Risks of Chlorpyrifos Use to Federally Threatened
& Endangered
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii), California tiger salamander
(Ambystoma californiense), San Francisco garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia),
California clapper rail, (Rallus longirostris
obsoletus), Salt marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris), Bay checkerspot
butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayensis), Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus
californicus dimorphus), San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis mutica), California freshwater
shrimp (Syncarispacifica), and Delta smelt
(Hypomesus transpacificus)
Pesticide Effects Determinations
Environmental Fate and Effects Division
Office of Pesticide Programs
Washington, D.C. 20460
October 16,2009
-------
Primary Authors:
Mark Corbin, Senior Environmental Scientist
Rebecca Daiss, Senior Biologist
Donna R. Judkins, Ph.D., Biologist
Secondary Review:
James K. Wolf, Ph.D., Soil Physicist
Pamela Hurley, Senior Toxicologist
Dana Spatz, Branch Chief
Environmental Risk Assessment Branch 3
-------
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary 8
2 Problem Formulation 16
2.1 Purpose 16
2.2 Scope 18
2.3 Previous Assessments 19
2.4 Stressor Source and Distribution 22
2.4.1 Environmental Fate Properties 22
2.4.2 Environmental Transport Mechanisms 26
2.4.3 Mechanism of Action 27
2.4.4 Use Characterization 27
2.5 Assessed Species 44
2.6 Designated Critical Habitat 50
2.7 Action Area 53
2.8 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect 54
2.8.1 Assessment Endpoints 55
2.8.2 Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat 59
2.9 Conceptual Model 61
2.9.1 Risk Hypotheses 61
2.9.2 Diagram 61
2.10 Analysis Plan 63
2.10.1 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypothesis and Conceptual Model 64
2.10.2 Data Gaps 68
3 Exposure Assessment 68
3.1 Label Application Rates and Intervals 69
3.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment 74
3.2.1 Modeling Approach 74
3.2.2 Model Inputs 75
3.2.3 Results 77
3.2.4 Existing Monitoring Data 83
3.3 Terrestrial Animal Exposure Assessment 87
3.4 Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment 93
4 Effects Assessment 93
4.1 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Aquatic Organisms 96
4.1.1 Toxicity to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-Phase Amphibians 98
4.1.2 Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates 102
4.1.3 Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish 103
4.1.4 Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 103
4.1.5 Toxicity to Aquatic Plants 103
4.1.6 Freshwater Field/Mesocosm Studies 104
4.2 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Terrestrial Organisms 105
4.2.1 Toxicity to Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians 107
4.2.2 Toxicity to Mammals 112
4.2.3 Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates 116
4.2.4 Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants 117
-------
4.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered
Species Levels of Concern 117
4.4 Incident Database Review 118
4.5 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos Oxon 118
5 Risk Characterization 120
5.1 Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat 120
5.1.1 Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians 121
5.1.2 Freshwater Invertebrates 124
5.1.3 Estuarine/Marine Fish 126
5.1.4 Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 127
5.1.5 Non-vascular Aquatic Plants 127
5.2 Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat 128
5.2.1 Birds (surrogate for Reptiles and Terrestrial-phase amphibians) 128
5.2.2 Mammals 131
5.2.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates 134
5.2.4 Terrestrial Plants 135
5.3 Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat 137
5.4 Spatial Extent of Potential Effects 137
5.4.1 Spray Drift 138
5.4.2 Downstream Dilution Analysis 138
5.4.3 Overlap between CRLF and SFB Species habitat and Spatial Extent of
Potential Effects 138
5.5 Risk Description 139
5.5.1 Direct Effects 144
5.5.2 Indirect Effects 156
5.5.3 Potential Modification of Habitat 160
5.5.4 Modification of Designated Critical Habitat 161
6 Uncertainties 162
6.1 Exposure Assessment Uncertainties 162
6.1.1 Oxon Exposure and Risk 162
6.1.2 Maximum Use Scenario 162
6.1.3 Aquatic Exposure Modeling of Chlorpyrifos 162
6.1.4 Usage Uncertainties 165
6.1.5 Terrestrial Exposure Modeling of Chlorpyrifos 165
6.1.6 Spray Drift Modeling 166
6.2 Effects Assessment Uncertainties 166
6.2.1 Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds 166
6.2.2 Use of Surrogate Species Effects Data 167
6.2.3 Sublethal Effects 167
6.2.4 Location of Wildlife Species 168
7 Risk Conclusions 168
8 References 170
-------
Appendices
Appendix A Multi-ai Product Analysis
Appendix B RQ Method and LOCs
Appendix C KABAM Output
Appendix D T-REX Example Output
Appendix E Ecological Effects Data
Appendix F Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature Evaluated
Appendix G Bibliography of ECOTOX Open Literature Not Evaluated
Appendix H ECOTOX Database
Appendix I HED Effects Table
Appendix J Chlorpyrifos Incidents
Appendix K GIS Maps and Spatial Analysis
Attachment I. Status and Life History of the California Red-legged Frog
Attachment II. Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the California Red-legged Frog
Attachment III. Status and Life Histories of the San Francisco Bay Species
Attachment IV. Baseline Status and Cumulative Effects for the San Francisco Bay Species
List of Tables
Table 1.1 Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the CRLF and SFB
Species 11
Table 1.2 Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact AnalysisEffects
Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis 15
Table 2.1 Distribution of Chlorpyrifos concentrations from surface water and ground water
monitoring data (USGS NAWQA, 2007) 23
Table 2.2 Physical/chemical properties of Chlorpyrifos 24
Table 2.3 Summary of Chlorpyrifos Environmental Fate Properties 25
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information 29
Table 2.5 Granular Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information 36
Table 2.6 Flowable Concentrate Chlorpyrifos Uses, Scenarios, and Application Information.... 40
Table 2.7 Summary of CDPR PUR Use by County 42
Table 2.8 Summary of CDPR PUR Use by Crop/Use Site 44
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History
Information for the Assessed Listed Species1 45
Table 2.10 Designated Critical Habitat PCEs for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS 51
Table 2.11 Taxa Used in the Analyses of Direct and Indirect Effects for the Assessed Listed
Species 56
Table 2.12 Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for the Use of
Chlorpyrifos to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed Listed Species 57
Table 2.13 Summary of Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect 60
Table 3.1 Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Exposure Assumptions for Chlorpyrifos 70
Table 3.2 PRZM/EXAMS chemical specific input parameters for Chlorpyrifos a 76
Table 3.3 Application Rates for Chlorpyrifos Pre-plant Seed Treatment 77
-------
Table 3.4 Aquatic EECs (ug/L) for Chlorpyrifos Uses in California 78
Table 3.5 Summary of Sediment and Pore Water EEC using selected PRZM scenarios 82
Table 3.6 Characteristics of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem 82
Table 3.7 Total BCFand BAF values of Chlorpyrifos in aquatic trophic levels 83
Table 3.8 Input Parameters for Foliar Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs for
Chlorpyrifos with T-REX 88
Table 3.9 Input Parameters for Granular Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs for
Chlorpyrifos with T-REX 89
Table 3.10 Input Parameters for Seed Treatment Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs
for Chlorpyrifos with T-REX 89
Table 3.11 Chlorpyrifos Dietary and Dose-Based EECs for CRLF, Juvenile California clapper
rail, CA tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake and their Prey 90
Table 3.12 Chlorpyrifos Dose-Based EECs for the Adult California Clapper Rail 91
Table 3.13 Chlorpyrifos Dietary and Dose-based EECs for the Salt Marsh Mouse and San
Joaquin Kit Fox 92
Table 3.14 EECs (ppm) for Terrestrial Invertebrates 93
Table 4.1 Aquatic toxicity profile for Chlorpyrifos 97
Table 4.2 Categories of Acute Toxi city for Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals 98
Table 4.3 Amphibian Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos 100
Table 4.4 Mesocosm Studies 105
Table 4.5 Terrestrial Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos 106
Table 4.6 Categories of Acute Toxicity for Avian and Mammalian Studies 107
Table 4.7 Chlorpyrifos Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings 108
Table 4.8 Formulation Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings 109
Table 4.9 Chlorpyrifos Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings 109
Table 4.10 Formulation Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings 110
Table 4.11 TCP Degradate Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings 110
Table 4.12 Avian Reproduction Findings Ill
Table 4.13 Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings 113
Table 4.14 Mammalian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings 113
Table 4.15 TCP Degradate Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings 114
Table 4.16 Mammalian Chronic Toxicity Data 115
Table 4.17 Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity Findings 116
Table 4.18 Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos Oxon 119
Table 5.1 Types of Data Used to Assess Direct Risk to Listed Species and Indirect Risk to these
Species through the Food Chain 121
Table 5.2 Summary of Acute RQs for Freshwater Amphibians and Fish 122
Table 5.3 Summary of Chronic RQs for Freshwater Amphibians and Fish 123
Table 5.4 Summary of Acute RQs for Freshwater Invertebrates 125
Table 5.5 Summary of Chronic RQs for Aquatic Invertebrates 125
Table 5.6 Summary of Acute RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish 126
Table 5.7 Summary of Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish 126
Table 5.8 Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates 127
Table 5.9 Summary of Acute RQs for Non-Vascular Aquatic Plants 127
Table 5.10 Acute Dose-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos California Red Legged Frog, Clapper Rail,
Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake 129
-------
Table 5.11 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and California Red Legged
Frog, Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake 129
Table 5.12 LD50/sq ft for Granular Applications Chlorpyrifos California Red Legged Frog,
Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake 130
Table 5.13 Acute and Chronic RQs Seed Treatment and California Red Legged Frog, Clapper
Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake 131
Table 5.14 Acute Dose-Based RQs for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox 132
Table 5.15 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse and San Joaquin Fox 132
Table 5.16 LD50/sq ft for Granular Applications for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse and San Joaquin Fox 133
Table 5.17 Acute and Chronic RQs for Seed Treatment for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse and San Joaquin Fox 134
Table 5.18 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and Terrestrial Invertebrates
135
Table 5.19 Calculation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by
Chlorpyrifos 136
Table 5.20 Risk Estimation Summary for Chlorpyrifos - Direct and Indirect Effects 139
Table 5.21 Risk Estimation Summary for Chlorpyrifos - Effects to Designated Critical Habitat.
