbits
only)
c
Default
(
ELL­
FATE,
2004)
MRID
44972501,
90%
UCL
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba
bInterpreted
as
the
interval
(
days)
between
successive
applications.
For
single
application
scenarios,
this
variable
is
set
to
0.
c90%
UCL
=
90%
upper
confidence
limit
on
the
mean:
t
t
s
n
n
1
2
90
1
166
288
2
3
078
0
8267
2
415
/
,
(
)
(
.
.
)
(
.
.
)
.
+
=
+
+
×
=
 

Table
8.
Acute,
24­
hour
average
terrestrial
EECs
for
naptalam
applied
to
CUCURBITSa
estimated
using
Kenaga
valuesb.

Foliage
type
Maximum
residues
(
ppm)
Mean
residues
(
ppm)

Short
grass
1,045
370
Tall
grass
479
157
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
588
196
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
65
30
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
and
casaba.
bApplication
rate
=
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
2
applications,
14
day
inverva;
half­
life
=
4
days
­
18­
Table
9.
Acute,
24­
hour
average
terrestrial
EECs
for
naptalam
applied
to
ORNAMENTAL
WOODY
CROPS
estimated
using
Kenaga
valuesa.

Foliage
type
Maximum
Residues
(
ppm)
Mean
Residues
(
ppm)

Short
grass
1,920
680
Tall
grass
880
288
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
1,080
360
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
120
56
aApplication
rate
=
8
lbs
a.
i./
A,
1
application;
half­
life
=
35
days
4.
Non­
target
Plant
Exposures
Due
to
the
lack
of
acceptable
studies
on
plant
toxicity,
exposure
modeling
was
not
conducted
for
non­
target
terrestrial
plants.

C.
Ecological
Effects
Characterization
In
screening­
level
ecological
risk
assessments,
effects
characterization
describes
the
types
of
effects
a
pesticide
can
produce
in
an
aquatic
or
terrestrial
organism.
This
characterization
is
based
on
registrantsubmitted
studies
that
describe
acute
and
chronic
effects
toxicity
information
for
various
aquatic
and
terrestrial
animals
and
plants.
Appendix
E
summarizes
the
results
of
the
registrant­
submitted
toxicity
studies
used
to
characterize
effects
for
this
risk
assessment.
Toxicity
testing
reported
in
this
section
does
not
represent
all
species
of
birds,
mammals,
or
aquatic
organisms.
Only
a
few
surrogate
species
for
both
freshwater
fish
and
birds
are
used
to
represent
all
freshwater
fish
(
2000+)
and
bird
(
680+)
species
in
the
United
States.
For
mammals,
acute
studies
are
usually
limited
to
Norway
rat
or
the
house
mouse.
Estuarine/
marine
testing
is
usually
limited
to
a
crustacean,
a
mollusk,
and
a
fish.
Also,
neither
reptiles
nor
amphibians
are
tested.
The
risk
assessment
assumes
that
avian
and
reptilian
toxicities
are
similar.
The
same
assumption
is
used
for
fish
and
amphibians.

In
general,
categories
of
acute
toxicity
ranging
from
"
practically
nontoxic"
to
"
very
highly
toxic"
have
been
established
for
aquatic
organisms
(
based
on
LC50
values),
terrestrial
organisms
(
based
on
LD50
values),
avian
species
(
based
on
LC50
values),
and
non­
target
insects
(
based
on
LD50
values
for
honey
bees)
(
EPA
2001).
These
categories
are
presented
in
Appendix
E.

1.
Aquatic
Effects
The
most
sensitive
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
reference
values
associated
with
naptalam
exposure
to
freshwater
and
estuarine/
marine
species
are
summarized
in
Table
10.
A
more
detailed
summary
of
the
aquatic
toxicity
data
available
to
characterize
risks
associated
naptalam
applications
is
given
in
Appendix
E
(
Ecological
Effects
Data).

a.
Aquatic
Animals
The
acute
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
freshwater
fish
was
evaluated
in
two
species,
with
96­
hour
LC50
values
­
19­
of
76.1
mg/
L
for
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
and
118.5
mg/
L
for
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus).
The
acute
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
freshwater
invertebrates
was
evaluated
in
the
daphnid
(
Daphnia
magna),
with
a
48­
hour
LC50
value
of
118.5
mg/
L.
Based
on
the
acute
toxicity
classifications
established
by
EPA
(
2001)
(
see
Appendix
E),
these
results
suggest
that
naptalam
is
slightly
toxic
to
fish
and
practically
nontoxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates.

No
data
were
submitted
on
the
chronic
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
freshwater
fish
or
invertebrates.
In
addition,
no
data
were
submitted
on
the
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
marine/
estuarine
fish
or
invertebrates.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
No
data
were
submitted
on
the
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
non­
target
aquatic
plants.

Table
10.
Naptalam
toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
for
aquatic
organisms.
a
Exposure
scenario
Species
Exposure
duration
Toxicity
reference
value
(
mg/
L)
Reference
Freshwater
fish
Acute
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
96
hour
76.1
MRID
00070193
Core
Chronic
No
test
data
submitted
Freshwater
invertebrates
Acute
Daphnia
(
Daphnia
magna)
48
hour
118.5
MRID
00082971
Core
Chronic
No
test
data
submitted
Estuarine/
marine
fish
No
test
data
submitted
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
No
test
data
submitted
Aquatic
plants
No
test
data
submitted
aA
more
detailed
summary
of
the
aquatic
toxicity
data
available
to
characterize
risks
associated
with
naptalam
applications
is
given
in
Appendix
E.
­
20­
2.
Terrestrial
Effects
a.
Terrestrial
Animals
The
most
sensitive
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
references
values
associated
with
naptalam
exposure
to
terrestrial
organisms
are
summarized
in
Table
11.
A
more
detailed
summary
of
these
studies,
along
with
additional
toxicity
data
on
terrestrial
species
exposed
to
naptalam,
is
given
in
Appendix
E
(
Ecological
Effects
Data).

Table
11.
Naptalam
toxicity
reference
values
(
TRVs)
for
terrestrial
organisms.

Effects
Endpoint
Species
Exposure
Duration
Toxicity
Reference
Value
Reference
Mammals
Acute
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Single
dose
SODIUM
SALT
LD50
=
1,700
mg/
kg
bw
MRID
29172
Acute
Rat
Single
dose
ACID
LD50
=
>
8,192
mg/
kg
bw
MRID
76205
Chronic
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Multigeneration
reproduction
and
fertility
effects
NOAEL
=
30
mg/
kg
bwday
LOAEL
=
150
mg/
kg
bw­
day
based
on
reduced
mean
pup
body
weights.
MRID
00031684
Core
Birds
Acute
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
96
hours
LD50
=
>
4,640
mg/
kg
bw
MRID
GS­
0183­
01
Core
Acute
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
5
days
LC50
=
>
10,000
mg/
kg
diet
MRID
00108853
Core
Chronic
No
test
data
submitted
Non­
target
insects
Acute
Honeybee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Acute
contact
LD50
=
113.2
µ
g/
bee
MRID
00028772
Core
Terrestrial
plants
No
test
data
submitted
­
21­
Mammalian
Species
Both
an
acute
oral
toxicity
study
in
the
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
and
a
multigeneration
reproduction
study
in
the
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
are
available
for
naptalam.
The
acute
toxicity
of
naptalam
sodium
salt
(
MRID
29172)
as
well
as
naptalam
acid
(
MRID
76205)
were
examined.
The
chronic
study
was
classified
as
a
core
(
acceptable)
study.
Based
on
the
acute
toxicity
categories
established
by
EPA
(
2001)
(
Appendix
E),
the
oral
LD50
is
1,700
mg/
kg
body
weight.

Based
on
the
results
in
Table
11,
naptalam
sodium
salt
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(
LD50
=
1,700
mg/
kg
bw),
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
(
LD50
>
8,192),
and
the
potential
for
chronic
reproductive
effects
appears
to
be
low.
In
a
multigeneration
reproduction
study
in
the
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
possible
systemic
toxicity
was
observed
in
the
offspring
in
the
form
of
a
statistically
significant
reduction
in
the
mean
pup
body
weights
in
the
high­
dose
group
(
3,000
mg/
kg
in
the
diet
or
150
mg/
kg
bw).
This
is
equal
to
the
lowest­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
(
LOAEL).
The
noobserved
adverse­
effect
level
(
NOAEL)
for
naptalam
for
reproductive
effects
was
600
mg/
kg
diet
or
30
mg/
kg
bw
(
MRID
00031684).
Results
of
this
study
along
with
others
are
presented
in
Appendix
B,
Table
B­
3.
The
value
of
1,700
mg/
kg
bw
is
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
acute
risks
to
mammals
from
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt.
RQ
values
were
not
calculated
for
naptalam
acid
because
there
were
no
deaths
in
the
study.
The
systemic
NOAEL
of
30
mg/
kg
bw
is
used
as
the
toxicity
value
for
assessing
chronic
risks.

Avian
Species
For
avian
species,
acute
toxicity
studies
have
been
conducted
in
two
species,
as
summarized
in
Appendix
B,
Tables
B1
to
B2.
For
the
mallard
(
Anas
platyrhynchos),
the
acute
oral
LD50
value
is
>
4,640
mg/
kg
bw.
The
acute
dietary
LC50
values
for
the
mallard
and
the
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
are
greater
than
10,000
mg/
kg
diet.
These
values
suggest
that
naptalam
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
Results
of
reproductive
studies
of
naptalam
in
birds
(
Guideline
71­
4)
are
not
available.

Non­
target
Insects
Based
on
the
contact
LD50
value
of
113.2
:
g/
bee
for
the
honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera),
naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
on
an
acute
contact.
Currently,
EFED
does
not
assess
risk
to
non­
target
insects.
Results
of
acceptable
studies
are
used
for
recommending
appropriate
label
precautions.
Based
on
the
results
of
this
study
in
honey
bees,
the
concern
for
acute
toxicity
to
non­
target
insects
is
very
low.

b.
Terrestrial
Plants
Toxicity
data
for
terrestrial
plants
was
not
submitted
by
the
registrant.

IV.
RISK
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Risk
Estimation
 
Integration
of
Exposure
and
Effects
Data
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
naptalam
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
is
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values
(
see
Appendix
F).
Estimated
environmental
­
22­
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
The
RQs
are
then
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs,
summarized
in
Appendix
F,
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
non­
target
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
For
non­
target
aquatic
animals
(
i.
e.,
fish
and
invertebrates),
surface
water
EECs
were
obtained
from
the
Tier
I
GENEEC2
model
(
see
Table
6).
For
non­
target
terrestrial
animals
(
i.
e.,
birds
and
mammals),
the
EECs
were
obtained
from
ELL­
FATE
(
see
Table
8
and
Table
9).
Toxicity
reference
values
for
aquatic
and
terrestrial
organisms
exposed
to
naptalam
are
summarized
in
Table
10
and
Table
11,
respectively.

1.
Non­
target
Aquatic
Animals
and
Plants
All
acute
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
high
risk
(
LOC
0.5),
acute
restricted
risk
(
LOC
0.1),
or
acute
endangered
risk
(
LOC
0.05).
Detailed
tabular
summaries
of
the
RQ
calculations
for
each
crop
use
scenario,
receptor,
and
effects
endpoint,
are
given
in
Appendix
F.

Toxicity
data
are
either
inadequate
or
unavailable
to
calculate
RQs
based
on
the
following
measurement
endpoints
(
e.
g.,
acute
or
chronic
toxicity
reference
values)
and
receptors:

°
chronic
(
early­
life)
NOAEC
or
LOAEC
for
freshwater
fish;
°
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEC
or
LOAEC
for
freshwater
invertebrates;
°
acute
LC50
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates;
°
chronic
(
early­
life)
NOAEC
or
LOAEC
for
estuarine/
marine
fish;
°
chronic
(
life­
cycle)
NOAEC
or
LOAEC
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates;
°
algal
and
vascular
plant
EC50
values
for
growth
rate
and
biomass
measurements.

2.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
Animals
RQs
for
birds
and
mammals
were
calculated
by
comparing
toxicity
values
with
EECs
representing
multiple
exposure
scenarios
for
naptalam
sodium
salt:

°
two
different
crop
uses
(
cucurbits,
with
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
2
applications,
and
14
day
interval;
woody
ornamentals,
with
8
lbs
a.
i./
A,
1
application);
°
foliar
dissipation
half­
life
of
4
days
for
curcubits
(
90%
UCL
from
two
values
reported
from
dislodgable
residue
studies);
°
default
half­
life
of
35
days
for
ornamental
woody
plant
application
(
ELL­
FATE);
°
maximum
and
mean
residue
levels;
and
°
four
different
foliage
types
representing
potential
food/
habitat
categories
(
short
grass;
tall
grass;
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects;
and
fruits/
pods/
large
insects).

Terrestrial
mammal
acute
RQ
values
were
not
calculated
for
naptalam
acid
because
there
were
no
deaths
in
the
study
at
concentrations
as
high
as
8,192
mg/
kg.

3.
Avian
Species
Avian
acute
toxicity
studies
indicate
that
the
LC50
is
>
10,000
mg/
kg
diet,
and
no
deaths
were
observed
in
the
study.
Therefore,
naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
and
RQ
values
were
not
calculated
­
23­
based
on
the
results
of
the
acute
toxicity
studies.

4.
Non­
target
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
aquatic
Plants
Results
of
the
exposure
and
toxicity
effects
data
are
used
to
evaluate
the
likelihood
of
adverse
ecological
effects
on
non­
target
species.
For
the
assessment
of
naptalam
risks,
the
risk
quotient
(
RQ)
method
is
used
to
compare
exposure
and
measured
toxicity
values.
Estimated
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
are
divided
by
acute
and
chronic
toxicity
values.
The
RQs
are
compared
to
the
Agency's
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
These
LOCs
are
the
Agency's
interpretive
policy
and
are
used
to
analyze
potential
risk
to
nontarget
organisms
and
the
need
to
consider
regulatory
action.
The
surface
water
EECs
were
obtained
from
the
Tier
I
GENEEC2
model
(
see
Table
6)
and
the
EECs
for
calculating
avian
and
mammalian
RQ
values
were
obtained
from
ELL­
FATE
(
see
Table
8
and
Table
9).

5.
Freshwater
Fish
and
Invertebrates
Acute
RQ
values
for
freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
are
well
below
the
level
of
concern
for
acute
high
risk
(
LOC
0.5),
acute
restricted
risk
(
LOC
0.1),
or
acute
endangered
risk
(
LOC
0.05).
These
data
are
summarized
in
Tables
12
and
13.

Table
12.
Acute
RQs
for
evaluating
toxic
risk
of
naptalam
exposure
to
freshwater
fish.
RQs
are
based
on
the
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
LC50
=
76.1
ppm.
EEC
values
are
generated
from
GENEEC2.