(PCEs) 143
Table 5.22 T-HERPS Dose-based RQs for CRLF 151
Table 5.24 T-HERPS Dose-based RQs for CTS 153
List of Figures
Figure 2.1 Chlorpyrifos Use in Total Pounds per County 41
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Model for Terrestrial-Phase of the Assessed Species 62
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Model for Aquatic-Phase of the Assessed Species 63
Figure 3.1 Summary of Applications of Chlorpyrifos to Grapes in 2007 from CDPR PUR
data 82
Figure 3.2 Location of CDPR surface water sites with Chlorpyrifos detections relative to
landcover 95
-------
1 Executive Summary
The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate potential direct and indirect effects on the
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma
californiense), San Francisco garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), California clapper
rail, (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), Salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris),
Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha bayemis), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), California
freshwater shrimp (Syncarispacifica), Delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) arising from
FIFRA regulatory actions regarding use of chlorpyrifos on agricultural and non-agricultural sites.
Hereafter the non-California red legged frog (CRLF) species considered in this assessment will
be referred to collectively as SFB species.
In addition, this assessment evaluates whether these actions can be expected to result in
modification of designated critical habitat for the CRLF and SFB species. Critical habits have
only been designated for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CIS, and DS species. This assessment was
completed in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) Endangered Species Consultation Handbook (USFWS/NMFS, 1998
and procedures outlined in the Agency's Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004). The CRLF was
listed as a threatened species by USFWS in 1996. The species is endemic to California and Baja
California (Mexico) and inhabits both coastal and interior mountain ranges.
Chlorpyrifos (CAS number 2921-88-2; PC Code 059101) [0,0-diethyl 0-3,5,6-trichloro-
2-pyridyl phosphorothioate] is an insecticide belonging to the organophosphate class of
pesticides. The pesticide acts through inhibition of acetylcholinesterase and is used to kill a
broad range of insects and mites. Currently, labeled uses of chlorpyrifos include a wide variety
of terrestrial food and feed crops, terrestrial non-food crops, greenhouse food/non-food, and
domestic indoor and outdoor sites. There are currently 26 active registrants of chlorpyrifos with
99 active product labels, which include formulated products and technical grade chlorpyrifos.
The major route of dissipation of chlorpyrifos appears to be aerobic and anaerobic
biodegradation. Abiotic hydrolysis under neutral and acidic conditions, photodegradation, and
volatilization do not seem to play a significant role in the dissipation process. Based on available
data, chlorpyrifos appears to degrade slowly in soil under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions:
however, the persistence appears to variable. Information on leaching and adsorption/desorption
indicate that parent chlorpyrifos is largely immobile.
The effects determinations for each listed species assessed is based on a weight-of-evidence
method that relies heavily on an evaluation of risks to each taxon relevant to assess both direct
and indirect effects to the listed species and the potential for modification of their designated
critical habitat (i.e., a taxon-level approach). Since the assessed species exist within aquatic and
terrestrial habitats, exposure of the listed species, their prey and their habitats to chlorpyrifos are
assessed separately for the two habitats. Tier-II exposure models (PRZM/EXAMS) are used to
estimate high-end exposures of chlorpyrifos in aquatic habitats resulting from runoff and spray
drift from different uses. Peak model-estimated environmental concentrations (EEC) resulting
from different chlorpyrifos uses range from <1 |ig/L to 45 |ig/L. The 45 |ig/L is associated with
-------
ornamental use and is somewhat uncertain. The next highest EEC is 16 ug/L associated with use
on cole crops. These estimates are supplemented with analysis of available California surface
water monitoring data from U. S. Geological Survey's National Water Quality Assessment
(NAWQA) program and the California Department of Pesticide Regulation and available open
literature data. Chlorpyrifos has been widely detected in surface water samples in California
from both the USGS NAWQA1 and CDPR2 data sets. Detection frequency in these data range
from roughly 25% to 50%. Maximum concentrations detected in these data sets are as high as
approximately 4 ppb though higher values have been reported in open literature. In addition,
chlorpyrifos has been detected in sediment and air/rainfall samples. Overall, chlorpyrifos has
been detected in runoff and eroded sediment and has been detected in air and rainfall samples far
from the site of applications suggesting that chlorpyrifos is likely volatilized. Finally,
chlorpyrifos oxon has been detected in surface water and air/rain samples suggesting similar
transport processes as the parent.
To estimate chlorpyrifos exposures to terrestrial species resulting from uses involving
chlorpyrifos applications, the T-REX model is used for both foliar and granular applications.
AgDRIFT and AGDISP models are also used to estimate deposition of chlorpyrifos on terrestrial
and aquatic habitats from spray drift. The T-HERPS model is used to allow for further
characterization of dietary exposures of terrestrial-phase amphibians relative to birds.
KABAM (Kow (based) Aquatic BioAccumulation Model) is used to estimate potential
bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in freshwater aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to
mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated aquatic prey. This bioaccumulation
assessment predicts water and sediment concentrations from PRZM/EXAMS to estimate
concentrations of chlorpyrifos in aquatic organisms. These estimated tissue concentrations are
compared to toxiciry values for various taxonomic groups that may eat aquatic organisms in order to
evaluate potential risk. The model then uses chlorpyrifos tissue concentrations in aquatic animals
to estimate dose- and dietary-based exposures and associated risks to mammals and birds
consuming aquatic organisms, using an approach that is similar to the T-REX model (USEPA
2008).
The effects determination assessment endpoints for the listed species include direct toxic effects
on the survival, reproduction, and growth of the listed species itself, as well as indirect effects,
such as reduction of the prey base or modification of its habitat. If appropriate data are not
available, toxicity data for birds are generally used as a surrogate for reptiles and terrestrial-
phase amphibians and toxicity data from fish are used as a surrogate for aquatic-phase
amphibians.
The major pathway of degradation begins with cleavage of the phosphorus ester bond to yield
TCP. Cleavage degradates, such as TCP and analogs, were the only degradates identified in the
submitted environmental fate studies. The degradates considered for inclusion in this assessment
were 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP) and chlorpyrifos-oxon (though not detected in fates
studies the oxon has been detected in monitoring data). Toxicity studies (both registrant
submitted and from open literature) for the major chlorpyrifos degradation product, TCP, suggest
1 http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa/
2http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/emon/surfwtr/surfdata.htm
-------
that the degradate is significantly less toxic than the TGAI. For aquatic species TCP is 3 to 4
orders of magnitude less toxic than chlorpyrifos and for terrestrial species it is roughly 1 to 2
orders of magnitude less toxic; due to lower toxicity than the parent, TCP exposure was not
evaluated in this assessment. Chlorpyrifos-oxon, a minor degradation product of chlorpyrifos,
has been detected in environmental samples, including drinking water, surface water and
precipitation. Toxicity data based on human health studies3 indicate that chlorpyrifos oxon may
be up to 10 times more toxic than parent chlorpyrifos. Additional open literature data provide
further evidence for chlopyrifos oxon being more toxic to non-target organisms than parent
chlorpyrifos.
Risk quotients (RQs) are derived as quantitative estimates of potential high-end risk. Acute and
chronic RQs are compared to the Agency's levels of concern (LOCs) to identify instances where
chlorpyrifos use within the action area has the potential to adversely affect the assessed species
and designated critical habitat (if applicable) via direct toxicity or indirectly based on direct
effects to its food supply or habitat. When RQs for each particular type of effect are below
LOCs, the pesticide is determined to have "no effect" on the listed species being assessed.
Where RQs exceed LOCs, a potential to cause adverse effects is identified, leading to a
conclusion of "may affect." If a determination is made that use of chlorpyrifos use "may affect"
the listed species being assessed and/or its designated critical habitat (if applicable), additional
information is considered to refine the potential for exposure and effects. Best available
information is used to distinguish those actions that "may affect, but are not likely to adversely
affect" (NLAA) from those actions that are "likely to adversely affect" (LAA) for each listed
species assessed. For designated critical habitat, distinctions are made for actions that are
expected to have 'no effect' on a designated critical habitat from those actions that have a
potential to result in 'habitat modification'.
Based on the best available information, the Agency makes a May Affect, and Likely to
Adversely Affect determination for all species being assessed from the use of chlorpyrifos.
These include the CRLF, California tiger salamander (CTS), San Francisco garter snake (SFGS),
California clapper rail (CCR), Salt marsh harvest mouse (SMHM), Bay checkerspot butterfly
(BCB), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), San Joaquin kit fox (SJKF), California
freshwater shrimp (CFS), and Delta smelt (DS).
Additionally, the Agency has determined that there is the potential for modification of designated
critical habitat for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS from the use of chlorpyrifos. A
summary of the risk conclusions and effects determinations for each listed species assessed here
and their designated critical habitat (if applicable) is presented in Tables 1.1 and 1.2. Further
information on the results of the effects determination is included as part of the Risk Description
in Section 5.2. Given the LAA determination for the listed species being assessed and potential
modification of designated critical habitat for those species being assessed with designated
critical habitat, a description of the baseline status and cumulative effects for the CRLF is
provided in Attachment 2 and the baseline status and cumulative effects for the SFB are
provided in Attachment 4].
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment.
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/cumulative/2006-op/index.htm
10
-------
Table 1.1 Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the CRLF and SFB
Species
- Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly
Species
California red-
legged frog
(Rana aurora
draytonii)
San Francisco
garter snake
(Thamnophis
sirtalis tetrataenia)
Effects
Determination 1
LAA1
LAA
Basis for Determination
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic-phase (Eggs, Larvae, and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis NOAEC =
<0.1 ug/L;LOC exceeded for 46/47 uses of chlorpyrifos.
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: Avian RQs exceed LOCs for all uses of chlorpyrifos.
Bioaccumulation from Aquatic Prey:
- Based on consumption of aquatic prey that is predicted to bioaccumulate
chlorpyrifos, chronic RQs were exceeded using the KABAM model.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover and/or primary productivity
Indirect Effects Determination: Blackfly, Simulium vittatum 7S-7LC50 = 0.06 ug/L;
LOG exceeded for ALL uses, and Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L; LOG
exceeded for ALL uses
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOG not exceeded for any use..
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: See description above (CRLF) for direct effects on
birds as surrogate for terrestrial phase amphibians.
Bioaccumulation from Aquatic Prey:
- Based on consumption of aquatic prey that is predicted to bioaccumulate
chlorpyrifos, chronic RQs were exceeded using the KABAM model.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover and/or primary productivity
Indirect Effects Determination: Blackfly, Simulium vittatum 7S-7LC50 = 0.06 ug/L;
LOG exceeded for ALL uses, and Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L; LOG
exceeded for ALL uses
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOG not exceeded for any use..
11
-------
Table 1.1 Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the CRLF and SFB
Species
- Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly
Species
California Clapper
Rail
(Rallus longirostris
obsoletus)
Salt marsh harvest
mouse
(Reithrodontomys
raviventris)
Bay checkerspot
butterfly (BCB)
(Euphydryas editha
Effects
Determination 1
LAA
LAA
LAA
Basis for Determination
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: Avian acute dose- and dietary-based RQs are exceeded
for all uses of chlorpyrifos.
Bioaccumulation from Aquatic Prey:
- Based on consumption of aquatic prey that is predicted to bioaccumulate
chlorpyrifos, chronic RQs were exceeded using the KABAM model.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic; prey items and primary productivity:
Indirect Effects Determination: Blackfly, Simulium vitiation 7S-7LC50 = 0.06 ug/L;
LOC exceeded for ALL uses, and Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L; LOC
exceeded for ALL uses
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOC not exceeded for any use.
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOC for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs
for the majority of uses of chlorpyrifos.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOC for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOC not exceeded for any use..
Potential for Direct Effects
Direct Effects Determination: The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and
large insects significantly exceed the acute LOC for all chlorpyrifos uses.
12
-------
Table 1.1 Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the CRLF and SFB
Species
- Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly
Species
bayensis)
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
San Joaquin kit fox
(Vulpes macrotis
muticd)
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
Effects
Determination 1
LAA
LAA
LAA
Basis for Determination
Potential for Indirect Effects
Indirect Effects Determination: No acceptable terrestrial plant studies are
available; based on incident data the potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Potential for Direct Effects
Direct Effects Determination: The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and
large insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for all chlorpyrifos uses.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Indirect Effects Determination: No acceptable terrestrial plant studies are
available; based on incident data the potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Potential for Direct Effects
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs
for the majority of uses of chlorpyrifos.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOG not exceeded for any use...
Potential for Direct Effects
Aquatic-phase (Eggs, Larvae, and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis NOAEC =
<0.1 ug/L;LOC exceeded for 46/47 uses of chlorpyrifos.
Terrestrial-phase (Juveniles and Adults):
Direct Effects Determination: See description above (CRLF) for direct effects on
birds as surrogate for terrestrial phase amphibians
Bioaccumulation in Aquatic Prev:
- Based on consumption of aquatic prey that is predicted to bioaccumulate
chlorpyrifos, chronic RQs were exceeded using the KABAM model.
Potential for Indirect Effects
Aquatic prey items, aquatic habitat, cover and/or primary productivity
Indirect Effects Determination: Blackfly, Simulium vittatum 7S-7LC50 = 0.06 ug/L;
LOC exceeded for ALL uses, and Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L; LOC
exceeded for ALL uses
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOC not exceeded for any use..
13
-------
Table 1.1 Effects Determination Summary for Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the CRLF and SFB
Species
- Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley
elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly
Species
Effects
Determination 1
Basis for Determination
Terrestrial prey items, riparian habitat
Indirect Effects Determination: Avian acute and chronic RQs exceed LOCs for all uses
of chlorpyrifos. Acute and chronic mammalian RQs exceed LOCs for the majority
of uses of chlorpyrifos. The terrestrial invertebrate RQs for both small and large
insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for all chlorpyrifos uses. No
acceptable terrestrial plant studies are available; based on incident data the
potential for indirect effects is presumed.
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
LAA
Direct Effects Determination: Freshwater Habitat: Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis
macrochirus LC50 =1.8 ug/L; LOC exceeded for 46/47 uses; Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas NOAEC = 0.57 ug/L, LOC exceeded for 25/47 uses.
Saltwater Habitat: Tidewater silverside,Me«/W/a peninsulae LC50 = 0.7 ug/L,
LOC exceeded for 45/47 uses; and Atlantic silverside, Menidia menidia
NOAEC = 0.28 ug/L, LOC exceeded for 42/47 uses
Aquatic:, prey items and primary productivity.
Indirect Effects Determination: Freshwater Food: Blackfly, Simulium vittatum IS-7
LC50 = 0.06 ug/L; LOC exceeded for ALL uses, and Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC
= 0.04 ug/L; LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Saltwater Food: Mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia, LC50 = 0.035 ug/L, LOC exceeded
for ALL uses; and NOAEC = 0.0046 ug/L, LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L =
LOC not exceeded for any use..
California
freshwater shrimp
(Syncaris pacified)
LAA
Direct Effects: Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia LC50 = 0.07 ug/L; LOC exceeded for
ALL uses; also Daphnid, Daphnia magna NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L; LOC exceeded for ALL
registered uses of chlorpyrifos.
Indirect Effects/Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50
- 140 ug/L = LOC not exceeded for any use..
1 No effect (NE); May affect, but not likely to adversely affect (NLAA); May affect, likely to adversely affect
(LAA)
14
-------
Table 1.2 Effects Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact AnalysisEffects
Determination Summary for the Critical Habitat Impact Analysis
Designated
Critical Habitat
for:
Effects
Determination
Basis for Determination
California red-
legged frog
(Rana aurora
draytonii)
HM1
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L
= LOG not exceeded for any use.. This was the only plant data considered. EPA's
determination of LAA is based on incident data linking chlorpyrifos to adverse
effects on plant species.
Bay checkerspot
butterfly (BCB)
(Euphydryas editha
bayensis)
HM
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L
= LOG not exceeded for any use.. This was the only plant data considered. EPA's
determination of LAA is based on incident data linking chlorpyrifos to adverse
effects on plant species.
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
HM
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L
= LOG not exceeded for any use.. This was the only plant data considered. EPA's
determination of LAA is based on incident data linking chlorpyrifos to adverse
effects on plant species.
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
HM
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L
= LOG not exceeded for any use.. This was the only plant data considered. EPA's
determination of LAA is based on incident data linking chlorpyrifos to adverse
effects on plant species.
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
HM
Primary Productivity Determination: Alga, Isochrysis galbana, EC50 - 140 ug/L
= LOG not exceeded for any use.. This was the only plant data considered. EPA's
determination of LAA is based on incident data linking chlorpyrifos to adverse
effects on plant species.
Habitat Modification.
Based on the conclusions of this assessment, a formal consultation with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act should be initiated to seek
concurrence with the LAA determinations for the CRLF and all SFB species covered by this
assessment and to determine whether there are reasonable and prudent alternatives and/or
measures to reduce and/or eliminate potential incidental take.
When evaluating the significance of this risk assessment's direct/indirect and adverse habitat
modification effects determinations, it is important to note that pesticide exposures and predicted
risks to the species and its resources (i.e., food and habitat) are not expected to be uniform across
the action area. In fact, given the assumptions of drift and downstream transport (i.e., attenuation
with distance), pesticide exposure and associated risks to the species and its resources are
expected to decrease with increasing distance away from the treated field or site of application.
Evaluation of the implication of this non-uniform distribution of risk to the species would require
information and assessment techniques that are not currently available. Examples of such
information and methodology required for this type of analysis would include the following:
15
-------
Enhanced information on the density and distribution of CRLF and SFB species
life stages within the action area and/or applicable designated critical habitat.
This information would allow for quantitative extrapolation of the present risk
assessment's predictions of individual effects to the proportion of the population
extant within geographical areas where those effects are predicted. Furthermore,
such population information would allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of
the significance of potential resource impairment to individuals of the assessed
species.
Quantitative information on prey base requirements for the assessed species.
While existing information provides a preliminary picture of the types of food
sources utilized by the assessed species, it does not establish minimal
requirements to sustain healthy individuals at varying life stages. Such
information could be used to establish biologically relevant thresholds of effects
on the prey base, and ultimately establish geographical limits to those effects.
This information could be used together with the density data discussed above to
characterize the likelihood of adverse effects to individuals.
Information on population responses of prey base organisms to the pesticide.
Currently, methodologies are limited to predicting exposures and likely levels of
direct mortality, growth or reproductive impairment immediately following
exposure to the pesticide. The degree to which repeated exposure events and the
inherent demographic characteristics of the prey population play into the extent to
which prey resources may recover is not predictable. An enhanced understanding
of long-term prey responses to pesticide exposure would allow for a more refined
determination of the magnitude and duration of resource impairment, and together
with the information described above, a more complete prediction of effects to
individual species and potential modification to critical habitat.
2 Problem Formulation
Problem formulation provides a strategic framework for the risk assessment. By identifying the
important components of the problem, it focuses the assessment on the most relevant life history
stages, habitat components, chemical properties, exposure routes, and endpoints. The structure
of this risk assessment is based on guidance contained in U.S. EPA's Guidance for Ecological
Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1998), the Services' Endangered Species Consultation Handbook
(USFWS/NMFS 1998) and is consistent with procedures and methodology outlined in the
Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004) and reviewed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS/NMFS 2004).