Crop
Application
Rate
Organism
LC/
EC50
(
ppm)
EEC
Peak
(
ppm)
Acute
RQ
(
EEC/
LC50)

Cucurbitsa
(
4
lbs
a.
i./
A)
x
2
(
14d
int)
Freshwater
fish
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
76.1
0.452
0.01
Ornamental
woody
plants
(
8
lbs
a.
i./
A)
x
1
Freshwater
fish
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
76.1
0.471
0.01
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.
96­
hour
LC50
for
rainbow
trout:
76.1
mg/
L.
­
24­
Table
13.
Acute
RQs
for
evaluating
toxic
risk
of
naptalam
exposure
to
freshwater
invertebrates.
RQs
are
based
on
waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
LC50
=
118.5
ppm.
EEC
values
(
ppm)
are
generated
from
GENEEC2.

Crop
Application
Rate
Organism
LC50
(
ppm)
EEC
Peak
(
ppm)
Acute
RQ2
Cucurbitsa
(
4
lbs
a.
i./
A)
x
2
(
14d
int)
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
Daphnia
magna)
118.5
0.452
0.004
Ornamental
woody
plants
(
8
lbs
a.
i./
A)
x
1
Freshwater
invertebrates
(
Daphnia
magna)
118.5
0.471
0.004
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.
48­
hour
LC50
for
Daphnia
magna:
118.5
mg/
L.

6.
Mammals
The
RQs
for
mammalian
acute
toxicity
are
provided
in
Tables
14
and
15.
An
acute
LD50
value
of
1,700
mg/
kg
for
rats
was
used
to
calculate
acute
mammalian
RQs
for
naptalam
sodium
salt.
The
RQs
based
on
maximum
residues
range
from
0.001
to
0.42
while
the
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
range
from
0.0004
to
0.15.
The
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
and
broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
appear
to
pose
risks
to
endangered
species
and
to
pose
acute
restricted
use
risk
for
maximum
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals.
Exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
poses
acute
risk
to
endangered
species
for
mean
residue
conditions.
RQ
values
were
not
calculated
for
naptalam
acid
because
no
mortality
occurred
in
the
study
(>
8,192
mg/
kg
bw).
­
25­
Table
14.
Acute
RQs
for
mammalian
toxicity
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
applications
to
CURCUBITSab
using
a
foliar
half­
life
value
of
4
daysc.
RQs
estimated
using
ELL­
FATE
Version
1.4
with
an
acute
LC50
value
of
1,700
mg/
kg
body
weight.

RQs
based
on
maximum
residuesd
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
Foliage
Type
15
g
35
g
1,000
g
15
g
35
g
1,000
g
Short
grass
0.58
0.41
0.09
0.21
0.14
0.03
Tall
grass
0.27
0.19
0.04
0.09
0.06
0.01
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
0.33
0.23
0.05
0.11
0.08
0.02
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
0.04
0.03
0.006
0.02
0.01
0.003
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.01
0.006
0.001
0.004
0.003
0.0005
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.
bCurcubit
application
=
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
2
applications,
14
day
interval
c90%
UCL
=
90%
upper
confidence
limit
on
the
mean:
dThe
latest
version
of
ELL­
FATE,
Version
1.4,
estimates
EEC's
and
RQs
based
on
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
distinction
is
made
by
using
different
Kenaga
values
for
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
Kenaga
values
are
lower
for
the
mean
residues
than
the
maximum
residues.
A
table
of
the
Kenaga
values
is
included
in
Appendix
E.
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
type
­
26­
Table
15.
Acute
RQs
for
mammalian
toxicity
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
applications
to
ORNAMENTAL
WOODY
PLANTSa
using
a
foliar
half­
life
value
of
35
daysb.
RQs
estimated
using
ELL­
FATE
Version
1.4
with
an
acute
LC50
value
of
1,700
mg/
kg
body
weight.

RQs
based
on
maximum
residuesc
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
Foliage
Type
15
g
35
g
1,000
g
15
g
35
g
1,000
g
Short
grass
1.07
0.75
0.17
0.38
0.26
0.06
Tall
grass
0.49
0.34
0.08
0.16
0.11
0.03
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
0.60
0.42
0.10
0.20
0.14
0.03
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
0.07
0.05
0.01
0.03
0.02
0.00
Seeds
(
granivores)
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.01
0.00
0.00
aOrnamental
woody
plant
application
=
8
lbs
a.
i./
A,
1
application;;
half­
life
=
35
days
bELL­
FATE
default
half­
life
cThe
latest
version
of
ELL­
FATE,
Version
1.4,
estimates
EEC's
and
RQs
based
on
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
distinction
is
made
by
using
different
Kenaga
values
for
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
Kenaga
values
are
lower
for
the
mean
residues
than
the
maximum
residues.
A
table
of
the
Kenaga
values
is
included
in
Appendix
E.
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
type
The
RQs
for
naptalam
mammalian
chronic
toxicity
are
provided
in
Tables
16
and
17.
A
chronic
NOAEL,
representing
reproduction
and
fertility
effects,
of
30
mg/
kg/
day
or
600
ppm
for
rats
was
used
to
calculate
the
chronic
mammalian
RQs
for
naptalam.
The
RQs
based
on
maximum
residues
for
curcubit
application
range
from
0.11 
1.74
while
the
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
range
from
0.05 
0.62.
The
RQs
based
on
maximum
residues
for
ornamental
woody
plant
application
range
from
0.20 
3.20
while
the
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
range
from
0.09 
1.13.

Table
16.
Chronic
RQs
for
mammalian
toxicity
to
naptalam
applications
to
CUCURBITSab.
RQs
estimated
using
ELL­
FATE
Version
1.4
with
an
acute
LC50
value
of
600
ppm.

Foliage
Type
RQs
based
on
maximum
residuesc
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
Short
grass
1.74
0.62
Tall
grass
0.80
0.26
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
0.98
0.33
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
0.11
0.05
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.
bCurcubit
application
=
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
2
applications,
14
day
interval
cThe
latest
version
of
ELL­
FATE,
Version
1.4,
estimates
EEC's
and
RQs
based
on
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
distinction
is
made
by
using
different
Kenaga
values
for
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
Kenaga
values
are
lower
for
the
mean
residues
than
the
maximum
residues.
A
table
of
the
Kenaga
values
is
included
in
Appendix
E.
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
type
­
27­
Table
17.
Chronic
RQs
for
mammalian
toxicity
to
naptalam
applications
to
ORNAMENTAL
WOODY
PLANTSa.
RQs
estimated
using
ELL­
FATE
Version
1.4
with
an
acute
LC50
value
of
600ppm.

Foliage
Type
RQs
based
on
maximum
residuesb
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
Short
grass
3.20
1.13
Tall
grass
1.47
0.48
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
1.80
0.60
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
0.20
0.09
aOrnamental
woody
plant
application
=
8
lbs
a.
i./
A,
1
application;;
half­
life
=
35
days
bThe
latest
version
of
ELL­
FATE,
Version
1.4,
estimates
EEC's
and
RQs
based
on
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
distinction
is
made
by
using
different
Kenaga
values
for
maximum
and
mean
residues.
The
Kenaga
values
are
lower
for
the
mean
residues
than
the
maximum
residues.
A
table
of
the
Kenaga
values
is
included
in
Appendix
E.
exceedances
are
indicated
in
bold
type
B.
Risk
Description
 
Interpretation
of
Direct
Effects
1.
Risks
to
Aquatic
Organisms
Naptalam
is
used
as
an
herbicide
on
cucumber
and
watermelon
crops,
particularly
in
states
such
as
Florida,
Georgia
and
Texas
(
see
Section
3(
a),
Use
Characterization);
therefore,
exposure
to
this
herbicide
will
primarily
occur
in
the
southern
regions
of
the
United
States
where
these
crops
are
frequently
grown.
Addionally,
naptalam
is
applied
to
ornamental
woody
plant
nursery
stock.
Following
the
application
of
naptalam,
spray
drift
or
field
runoff
may
contaminate
adjacent
ponds,
streams,
or
lakes.
Naptalam
degrades
fairly
readily
(
half­
life
on
the
order
of
a
few
days)
at
low
pH,
but
may
be
more
persistent
at
neutral
or
alkaline
conditions.
Naptalam
has
also
been
shown
to
undergo
direct
photolysis
with
half­
lives
on
the
order
of
several
days.
However,
photolysis
in
water
will
be
an
important
degradation
pathway
only
in
clear
shallow
water
bodies.
In
soil,
photolysis
is
only
important
if
the
chemical
is
near
the
surface.
Since
naptalam
is
watered­
in,
photolysis
is
not
expected
to
play
a
significant
role
in
its
degradation.
The
environmental
persistence
of
naptalam
is
expected
to
be
a
few
weeks
to
months
under
most
environmental
conditions
with
photolysis,
hydrolysis
and
aerobic
biodegradation
contributing
to
its
removal
from
soil
and
water.
Volatilization
from
soil
and
water
surfaces
is
not
expected
to
be
an
important
fate
process
since
naptalam
exists
as
an
anion
in
the
environment.
Naptalam
is
expected
to
possess
high
mobility
in
soils
and
leaching
to
groundwater
is
a
possibility.

Freshwater
fish
and
aquatic
invertebrates
do
not
appear
to
be
at
acute
risk
from
exposure
to
naptalam
(
risk
quotients
were
orders
of
magnitude
less
than
the
levels
of
concern).
No
chronic
toxicity
data
are
available
for
freshwater
species
and
no
acute
or
chronic
data
are
available
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
or
invertebrates
and
aquatic
plants.

2.
Risks
to
Terrestrial
Organisms
Naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
birds.
RQ
values
were
not
calculated
based
on
the
results
of
the
acute
toxicity
studies.
The
RQs
for
mammals
based
on
maximum
residue
EECs
calculated
with
ELL­
FATE
for
naptalam
application
to
curcubits
range
from
0.001
to
0.58
while
the
RQs
based
on
mean
­
28­
residues
range
from
0.0005
to
0.21.
The
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
resulting
from
curcubit
application
exceeds
endangered
species
and
acute
restricted
use
levels
of
concern
for
maximum
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals,
and
the
LOC
for
acute
risk
is
exceeded
for
15g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
based
on
maximum
residues.
Exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
also
exceeds
the
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
for
mean
residue
conditions.

The
exposure
to
naptalam
sodium
salt
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
resulting
from
ornamental
woody
plant
application
exceeds
endangered
species
and
acute
restricted
use
levels
of
concern
for
maximum
residue
conditions
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals,
and
for
1000
gram
mammals
on
short
grass.
Additionally,
the
acute
LOC
is
exceeded
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
based
on
maximum
residues
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
Exposure
to
naptalam
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
for
15
and
35
gram
mammals
from
ornamental
woody
plant
application
also
exceeds
the
endangered
species
levels
of
concern
for
mean
residue
conditions.

Chronic
RQ
values
from
naptalam
curcubit
application
based
on
maximum
residues
range
from
0.11 
1.74,
while
the
RQs
based
on
mean
residues
range
from
0.05 
0.62.
Chronic
mammalian
RQs
from
naptalam
ornamental
woody
plant
application
based
on
maximum
residues
range
from
0.2
­
3.2
and
0.09
­
1.13
for
maximum
and
mean
residues,
respectively.

Chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
naptalam
application
to
curcubits
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
based
on
maximum
residue
values.
Additionally
mammalian
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded
for
naptalam
application
to
ornamental
woody
plants
at
maximum
residue
conditions
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.
Mean
residue
values
generate
an
LOC
exceedance
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass.

This
risk
may
be
overestimated
because
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species.
Due
to
its
environmental
fate
properties,
it
is
assumed
the
most
of
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
will
dissociate
at
environmental
pH
levels
to
form
the
non­
toxic
naptalam
acid
and
sodium
cations.
It
is
therefore
possible
that
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
acute
endpoint
(
1,700
mg/
kg
bw)
overestimates
risk,
due
to
the
fact
that
very
little
of
this
chemical
will
persist
in
the
environment
long
enough
to
lead
to
mammalian
exposure.

3.
Review
of
Incident
Data
There
have
been
no
incidents
related
to
naptalam
reported
to
the
Environmental
Incident
Information
System
(
EIIS)
database
(
reported
to
the
Agency
from
1991
to
2003).

4.
Endocrine
Effects
Due
to
the
lack
of
available
data,
it
cannot
be
determined
whether
naptalam
exhibits
endocrine
toxicity
in
aquatic
organisms.
Studies
on
the
effects
of
naptalam
on
avian
reproduction
were
not
submitted
to
the
Agency;
thus,
no
conclusion
can
be
made
regarding
the
potential
for
naptalam
to
cause
endocrine
disruption
in
avian
species.
In
a
multigeneration
reproduction
study
in
the
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
possible
systemic
toxicity
was
observed
in
the
offspring
in
the
form
of
statistically
significant
reduction
in
the
mean
pup
body
weights
in
the
high­
dose
group
(
3,000
mg/
kg
in
the
diet
or
150
mg/
kg
bw)
(
MRID
00031684).
­
29­
Under
the
Federal
Food,
Drug
and
Cosmetic
Act
(
FFDCA),
as
amended
by
the
Food
Quality
Protection
Act
(
FQPA),
EPA
is
required
to
develop
a
screening
program
to
determine
whether
certain
substances
(
including
all
pesticide
active
and
other
ingredients)
"
may
have
an
effect
in
humans
that
is
similar
to
an
effect
produced
by
a
naturally­
occurring
estrogen,
or
other
such
endocrine
effects
as
the
Administrator
may
designate."
Following
the
recommendations
of
its
Endocrine
Disruptor
Screening
and
Testing
Advisory
Committee
(
EDSTAC),
EPA
determined
that
there
was
scientific
basis
for
including,
as
part
of
the
program,
the
androgen­
and
thyroid
hormone
systems,
in
addition
to
the
estrogen
hormone
system.
EPA
also
adopted
EDSTAC's
recommendation
that
the
Program
include
evaluations
of
potential
effects
in
wildlife.
For
pesticide
chemicals,
EPA
will
use
FIFRA
and,
to
the
extent
that
effects
in
wildlife
may
help
determine
whether
a
substance
may
have
an
effect
in
humans,
FFDCA
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,
naptalam
may
be
subjected
to
additional
screening
and
or
testing
to
better
characterize
effects
related
to
endocrine
disruption.

5.
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Concerns
a.
Taxonomic
Groups
Potentially
at
Risk
The
registrant
must
provide
information
on
the
proximity
of
Federally
listed
endangered
species
to
the
naptalam
use
sites.
This
requirement
may
be
satisfied
in
one
of
three
ways:
1)
having
membership
in
the
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
(
Pesticide
Registration
Notice
2000­
2);
2)
citing
FIFRA
Endangered
Species
Task
Force
data;
or
3)
independently
producing
these
data,
provided
the
information
is
of
sufficient
quality
to
meet
FIFRA
requirements.
The
information
will
be
used
by
the
OPP
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
develop
recommendations
to
avoid
adverse
effects
to
listed
species.

Curcubit
Applications
The
Agency's
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
endangered/
threatened
species
are
exceeded
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
in
or
near
curcubit
fields
based
on
maxiumum
naptalam
residues.
Mean
naptalam
residue
values
lead
to
endangered
species
acute
LOC
exceedances
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
and
maximum
residue
levels
lead
to
endangered
species
LOC
exceedances
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
long
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects.

The
chronic
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
in
or
near
curcubit
fields
based
on
maximum
naptalam
residue
values.