2.1 Purpose
The purpose of this endangered species assessment is to evaluate potential direct and indirect
effects on individuals of the federally threatened California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii) (CRLF) and SFB species arising from FIFRA regulatory actions regarding use of
chlorpyrifos on a larger variety of agricultural and non-agricultural uses. In addition, this
16
-------
assessment evaluates whether use on these use sites is expected to result in modification of
designated critical habitat for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS (only five of the species
have designated critical habitat). This ecological risk assessment has been prepared consistent
with the settlement agreements in two court cases. The first case referring to the CRLF is the
Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) vs. EPA et al. (Case No. 02-1580-JSW(JL)) settlement
entered in Federal District Court for the Northern District of California on October 20, 2006. The
second case referring to the and SFB species is the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) vs.
EPA et al. (Case No. 07-2794-JCS).
In this assessment, direct and indirect effects to the CRLF and SFB species and potential
modification to designated critical habitat for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS are
evaluated in accordance with the methods described in the Agency's Overview Document (U.S.
EPA 2004). The effects determinations for each listed species assessed is based on a weight-of-
evidence method that relies heavily on an evaluation of risks to each taxon relevant to assess
both direct and indirect effects to the listed species and the potential for modification of their
designated critical habitat (i.e., a taxon-level approach). Screening level methods include use of
standard models such as PRZM-EXAMS, T-REX, TerrPlant, AgDRIFT, and AGDISP, all of
which are described at length in the Overview Document. Use of such information is consistent
with the methodology described in the Overview Document (USEPA, 2004), which specifies that
"the assessment process may, on a case-by-case basis, incorporate additional methods, models,
and lines of evidence that EPA finds technically appropriate for risk management objectives"
(Section V, page 31 of USEPA, 2004).
In accordance with the Overview Document, provisions of the ESA, and the Services'
Endangered Species Consultation Handbook, the assessment of effects associated with
registrations of chlorpyrifos is based on an action area. The action area is the area directly or
indirectly affected by the federal action, as indicated by the exceedence of the Agency's Levels
of Concern (LOCs). It is acknowledged that the action area for a national-level FIFRA
regulatory decision associated with a use of chlorpyrifos may potentially involve numerous areas
throughout the United States and its Territories. However, for the purposes of this assessment,
attention will be focused on relevant sections of the action area including those geographic areas
associated with locations of the CRLF and SFB species and their designated critical habitat
within the state of California. As part of the "effects determination," one of the following three
conclusions will be reached separately for each of the assessed species in the lawsuits regarding
the potential use of chlorpyrifos in accordance with current labels:
"No effect";
"May affect, but not likely to adversely affect"; or
"May affect and likely to adversely affect".
Only the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS have designated critical habitats associated with
them. Designated critical habitat identifies specific areas that have the physical and biological
features, (known as primary constituent elements or PCEs) essential to the conservation of the
listed species. The PCEs for CRLF are aquatic and upland areas where suitable breeding and
non-breeding aquatic habitat is located, interspersed with upland foraging and dispersal habitat.
A complete description of the PCEs for each species assessed may be found in Table 2.5.
17
-------
If the results of initial screening-level assessment methods show no direct or indirect effects (no
LOG exceedances) upon individuals or upon the PCEs of the species' designated critical habitat,
a "no effect" determination is made for use of chlorpyrifos as it relates to each species and its
designated critical habitat. If, however, potential direct or indirect effects to individuals of each
species are anticipated or effects may impact the PCEs of the designated critical habitat, a
preliminary "may affect" determination is made for the FIFRA regulatory action regarding
chlorpyrifos.
If a determination is made that use of chlorpyrifos "may affect" a listed species or its designated
critical habitat, additional information is considered to refine the potential for exposure and for
effects to each species and other taxonomic groups upon which these species depend (e.g., prey
items). Additional information, including spatial analysis (to determine the geographical
proximity of the assessed species' habitat and chlorpyrifos use sites) and further evaluation of the
potential impact of chlorpyrifos on the PCEs is also used to determine whether modification of
designated critical habitat may occur. Based on the refined information, the Agency uses the
best available information to distinguish those actions that "may affect, but are not likely to
adversely affect" from those actions that "may affect and are likely to adversely affect" the
assessed listed species and/or result in "no effect" or potential modification to the PCEs of its
designated critical habitat. This information is presented as part of the Risk Characterization in
Section 5 of this document.
The Agency believes that the analysis of direct and indirect effects to listed species provides the
basis for an analysis of potential effects on the designated critical habitat. Because chlorpyrifos
is expected to directly impact living organisms within the action area (defined in Section 2.7),
critical habitat analysis for chlorpyrifos is limited in a practical sense to those PCEs of critical
habitat that are biological or that can be reasonably linked to biologically mediated processes
(i.e., the biological resource requirements for the listed species associated with the critical habitat
or important physical aspects of the habitat that may be reasonably influenced through biological
processes). Activities that may modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs and
appreciably diminish the value of the habitat. Evaluation of actions related to use of chlorpyrifos
that may alter the PCEs of the assessed species' critical habitat form the basis of the critical
habitat impact analysis. Actions that may affect the assessed species' designated critical habitat
have been identified by the Services and are discussed further in Section 2.6.
2.2 Scope
Chlorpyrifos is an organophosphate used as an insecticide on a wide variety of terrestrial food
and feed crops, terrestrial non-food crops, greenhouse food/non-food, and domestic indoor and
outdoor sites. There are currently 26 active registrants of chlorpyrifos with 99 active product
labels, which include formulated products and technical grade chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos may be
applied as a spray or as a granular insecticide. While foliar applications may be used,
chlorpyrifos is most often applied directly to soil and may be incorporated (many uses allow for
applications to both soil surface and soil incorporated and these methods have been assessed
separately where appropriate).
18
-------
The end result of the EPA pesticide registration process (i.e., the FIFRA regulatory action) is an
approved product label. The label is a legal document that stipulates how and where a given
pesticide may be used. Product labels (also known as end-use labels) describe the formulation
type (e.g., liquid or granular), acceptable methods of application, approved use sites, and any
restrictions on how applications may be conducted. Thus, the use or potential use of chlorpyrifos
in accordance with the approved product labels for California is "the action" relevant to this
ecological risk assessment.
Although current registrations of chlorpyrifos allow for use nationwide, this ecological risk
assessment and effects determination addresses currently registered uses of chlorpyrifos in
portions of the action area that are reasonably assumed to be biologically relevant to the CRLF
and SFB species and their designated critical habitat. Further discussion of the action area for
the CRLF and SFB species and their critical habitat is provided in Section 2.7.
The Agency does not routinely include, in its risk assessments, an evaluation of mixtures of
active ingredients, either those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product formulations or
those in the applicator's tank. In the case of the product formulations of active ingredients (that
is, a registered product containing more than one active ingredient), each active ingredient is
subject to an individual risk assessment for regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on
a particular use site. If effects data are available for a formulated product containing more than
one active ingredient, they may be used qualitatively or quantitatively in accordance with the
Agency's Overview Document and the Services' Evaluation Memorandum (U.S. EPA, 2004;
USFWS/NMFS, 2004).
Chlorpyrifos has registered products that contain multiple active ingredients. Analysis of the
available open literature and acute oral mammalian LD50 data for multiple active ingredient
products relative to the single active ingredient is provided in Appendix A. The results of this
analysis show that an assessment based on the toxicity of the single active ingredient of
chlorpyrifos is appropriate.
2.3 Previous Assessments
The Agency has conducted previous ecological risk assessments on chlorpyrifos that serve as a
basis for this problem formulation. Each of the previous risk assessments is briefly discussed
below.
Chlorpyrifos Interim Registration Eligibility Decision, 2002
The Agency completed a screening-level ecological risk assessment (dated October 1999 and
revised March and June 2000) in support of the Interim Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision (IRED)
for chlorpyrifos (U.S. EPA, 2002). Completion of the organophosphate (OP) cumulative
assessment (U.S. EPA, 2006b) resulted in finalization of the IRED as a Reregi strati on Eligibility
Decision (RED) (U.S. EPA, 2006a), which is described below.
The IRED assessment was based on data collected in the laboratory and in the field to
characterize the fate and ecotoxicological effects of chlorpyrifos. Data sources used in this
assessment included: 1) registrant submissions in support of reregi strati on, 2) publicly available
19
-------
literature on ecological effects, 3) surface water monitoring data, and 4) incident reports of
adverse effects on aquatic and terrestrial organisms associated with the use of chlorpyrifos.
Risk quotients (RQs) based on estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) derived from
both monitoring data and exposure modeling and the available toxicity information indicated that
a single application of chlorpyrifos posed high risks to small mammals, birds, fish and aquatic
invertebrate species for nearly all registered outdoor uses. Multiple applications of chlorpyrifos
resulted in higher estimated exposures and risks. Bioconcentration of chlorpyrifos in aquatic
environments was purported to result in additional acute and chronic risks to aquatic birds and
mammals feeding adjacent to treated areas.
The presumption of risk to non-target aquatic and terrestrial animals was supported by field
studies and adverse ecological incidents. Three extensive terrestrial field studies on corn in Iowa,
citrus in California, and golf courses in central Florida, report cholinesterase-inhibition effects
and chlorpyrifos-related mortality in non-target organisms. Chlorpyrifos-related mortalities were
reported in small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians as determined by measurable
chlorpyrifos residues in the carcasses. Measured chlorpyrifos levels on foliage samples and
water samples reported in all three studies generally exceeded the model-predicted exposures.
Aquatic field studies where chlorpyrifos has been applied directly to water for insect control
have shown adverse effects on non-target species, including fish recruitment and growth and
near elimination of some aquatic invertebrate populations.
Reports of incidents involving songbird kills and occasional fish kills mostly associated with
termite applications, particularly perimeter treatments. Wildlife incidents associated with lawn
care treatment with chlorpyrifos for soil insect control include the deaths of robins, starlings,
sparrows, geese, goslings, a bluebird, a cat, and fish.
Ecotoxicity data for the principal degradate of chlorpyrifos, 3, 5, 6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP),
indicated that the degradate was no more toxic than the parent compound; thus, exposure
estimates for non-target aquatic organisms were estimated only for the parent chlorpyrifos.
Chlorpyrifos-oxon was not assessed quantitatively for either the ecological or the human health
risk assessment in support of the IRED.
Also as part of the IRED an extensive review of available surface water and groundwater
monitoring data was completed. Data sources included national scale assessment, state and local
data, open literature studies, and registrant submitted studies.
To mitigate ecological risks the technical registrants agreed to label amendments that included
the use of buffer zones to protect water quality, fish and wildlife, reductions in application rates,
number of applications per season, seasonal maximum amounts applied, and increases in the
minimum intervals for retreatment. In addition, the residential uses of chlorpyrifos were
eliminated, the termiticide use was phased out, and the application rate on golf courses has been
reduced from 4 to 1 Ib/ai/A. Additionally, no-spray buffers around surface water bodies, as well
as rate reductions for agricultural uses were implemented as a result of this IRED.
20
-------
Organophosphate Cumulative Assessment, and Chlorpyrifos Reregistration Eligibility
Decision, 2006
Because the Agency determined that chlorpyrifos shares a common mechanism of toxicity with
the structurally-related organophosphates insecticides, a cumulative human health risk
assessment for the organophosphate (OP) pesticides was necessary before the Agency could
make a final determination of reregi strati on eligibility of chlorpyrifos. This cumulative
assessment was finalized in 2006 (U.S. EPA, 2006b). The results of the Agency's ecological
assessments for chlorpyrifos are discussed in the July 31, 2006, final Reregistration Eligibility
Decision (RED) (U.S. EPA 2006a).
The OP cumulative relied on a combined assessment methodology of modeling and monitoring
data for human health exposure via drinking water. Unlike other assessments, the cumulative
approach focused on regions of high OP use. No ecological risks were evaluated in the OP
cumulative process. Unlike the IRED, the cumulative assessment included a qualitative
evaluation of the impact of oxon formation via drinking water treatment (i.e., chlorination)
effects. For chlorpyrifos, this included laboratory toxicity information which indicated that
chlorpyrifos-oxon was more toxic than the parent (Chambers and Carr, 1993).
Aquatic Life Criteria
The Clean Water Act requires the EPA to publish water quality criteria that accurately reflect the
latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all identifiable effects on health and welfare
which might be expected from the presence of pollutants in any body of water, including ground
water. An Aquatic Life Ambient Water Quality Criteria document was published for chlorpyrifos
in 1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986). The recommendation of the document in regards to freshwater
aquatic life states the following: "Freshwater aquatic life should not be affected if the four-day
average concentration of chlorpyrifos does not exceed 0.041 micrograms per liter (ug/L) more
than once every three years on the average and if the one-hour average concentration of
chlorpyrifos does not exceed 0.083 ug/L more than once every three years on the average."
While these recommended criteria do not, in themselves, impose any requirements, states and
authorized tribes can use them to develop water quality standards.
WTC Lawsuit Biological Evaluation (BE)
In 2002 the United States District Court, Western District of Washington at Seattle ordered the
EPA to conduct effects determinations for 54 pesticides for listed salmonids in the states of
California, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington (collectively the Pacific Northwest, PNW). On
March 31, 2003 OPP completed an evaluation of the risk to Endangered and Threatened Salmon
and Steelhead (EPA, 2003) from the registered use of chlorpyrifos in the PNW. In that
assessment OPP determined that the use of chlorpyrifos may affect 19 of 27 evolutionarily
significant units (ESU), had no effect on two ESU, and was not likely to adversely affect six
ESU.
21
-------
2.4 Stressor Source and Distribution
2.4.1 Environmental Fate Properties
The environmental fate database for parent chlorpyrifos is largely complete , however, there is
limited fate data for TCP and no fate data for chlorpyrifos oxon. The major route of dissipation
appears to be aerobic and anaerobic metabolism. Abiotic hydrolysis, photodegradation, and
volatilization do not seem to play a significant role in the dissipation process. Based on available
data, chlorpyrifos appears to degrade slowly in soil under both aerobic and anaerobic conditions.
Information on leaching and adsorption/desorption indicate that parent chlorpyrifos is largely
immobile. The environmental fate data for the major chlorpyrifos degradate, TCP, indicate that
it is mobile in soils and persistent in soils when not exposed to light. Available field data
indicate that chlorpyrifos has a half-life in the field of less than 60 days, with little or no leaching
observed. Because of its low water solubility and high soil binding capacity, there is potential
for chlorpyrifos sorbed to soil to runoff into surface water via erosion. Chlorpyrifos has the
potential to bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms and enter the aquatic food web.
Chlorpyrifos may oxidize in the environment to form chlorpyrifos-oxon (the oxon was not
identified in any submitted fate studies but has been documented to occur in monitoring data).
Studies have shown chlorprifos oxon can form up to nearly 100% of parent from drinking water
treatment. Lesser amounts of oxon formation are expected in other media (soil, air, and surface
water) however, insufficient data are currently available to quantify this amount.
The major pathway of degradation begins with cleavage of the phosphorus ester bond to yield
TCP. Cleavage degradates, such as TCP and analogs were the only degradates identified in the
submitted environmental fate studies. The degradate 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol is more
persistent and mobile that chlorpyrifos and has been found to form up to 30% of the parent in
aerobic soil metabolism studies suggesting it can form in the environment. This degradate is also
a degradation product of triclopyr.
Chlorpyrifos-oxon, a minor degradation product of chlorpyrifos, has been detected in
environmental samples, including drinking water, surface water and precipitation. Toxicity data
based on human health studies4 indicate that chlorpyrifos oxon is roughly 10 times more toxic
than parent chlorpyrifos. Additional chlorpyrifos-oxon aquatic and terrestrial toxicity data are
needed to reduce the uncertainty in the ecological risk assessment (see Section VII.G.2).
Results of field dissipation data indicate that chlorpyrifos is moderately persistent under field
conditions. Calculated half-lives for chlorpyrifos were 33 to 56 days in three medium-textured
soils planted to field corn in California, Illinois, and Michigan. In a field study conducted in an
orange grove planted on sandy, low organic matter soil, the calculated half-lives were 1.3 to 4,
7.3 to <27, and 1.4 to <32 days following the first, second, and third applications, respectively.
Chlorpyrifos declined to <0.1 ppm (detection limit) by day 27 following the second treatment,
and by day 32 following the third treatment; chlorpyrifos was not detected below the 6-inch soil
depth. Chlorpyrifos dissipated with initial phase (days 0 to 28) half-lives of 6.5 to 11.4 days and
secondary phase (days 28 to 120) half-lives of 24 to 38.3 days when applied to fallow and turf-
4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006. Organophosphate Cumulative Risk Assessment.
http://www.epa.gov/oppsrrdl/cumulative/2006-op/index.htm
22
-------
covered soils in Florida and Indiana. Neither chlorpyrifos nor it's degradates were detected
(<0.01 ug/g) below soil depths of 10 to 15 cm.
In both the IRED and OP cumulative risk assessments a large body of surface water monitoring
data were available to assess the potential for exposure to humans via ingestion of drinking water
and for direct and indirect effects to non-target aquatic organisms. Sources of data evaluated
include national data sets (e.g. United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality
Assessment Program (NAWQA)), state and local data (e.g. California Department of Pesticide
Regulation (CDPR)), open literature data, as well as registrant submitted studies. In all cases,
the data suggest that chlorpyrifos is less frequently detected in surface waters than other widely
used pesticides, and the detected concentrations are generally less than those predicted by
modeling. These data along with more recently available data will be evaluated as part of the
ecological and human health risk assessments. In addition, for human health risk assessment
purposes, this evaluation will include a search for data on chlorpyrifos degradates of concern,
such as TCP and chlorpyrifos-oxon.
Surface water monitoring data are available for chlorpyrifos from the USGS NAWQA. Because
the sampling times and locations were not targeted for chlorpyrifos use areas and the sampling
frequency was not designed to capture maximum concentrations, the reported concentrations of
chlorpyrifos are not expected to be the most conservative exposure concentration. The reported
peak concentration of chlorpyrifos in surface water is 0.57 |ig/L (Table 2.1). Although the peak
concentration of chlorpyrifos in ground water is reported as less than 0.5 |ig/L, the maximum
qualified detection of chlorpyrifos is 0.210 |ig/L. Detection frequencies of chlorpyrifos ranged
from 17.18 % in surface water to 0.48% in ground water. Although chlorpyrifos was detected at
a maximum concentration of 0.034 |ig/L in raw drinking water in the USGS-EPA Pilot reservoir
monitoring program (Blomquist et al., 2001), there were no detections of chlorpyrifos or
chlorpyrifos-oxon in finished drinking water. Additionally, there were no monitoring data for
TCP.
Table 2.1 Distribution of chlorpyrifos concentrations from surface water and ground water
monitoring data (USGS NAWQA, 2007)
Data
Surface
Water
Ground
Water
#of
samples
20749
9626
%
Detects
17.18
0.48
Percentile
Maximum
0.57
<0.50
99.9
0.5
0.5
99
0.067756
0.005
95
0.016
0.005
90
0.008
0.005
80
0.005
0.005
70
0.005
0.005
60
0.005
0.004
50
0.004
0.004
Recent studies have demonstrated that chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon have been detected in
surface waters far removed from the site of application (Sparling et al., 2001 as an example). As
part of this assessment, available monitoring from the open literature will be evaluated to assess
the potential impacts of atmospheric transport other than spray drift on human health and non-
target organisms.