Ornamental
Woody
Plant
Applications
The
Agency's
acute
levels
of
concern
(
LOC)
for
endangered/
threatened
species
are
exceeded
for
15g
and
35g
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
where
ornamental
woody
plants
are
grown
based
on
maxiumum
and
mean
naptalam
residues.
Large
(
1000g)
mammal
LOC
exceedances
occur
for
animals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
based
on
maximum
naptalam
residues.

The
chronic
endangered
species
LOC
is
exceeded
for
endangered/
threatened
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass,
tall
grass,
broadleaf
plants,
and
small
insects
where
ornamental
woody
plants
are
grown
based
on
­
30­
maximum
naptalam
residue
values.
The
chronic
LOC
is
also
exceeded
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
based
on
mean
naptalam
residue
values.

Listed
species
Fifty­
six
endangered
or
threatened
mammal
species
inhabit
states
where
naptalam
is
used.
However,
many
of
these
listed
species
are
not
at
risk
through
naptalam
exposure
based
on
size,
food
items,
and
habitat.
The
entire
list
of
listed
endangered/
threatened
mammalian
species
can
be
found
in
Appendix
G.
Those
species
whose
size
and
feeding
habits
lead
to
possible
acute
naptalam
exposure
include
the
following
(
25
species):

°
Ferret,
Black­
Footed
°
Kangaroo
Rat
(
Fresno,
Giant,
Morro
Bay,
San
Bernardino,
Stephens',
and
Tipton)
°
Mouse
(
Alabama
Beach,
Choctawhatchee
Beach,
Pacific
Pocket,
Perdido
Key
Beach,
Preble's
Meadow
Jumping,
Salt
Marsh
Harvest,
and
Southeastern
Beach)
°
Prarie
Dog,
Utah
°
Rabbit
(
Pygmy
and
Riparian
Brush)
°
Shrew,
Buena
Vista
°
Squirrel
(
Carolina
Northern
Flying,
Delmarvia
Peninsula
Fox,
Mount
Graham
Red,
and
Virginia
Northern
Flying)
°
Vole
(
Amargosa
and
Florida
Salt
Marsh)
°
Woodrat,
Riparian
b.
Probit
Slope
Analysis
The
probit
slope
response
relationship
is
evaluated
to
calculate
the
chance
of
an
individual
event
corresponding
to
the
listed
species
acute
LOCs.
If
information
is
unavailable
to
estimate
a
slope
for
a
particular
study,
a
default
slope
assumption
of
4.5
is
used
as
per
original
Agency
assumptions
of
typical
slope
cited
in
Urban
and
Cook
(
1986).
Analysis
of
raw
data
from
the
rat
naptalam
acute
toxicity
study
(
MRID
29172)
estimate
a
slope
of
7.94
(
95%
C.
I.
3.9
­
11.9).
Based
on
this
slope,
the
corresponding
estimate
chance
of
individual
mortality
of
mammals
following
naptalam
exposure
is
1
in
1
x
1015.
To
explore
possible
bounds
to
such
estimates,
the
upper
and
lower
values
for
the
mean
slope
estimate
(
3.9
­
11.9)
can
be
used
to
calculate
upper
and
lower
estimates
of
the
effects
probability
associated
with
the
listed
species
LOC.
These
values
are
1
in
20,800
and
1
in
1x1016.
RQ
exceedances
only
occur
for
15g
and
35g
mammals,
with
RQ
values
ranging
from
1.07
to
the
LOC
(
0.1).
The
estimated
individual
mortality
associated
with
the
calculated
RQ
values
(
0.1
to
1.07)
range
from
1
in
1
x
1015
to
1
in
1
(
100%),
respectively.
­
31­
c.
Critical
Habitat
In
the
evaluation
of
pesticide
effects
on
designated
critical
habitat,
consideration
is
given
to
the
physical
and
biological
features
(
constituent
elements)
of
a
critical
habitat
identified
by
the
U.
S
Fish
and
Wildlife
and
National
Marine
Fisheries
Services
as
essential
to
the
conservation
of
a
listed
species
and
which
may
require
special
management
considerations
or
protection.
The
evaluation
of
impacts
for
a
screening
level
pesticide
risk
assessment
focuses
on
the
biological
features
that
are
constituent
elements
and
is
accomplished
using
the
screening­
level
taxonomic
analysis
(
risk
quotients,
RQs)
and
listed
species
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs)
that
are
used
to
evaluate
direct
and
indirect
effects
to
listed
organisms.

The
screening­
level
risk
assessment
has
identified
potential
concerns
for
indirect
effects
on
listed
species
for
those
organisms
dependant
upon
small
(
15g)
and
medium
(
35g)
sized
mammals.
In
light
of
the
potential
for
indirect
effects,
the
next
step
for
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
is
to
identify
which
listed
species
and
critical
habitat
are
potentially
implicated.
Analytically,
the
identification
of
such
species
and
critical
habitat
can
occur
in
either
of
two
ways.
First,
the
agencies
could
determine
whether
the
action
area
overlaps
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
any
listed
species.
If
so,
EPA
would
examine
whether
the
pesticide's
potential
impacts
on
non­
endangered
species
would
affect
the
listed
species
indirectly
or
directly
affect
a
constituent
element
of
the
critical
habitat.
Alternatively,
the
agencies
could
determine
which
listed
species
depend
on
biological
resources,
or
have
constiuent
elements
that
fall
into,
the
taxa
that
may
be
directly
or
indirectly
impacted
by
the
pesticide.
Then
EPA
would
determine
whether
use
of
the
pesticide
overlaps
the
critical
habitat
or
the
occupied
range
of
those
listed
species.
At
present,
the
information
reviewed
by
EPA
does
not
permit
use
of
either
analytical
approach
to
make
a
definitive
identification
of
species
that
are
potentially
impacted
indirectly
or
critical
habitats
that
is
potentially
impacted
directly
by
the
use
of
the
pesticide.
EPA
and
the
Service(
s)
are
working
together
to
conduct
the
necessary
analysis.

This
screening­
level
risk
assessment
for
critical
habitat
provides
a
listing
of
potential
biological
features
that,
if
they
are
constituent
elements
of
one
or
more
critical
habitats,
would
be
of
potential
concern.
These
correspond
to
the
taxa
identified
above
as
being
of
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects
and
include
small
and
medium
sized
mammals.
This
list
should
serve
as
an
initial
step
in
problem
formulation
for
further
assessment
of
critical
habitat
impacts
outlined
above,
should
additional
work
be
necessary"
d.
Indirect
Effect
Analysis
The
Agency
acknowledges
that
pesticides
have
the
potential
to
exert
indirect
effects
upon
the
listed
organisms
by,
for
example,
perturbing
forage
or
prey
availability,
altering
the
extent
of
nesting
habitat,
creating
gaps
in
the
food
chain,
etc.

In
conducting
a
screen
for
indirect
effects,
direct
effect
LOCs
for
each
taxonomic
group
are
used
to
make
inferences
concerning
the
potential
for
indirect
effects
upon
listed
species
that
rely
upon
non­
endangered
organisms
in
these
taxonomic
groups
as
resources
critical
to
their
life
cycle.

Because
screening­
level
acute
RQs
for
mammals
exceed
the
endangered
species
acute
LOCs,
the
Agency
uses
the
dose
response
relationship
from
the
toxicity
study
used
for
calculating
the
RQ
to
estimate
the
probability
of
acute
effects
associated
with
an
exposure
equivalent
to
the
EEC.
This
information
serves
as
a
guide
to
establish
the
need
for
and
extent
of
additional
analysis
that
may
be
performed
using
Servicesprovided
"
species
profiles"
as
well
as
evaluations
of
the
geographical
and
temporal
nature
of
the
exposure
to
ascertain
if
a
"
not
likely
to
adversely
affect"
determination
can
be
made.
The
degree
to
which
additional
analyses
are
performed
is
commensurate
with
the
predicted
probability
of
adverse
effects
from
the
­
32­
comparison
of
the
dose
response
information
with
the
EECs.
The
greater
the
probability
that
exposures
will
produce
effects
on
a
taxa,
the
greater
the
concern
for
potential
indirect
effects
for
listed
species
dependent
upon
that
taxa,
and
therefore,
the
more
intensive
the
analysis
on
the
potential
listed
species
of
concern,
their
locations
relative
to
the
use
site,
and
information
regarding
the
use
scenario
(
e.
g.,
timing,
frequency,
and
geographical
extent
of
pesticide
application).

Screening­
level
chronic
RQs
for
mammals
that
feed
on
short
grass
exceed
the
LOC;
therefore,
there
may
be
a
potential
concern
for
indirect
effects.
The
Agency
considers
this
to
be
indicative
of
a
potential
for
adverse
effects
to
those
listed
species
that
rely
either
on
a
specific
plant
species
(
plant
species
obligate)
or
multiple
plant
species
(
plant
dependent)
for
some
important
aspect
of
their
life
cycle.
The
Agency
may
determine
if
listed
organisms
for
which
plants
are
a
critical
component
of
their
resource
needs
are
within
the
pesticide
use
area.
This
is
accomplished
through
a
comparison
of
Service­
provided
"
species
profiles"
and
listed
species
location
data.
If
no
listed
organisms
that
are
either
plant
species
obligates
or
plant
dependent
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
a
no
effect
determination
on
listed
species
is
made.
If
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
organism
may
reside
within
the
pesticide
use
area,
the
Agency
may
consider
temporal
and
geographical
nature
of
exposure,
and
the
scope
of
the
effects
data,
to
determine
if
any
potential
effects
can
be
determined
to
not
likely
adversely
affect
a
plant
species
obligate
or
dependent
listed
organism.

Indirect
effects
to
terrestrial
animals
may
result
from
reduced
food
items
to
animals,
behavior
modifications
from
reduced
or
a
modified
habitat,
and
from
alterations
of
habitats.
Alterations
of
habitats
can
affect
the
reproductive
capacity
of
some
terrestrial
animals.

C.
Description
of
Assumptions,
Uncertainties,
Strengths,
and
Limitations
Data
Gaps
There
are
several
environmental
fate
data
gaps
that
lead
to
uncertainties
with
regards
to
exposure
and
predicted
environmental
concentrations.
Information
on
the
hydrolysis
of
naptalam
under
neutral
and
alkaline
conditions
is
lacking.
Also
missing
are
batch
equilibrium
studies
on
naptalam
and
its
major
degradates.
Therefore,
assumptions
were
made,
based
upon
information
in
the
open
literature,
about
the
mobility
of
naptalam
in
soil.
There
are
also
no
studies
available
on
the
potential
for
naptalam
to
accumulate
in
fish.
Based
on
the
very
high
octanol­
water
partition
coefficient,
it
is
assumed
that
naptalam
will
bioaccumulate.
Accumulation
in
fish
studies,
which
provide
bioconcentration
factors,
would
reduce
the
uncertainties
in
this
area.
Finally,
scientifically
valid
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
have
not
been
submitted.
As
a
result,
we
have
no
information
on
the
fate
and
transport
of
naptalam
and
its
degradates
under
actual
field
conditions.
While
the
laboratory
studies
are
designed
to
address
one
dissipation
process
at
a
time,
terrestrial
field
dissipation
studies
address
pesticide
loss
as
a
combined
result
of
chemical
and
biological
processes
(
e.
g.,
hydrolysis,
photolysis,
microbial
transformation)
and
physical
migration
(
e.
g.,
volatilization,
leaching,
plant
uptake).
Pesticide
dissipation
may
proceed
at
different
rates
under
field
conditions
and
may
result
in
formation
of
degradates
at
levels
different
from
those
observed
in
laboratory
studies.
Data
from
these
studies
can
reduce
potential
overestimation
of
exposure
and
risk
and
can
confirm
assumptions
of
low
levels
of
toxic
degradates.

Ecotoxicity
data
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
animals
are
limited
by
the
number
of
species
tested.
Species
variability
in
toxicity
to
chemicals
can,
at
times,
be
quite
high.
Additionally,
using
only
one
species
to
characterize
risk
for
all
animals
in
a
species
category
may
result
in
the
underestimation
of
risks
for
a
particularly
sensitive
animal
while
overestimating
the
risks
of
others.
In
addition,
use
of
laboratory
rats
as
surrogates
for
wild
animals
has
inherent
uncertainties
because
laboratory
animals
are
generally
bred
to
­
33­
minimize
genetic
variability
and
to
be
sensitive
to
chemical
exposures
(
i.
e.,
likely
to
exhibit
responses
at
lower
doses).
In
these
cases,
toxicity
may
be
overstated.
Although
it
appears
that
naptalam
is
relatively
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
aquatic
organisms,
chronic
risk
from
naptalam
exposure
and
risk
to
estuarine/
marine
animals
cannot
be
assessed
due
to
a
lack
of
data.

The
screening
level
assessment
strongly
suggests
that
risks
to
freshwater
aquatic
organisms
are
well
below
levels
of
concern
for
acute
or
chronic
effects.
Even
though
naptalam
may
not
degrade
rapidly
in
water
(
hydrolysis
is
pH
dependent),
the
toxicity
data
suggest
naptalam
may
be
slightly
toxic
to
fish
and
is
nontoxic
to
aquatic
invertebrates.

The
screening
level
assessment
for
mammals
suggests
that
there
are
several
scenarios
in
which
both
acute
and
chronic
LOCs
are
exceeded.
The
greatest
source
of
uncertainty
in
the
assessment
of
acute
mammalian
risks
stems
from
the
single
reported
acute
oral
LD50
value
of
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
(
1,700
mg/
kg
body
weight),
and
the
study
needs
to
be
more
closely
evaluated
to
confirm
that
it
can
be
classified
as
acceptable
for
use
in
quantitative
risk
assessment.
The
naptalam
acid
is
practically
non­
toxic
to
mammalian
species,
and
due
to
its
environmental
fate
properties,
it
is
assumed
the
most
of
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
will
dissociate
at
normal
environmental
pH
levels
to
form
the
non­
toxic
naptalam
acid
and
sodium
cations.
It
is
therefore
possible
that
the
naptalam
sodium
salt
acute
endpoint
(
1,700
mg/
kg
bw)
overestimates
risk,
due
to
the
fact
that
very
little
of
this
chemical
will
persist
in
the
environment
long
enough
to
lead
to
mammalian
exposure.
Other
sources
of
uncertainty
related
to
the
protective
assumptions
inherent
in
the
use
of
ELLFATE
as
screening
level
model
(
e.
g.,
maximum
residues,
first
order
kinetics,
etc.).
This
model
is
intended
to
yield
high­
end
estimates
of
exposure,
and
the
marginal
exceedance
of
the
LOCs
(
i.
e.,
<
2X)
suggest
that
a
more
refined
assessment
of
exposure
may
yield
a
more
refined
estimate
of
the
acute
and
chronic
risks.
­
34­
V.
Literature
Cited
Open
Literature
and
Governmental
Reports
Applegate
VC,
Howell
JH,
Hall
AE
Jr,
et
al.
1957.
Toxicity
of
4,346
chemicals
to
larval
lampreys
and
fishes.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildlife
Service
Special
Scientific
Report
­
Fisheries
207:
1 
157.