In water bodies, chlorpyrifos is expected to persist in the water column; it is also expected that
chlorpyrifos will partition to and persist in sediment. Thus, acute and chronic risks may exist to
organisms residing in the water column and in sediment. Bioconcentration factors (BCF) greater
23
-------
than 1,000 in rainbow trout exposed to 0.30 ppb chlorpyrifos in a 28-day flow-through study
(1,280 for edible tissues, 2,727 for whole fish, and 3,903 for viscera) and in eastern oysters
(2,500 for edible tissues, 3,900 for viscera, and 1,900 for whole body) indicate some potential for
bioaccumulation especially for predatory animals and piscivorous birds.
The estimated log octanol-air partition coefficient (Log KOA) of 8.882 (EPIsuite, v.3.20) suggests
that bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in air breathing organisms is possible (Kelly et al., 2007).
Potential bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in air breathing organisms was considered in this risk
assessment using the KABAM model.
Table 2.2 lists the physical/chemical properties for chlorpyrifos and Table 2.3 lists the
environmental fate properties of chlorpyrifos, along with the major and minor degradates
detected in the submitted environmental fate and transport studies.
TABLE 2.2 Physical/chemical properties of chlorpyrifos
Property
Structure
Synonyms
Molecular formula
Molecular weight
SMILES notation
CAS number
Odor
form
Melting point
Water solubility (mg/L)
Log Kow
Vapor pressure (mm Hg) at 25 °C
Henry's Law constant (atm-
nrVmol)
Bioconcentration factor (BCF)
Value
Cl
ci (( )) o
V-x/ \ /0-^/
/ N
-------
Table 2.3 Summary of Chlorpyrifos Environmental Fate Properties
Study
Hydrolysis
Direct
Aqueous
Photolysis
Soil
Photolysis
Aerobic Soil
Metabolism
Anaerobic
Soil
Metabolism
Anaerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Aerobic
Aquatic
Metabolism
Kd-ads / Kd_des
(mL/g)
J^oc- ads ' -^S^c-des
(mL/g)
Terrestrial
Field
Dissipation
Aquatic Field
Dissipation
Value (units)
pH5: 72 days
pH7: 72 days
pH9: 16 days
29.6 days @ pH 7
Stable
11 to 180 days
3 9 to 51 days (2 soils)
No data
No data
50 to 260
360 to 3 1000
33 to 56 days
1.3-4, 7.3-<27, and 1.4-<32 days
6.5-1 1.4 days and secondary
phase (days 28-120) half-lives of
24-38.3 days
No data
Major Degradates
Minor Degradates
TCP
O-ethyl O-(3,5, 6-trichloro-
2-pyridinol)
phosphorothioate,
none
none
TCP
3,5, 6-trichloro-2-
methoxypyridine
TCP and hydroxy-
chlorpyrifos
MRID#
00155577
41747206
42495403
43509201
00025619
42144911
42144912
00025619
00155636
00155637
40050401
41892801
41892802
42493901
40059001
40356608
40395201
42874703
42874704
42924801
42924802
Study Status
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
25
-------
2.4.2 Environmental Transport Mechanisms
The major route of dissipation appears to be aerobic and anaerobic biodegradation. Abiotic
hydrolysis under neutral and acidic conditions, photodegradation, and volatilization do not seem
to play a significant role in the dissipation process. Under alkaline conditions (pH 9), hydrolysis
of chlorpyrifos occurs more rapidly with a half-life of approximately 2 weeks. Based on
available data, chlorpyrifos appears to degrade slowly in soil under both aerobic and anaerobic
conditions. However, the half life appears to vary over about two orders of magnitude (from a
few days to well over 100 days and typically greater than 200 days for termiticidal uses (though
this use has been phased out) depending on soil type, environmental conditions, and possibly
previous use history at the treatment site. Information on leaching and adsorption/desorption
indicate that parent chlorpyrifos is largely immobile. The environmental fate of the major
chlorpyrifos degradate, TCP, indicates that it is mobile in soils and persistent in soils when not
exposed to light. Available field data indicate that chlorpyrifos has a half-life in the field of less
than 60 days, with little or no leaching observed. Volatilization from soil and water surfaces is
expected to occur slowly; however, chlorpyrifos has been detected in air samples several
kilometers from its application site suggesting that some volatilization and atmospheric transport
may occur. Because of its low water solubility and high soil binding capacity, there is potential
for chlorpyrifos sorbed to soil to be transported into surface water via erosion. Chlorpyrifos has
the potential to bioaccumulate in fish and other aquatic organisms and enter the aquatic food
web. Chlorpyrifos residues in aquatic species may result in dietary exposure for aquatic birds
and mammals feeding on aquatic organisms. Chlorpyrifos rapidly depurates from fish when
aquatic exposures cease.
Potential transport mechanisms include pesticide surface water runoff, spray drift, and secondary
drift of volatilized or soil-bound residues leading to deposition onto nearby or more distant
ecosystems. Surface water runoff and spray drift are expected to be the major routes of exposure
for chlorpyrifos.
A number of studies have documented atmospheric transport and re-deposition of pesticides
from the Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountains (Fellers et al., 2004, Sparling et al.,
2001, LeNoir et al., 1999, and McConnell et al., 1998). Prevailing winds blow across the Central
Valley eastward to the Sierra Nevada Mountains, transporting airborne industrial and agricultural
pollutants into the Sierra Nevada ecosystems (Fellers et al., 2004, LeNoir et al., 1999, and
McConnell et al., 1998). Several sections of the range and critical habitat for the CLRF and SFB
species are located east of the Central Valley. The magnitude of transport via secondary drift
depends on the chlorpyrifos's ability to be mobilized into air and its eventual removal through
wet and dry deposition of gases/particles and photochemical reactions in the atmosphere.
Therefore, physicochemical properties of chlorpyrifos that describe its potential to enter the air
from water or soil (e.g., Henry's Law constant and vapor pressure), pesticide use data, modeled
estimated concentrations in water and air, and available air monitoring data from the Central
Valley and the Sierra Nevada are considered in evaluating the potential for atmospheric transport
of chlorpyrifos to locations where it could impact the CRLF and SFB species.
26
-------
In general, deposition of drifting or volatilized pesticides is expected to be greatest close to the
site of application. Computer models of spray drift (AgDRIFT and/or AGDISP) are used to
determine potential exposures to aquatic and terrestrial organisms via spray drift.
2.4.3 Mechanism of Action
Chlorpyrifos (CAS number 2921-88-2; PC Code 059101) [0,0-diethyl 0-3,5,6-trichloro-
2-pyridyl phosphorothioate] is an insecticide belonging to the organophosphate class of
pesticides. The pesticide acts through inhibition of acetylcholinesterase and is used to kill a
broad range of insects and mites. Organophosphate toxicity is based on the inhibition of the
enzyme acetylcholinesterase which cleaves the neurotransmitter acetylcholine. Inhibition of
acetylcholinesterase by organophosphate insecticides, such as chlorpyrifos, interferes with
proper neurotransmission in cholinergic synapses and neuromuscular junctions (U.S. EPA 2000).
2.4.4 Use Characterization
Chlorpyrifos is used as an insecticide on a wide variety of terrestrial food and feed crops,
terrestrial non-food crops, greenhouse food/non-food, and domestic indoor and outdoor sites.
There are currently 26 active registrants of chlorpyrifos with 99 active product labels, which
include formulated products and technical grade chlorpyrifos. Based on usage data provided by
the Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD), on average, roughly 8 million pounds
of chlorpyrifos were applied to about 180 million acres of agricultural crops in the United States
between 2000 and 2006. The largest terrestrial crop usage was for corn, with roughly 3 million
pounds of active ingredient applied, representing greater than 40% of its total crop usage.
Chlorpyrifos may be applied as a spray or as a granular insecticide. While foliar applications
may be used, chlorpyrifos is most often applied directly to soil and incorporated (for some uses)
to a depth ranging from 0.5 to 4 inches prior to planting. The application rates vary according to
the intended use. Registered non-crop uses of chlorpyrifos include termiticide, turf, golf courses,
cattle ear tags, turkey farms, ultra low volume (ULV) mosquito adulticide, ornamental sites,
indoor pest control, and pet tick and flea products. In 2002, approximately 25% of the total
volume of chlorpyrifos was used for control of subterranean termites. However, as of December
31, 2005, chlorpyrifos products were banned for use in pre-construction termite control (U.S.
EPA 2006a). In addition, retail sale of chlorpyrifos products labeled for use in and around
homes in the United States were discontinued December 31, 2001.
The EFED has previously grouped the various chlorpyrifos uses into ten categories based on
similarities of crops grown, field conditions, and non-crop uses. These "groups" formed the
basis for assessing risk to non-target species in the IRED. The current assessment relies on a
more expansive set of modeling scenarios and thus the original "grouping" approach has been
revised. The revised approach is discussed in more detail in Section VII. Chlorpyrifos may be
applied as spray or as a granular insecticide. The application rates and aerial or ground
application vary according to the intended use.
Analysis of labeled use information is the critical first step in evaluating the federal action. The
current label for chlorpyrifos represents the FIFRA regulatory action; therefore, labeled use and
application rates specified on the label form the basis of this assessment. The assessment of use
27
-------
information is critical to the development of the action area and selection of appropriate
modeling scenarios and inputs.
Chlorpyrifos is currently registered for a wide variety of agricultural and non-agricultural uses.
As such, EFED in consultation with the Pesticide Re-evaluation Division (PRD) and the
Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) have developed a current list of all
registered uses. The attached summary was verified in a memorandum from PRD and BEAD
dated August 6, 2009 and confirms that all mitigations implemented subsequent to the RED have
been implemented and are reflected in the following labeled use summary. EFED has outlined a
modeling approach for aquatic exposures that associates a PRZM/EXAMS modeling scenario (or
scenarios where more than one exists for a particular use) for all uses. Where possible, EFED
has attempted to "bin" uses in order to simplify the exposure assessment. Where multiple
scenarios exist for a use or suite of uses, EFED has indicated in the following tables which
scenario will be used initially for conducting the exposure assessment. Depending on the results
of the initial screen, a decision will be made during the analysis phase of the risk assessment as
to whether additional modeling of other scenarios is needed to provide a spatial context to risk.
Chlorpyrifos currently has three distinct formulation types - liquid, granular, and flowable
concentrate. Though the flowable concentrate seed treatment use is expected to yield
significantly lower exposures than the liquid and granular formulations the uses have been
assessed quantitatively to provide a lower bound on expected exposures. Chlorpyrifos uses are
summarized in the following tables by formulation type including Table 2.4 (Liquid
Formulations), Table 2.5 (Granular Formulations), and Table 2.6 (Flowable Concentrate
Formulations).
28
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid
Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Alfalfa (Clover)
Asparagus
Christmas Trees (Nurseries &
Plantations)
Citrus Fruits
Citrus Orchard Floors (Fire Ants
& Other Ant Species)
Cole Crop
(Brassica) Leafy
Vegetables and
Radish, Rutabaga
and Turnip
General
Cauliflower
(Brassica)
Brussels
Sprouts
Application
Method
broadcast foliar spray -
aerial or ground;
chemigation
ground broadcast foliar
- aerial or ground
foliar spray - ground
concentrate or dilute
spray
ground broadcast spray;
chemigation
aerial or ground foliar
application; soil
application
soil application
foliar spray
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1
1.5
1
4
2
3
1
1
Maximum
No. Apps.
4
o
3
o
3
2
3
3
1
3
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
10
10
7
30
10
10
N/A
10
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
4
o
5
o
5
7.5
3
6
1
3
Geographic
Restrictions
6 Ibs/acre
application rate only
allowed in CA
counties: Fresno,
Tulare, Kern, Kings,
Stanislaus, and
Madera
Other
Restrictions
1 preharvest
2 postharvest
phytotoxicity
3 qt/gal for pales
weevil
In CA & AZ, do
not use in
combo with
spray oil when
temps < 95; do
not apply in dec,
jan, or feb
3 Ibs max app
rate for
Lorsban-4E
29
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Broccoli,
Cabbage,
Chinese
Cabbage,
Collar,
Kale,
Kohlrabi,
Turnip
Radish
Rutabaga
Corn (Field Corn and Sweet
Corn)
Cotton
Cranberry
Fig
Application
Method
soil application
soil application
soil application
broadcast spray - aerial
or ground;
chemigation
broadcast foliar spray -
aerial or ground;
chemigation
broadcast foliar spray;
chemigation
dormant application,
broadcast spray -
ground, incorporate
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2.25
2.75
2.25
1
1
1.5
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
1
1
1
o
J
3
2
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
10
10
N/A
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2.25
2.75
2.25
o
J
3
o
J
2
Geographic
Restrictions
use in CA only
Other
Restrictions
do not use
rutabaga tops
for food or feed
purposes.
specific rates for
AZ and CA
30
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Grape
Legume Vegetables (Succulent or
Dried) (Except Soybean)
(Includes: bean, blackeyed pea,
chickpea, field bean, field pea,
garden pea, lima bean, kidney bean,
lentil, navy bean, pea, pinto bean)
Mint
Onion (Dry Bulb)
Orchard Floors (Ant Control in
Almond, Pecan and Walnut)
Peanut
Pear
Application
Method
soil surface
application(application
rate in Ibs/lOOgal)
prebloom spray drench
ground application
preplant incorporated
broadcast spray -
ground; broadcast spray
- ground
broadcast spray -
chemigation
soil drench spray - at
plant
soil drench spray - post
plant
ground broadcast spray;
chemigation
preplant broadcast
spray, soil incorporation
postharvest application
ground spray
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2.25
1
0.5
2
1
1
2
2
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
1
1
1
3
1
1
5
2
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
NS
N/A
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2.25
1
0.5
6
1
1
5
4
2
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
do not allow
spray to contact
fruit or foliage
1 preplant
1 growing
season
1 postplant
Some labels
indicate ability
to use 4 Ibs ai/A
once
1 preplant
1 postplant
31
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Sorghum - Grain Sorghum (Milo)
Soybean
Strawberry
Sugarbeet
Sunflower
Sweet Potato
Tobacco
Application
Method
postemergence
broadcast spray - aerial
or ground; chemigation
soil - ground broadcast
spray;
foliar - broadcast spray -
aerial or ground;
chemigation - broadcast
preplant incorporation -
uniform soil coverage
foliar - broadcast;
postharvest - directed
spray
soil - incorporated;
postemergence -
broadcast or banded
foliar spray; broadcast -
aerial or ground;
chemigation;
banded foliar - lightly
incorporated
preplant incorporation -
broadcast ground spray
postemergence -
broadcast spray - aerial
or ground
preplant broadcast spray
- incorporate
preplant broadcast spray
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1
1
2
1
1
2
1.5
2
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
o
J
3
1
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
1
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
10
14
10
10
10
10
10
N/A
N/A
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1.5
3
2
2
o
J
o
J
o
J
2
2
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
32
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Tree Fruit and
(Dormant/Delayed
Dormant Sprays)
Almond,
nectarine,
peach, pear,
plum, prune
Apple
Tree Fruit and Tree Nuts (Foliar
Sprays) (Includes: almond, sour
cherry, filbert, pecan, walnut)
Tree Nuts (Foliar Sprays)
(Includes: almond, filbert, pecan,
walnut)
Application
Method
dormant or delayed
dormant spray
dormant/delayed
dormant spray
foliar spray - aerial (less
effective) or ground
foliar spray - aerial (less
effective) or ground
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2
2
2
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
1
2
o
J
3
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
N/A
10
10
10
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2
4
6
4
Geographic
Restrictions
do not apply on
almonds in these CA
counties: Butte,
Colusa, Glenn,
Solano Sutler
Tehama, Yolo, and
Yuba
Other
Restrictions
post-bloom
application
prohibited
do not use foliar
sprays on sweet
cherries; sour
cherries can be
sprayed up to 8
times
only 2
applications on
walnuts
33
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Tree Fruit and Tree Nuts (Trunk
Spray or Preplant Dip) (Includes:
cherry, almond, peach, nectarine)
Wheat1
Other Uses |
Ant Mounds
General Pest Control (warehouses,
ship holds, railroad boxcars,
industrial plants, manufacturing
plants, and food processing plants)
Lumber, Logs, and other Wood
Products (Fence posts, utility poles,
railroad ties, landscape timbers,
lumber, logs, pallets, poles, posts,
wooden containers, and processed
wood products)
Ornamentals Grown in Nurseries
Application
Method
coarse, low pressure
spray
(application rate in
lbs/100 gal)
foliar - aerial or ground
spray; chemigation
sprinkle over mound
localized spray
dip, spray, brush,
pressure and in-place
hand or power operated
spray equipment
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1.5
0.5
2
1
1
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
3
2
2
NS
NS
NS
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
10
NS
10
7
NS
NS
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
4.5
1
4
NS
NS
NS
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
only 1
application in
peaches and
nectarines, 14
day min app
interval for
Lorsban
14 days for
grazing
possible
phytotoxicity
34
-------
Table 2.4 Liquid Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Ornamentals (Pre-Plant
Incorporation Treatment of Field
Grown Nursery Stock)
Road Median
Turf grass
Application
Method
broadcast spray,
incorporate
hydraulic, knapsack
sprayer or other hand or
power spray equipment
spray
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
4
1
4
Maximum
No. Apps.
NS
NS
NS
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
NS
NS
7
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
NS
NS
NS
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
1 - Labeled buffers for wheat are 300 ft for aerial and 30 ft for ground applications
2 - Source: Texas A&M Fire Ant Program and other sources have reported that there can be 200 or more mounds per acre (http://fireant.tamu.edu/ &
http://www.safe2use.com/pests/fireants/fireantsl.htm').
35
-------
Table 2.5 Granular Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Alfalfa (Clover)
Asparagus
Citrus Orchard Floors
(Fire Ants & Other Ant
Species)
Cole Crop
(Brassica)
Leafy
Vegetables
and
Radish,
Rutabaga
and Turnip
Corn (Field
General
Radish
Corn and
Sweet Corn)
Onion (Dry Bulb)
Application
Method
in-furrow
postharvest ground
application
ground broadcast
spray; chemigation
at-plant T-band,
incorporated
at-plant in-furrow
at-plant T-band, at-
plant in-furrow,
postplant, postplant
broadcast
at-plant, in-furrow
treatment -
incorporated
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1
1
1
2.25
2.76
1
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
N/A
10
10
N/A
N/A
10
N/A
Maximum
No. Apps.
1
3
3
1
1
3
1
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1
3
3
2.25
2.76
3
1
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
10 days
application
interval if using
other chlorpyrifos
formulation;
do not use
rutabaga tops for
food or feed
purposes
36
-------
Table 2.5 Granular Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Peanut
Sorghum - Grain
Sorghum (Milo)
Soybean
Sugarbeet
Sunflower
Sweet Potato
Tobacco
Other Uses
Application
Method
at-plant preventive,
postplant
preventive, band
rescue -
incorporated
at-plant T-band,
incorporated
at-plant T-band,
incorporated
at-plant T-band -
incorporated,
postemergence band
- incorporated
at-plant T-band
preplant broadcast -
incorporated
preplant broadcast -
incorporated
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2
1.5
1.2
2
1.3
2
2.025
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
10
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Maximum
No. Apps.