ELL­
FATE.
2004.
Terrestrial
Exposure
and
Risk
Model
Version
1.4.
April
7,
2004.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2000.
Quantitative
Usage
Analysis
for
Naptalam,
Case
Number:
0183.
PC
Code:
30703.
Analyst:
Jihad
Alsadek.
September
19,
2000.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2001.
Ecological
Risk
Assessor
Orientation
Package,
Draft.
Montague
M.,
Ecological
Fate
and
Environmental
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.
August.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2002a.
Guidance
for
Selecting
Input
Parameters
in
Modeling
the
Environmental
Fate
and
Transport
of
Pesticides.
Version
II.
Support
Document
#
9.
Ecological
Fate
and
Environmental
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2002b.
ECOTOX
User
Guide:
ECOTOXicology
Database
System.
Version
3.0.
Available
at:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox/.
Accessed:
May
2004.

EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency:
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticide,
and
Toxic
Substances.
January
23.

FIRST.
2001.
FQPA
Index
Reservoir
Screening
Tool,
Version
1.0.
August
1,
2001.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

GENEEC.
2001.
Generic
Estimated
Environmental
Concentrations,
Version
2.0.
August
1,
2001.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

Granados
A.,
Nasseta
M.,
DeRossi
R.
H.
1995.
Kinetic
study
of
the
hydrolysis
of
1­
naphthylphthalamic
acid
(
naptalam).
J.
Agric.
Food
Chem.
43:
2493 
2496.

Huang
CH.,
Stone
AT.
1999.
Hydrolysis
of
naptalam
and
structurally
related
amide:
Inhibition
by
dissolved
metal
ions
and
metal
(
hydr)
oxide
surfaces.
J.
Agric.
Food
Chem.
47:
4425 
4434.

Loeb,
H.
A.,
and
W.
H.
Kelly.
1963.
Acute
oral
toxicity
of
1,490
chemicals
force­
fed
to
carp.
U.
S.
Fish
Wildlife
Service
Special
Scientific
Report
­
Fisheries
471:
1 
124.
­
35­
Lysak,
A.,
and
J.
Marcinek.
1972.
Multiple
toxic
effect
of
simultaneous
action
of
some
chemical
substances
on
fish.
Roczniki
Nauk
Rolniczych
94:
53 
63.

NCFAP.
2004.
National
Center
for
Food
and
Agricultural
Policy.
National
Pesticide
Use
Database.
Naptalam
­
1997
National
Summary
of
Pesticide
Use
in
Crop
Production
by
Active
Ingredient
and
Crop.
Information
taken
on
September
8,
2004
from
the
website:
http://
www.
ncfap.
org/
database/
default.
htm.

SCI­
GROW.
2001.
Screening
Ground
Water
Model,
Version
2.2.
November
1,
2001.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

Tomlin,
C.
D.
S.
(
Ed.).
1997.
The
Pesticide
Manual
­
World
Compendium,
11th
ed.,
British
Crop
Protection
Council,
Surrey,
England.

Tonogai
Y,
Ogawa
S,
Ito
Y,
Iwaida
M.
1982.
Actual
survey
on
TLm
(
Median
Tolerance
Limit)
values
of
environmental
pollutants,
especially
on
amines,
nitriles,
aromatic
nitrogen
compounds
and
artificial
dyes.
J.
Toxicol.
Sci.
7:
193 
203.

USGS
(
U.
S.
Geological
Survey).
2004.
National
Water
Quality
Assessment
Program
(
NAWQA)
Pesticide
National
Synthesis
Project.
National
assessment
of
pesticides
in
the
streams,
rivers,
and
ground
water
of
the
United
States.
Available
at
http://
ca.
water.
usgs.
gov/
pnsp/.
Accessed:
September
2004.
Weber
1994.
Properties
and
behavior
of
pesticides
in
soil.
In:
Mechanisms
of
Pesticide
Movement
into
Ground
Water.
Honeycutt,
RC
&
Schadebacker,
DJ,
eds.
Ann
Arbor,
MI:
Lewis
Publ.,
CRC
press,
inc.
pp.
15 
41.

Weed
Science
Society
of
America.
1994.
Naptalam
2­[(
1­
napthalenylamino)
carbonyl)]
benzoic
acid.
Herbicide
Handbook,
7th
Edition.
Editor,
W
H
Ahrens.
­
A­
1­
APPENDIX
A.
Environmental
Fate
Studies
Hydrolysis
161­
1
(
MRID
43647701)

Non­
radiolabeled
naptalam
and
naphthalene
ring­
labeled
[
14C]
naptalam,
at
a
nominal
concentration
of
51.9
ppm,
degraded
with
a
reviewer­
calculated
half­
life
of
2.9
days
in
sterilized
pH
5
aqueous
buffer
solution
incubated
in
darkness
at
25
°
C
for
up
to
21
days.
The
registrant­
calculated
half­
life
was
approximately
1
day.
The
parent
compound
initially
present
(
mean
of
duplicate)
at
96.6%
of
the
applied
radioactivity,
decreased
to
48.5%
by
1
day,
25%
by
4
days,
and
5.0%
by
8
days,
and
was
1.1%
(
one
replicate)
at
21­
days
post­
treatment.
Three
main
degradates
were
observed.
The
major
degradate
1­
naphthylamine
was
a
maximum
(
mean
of
duplicate)
of
86.9%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
21­
days
post­
treatment.
The
major
degradate
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide
was
a
maximum
of
13.5%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
2
days
post­
treatment
and
was
3.4%
at
21
days.
The
major
degradate
(
non­
radiolabeled)
phthalic
acid
was
a
maximum
(
mean
of
duplicate)
of
20.4
ppm
at
21­
days
post­
treatment.
This
study
is
considered
supplemental
since
no
data
were
provided
at
pH
7
and
9.

Huang
and
Stone
(
1999)
demonstrated
that
dissolved
metal
ions
(
Cu2+
and
Zn2+)
inhibit
the
rate
of
hydrolysis
for
naptalam
when
compared
to
metal
free
solutions.
The
hydrolysis
half­
life
of
naptalam
in
pH
5
solution
containing
1
mM
(
millimolar)
CuCl2
was
over
200
hours,
while
the
half­
life
in
metal
free
solution
was
about
100
hours.
The
pH
dependence
of
naptalam
hydrolysis
was
also
investigated
and
it
was
concluded
that
hydrolysis
is
an
acid
catalyzed
reaction,
which
occurs
much
more
rapidly
under
acidic
conditions
as
compared
to
neutral
or
alkaline
pH.
Over
the
course
of
a
14­
day
incubation
period,
the
hydrolysis
of
naptalam
was
considered
negligible
at
pH
7.5,
but
increased
dramatically
as
the
pH
was
lowered
to
4.
At
pH
4
approximately
90%
of
the
initially
applied
amount
of
naptalam
was
converted
to
its
main
degradate
1­
naphthylamine
in
about
a
day
in
metal
free
solutions.
In
solutions
containing
either
1
mM
ZnCl2
or
CuCl2,
only
about
80%
conversion
was
observed
in
the
same
time
frame.
It
was
also
noted
that
as
the
levels
of
ZnCl2
and
CuCl2
were
increased
from
1
to
4
mM,
the
amount
of
hydrolysis
to
1­
naphthylamine
decreased.

The
mechanism
and
rate
of
hydrolysis
of
naptalam
was
studied
at
pH
range
0.9
to
5.
At
pH
5
the
hydrolysis
half­
life
was
calculated
as
29
hours,
while
at
lowest
pH
(
pH
0.9)
the
half­
life
was
about
46
minutes
(
Granados
et
al.,
1995).

Aqueous
Photolysis
161­
2
(
MRID
41385401)

Naptalam
photodegraded
with
half­
lives
in
the
range
of
6.2 
6.9
days
in
sterile
aqueous
pH
7
buffered
0.001
M
and
0.01
M
phosphate
solutions
and
10.3
days
in
0.1
M
phosphate
solutions
that
were
continuously
irradiated
with
a
xenon
arc
lamp
(
890
W/
m2).
Naptalam
did
not
degrade
in
dark
control
samples.
At
15
days
post­
treatment
naptalam
comprised
18.6 
21.3%
of
the
applied
radioactivity.
The
major
degradation
product
observed
was
1­
naphthylamine
comprising
47.5 
49.8%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
15
days
post­
treatment.
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide
was
also
observed,
comprising
7.3 
7.5%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
post­
treatment.
The
study
was
considered
supplemental
since
not
all
the
radioactivity
was
accounted
for
in
the
test
samples.
­
A­
2­
Soil
Photolysis
161­
3
(
MRID
41385402)

Naptalam
degraded
with
an
observed
half­
life
of
15.9
days
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
(
63%
sand,
31%
silt,
6%
clay,
4.7%
organic
matter,
pH
6.8)
that
was
continuously
irradiated
with
a
xenon
arc
lamp
(
700 
750
W/
m2).
In
a
dark
control
the
degradation
half­
life
was
22.4
days;
therefore,
it
was
concluded
that
biodegradation
had
occurred
even
though
the
soil
samples
had
been
autoclaved.
The
degradates
1­
naphthylamine
and
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide
were
detected
in
both
the
irradiated
samples
and
dark
control
at
levels
less
than
7%
of
the
initially
applied
amount.
The
study
was
considered
supplemental
since
not
all
the
radioactivity
was
accounted
for
in
the
test
samples.

Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
162­
1
(
MRID
41427201)

Naptalam
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
36.7
days
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
(
62%
sand,
28%
silt,
10%
clay,
5%
organic
matter,
pH
6.5)
that
was
incubated
in
the
dark
at
moisture
content
of
75%
field
capacity.
14C
labeled
naptalam
degraded
from
93%
(
5.98
ppm)
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
day
0
to
39.4%
(
2.53
ppm)
at
41
days
post­
application,
to
3.6%
(
0.23
ppm)
at
135
days
post­
application.
Two
non­
volatile
degradates
were
identified:
N­(
1­
naphthyl)
phthalimide
which
was
a
maximum
of
6.1%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
at
day
41
and
1­
naphthylamine,
which
reached
a
maximum
of
2.2%
of
the
applied
radioactivity
slightly
after
application.
At
135
days
post­
application
14CO2
accounted
for
39.5%
of
the
initially
applied
radioactivity.

Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
162­
2
(
MRID
41427202)

Naptalam
degraded
with
a
half­
life
of
246
days
in
a
sandy
loam
soil
(
62%
sand,
28%
silt,
10%
clay,
5%
organic
matter,
pH
6.5)
that
was
incubated
anaerobically
in
the
dark
following
30
days
of
aerobic
incubation.
Naptalam
declined
from
5.98
ppm
(
immediately
following
application)
to
4.14
ppm
30
days
post­
application
(
just
prior
to
establishing
anaerobic
conditions).
The
concentration
declined
over
the
following
60
days
under
anaerobic
conditions
to
3.48
ppm.
Two
non­
volatile
degradates
were
identified,
N­
1­
naphthylphtalimide
and
1­
naphthylamine,
which
reached
maximum
levels
of
0.42
and
0.12
ppm,
respectively,
after
31
days
of
anaerobic
incubation.

Adsorption/
Desorption
163­
1
No
data
were
submitted
regarding
the
adsorption/
desorption
of
naptalam
from
soil
surfaces.
Although
no
experimental
details
were
provided
a
soil
Koc
value
of
20
has
been
reported
(
Weber,
1994),
which
indicates
naptalam
will
have
very
high
mobility
in
soils.
It
is
noted
that
naptalam
exists
as
an
anion
in
water
and
moist
soil
surfaces
and
anionic
species
tend
to
have
very
high
mobility
in
soils.

Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
164­
1
(
41385403;
40488901)

MRID
40488901
Naptalam
(
Alanap­
L,
formulation
not
further
identified)
was
sprayed
at
4
lb
ai/
A
as
a
tank­
mix
with
bensulide
(
Prefar,
formulation
and
source
unidentified,
6
lb
ai/
A)
to
a
field
plot
(
75
x
200
feet)
of
silty
clay
loam
soil
(
8.8
%
sand,
55.6%
silt,
35.6
%
clay,
1.43%
organic
matter,
pH
6.2)
planted
to
honeydew
(
type
and
growth
stage
unspecified)
and
located
in
Lafayette,
Indiana;
the
application
occurred
on
May
20,
1985.
Immediately
following
treatment,
the
soil
was
cultivated
to
a
2­
inch
depth
to
incorporate
the
­
A­
3­
herbicides
plus
a
soil
conditioner
(
undescribed).
An
untreated
plot
(
size
and
location
unspecified)
was
maintained
as
a
control.
Ten
to
fifteen
soil
cores
(
diameter
unspecified;
0­
to
6­
and
6­
to
12­
inch
depths)
were
taken
from
the
treated
plot
prior
to
treatment
and
at
0,
3,
7,
14,
30,
and
60
days
post­
treatment.
Soil
samples
were
stored
(
storage
conditions
were
not
adequately
described)
approximately
520
days
prior
to
analysis.
Total
naptalam
residues
dissipated
in
the
0 
6
inch
soil
core
with
half­
lives
of
3 
7
days.
This
study
was
deemed
unacceptable
since
sampling
intervals
were
inadequate
to
accurately
establish
the
halflife
and
the
analytical
method
did
not
distinguish
between
naptalam
and
its
degradation
products.

MRID
413854031
Naptalam
(
Alanap­
L,
2
lb/
gallon
SC/
L,
Uniroyal
Chemical)
was
surface­
applied
twice
at
a
rate
of
4
lb
ai/
A/
application
to
two
field
plots
(
50
x
50
feet)
located
near
Kerman,
California.
The
first
plot
was
sandy
loam
soil
(
69%
sand,
21%
silt,
10%
clay,
0.66%
organic
matter,
pH
6.1,
CEC
4.1
meq/
100
g)
and
was
treated
on
June
28,
1988.
The
second
field
plot
was
loamy
sand
soil
(
83.6%
sand,
10.0%
silt,
6.4%
clay,
0.3%
organic
matter,
pH
6.3,
CEC
3.5
meq/
100
g)
and
was
treated
on
July
6,
1988.
The
plots
were
harrowed
prior
to
treatment;
immediately
following
the
applications,
the
plots
were
cultivated
(
weasel)
to
a
2­
inch
depth
and
hand­
planted
watermelon.
The
second
application
was
made
to
each
plot
post­
emergence
(
26 
27
days
post­
planting);
the
first
plot
was
treated
on
July
25,
1988,
and
the
second
plot
was
treated
on
August
1,
1988.
Following
the
second
application,
the
plots
were
cultivated
to
a
2­
inch
depth.
Total
naptalam
residues
dissipated
in
the
0 
6
inch
soil
core
with
a
half­
life
of
37.4
days
in
the
California
sandy
loam
and
dissipated
in
the
0 
6
inch
soil
core
of
the
California
loamy
sand
with
a
half­
life
of
10.6
days.
These
studies
were
deemed
unacceptable
for
several
reasons
including
sampling
intervals
that
were
inadequate
to
accurately
establish
the
half­
life
and
the
analytical
method
did
not
distinguish
between
naptalam
and
its
degradation
products.

Literature
Cited
MRID
43647701
Kabler,
A.
K.
1995.
N­
1­
Naphthylphthalamic
acid
(
Naptalam):
determination
of
the
rate
of
hydrolysis
at
pH
5.
Performed
by
Toxikon
Environmental
Sciences.
Sponsored
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.
Project
ID:
J9501005.

MRID
41427201
Cohen,
S.;
Levine,
A.
(
1990)
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
of
ALANAP:
Lab
Project
Number:
8966:
008/
005/
004/
89.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Pittsburgh
Applied
Research
Center.
144
p.

MRID
41427202
Cohen,
S.;
Levine,
A.
(
1990)
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
of
ALANAP:
Lab
Project
Number:
8967:
008/
005/
005/
89.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
University
of
Pittsburgh
Applied
Research
Center.
11pp.

MRID
41385401
Gaydosh,
K.
(
1989)
Aqueous
Photolysis
of
Naptalam
Sodium
Salt
Lab
Project
Number:
8992.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
35
p.

MRID
00145416
Gerecke,
D.;
Lacadie,
J.;
Dzialo,
D.;
et
al.
(
1978)
Aerobic
Soil
Study
of
Carbon­
14
Alanap
in
Sandy
Loam
Soil:
Project
No.
7761.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical.
13p.

      
Granados
A.,
Nasseta
M.,
DeRossi
R.
H.
1995.
Kinetic
study
of
the
hydrolysis
of
­
A­
4­
1­
naphthylphthalamic
acid
(
naptalam).
J.
Agric.
Food
Chem.
43:
2493 
2496.

      
Huang
CH.,
Stone
AT.
1999.
Hydrolysis
of
naptalam
and
structurally
related
amide:
Inhibition
by
dissolved
metal
ions
and
metal
(
hydr)
oxide
surfaces.
J.
Agric.
Food
Chem.
47:
4425 
4434.

MRID
41385402
Korpalski,
S.
(
1989)
Soil
Photolysis
of
Carbon
14­
Naptalam
Sodium
Salt
Lab
Project
89109.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
Inc.
42
p.

MRID
40488901
McManus,
J.
(
1987)
Soil
Field
Dissipation
of
Alanap
in
Lafayette,
Indiana:
Laboratory
Project
ID
8627.
Unpublished
study
performed
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Company,
Inc.
44
p.

      
Weber
1994.
Properties
and
behavior
of
pesticides
in
soil.
In:
Mechanisms
of
Pesticide
Movement
into
Ground
Water.
Honeycutt,
RC
&
Schadebacker,
DJ,
eds.
Ann
Arbor,
MI:
Lewis
Publ.,
CRC
press,
inc.
pp.
15 
41.

MRID
41385403
White,
C.;
Beevers,
M.;
Noon,
P.
(
1989)
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
of
Alanap
on
Two
California
Melon
Fields:
Lab
Project
Number:
8782.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Uniroyal
Chemical
Co.,
in
cooperation
with
California
Agricultural
Research,
Inc.,
and
North
Coast
Laboratories,
Inc.
188
p.
­
B­
1­
APPENDIX
B.
Aquatic
Exposure
Model
(
FIRST,
SCI­
GROW,
and
GENEEC2)
 
Inputs,
Results,
Output
1.
Surface
Water
Modeling
a.
Background
Information
on
FIRST
Version
1.0
FIRST
Version
1.0
(
2001)
was
used
to
estimate
concentrations
that
may
occur
in
vulnerable
surface
waters.
FIRST
is
a
screening
model
designed
to
estimate
the
pesticide
concentrations
found
in
water
for
use
in
human
health
drinking
water
assessments.
It
provides
high­
end
estimates
of
the
concentrations
that
might
be
found
in
a
small
drinking
water
reservoir
due
to
the
use
of
pesticide.
Like
GENEEC2,
the
model
previously
used
for
Tier
I
screening
level
assessments,
FIRST
is
a
single­
event
model
(
one
run­
off
event).
It
can
also
account
for
spray
drift
from
multiple
applications.
FIRST
takes
into
consideration
the
so­
called
Index
Drinking
Water
Reservoir
(
see
below)
by
representing
a
larger
field
and
pond
than
the
standard
GENEEC2
scenario.
The
FIRST
scenario
includes
a
427­
acre
field
immediately
adjacent
to
a
13­
acre
reservoir,
9­
feet
deep,
with
continuous
flow
(
two
turnovers
per
year).
The
pond
receives
a
spray
drift
event
from
each
application
plus
one
runoff
event.
The
runoff
event
moves
a
maximum
of
8%
of
the
applied
pesticide
into
the
pond.
This
amount
can
be
reduced
due
to
degradation
on
the
field
and
the
effect
of
binding
to
soil.
Spray
drift
is
equal
to
6.4%
of
the
applied
concentration
from
the
ground
spray
application
and
16%
for
aerial
applications.

FIRST
also
makes
adjustments
for
the
percent
crop
area
(
PCA).
While
FIRST
assumes
that
the
entire
watershed
would
not
be
treated,
the
use
of
a
PCA
is
still
a
screen
because
it
represents
the
highest
percentage
of
crop
cover
of
any
large
watershed
in
the
United
States,
and
it
assumes
that
the
entire
crop
is
being
treated.
Various
other
protective
assumptions
of
FIRST
include
the
use
of
a
small
drinking
water
reservoir
surrounded
by
a
runoff­
prone
watershed,
the
use
of
the
maximum
application
rate,
no
buffer
zone,
and
a
single
large
rainfall.

I.
Index
Reservoir
The
index
reservoir
represents
potential
drinking
water
exposure
from
a
specific
area
(
Illinois)
with
known
cropping
patterns,
weather,
soils,
and
other
factors.
One
source
of
uncertainty
is
the
extent
to
which
this
index
reservoir
is
representative
of
areas
with
different
climates,
crops,
pesticides
used,
sources
of
water
(
e.
g.,
rivers
instead
of
reservoirs,
etc.),
and
hydrogeology.
In
general,
because
the
index
reservoir
represents
a
fairly
vulnerable
watershed,
the
concentration
estimated
with
the
index
reservoir
will
likely
be
higher
than
the
actual
concentration
for
most
drinking
water
sources.
However,
the
index
reservoir
is
not
a
worst­
case
scenario.
Communities
that
derive
their
drinking
water
from
smaller
bodies
of
water
with
minimal
outflow,
or
with
more
runoff
prone
soils,
would
likely
receive
higher
drinking
water
exposures.
Areas
with
a
more
humid
climate
that
use
a
similar
reservoir
and
cropping
patterns
may
also
receive
higher
exposures
in
their
drinking
water
than
predicted
using
this
scenario.

A
single
steady
flow
has
been
used
to
represent
the
flow
through
the
reservoir.
Discharge
from
the
reservoir
also
removes
chemicals
so
this
assumption
will
underestimate
removal
from
the
reservoir
during
wet
periods
and
overestimate
removal
during
dry
periods.
This
assumption
can
both
underestimate
or
overestimate
the
concentration
in
the
pond
depending
upon
the
annual
precipitation
pattern
at
the
site.
­
B­
2­
The
index
reservoir
scenario
uses
the
characteristics
of
a
single
soil
to
represent
the
soil
in
the
basin.
In
fact,
soils
can
vary
substantially
across
even
small
areas,
and
this
variation
is
not
reflected
in
these
simulations.

The
index
reservoir
scenario
does
not
consider
tile
drainage.
Areas
that
are
prone
to
substantial
runoff
are
often
tile
drained.
Portions
of
the
cotton
growing
regions
of
Mississippi
are
known
to
have
tile
drains.
Tile
drainage
contributes
additional
water
and
in
some
cases,
additional
pesticide
loading
to
the
reservoir.
This
may
cause
either
an
increase
or
decrease
in
the
pesticide
concentration
in
the
reservoir.
Tile
drainage
also
causes
the
surface
soil
to
dry
out
faster.
This
will
reduce
runoff
of
the
pesticide
into
the
reservoir.
The
watershed
used
as
the
model
for
the
index
reservoir
(
Shipman
City
Lake)
does
not
have
tile
drainage
in
the
cropped
areas.

ii.
Percent
Crop
Area
The
PCA
is
a
watershed­
based
modification
to
the
results
of
the
index
reservoir.
Implicit
in
its
application
is
the
assumption
that
field­
scale
models
currently
in
use
reflect
basin­
scale
processes
consistently
for
all
pesticides
and
uses.
In
other
words,
we
assume
that
the
large
field
simulated
by
FIRST
are
reasonable
approximations
of
pesticide
fate
and
transport
within
a
watershed
that
contains
a
drinking
water
reservoir.
If
the
models
fail
to
capture
pertinent
basin­
scale
fate
and
transport
processes
consistently
for
all
pesticides
and
all
uses,
the
application
of
a
factor
that
reduces
the
estimated
concentrations
predicted
by
modeling
could,
in
some
instances,
result
in
inadvertently
passing
a
chemical
through
the
screen
that
may
actually
pose
a
risk.
A
preliminary
survey
of
water
assessments
which
compared
screening
model
estimates
to
readily
available
monitoring
data
suggest
uneven
model
results.
In
some
instances,
the
screening
model
estimates
are
more
than
an
order
of
magnitude
greater
than
the
highest
concentrations
reported
in
available
monitoring
data;
in
other
instances,
the
model
estimates
are
less
than
monitoring
concentrations.
Because
of
these
concerns,
the
Scientific
Advisory
Panel
recommended
using
the
PCA
only
for
`
major'
crops
in
the
Midwest.
For
other
crops,
development
of
PCAs
will
depend
on
the
availability
of
relevant
monitoring
data
that
could
be
used
to
evaluate
the
result
of
the
PCA
adjustment.

The
spatial
data
used
for
the
PCA
came
from
readily­
available
sources
and
have
a
number
of
inherent
limitations
related
to
the
size
of
the
watershed,
the
distance
between
the
treated
fields
and
the
water
body
is
not
addressed,
and
data
from
the
1992
Census
of
Agriculture
was
used.
The
PCA
adjustment
is
only
applicable
to
pesticides
applied
to
agricultural
crops.
Contributions
to
surface
waters
from
nonagricultural
uses
such
as
urban
environments
are
not
well
modeled.
Currently,
non­
agricultural
uses
are
not
included
in
the
screening
model
assessments
for
drinking
water.

b.
Model
Inputs
and
Results
FIRST
was
run
for
row
crops
using
the
proposed
label
application
rate
(
4lb
a.
i./
A).
An
aerial
application
was
chosen
in
accordance
with
the
product
label
and
the
default
setting
for
the
depth
of
incorporation
of
0
inches
was
used.
According
to
the
Agency's
guidelines
for
selecting
inputs
for
Tier
1
models
(
EPA,
2002a),
the
default
PCA
of
0.87
was
used.
Table
B­
1
shows
the
input
parameters
used
in
the
FIRST
and
GENEEC2
models
(
see
Aquatic
Exposure
Assessment
for
GENEEC2
results).

The
peak,
24­
hour
expected
EEC
generated
from
FIRST
is
685.5
ppb
and
the
annual
average
is
250.7
ppb
(
see
Table
B­
2).
The
24­
hour
peak,
21­
day
and
60­
day
EECs
estimated
from
GENEEC2
are
452.4,
442.2,
and
423.1
ppb,
respectively.
­
B­
3­
Table
B­
1.
Input
parameters
for
naptalam
used
in
GENEEC2
and
FIRST.

Parameter
Value
Source
Crop
Cucurbitsa
Ornamental
woody
plants
Master
label
Water
solubility
(
mg/
L
at
25
°
C)
249,000
Weed
Science
Society
of
America,
1994
Hydrolysis
half­
life
(
days)
stable
(
at
pH
7)
MRID
41385401
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
110
36.7
days
x
3
(
MRID
41427201)
EPA,
2002a
Aerobic
aquatic
metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
220
No
study;
value
calculated
as
2
x
aerobic
soil
t
½
(
EPA,
2002a)

Aqueous
photolysis
half­
life
(
days)
6.2
MRID
41385401
Adsorption
coefficient
(
Koc)
c
20
Weber,
1994
Pesticide
is
wetted­
in
Yes
Master
label
Application
method
(
for
maximum
application
rate)
Aerial
Master
label
Application
rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A)
Cucurbitsa:
4
Ornamental
woody
plants:
8
Master
label
Maximum
number
of
applications
per
year
Cucurbitsa:
2
Ornamental
woody
plants:
1
Master
label
Application
interval
(
days)
14
Master
label
Depth
of
incorporation
(
cm)
0
Master
label
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba
bNo
study
available
on
the
adsorption/
desorption
coefficient
(
lowest
non­
sand
Kd).
­
B­
4­
Table
B­
2.
Surface
water
environmental
concentrations
(
EECs)
for
drinking
water
risk
assessment
for
naptalam
generated
from
FIRST.

Surface
water
concentrations
(
ppb)

Crop
Peak,
24
hour
Annual
average
Cucurbitsa
685.5
250.7
Ornamental
woody
plants
716.7
262
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.

Table
B­
3.
Summary
of
crop
application
scenario
and
EECs
of
naptalam
obtained
from
GENEEC2.

Crop
Application
rate
(
lb
a.
i./
A)
Maximum
#
of
applications
EEC
(
ppb)

Peak
21
day
60
day
Cucurbitsa
4
2
452.4
442.2
423.1
Ornamental
woody
plants
8
1
470.7
460.1
440.2
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba.

2.
Groundwater
Modeling
a.
Background
Information
on
SCI­
GROW
Version
2.3
Groundwater
concentrations
were
estimated
using
the
Tier
1
model
SCI­
GROW
Version
2.3.
SCIGROW
provides
a
groundwater
screening
exposure
value
to
be
used
in
determining
the
potential
risk
to
human
health
from
drinking
water
contaminated
with
the
pesticide.
Since
the
SCI­
GROW
concentrations
are
likely
to
be
approached
in
only
highly
vulnerable
aquifers,
which
constitute
a
very
small
percentage
of
drinking
water
sources,
it
is
not
appropriate
to
use
SCI­
GROW
for
national
or
regional
exposure
estimates.

SCI­
GROW
estimates
likely
groundwater
concentrations
if
the
pesticide
is
used
at
the
maximum
allowable
rate
in
areas
where
groundwater
is
exceptionally
vulnerable
to
contamination.
In
most
cases,
a
large
majority
of
the
use
area
will
have
groundwater
that
is
less
vulnerable
to
contamination
than
the
areas
used
to
derive
the
SCI­
GROW
estimate.
­
B­
5­
b.
Model
Inputs
and
Results
SCI­
GROW
was
run
for
naptalam
for
row
crops.
Input
values
for
naptalam
are
presented
in
Table
B­
4.
The
modeling
results
of
naptalam
by
SCI­
GROW
are
summarized
in
Table
B­
5.
The
peak
24­
hour
concentration
is
3.3
ppb.

Table
B­
4.
Input
parameters
used
in
SCI­
GROW.

Input
variable
Parameter
value
Comment
Application
rate
(
lbs
a.
i./
A)
Curcurbitsa:
4
Ornamental
woody
plants:
8
Proposed
label
Maximum
applications
per
year
Curcurbitsa:
2
Ornamental
woody
plants:
1
Proposed
label
Koc
(
mL/
g)
20
Weber,
1994
Aerobic
soil
metabolism
half­
life
(
days)
36.7
MRID
41427201
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba
Table
B­
5.
Ground­
water
concentrations
of
naptalam
estimated
using
SCIGROW
v.
2.3.

Crop
Peak
24­
hour
Concentration
(
ppb)

Cucurbitsa
(
4
lbs
a.
i./
A,
2
applications,
14
day
interval)
11.1
Ornamental
woody
plants
(
8
lbs
a.
i./
A,
1
application)
11.1
aCucumber,
watermelon,
muskmelon,
cantaloupe,
honeydew
melon,
Persian
melon,
casaba
­
B­
6­
RUN
No.
1
FOR
naptalam
sodium
ON
cucurbits
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
%
CROPPED
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
AREA
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
4.000(
7.662)
2
14
20.0*******
AERIAL(
16.0)
87.0
.0
FIELD
AND
RESERVOIR
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
RESERVOIR)
(
RES.­
EFF)
(
RESER.)
(
RESER.)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
110.00
0
N/
A
6.20­
768.80
220.00
171.05
UNTREATED
WATER
CONC
(
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Ver
1.0
AUG
1,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
DAY
(
ACUTE)
ANNUAL
AVERAGE
(
CHRONIC)
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
685.548
250.739
FIRST
v.
1.0
Model
Output
­
B­
7­
SCIGROW
VERSION
2.3
ENVIRONMENTAL
FATE
AND
EFFECTS
DIVISION
OFFICE
OF
PESTICIDE
PROGRAMS
U.
S.
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
SCREENING
MODEL
FOR
AQUATIC
PESTICIDE
EXPOSURE
SciGrow
version
2.3
chemical:
naptalam
sodium
time
is
9/
30/
2004
10:
25:
46
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
Application
Number
of
Total
Use
Koc
Soil
Aerobic
rate
(
lb/
acre)
applications
(
lb/
acre/
yr)
(
ml/
g)
metabolism
(
days)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
4.000
2.0
8.000
2.00E+
01
36.7
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
groundwater
screening
cond
(
ppb)
=
1.11E+
01
************************************************************************
SCI­
GROW
Version
2.3
Model
Output
­
B­
8­
GENEEC2
Model
Output
RUN
No.
34
FOR
naptalam
ON
curcubits
*
INPUT
VALUES
*
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
RATE
(#/
AC)
No.
APPS
&
SOIL
SOLUBIL
APPL
TYPE
NO­
SPRAY
INCORP
ONE(
MULT)
INTERVAL
Koc
(
PPM
)
(%
DRIFT)
(
FT)
(
IN)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
4.000(
7.662)
2
14
20.0*******
AERL_
B(
13.0)
.0
.0
FIELD
AND
STANDARD
POND
HALFLIFE
VALUES
(
DAYS)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
METABOLIC
DAYS
UNTIL
HYDROLYSIS
PHOTOLYSIS
METABOLIC
COMBINED
(
FIELD)
RAIN/
RUNOFF
(
POND)
(
POND­
EFF)
(
POND)
(
POND)
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
110.00
0
N/
A
6.20­
768.80
220.00
171.05
GENERIC
EECs
(
IN
MICROGRAMS/
LITER
(
PPB))
Version
2.0
Aug
1,
2001
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
PEAK
MAX
4
DAY
MAX
21
DAY
MAX
60
DAY
MAX
90
DAY
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
AVG
GEEC
­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­
452.40
450.94
442.24
423.08
409.11
­
C­
1­
APPENDIX
C.
Terrestrial
Exposure
Model
(
ELL­
FATE)
 
Inputs,
Results,
Output
The
model
output
from
ELL­
FATE
for
naptalam
is
in
the
attached
Microsoft
Excel
spreadsheet
Naptalam
ELLFATE
Version
1.4.

Kenaga
Estimates
and
ELL­
FATE
Model
 
Explanation
Hoerger
and
Kenaga
estimates
(
1972)
as
modified
by
Fletcher,
Nellessen,
and
Pfleeger
(
1994)
were
used
to
approximate
the
residues
on
plants
and
insects.
Hoerger­
Kenaga
categories
represent
preferred
foods
of
various
terrestrial
vertebrates:
fruits
and
bud
and
shoot
tips
of
leafy
crops
are
preferred
by
upland
game
birds;
leaves
and
stems
of
leafy
crops
are
consumed
by
hares
and
hoofed
mammals;
seeds,
seed
pods
and
grasses
are
consumed
by
rodents;
and
insects
are
consumed
by
various
birds,
mammals,
reptiles
and
terrestrial­
phase
amphibians.
Terrestrial
vertebrates
also
may
be
exposed
to
pesticides
applied
to
soil
by
ingesting
pesticide
granules
and/
or
pesticide­
laden
soil
when
foraging.
Rich
in
minerals,
soil
comprises
5
to
30%
of
dietary
intake
by
many
wildlife
species
(
Beyer
and
Conner,
1994).

Hoerger­
Kenaga
pesticide
environmental
concentration
estimates
(
EECs)
were
based
on
residue
data
correlated
from
more
than
20
pesticides
on
more
than
60
crops.
Representative
of
many
geographic
regions
(
seven
states)
and
a
wide
array
of
cultural
practices,
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
also
considered
differences
in
vegetative
yield,
surface/
mass
ratio,
and
interception
factors.
In
1994,
Fletcher,
Nellessen,
and
Pfleeger
reexamined
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
simple
linear
model
(
y=
B1x,
where
x=
application
rate
and
y=
pesticide
residue
in
ppm)
to
determine
whether
the
terrestrial
EECs
were
accurate.
They
compiled
a
data
set
of
pesticide
day­
0
and
residue­
decay
data
involving
121
pesticides
(
85
insecticides,
27
herbicides,
and
9
fungicides
from
17
different
chemical
classes)
on
118
species
of
plants.
They
found
that
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
needed
only
minor
modifications
to
elevate
the
predictive
values
for
forage
and
fruit
categories
from
58
to
135
ppm
and
from
7
to
15
ppm,
respectively.
Otherwise,
the
Hoerger­
Kenaga
estimates
were
accurate
in
predicting
the
maximum
residue
values
after
a
1
lb
ai/
A
application.
Mean
values
represent
the
arithmetic
mean
of
values
from
samples
collected
the
day
of
pesticide
treatment.
These
values,
summarized
in
Table
C­
1,
are
the
predicted
0­
day
maximum
and
mean
residues
of
a
pesticide
that
may
be
expected
to
occur
on
selected
avian,
mammalian,
reptilian,
or
terrestrial­
phase
amphibian
food
items
immediately
following
a
direct
single
application
at
a
1
lb
ai/
A
application
rate.
For
pesticides
applied
as
a
nongranular
product
(
e.
g.,
liquid,
dust),
the
EECs
on
food
items
following
product
application
are
compared
to
LC50
values
to
assess
risk.

Spreadsheet­
based
Terrestrial
Exposure
Values
A
first
order
decay
assumption
is
used
to
determine
the
concentration
at
each
day
after
initial
application
based
on
the
concentration
resulting
from
the
initial
and
additional
applications.
The
decay
is
calculated
from
the
standard
first
order
rate
equation:

CT
=
Cie­
kT
or
in
integrated
form:
ln
(
CT/
Ci)
=
­
kT
Where:

CT
=
concentration
at
time
T
on
day
zero.
­
C­
2­
Ci
=
concentration
in
parts
per
million
(
ppm)
present
initially
(
on
day
zero)
on
the
surfaces.

Ci
=
is
calculated
based
on
Kenaga
and
Fletcher
by
multiplying
the
application
rate,
in
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre,
by
240
for
short
grass,
110
for
tall
grass,
135
for
broad­
leaf
plants/
insects,
and
15
for
seeds.
A
similar
approach
is
used
to
calculate
mean
residues
(
see
Table
C­
1).
Additional
applications
are
converted
from
pounds
active
ingredient
per
acre
to
ppm
on
the
plant
surface
and
the
additional
mass
is
added
to
the
mass
of
the
chemical
still
present
on
the
surfaces
on
the
day
of
application.

k
=
degradation
rate
constant
determined
from
studies
of
hydrolysis,
photolysis,
microbial
degradation,
etc.
Since
degradation
rate
is
generally
reported
in
terms
of
half­
life,
the
rate
constant
is
calculated
from
the
input
half­
life
(
k
=
ln
2/
T1/
2)
instead
of
being
input
directly.
Choosing
which
process
controls
the
degradation
rate
and
which
half­
life
to
use
in
terrestrial
exposure
calculations
is
open
for
debate
and
should
be
done
by
a
qualified
scientist.

T
=
time,
in
days,
since
the
start
of
the
simulation.
The
initial
application
is
on
day
0.
The
simulation
is
set
to
run
for
365
days.

ELL­
FATE
calculates
the
maximum
and
mean
residue
concentrations
on
each
type
of
surface
on
a
daily
interval
for
one
year.

Table
C­
1.
Kenaga
values
used
in
ELL­
FATE
(
2004)
Version
1.4.

Foliage
type
Maximum
residues
Mean
residues
Short
grass
240
85
Tall
grass
110
36
Broadleaf
plants
and
small
insects
135
45
Fruits/
pods/
large
insects
15
7
Literature
Cited
Beyer
and
Conner.
1994
ELL­
FATE.
2004.
Terrestrial
Exposure
and
Risk
Model
Version
1.4.
April
7,
2004.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

Fletcher,
JS;
Nellessen,
JE;
Pfleeger,
TG.
1994.
Literature
review
and
evaluation
of
the
EPA
food­
chain
(
Kenaga)
Nomogram,
an
instrument
for
estimating
pesticide
residues
on
plants.
Environ
Toxicol
Chem
­
C­
3­
13(
9):
1383 
1391.

Hoerger
F;
Kenaga,
EE.
1972.
Pesticide
Residues
on
Plants:
Correlation
of
Representative
Data
as
a
Basis
for
Estimation
of
Their
Magnitude
in
the
Environment.
Agricultural
Department,
Dow
Chemical
Corporation,
Midland,
MI.
18
pgs.
­
D­
1­
APPENDIX
D.
TerrPlant
Model
 
Inputs,
Results,
Output
No
plant
toxicity
data
was
submitted,
therefore,
TerrPlant
was
not
run.
­
E­
1­
APPENDIX
E.
Ecological
Effects
Data
I.
Toxicity
to
Terrestrial
Animals
a.
Birds,
Acute
and
Subacute
One
acute
oral
toxicity
study
using
the
technical
grade
of
the
active
ingredient
(
TGAI)
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
is
either
mallard
duck
(
a
waterfowl)
or
bobwhite
quail
(
an
upland
gamebird).
Results
of
these
studies
are
tabulated
in
Table
E­
1.

Table
E­
1.
Avian
acute
oral
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LD50
(
mg/
kg
bw)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Number
Study
Classificationa
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
94
>
4,640
Practically
nontoxic
GS­
0183­
01
Core
aCore:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline
The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
the
LD50
values
fall
in
the
range
of
>
2,000
mg/
kg,
therefore,
naptalam
is
categorized
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
an
acute
oral
basis,
therefore,
Guideline
71­
1
is
fulfilled.

Two
subacute
dietary
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
birds.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
in
Table
E­
2.

Table
E­
2.
Avian
subacute
dietary
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
LC50
(
mg/
kg
diet)
a
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Number
Study
Classificationb
Northern
bobwhite
quail
(
Colinus
virginianus)
94
>
10,000
Practically
non­
toxic
00082969
Core
Mallard
duck
(
Anas
platyrhynchos)
94
>
10,000
Practically
non­
toxic
00108853
Core
a5­
day
dietary
exposure
followed
by
additional
3­
day
observation
period.
bCore:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline.
­
E­
2­
The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
the
LC50
values
fall
in
the
range
of
>
5,000
ppm,
therefore,
naptalam
is
categorized
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
avian
species
on
a
subacute
dietary
basis.
Therefore,
Guideline
71­
2
is
fulfilled.

b.
Birds,
Chronic
Avian
reproduction
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
for
naptalam
because
the
following
conditions
are
met:
(
1)
birds
may
be
subject
to
repeated
or
continuous
exposure
to
the
pesticide,
especially
preceding
or
during
the
mating
season;
(
2)
the
pesticide
is
stable
in
the
environment
to
the
extent
that
potentially
toxic
amounts
may
persist
in
animal
feed;
and
(
3)
the
pesticide
is
stored
or
accumulated
in
plant
or
animal
tissues.
The
preferred
test
species
are
mallard
duck
and
bobwhite
quail.

c.
Mammals,
Acute
and
Chronic
Wild
mammal
testing
is
required
on
a
case­
by­
case
basis,
depending
on
the
results
of
lower
tier
laboratory
mammalian
studies,
intended
use
pattern
and
pertinent
environmental
fate
characteristics.
In
most
cases,
rat
or
mouse
toxicity
values
obtained
from
the
Agency's
Health
Effects
Division
(
HED)
substitute
for
wild
mammal
testing.
The
toxicity
values
for
mammalian
oral,
dermal,
and
inhalation
toxicity
tests
are
reported
in
Table
E­
3.

Table
E­
3.
Mammalian
toxicity.

Species
Study
Type/
Doses
Results
MRID
No.

Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute
oral
LD50
=
1,700
mg/
kg/
day
(
salt)
LD50
>
8,192
mg/
kg/
day
(
acid)
29172
76205
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute
dermal
 
rat
LD50
>
2
g/
kg
00068402
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Acute
inhalation
 
rat
LC50
>
2.0
mg/
L
43936401
Rabbit
Acute
eye
irritation
 
rabbit
Slight
irritation
00078530
Rabbit
Acute
dermal
irritation
 
rabbit
Non­
irritant
00060403
Guinea
pig
(
Cavia
porcellus)
Skin
sensitization
 
Guinea
pig
Dermal
sensitizer
00015185
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
90­
Day
oral
toxicity
rat;
0,
25,
50,
250
mg/
kg/
day
NOAEL
=
1,000
ppm
(
50
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
5,000
ppm
(
250
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gain,
reduced
food
efficiency,
and
decreased
organ
weights.
00106276
Table
E­
3.
Mammalian
toxicity.

Species
Study
Type/
Doses
Results
MRID
No.

­
E­
3­
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
90­
Day
oral
toxicity
dog;
Males:
0,
11.4,
29.7,
124.7
mg/
kg/
day
Females:
0,
9.7,
29.9,
123.6
mg/
kg/
day
NOAEL
=
1,000
ppm
(
29.7 
29.9
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
3,000
ppm
(
123.6 
124.7
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gains,
reduced
food
efficiency,
and
increased
absolute
and
relative
liver
weights.
00106277
Dog
(
Canis
familiarus)
90­
Day
oral
toxicity;
0,
5.3,
25.8,
121
mg/
kg/
day
NOAEL
=
200
ppm
(
5.3
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
females:
1,000
ppm
(
25.8
mg/
kg/
day);
males
5,000
ppm
(
121
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
liver
weights,
increased
enzyme
activity
and
bilirubin.
41057501
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Teratology
study
in
the
rat;
0,
15,
115,
500
mg/
kg/
day
Maternal
NOAEL
=
15
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
=
115
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gain
(
minimal
and
not
supported
by
other
observations).
Developmental
NOAEL
=
115
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
=
500
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
reduced
fetal
weights,
increased
skeletal
observations.
000106320
Rabbit
Teratology
study
in
rabbits
Maternal
NOAEL
=
200
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
=
650
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
reduced
body
weight
gain,
mortality,
and
clinical
observations.
Developmental
NOAEL
=
200
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
=
650
mg/
kg/
day
based
on
increased
skeletal
observations.
00157186
Table
E­
3.
Mammalian
toxicity.

Species
Study
Type/
Doses
Results
MRID
No.

­
E­
4­
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Multigeneration
reproduction
and
fertility
study
in
the
rat;
0,
6,
30,
150
mg/
kg/
day
Parental/
Systemic
NOAEL
=
600
ppm
(
30
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
3,000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
reduced
body
weights.
Reproductive
NOAEL
>
3,000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
>
3,000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg/
day)
Offspring
NOAEL
=
600
ppm
(
30
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
3,000
ppm
(
150
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
reduced
mean
pup
body
weights.
00031684
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
104­
Week
chronic
toxicity
in
the
rat;
0,
5.6,
27,
140
mg/
kg/
day
NOAEL
>
140
mg/
kg/
day
LOAEL
>
140
mg/
kg/
day.
00077053
Dog
(
Canis
familiaris)
12­
Month
oral
chronic
toxicity
study
in
the
dog;
0,
5.3,
25.8,
121
mg/
kg/
day
NOAEL
=
1,000
ppm
(
25.8
mg/
kg/
day)
LOAEL
=
5,000
ppm
(
121
mg/
kg/
day)
based
on
increased
liver
weights,
increased
levels
of
alkaline
phosphatase
and
bilirubin.
41057501
Rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
Metabolism
and
pharmacokinetics
 
rat
14C
naptalam
was
rapidly
absorbed,
distributed
and
excreted
with
7­
day
recovery
of
85%
40274502
1Core:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline;
NA:
not
available
Based
on
these
results
naptalam
is
categorized
as
slightly
toxic
to
small
mammals
on
an
acute
oral
basis
(
LD50
=
1,700
mg/
kg
bw)
and
the
potential
for
chronic
reproductive
effects
appears
to
be
low.
In
a
multigeneration
reproduction
study
in
the
rat
(
Rattus
norvegicus)
possible
systemic
toxicity
was
observed
in
the
offspring
in
the
form
of
statistically
significant
reduction
in
the
mean
pup
body
weights
in
the
highdose
group
(
3,000
mg/
kg
in
the
diet
or
150
mg/
kg
bw).
This
is
equal
to
the
lowest­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
(
LOAEL).
The
no­
observed­
adverse­
effect
level
(
NOAEL)
for
naptalam
for
reproductive
effects
was
600
mg/
kg
diet
or
30
mg/
kg
bw
(
MRID
00031684).
­
E­
5­
d.
Terrestrial
Insects,
Honeybee
Acute
A
honey
bee
acute
contact
study
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
its
use
on
crops
will
result
in
honey
bee
exposure.
The
acute
contact
LD50,
using
the
honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
is
an
acute
contact,
single­
dose
laboratory
study
designed
to
estimate
the
quantity
of
toxicant
required
to
cause
50%
mortality
in
a
test
population.
The
TGAI
is
administered
by
one
of
two
methods:
whole
body
exposure
to
technical
pesticide
in
a
non­
toxic
dust
diluent;
or
topical
exposure
to
technical
pesticide
via
microapplicator
The
median
lethal
dose
(
LD50)
is
expressed
in
micrograms
of
active
ingredient
per
bee
(:
g
a.
i./
bee).
Results
of
this
test
are
tabulated
below
(
Table
E­
4).
Toxicity
category
descriptions
for
honey
bee
acute
contact
toxicity
are
from
Atkins
(
1981):

The
following
toxicity
category
descriptions
were
developed
by
Atkins
(
1981)
and
have
been
used
by
EFED
to
characterize
honey
bee
acute
contact
toxicity
values
(
EPA,
2004):

LD50
(
:
g
a.
i./
bee)
Toxicity
Category
<
2
Highly
toxic
2 <
11
Moderately
toxic
>
11
Practically
nontoxic
Table
E­
4.
Honey
bee
acute
contact
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
48­
hour
LD50
(
µ
g/
bee)
Category
MRID
Number
Study
Classificationa
Honey
bee
(
Apis
mellifera)
Technical
113.2
Practically
non­
toxic
00028772
Core
aCore:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline.

The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
the
LD50
for
the
honey
bee
falls
in
the
range
of
>
11
:
g/
bee,
therefore,
naptalam
is
categorized
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
the
honeybee
on
an
acute
contact
basis.
Therefore,
Guideline
141­
1
is
fulfilled.
Further
acute
oral
toxicity
testing
and
foliar
residue
toxicity
testing
with
the
honeybee
were
not
required.
A
honey
bee
foliar
residue
toxicity
study
is
required
on
an
end­
use
product
for
any
pesticide
intended
for
outdoor
application
when
the
proposed
use
pattern
indicates
that
honey
bees
may
be
exposed
to
the
pesticide
and
when
the
formulation
contains
one
or
more
active
ingredients
having
an
acute
contact
honey
bee
LD50
which
falls
in
the
moderately
toxic
or
highly
toxic
range.
­
E­
6­
II.
Toxicity
to
Freshwater
Animals
a.
Freshwater
Fish,
Acute
Two
freshwater
fish
toxicity
studies
using
the
TGAI
are
required
to
establish
the
acute
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
fish.
The
preferred
test
species
are
rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
(
a
coldwater
fish)
and
bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
(
a
warmwater
fish).
Results
of
these
tests
are
tabulated
below
in
Table
E­
5.

Table
E­
5.
Freshwater
fish
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
96­
Hour
LC50
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Number
Study
Classificationa
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
94
354.4
Practically
non­
toxic
00070193
Core
Rainbow
trout
(
Oncorhynchus
mykiss)
94
76.1
Practically
non­
toxic
00070193
Core
Bluegill
sunfish
(
Lepomis
macrochirus)
95
>
180b
Practically
non­
toxic
00024161
Supplemental
aCore:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline.
b72­
hour
LC50
The
acute
studies
that
were
submitted
show
that
naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
fish.
Therefore,
Guideline
72­
1
is
fulfilled.

b.
Freshwater
Fish,
Chronic
An
freshwater
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
the
pesticide
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
regardless
of
toxicity.
Toxicity
testing
data
for
freshwater
fish
to
chronic
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
The
Guideline
72­
4
(
a)
has
not
been
fulfilled.

c.
Freshwater
Invertebrates,
Acute
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
toxicity
test
(
Guideline
72­
2)
using
the
TGAI
is
required
to
establish
the
toxicity
of
naptalam
to
aquatic
invertebrates.
The
preferred
test
species
is
the
water
flea
(
Daphnia
magna).
Submitted
results
of
acute
toxicity
tests
with
freshwater
invertebrates
are
tabulated
in
Table
E­
6.
­
E­
7­
Table
E­
6.
Freshwater
invertebrate
acute
toxicity.

Species
%
a.
i.
48­
Hour
LC50
(
mg/
L)
Toxicity
Category
MRID
Number
Study
Classificationa
Waterflea
(
Daphnia
magna)
94
118.5
Practically
non­
toxic
00082971
Core
aCore:
study
satisfies
guideline
The
data
that
were
submitted
show
that
naptalam
is
classified
as
practically
non­
toxic
to
freshwater
invertebrates
(
i.
e.,
daphnids)
with
an
acute
LC50
value
of
118.5
mg/
L.
Therefore,
Guideline
72­
2
requirements
for
acute
invertebrate
toxicity
are
fulfilled.

d.
Freshwater
Invertebrate,
Chronic
A
freshwater
aquatic
invertebrate
life­
cycle
test
(
Guideline
72­
4)
using
the
TGAI
is
required
if
the
end­
use
product
may
be
transported
to
water
from
the
intended
use
site,
and
the
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent.
Toxicity
testing
data
for
freshwater
invertebrates
to
chronic
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
This
data
requirement
has
not
been
met.

III.
Toxicity
to
Estuarine/
Marine
Animals
a.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
fish
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment
because
of
its
use
in
coastal
counties
(
i.
e.,
crops).
The
preferred
test
species
is
the
sheepshead
minnow
(
Cyprinodon
variegatus).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
estuarine/
marine
fish
to
acute
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
Therefore,
Guideline
72­
3a
is
not
fulfilled.

b.
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish,
Chronic
An
estuarine/
marine
fish
early
life
stage
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
to
an
estuarine/
marine
environment
and
the
pesticide
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
regardless
of
toxicity.
The
preferred
test
species
is
the
sheepshead
minnow
(
C.
variegatus).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
freshwater
fish
to
chronic
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
Therefore,
Guideline
72­
4
(
a)
has
not
been
fulfilled.

c.
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates,
Acute
Acute
toxicity
testing
with
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
reach
this
environment
because
of
its
use
in
coastal
counties
(
i.
e.,
crops).
The
preferred
test
species
are
mysid
shrimp
(
Mysidopsis
bahia)
and
eastern
oyster
­
E­
8­
(
Crassostrea
virginica).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
to
acute
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
The
Guidelines
72­
3
(
b)
and
72­
3
©
)
are
not
fulfilled.

d.
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates,
Chronic
An
estuarine/
marine
invertebrate
early
life
stage
life­
cycle
toxicity
test
using
the
TGAI
is
required
for
naptalam
because
the
end­
use
product
is
expected
to
be
transported
to
an
estuarine/
marine
environment
and
the
pesticide
is
intended
for
use
such
that
its
presence
in
water
is
likely
to
be
continuous
or
recurrent
regardless
of
toxicity.
The
preferred
test
species
is
mysid
shrimp
(
M.
bahia).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
to
chronic
exposures
of
naptalam
were
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
Therefore,
Guideline
72­
4
(
b)
has
not
been
fulfilled.

IV.
Toxicity
to
Plants
a.
Terrestrial
Plants
Terrestrial
plant
toxicity
testing
is
required
for
naptalam
as
it
is
an
herbicide
(
Guideline
122­
1
(
a)
and
(
b).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
terrestrial
plants
and
naptalam
was
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
The
guideline
is
not
fulfilled.

b.
Aquatic
Plants
Aquatic
plant
testing
(
Guideline
122­
2
[
Tier
I])
is
required
for
naptalam
as
it
has
outdoor
nonresidential
terrestrial
uses
and
may
move
off­
site
by
run­
off
(
solubility
>
10
ppm
in
water)
or
may
move
by
drift
(
aerial).
Toxicity
testing
data
for
aquatic
plants
and
naptalam
was
not
available
from
the
registrant
submitted
data.
The
guideline
is
not
fulfilled.

V.
Open
Literature
Search
A
search
of
the
open
literature
for
toxicity
information
on
naptalam
was
completed
by
searching
the
EPA's
Ecotoxicology
database
(
ECOTOX)
as
well
as
TOXLINE
and
PubMed.
ECOTOX
is
a
publicly
available
database
summarizing
the
ecological
effects
of
single
chemicals
to
aquatic
and
terrestrial
plants
and
animals
(
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ecotox).

VI.
Literature
Cited
MRID
00068402
Babish,
J.
G.
(
1
976)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity
Study
in
Rabbits:
Laboratory
No.
52941aA.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
30,
1977
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Food
and
Drug
Research
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232478­
B).

MRID
00060403
Babish,
J.
G.
(
1976)
Primary
Skin
Irritation
Study
with
Rabbits:
Laboratory
No.
52941aA.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
30,1977
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Food
and
Drug
Research
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232478­
C).
­
E­
9­
      
ELL­
FATE.
2004.
Terrestrial
Exposure
and
Risk
Model
Version
1.4.
April
7,
2004.
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Division,
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Washington,
D.
C.

MRID
00108853
Fink,
R.
(
1974)
Final
Report:
Eight­
day
Dietary
LCSO­­
Mallard
Ducks:
Technical
Alanapl:
Project
No.
1
17­
105.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Aug
20,
1974
under
400­
36;
prepared
by
Truslow
Farms,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
13
1498­
A).

MRID
00082969
Fink,
R.;
Beavers,
J.
B.
(
1977)
Final
Report:
Eight­
day
Dietary
LCSO­
Bobwhite
Quail:
Project
No.
1
17­
122.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
30,
1977
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Wildlife
In­
ternational,
Ltd.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232477­
B).

MRID
00031684
Gephart,
L.;
Koschier,
F.
J.;
Re,
T.
A.;
et
al.
(
1980)
Muhigenera­
tion
Evaluation
of
Alanap
Technical
in
the
Sprague­
Dawley
Rat:
Laboratory
No.
5847.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Feb
26,
1980
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Food
and
Drug
Research
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Corn.;
CDL:
241
844­
A).

MRID
43936401
Hoffmann,
G.
(
1
996)
An
Acute
(
4­
Hour)
Inhalation
Toxicity
Study
of
Naptalam
Sodium
in
the
Rat
via
Nose­
Only
Exposure:
Final
Report:
Lab
Proiect
Number:
95­
5256.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Huntingdon
Life
Sciences,
Inc.
61
p.

MRID
00106276
Holsing,
G.;
Nelson,
L.
(
1968)
Final
Report:
Subacute
Dietary
Administration­­
Rats:
Alanap
SI:
Project
No.
798­
137.
(
Unpubished
study
received
May
16,1970
under
OF0904;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091558­
C).

MRID
00106277
Holsing,
G.;
Kundzins,
W.;
Nelson,
L.
(
1968)
Final
Report:
13­
week
Dietary
Feeding­­
Dogs:
Alanap
St:
Project
No.
798­
140.
(
Un­
published
study
received
May
16,
1970
under
OF0904;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
091558­
D).

MRID
00106320
Knickerbocker,
M.;
Re,
T.
(
1
978)
Teratologic
Evaluation
of
Alanap
S
Technical
in
Sprague­
Dawley
Rats:
Laboratory
No.
5888a.
(
Un­
published
study
received
Mar
8,
1979
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Food
and
Drug
Research
Laboratories,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
CT;
CDL:
237779­
A).

MRID
00070193
Kuc,
W.
J.
(
1
977)
Acute
Toxicity
of
Alanap
Technical,
Lot
BL8
190
(
C­
465)
to
the
Bluegill
Sunfish,­
Lepomis
macrochirus­
Rafinesque
and
Rainbow
Trout,­
Salmo
gairdneri­&
chardson:
UCES
Proj.
#
1
1506­
29­
05.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
30,
1977
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232477­
D).

MRID
00024161
McCann,
J.
A.
(
1
968)
Sodium
Alanap:
Toxicity
to
Bluegilll:
Test
No.
133.
(
U.
S.
Agricultural
Research
Service,
Pesticides
Regu­
lation
Div.,
Animal
Biology
­
E­
10­
Laboratory,
unpublished
report.

MRID
00078530
Piccerillo,
V.
J.
(
1978)
Final
Report:
Acute
Eye
Irritation
Study
in
Rabbits:
Project
No.
798­
182.
(
Unpublished
study
received
May
5,
1978
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Hazeltton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
233954­
A).

MRID
00077053
Serota,
D.
G.;
Kundzins,
W.;
Alsaker,
R.
D.;
et
al.
(
1
981)
104­
week
Chronic
Toxicity
Study
in
Rats
608,
Na
Salt
(
Alanap
Technical).
Final
rept.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Jul
14,
198
1
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Hazleton
Laboratories
America,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
245536­
A).

MRID
00060406
Shapiro,
R.
(
1977)
Acute
Dermal
Toxicity:
Report
No.
T­
216.
(
Un­
published
study
received
Nov
30,
1977
under
400­
49;
prepired
by
Nutrition
International,
Inc.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232478­
F).

MRID
41057501
Tegeris,
A.
(
1988)
12
Month
Chronic
Oral
Toxicity
Study
in
the
Dog
with
Alanap:
Project
ID
No.
87002.
Unpublished
study
prepared
by
Tegeris
Laboratories,
Inc.
427
p.

MRID
00082971
Vilkas,
A.
G.
(
1
977)
The
Acute
Toxicity
of
Alanap
Technical
Lot
BL
8
190
to
the
Water
Flea,­
Daphnia
magna­
Straus:
UCES
Proj.
#
1
1506­
29­
08.
(
Unpublished
study
received
Nov
30,
1977
under
400­
49;
prepared
by
Union
Carbide
Corp.,
submitted
by
Uniroyal
Chemical,
Bethany,
Conn.;
CDL:
232477­
E).
­
F­
1­
APPENDIX
F.
The
Risk
Quotient
Method
and
Levels
of
Concern
The
risks
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
are
determined
based
on
a
method
by
which
risk
quotients
(
RQs)
are
compared
with
levels
of
concern
(
LOCs).
This
method
provides
an
indication
of
a
chemical's
potential
to
cause
an
effect
in
the
field
from
effects
observed
in
laboratory
studies,
when
used
as
directed.
Risk
quotients
are
expressed
as
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
environmental
concentration
(
EEC)
to
the
species­
specific
toxicity
reference
value
(
TRV):

RQ
EEC
TRV
=

Units
for
EEC
and
TRV
should
be
the
same
(
e.
g.,
:
g/
L
or
ppb).
The
RQ
is
compared
to
the
LOC
as
part
of
a
risk
characterization.
Acute
and
chronic
LOCs
for
terrestrial
and
aquatic
organisms
are
given
in
recent
Agency
guidance
(
EPA,
2004)
and
summarized
in
Table
F­
1
below.

Table
F­
1.
Level
of
concern
(
LOC)
by
risk
presumption
category
(
EPA,
2004).

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
Mammals
and
Birds
Acute
Riska
EECb/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqftc
or
LD50/
dayd
0.5
Acute
Restricted
Usee
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
(
or
LD50
<
50
mg/
kg)
0.2
Acute
Endangered
Speciesf
EEC/
LC50
or
LD50/
sqft
or
LD50/
day
0.1
Chronic
Risk
EEC/
NOEC
1
Aquatic
Animals
Acute
Risk
EECg/
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/
NOEC
1
Terrestrial
and
Semi­
aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EEC/
EC25
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EEC/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
Table
F­
1.
Level
of
concern
(
LOC)
by
risk
presumption
category
(
EPA,
2004).

Risk
Presumption
RQ
LOC
­
F­
2­
Aquatic
Plants
Acute
Risk
EECh/
EC50
1
Acute
Endangered
Species
EECg/
EC05
or
NOEC
1
aPotential
for
acute
toxicity
for
receptor
species
if
RQ
>
LOC
(
EPA,
2004).
bEstimated
environmental
concentration
(
ppm)
on
avian/
mammalian
food
items
cmg/
ft2
dmg
of
toxicant
consumed
per
day
ePotential
for
acute
toxicity
for
receptor
species,
even
considering
restricted
use
classification,
if
RQ
>
LOC
(
EPA,
2004).
fPotential
for
acute
toxicity
for
endangered
species
of
receptor
species
if
RQ
>
LOC
(
EPA,
2004).
gEEC
=
ppb
or
ppm
in
water
hEEC
=
lbs
a.
i./
A
For
acute
exposure
to
terrestrial
and
aquatic
plants,
an
LOC
of
1
is
used.
Currently
the
Agency
does
not
perform
assessments
for
chronic
risk
to
plants
or
acute/
chronic
risks
to
non­
target
insects.

For
this
Tier
I
assessment
of
naptalam,
acute
exposure
to
aquatic
organisms
is
represented
by
the
maximum
24­
hour
EEC
value
calculated
using
GENEEC2.
EECs
used
to
assess
acute
and
chronic
risk
to
avian
and
mammalian
species
were
calculated
using
ELL­
FATE.

The
Agency
has
developed
an
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program
to
identify
pesticides
whose
use
may
cause
adverse
impacts
on
endangered
and
threatened
species,
and
to
implement
mitigation
measures
that
will
eliminate
the
adverse
impacts.
At
present,
the
program
is
being
implemented
on
an
interim
basis
as
described
in
a
Federal
Register
notice
(
54
FR
27984­
28008,
July
3,
1989),
and
is
providing
information
to
pesticide
users
to
help
them
protect
these
species
on
a
voluntary
basis.
As
currently
planned,
the
final
program
will
call
for
label
modifications
referring
to
required
limitations
on
pesticide
uses,
typically
as
depicted
in
county­
specific
bulletins
or
by
other
site­
specific
mechanisms
as
specified
by
state
partners.
A
final
program,
which
may
be
altered
from
the
interim
program,
will
be
described
in
a
future
Federal
Register
notice.
The
Agency
is
not
imposing
label
modifications
at
this
time.
Rather,
any
requirements
for
product
use
modifications
will
occur
in
the
future
under
the
Endangered
Species
Protection
Program.

Limitations
in
the
use
of
naptalam
may
be
required
to
protect
endangered
and
threatened
species,
but
these
limitations
have
not
been
defined
and
may
be
formulation
specific.
The
Agency
will
notify
the
registrants
if
any
label
modifications
are
necessary.
Such
modifications
would
most
likely
consist
of
the
generic
label
statement
referring
pesticide
users
to
use
limitations
contained
in
county
Bulletins.
­
F­
3­
Literature
Cited
EPA
(
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency).
2004.
Overview
of
the
Ecological
Risk
Assessment
Process
in
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs,
U.
S.
Environmental
Protection
Agency:
Endangered
and
Threatened
Species
Effects
Determinations.
Office
of
Prevention,
Pesticide,
and
Toxic
Substances.
January
23.
­
G­
1­
APPENDIX
G.
Summary
of
Threatened
and
Endangered
Species
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

Alabama
(
4)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
ALABAMA
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
PERDIDO
KEY
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Arizona
(
7)

BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
LONG­
NOSED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Phyllostomidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

JAGUAR
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Jaguarundi,
Sinaloan
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

OCELOT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

PRONGHORN,
SONORAN
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Antilocapridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
MOUNT
GRAHAM
RED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
1
of
14
­
G­
2­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Arkansas
(
2)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

California
(
21)

FOX,
SAN
JOAQUIN
KIT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

FOX,
SAN
MIGUEL
ISLAND
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

FOX,
SANTA
CATALINA
ISLAND
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

FOX,
SANTA
CRUZ
ISLAND
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

FOX,
SANTA
ROSA
ISLAND
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

KANGAROO
RAT,
FRESNO
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

KANGAROO
RAT,
GIANT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
2
of
14
­
G­
3­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

KANGAROO
RAT,
MORRO
BAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

KANGAROO
RAT,
SAN
BERNARDINO
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

KANGAROO
RAT,
STEPHENS'
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

KANGAROO
RAT,
TIPTON
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUNTAIN
BEAVER,
POINT
ARENA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Aplodontidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
PACIFIC
POCKET
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Heteromyidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
SALT
MARSH
HARVEST
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

OTTER,
SOUTHERN
SEA
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

RABBIT,
RIPARIAN
BRUSH
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Leporidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SEAL,
GUADALUPE
FUR
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Phocidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SHEEP,
PENINSULAR
BIGHORN
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Bovidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
3
of
14
­
G­
4­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

SHREW,
BUENA
VISTA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Soricidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

VOLE,
AMARGOSA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOODRAT,
RIPARIAN
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Colorado
(
2)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
PREBLE'S
MEADOW
JUMPING
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Zapodidae
Medium:
Diet:
invertivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
Connecticut
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Delaware
(
2)

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Florida
(
8)

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
4
of
14
­
G­
5­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:
Marine
MOUSE,
CHOCTAWHATCHEE
BEACH
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MOUSE,
SOUTHEASTERN
BEACH
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

PANTHER,
FLORIDA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

VOLE,
FLORIDA
SALT
MARSH
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cricetidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Georgia
(
3)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
5
of
14
­
G­
6­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:
Marine
Hawaii
(
2)

BAT,
HAWAIIAN
HOARY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SEAL,
HAWAIIAN
MONK
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Phocidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Illinois
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Indiana
(
2)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Iowa
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Kansas
(
1)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Kentucky
(
2)

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
6
of
14
­
G­
7­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Louisiana
(
1)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Maine
(
2)

LYNX,
CANADA
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Maryland
(
3)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Massachusetts
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
7
of
14
­
G­
8­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Michigan
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Minnesota
(
1)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Mississippi
(
1)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Missouri
(
2)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Montana
(
2)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

New
Hampshire
(
1)

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
8
of
14
­
G­
9­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

New
Jersey
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

New
Mexico
(
5)

BAT,
LESSER
(=
SANBORN'S)
LONG­
NOSED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Phyllostomidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
MEXICAN
LONG­
NOSED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Phyllostomidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

JAGUAR
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

New
York
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
9
of
14
­
G­
10­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

North
Carolina
(
5)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:
Marine
SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Ohio
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Oklahoma
(
3)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
10
of
14
­
G­
11­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

BAT,
OZARK
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Oregon
(
1)

DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cervidae
Medium:
Diet:
herbivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
Pennsylvania
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Rhode
Island
(
2)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

South
Carolina
(
3)

MANATEE,
WEST
INDIAN
(
FLORIDA)
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Trichechidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:
Marine
WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
11
of
14
­
G­
12­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

South
Dakota
(
1)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Tennessee
(
4)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
CAROLINA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WOLF,
RED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Texas
(
3)

BEAR,
LOUISIANA
BLACK
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

JAGUARUNDI,
Gulf
Coast
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

OCELOT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Felidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Utah
(
2)

FERRET,
BLACK­
FOOTED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Mustelidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
12
of
14
­
G­
13­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

PRAIRIE
DOG,
UTAH
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Vermont
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Virginia
(
6)

BAT,
GRAY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

BAT,
VIRGINIA
BIG­
EARED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
DELMARVA
PENINSULA
FOX
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

SQUIRREL,
VIRGINIA
NORTHERN
FLYING
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Sciuridae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

WHALE,
NORTHERN
RIGHT
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Balaenidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Washington
(
4)

BEAR,
GRIZZLY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Ursidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
13
of
14
­
G­
14­
Species
Detail
by
State
for
Preliminary
Assessment
Cucurbits,
all
(
306)

Minimum
of
1
Acre.

DEER,
COLUMBIAN
WHITE­
TAILED
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Cervidae
Medium:
Diet:
herbivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
RABBIT,
PYGMY
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Leporidae
Medium:
Diet:
herbivore
Habitat:
Terrestrial
WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

West
virginia
(
1)

BAT,
INDIANA
Endangered
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Vespertilionidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Wisconsin
(
1)

WOLF,
GRAY
Threatened
Critical
Habitat
Mammal
Family:
Canidae
Medium:
Diet:
Habitat:

Thursday,
September
30,
2004
Page
14
of
14
­
H­
1­
APPENDIX
H.
Data
Requirements
Tables
 
Environmental
Fate
and
Effects
Ecological
Effects
Data
Requirements
Table
for
Naptalam
Table
H­
1.
Ecological
effects
data
requirements
for
naptalam.

Guideline
Number
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
Study
ID
#'
s
Study
Classificationa
71­
1(
a)
Avian
Oral
LD50
Yes
GS­
0183­
01
Core
71­
2
(
a)
Avian
Dietary
LC50
Quail
Yes
00082969
Core
71­
2
(
b)
Avian
Dietary
LC50
Mallard
Yes
00108853
Core
71­
4
Avian
Reproduction
No
72­
1
(
a)
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
Bluegill
Yes
0070193
Core
72­
1
(
b)
Freshwater
Fish
LC50
Rainbow
trout
Yes
0070193
Core
Supplemental
72­
2
Freshwater
Invertebrate
Acute
LC50
Yes
00082971
Core
72­
3(
a)
Estuarine/
Marine
Fish
LC50
No
72­
3(
b)
Estuarine/
Marine
Mollusk
LC50
No
72­
3(
c)
Estuarine/
Marine
Shrimp
LC50
No
72­
4(
a)
Freshwater
Fish
Early
Life­
Stage
No
72­
4(
b)
Aquatic
Invertebrate
Life­
Cycle
No
72­
5
Freshwater
Fish
Full
Life­
Cycle
No
81­
1
Acute
Oral
LD50
Rat
82­
1(
a)
90­
day
Subchronic
Oral
LD50
Rat
82­
1(
b)
Subchronic
Oral
LD50
Non­
rodent
83­
3
Chronic
(
Teratology)
NOAEL
Rat
83­
4
Chronic
(
Multgeneration)
NOAEL
Rat
122­
1(
a)
Seedling
Emergence
No
122­
1
(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
No
122­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
No
123­
1(
a)
Seed
Germ./
Seedling
Emergence
(
Tier
II)
No
123­
1(
b)
Vegetative
Vigor
(
Tier
II)
No
123­
2
Aquatic
Plant
Growth
No
144­
1
Honey
Bee
Acute
Contact
LD50
Yes
00028772
Core
Table
H­
1.
Ecological
effects
data
requirements
for
naptalam.

Guideline
Number
Data
Requirement
Is
Data
Requirement
Satisfied?
Study
ID
#'
s
Study
Classificationa
­
H­
2­
141­
2
Honey
Bee
Residue
on
Foliage
Not
Required
aCore:
study
satisfies
guideline;
Supplemental:
study
is
scientifically
sound,
but
does
not
satisfy
guideline
­
H­
3­
Table
H­
2.
Environmental
fate
data
requirements
for
naptalam.

Guideline
Number
Data
Requirement
MRID
#'
s
Study
Classification
161­
1
Hydrolysis
43647701
Supplemental
161­
2
Photodegradation
in
Water
41385401
Supplemental
161­
3
Photodegradation
on
Soil
41385402
Supplemental
161­
4
Photodegradation
in
Air
 
 

162­
1
Aerobic
Soil
Metabolism
41427201
Acceptable
162­
2
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
41427202
Acceptable
162­
3
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
 
 

162­
4
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
 
 

163­
1
Leaching­
Adsorption/
Desorption
 
 

163­
2
Laboratory
Volatility
 
 

163­
3
Field
Volatility
 
 

164­
1
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
41385403
40488901
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
164­
2
Aquatic
Field
Dissipation
 
 

164­
3
Forestry
Dissipation
 
 

165­
4
Accumulation
in
Fish
 
 
­
D­
1­