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
4
1.5
1.2
2
1.3
2
2.025
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
aerial application
prohibited
10 days between
granular and
foliar application
with Lorsban-4E
do not apply as
in-furrow
treatment;
10 days between
granular and
foliar application
with Lorsban-4E
10 days between
granular and
foliar application
with Lorsban-4E
10 days between
granular and
foliar application
with Lorsban-4E
37
-------
Table 2.5 Granular Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Ant Mounds
Lumber, Logs, and
other Wood Products
(Fence posts, utility
poles, railroad ties,
landscape timbers,
lumber, logs, pallets,
poles, posts, wooden
containers, and processed
wood products)
Outdoor Nursery Uses
Processing Plants
Road Median
Warehouses, Food
Processing Sites,
Industrial Plant Sites,
Manufacturing Plant
Sites
Application
Method
sprinkle over
mound
dip, spray, brush,
pressure and in-
place treatment
uniform distribution
of granules
spot or
crack/crevice
treatments
hydraulic, knapsack
sprayer or other
hand or power spray
equipment
hand or power
operated gravity or
rotary type spreader
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1.6
oz/mound
1
6
1
1
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
7
Maximum
No. Apps.
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
only 6 Ibs ai/acre
for commercial
approved use, all
others 1 Ib ai/acre
38
-------
Table 2.5 Granular Chlorpyrifos Uses and Application Information
Use Site
Turf grass
Application
Method
hand or power
operated gravity or
rotary type spreader
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
1
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
7
Maximum
No. Apps.
NS
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
NS
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
39
-------
Table 2.6 Flowable Concentrate Chlorpyrifos Uses, Scenarios, and Application Information
Use
Legume Vegetables
(Includes only: Field beans,
green beans, kidney beans,
lima beans, navy beans, snap
beans, string beans, wax
beans, black-eyed peas, field
peas, garden peas)
Corn (Field and Sweet)
Cotton
Cucumbers
Pumpkins
Sorghum
Wheat
Outdoor Nursery Uses
Application
Method
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
liquid/slurry
treatment
Automatic
release
container
Maximum
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
2.75 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
2.75 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
5.5 fl oz/100 Ibs
seed
2.75 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
2.75 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
0.1 14 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
0.1 14 fl oz/100
Ibs seed
2
Maximum
No. Apps.
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Minimum
App.
Interval
(days)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
3
Maximum
Annual
App. Rate
(Ibs a.i./A)
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
NS
Geographic
Restrictions
Other
Restrictions
add dye to prevent
accidental use as
food for man or
feed animals
8% chlorpyrifos
40
-------
A map (Figure 2.1) showing the estimated poundage of chlorpyrifos uses across the
United States is provided below. The map was downloaded from a U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS), National Water Quality Assessment Program (NAWQA) website.
CHLORPYRIFOS - insecticide
2002 estimated annual agricultural use
Average annual use of
active Ingredient
(pounds par square mile of agricultural
land in county)
U no estimated use
D 0.001 to 0.088
D 0.089 to 0.411
D 0.412 to 1.189
D 1.19 to 3.069
>=3.07
Crops
corn
cotton
alfalfa hay
wheat for grain
citrus fruit
apples
peanuts
soybeans
pecans
tobacco
Total
pounds applied
3382851
671112
547472
525292
395331
324452
309580
241666
236935
201603
Percent
national use
40.84
8.10
6.61
6.34
4.78
3.92
3.74
2.92
2.86
2.43
Figure 2.1 Chlorpyrifos Use in Total Pounds per County
The Agency's Biological and Economic Analysis Division (BEAD) provides an analysis
of both national- and county-level usage information (Kaul and Jones, 2006) using state-
level usage data obtained from USDA-NASS5, Doane (www.doane.com: the full dataset
is not provided due to its proprietary nature) and the California's Department of Pesticide
Regulation Pesticide Use Reporting (CDPR PUR) database6. CDPR PUR is considered a
more comprehensive source of usage data than USDA-NASS or EPA proprietary
databases, and thus the usage data reported for chlorpyrifos by county in this California-
specific assessment were generated using CDPR PUR data. Seven years (1999-2006) of
usage data were included in this analysis. Data from CDPR PUR were obtained for every
pesticide application made on every use site at the section level (approximately one
square mile) of the public land survey system. BEAD summarized these data to the
United States Depart of Agriculture (USDA), National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) Chemical
Use Reports provide summary pesticide usage statistics for select agricultural use sites by chemical, crop
and state. See http://www.usda.gov/nass/pubs/estindxl.htm#agchem.
6 The California Department of Pesticide Regulation's Pesticide Use Reporting database provides a census
of pesticide applications in the state. See http://www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.
41
-------
county level by site, pesticide, and unit treated. Calculating county-level usage involved
summarizing across all applications made within a section and then across all sections
within a county for each use site and for each pesticide. The county level usage data that
were calculated include: average annual pounds applied, average annual area treated, and
average and maximum application rate across all seven years. The units of area treated
are also provided where available.
Between 1999 and 2006 an average of approximately 1,600,000 Ibs of chlorpyrifos have
been applied across the state of California. Throughout this period total annual use has
varied from a high of 2.2 million Ibs (1999) to a low of 1.4 million Ibs (2002). During
this period across all uses chlorpyrifos has been applied with an average application rate
of 1.3 Ibs ai/acre and 2.6 Ib ai/acre at the 95th. A summary of chlorpyrifos usage for all
California counties is provided below in Table 2.7. The top use site in California for
chlorpyrifos is cotton with roughly 270,000 Ibs applied annually followed by almonds,
alfalfa, structural pest control, oranges, walnuts, broccoli, grapes, sugarbeets, and lemons.
The top twenty uses for the period between 1999 and 2006 are summarized in Table 2.8.
Table 2.7 Summary of CDPR PUR Use by County
County
ALAMEDA
AMADOR
BUTTE
CALAVERAS
COLUSA
CONTRA
COSTA
DEL NORTE
EL DORADO
FRESNO
GLENN
HUMBOLDT
IMPERIAL
KERN
KINGS
LAKE
LAS SEN
LOS ANGELES
MADERA
MARIPOSA
MENDOCINO
MERCED
Average
Annual
Pounds
Applied
108.5
177.5
33,734.9
299.9
7,012.7
1,808.3
0.3
36.3
319,333.5
18,571.8
18.5
80,522.7
201,610.2
158,175.6
2,162.4
664.0
1,141.7
44,284.4
0.1
1,844.4
58,137.1
Average
Annual
Area
Treated
1,105.26
232.97
18,764.31
239.40
6,077.11
2,167.05
1.06
18.44
266,587.76
13,778.60
49.72
143,460.78
173,195.18
194,322.47
1,578.56
984.93
1,227.19
30,528.82
1.25
1,301.03
52,406.78
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
1.7
1.2
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.2
0.3
1.9
1.6
1.4
0.5
0.6
1.3
0.9
1.5
0.8
1.7
1.6
0.1
1.7
1.1
95 Percentile
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
3.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.5
2.5
3.0
2.0
0.5
1.0
5.9
2.0
2.1
2.0
6.3
4.0
0.1
2.0
2.0
99 Percentile
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
19.3
2.2
3.7
6.0
2.8
8.0
0.5
2.5
6.0
2.7
11.3
1.2
6.0
2.0
16.6
2.0
10.0
6.0
0.1
3.0
2.2
42
-------
Table 2.7 Summary of CDPR PUR Use by County
County
MODOC
MONTEREY
NAPA
NEVADA
ORANGE
PLACER
RIVERSIDE
SACRAMENTO
SAN BENITO
SAN
BERNARDINO
SAN DIEGO
SAN JOAQUIN
SAN LUIS
OBISPO
SAN MATEO
SANTA
BARBARA
SANTA CLARA
SANTA CRUZ
SHASTA
SISKIYOU
SOLANO
SONOMA
STANISLAUS
SUTTER
TEHAMA
TULARE
TUOLUMNE
VENTURA
YOLO
YUBA
Average
Annual
Pounds
Applied
1,272.3
57,776.0
1,266.9
0.0
1,869.3
1,549.8
23,058.9
4,213.1
4,442.2
1,924.0
2,868.2
65,750.9
14,417.2
1,690.0
34,405.8
1,855.6
6,869.2
1,762.6
1,635.1
10,085.3
3,332.2
81,132.6
21,220.4
12,404.8
239,287.3
57.6
50,775.5
17,628.5
10,060.1
Average
Annual
Area
Treated
1,475.25
43,271.15
699.98
0.13
2,713.49
836.68
41,475.02
4,143.15
3,813.38
3,018.22
4,123.98
61,751.39
11,053.61
2,046.78
29,246.69
1,638.97
5,860.41
1,017.69
2,302.25
8,930.21
2,281.48
55,055.67
13,094.35
7,661.67
162,889.89
44.88
25,566.91
21,405.77
5,338.19
Average
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
0.9
1.3
1.7
0.0
3.9
1.6
0.8
0.7
1.1
0.9
1.2
1.3
1.1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.6
0.7
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.7
1.9
0.9
1.9
95 Percentile
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
1.8
2.2
2.5
0.0
15.7
2.0
2.5
2.0
2.0
2.0
5.0
2.0
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.0
6.0
2.0
4.1
2.0
2.1
99 Percentile
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
3.3
2.4
4.2
0.0
37.7
3.9
6.0
2.0
2.5
4.9
6.4
3.6
3.0
5.1
2.3
7.5
3.0
5.0
1.5
3.0
4.2
4.8
4.0
4.0
6.1
3.6
9.3
2.0
4.0
43
-------
Table 2.8 Summary of CDPR PUR Use by Crop/Use
Site
Site Name
COTTON
ALMOND
ALFALFA
ORANGE
WALNUT
BROCCOLI
GRAPE
SUGARBEET
LEMON
GRAPE, WINE
CORN (FORAGE - FODDER)
PEACH
NECTARINE
APPLE
PLUM
CAULIFLOWER
CORN, HUMAN CONSUMPTION
ASPARAGUS
Total Annual
Pounds
270802
257313
217819
194072
170838
62459
57746
57440
55468
34912
29160
28100
24927
20134
18203
16715
10688
7238
2.5 Assessed Species
Table 2.9 provides a summary of the current distribution, habitat requirements, and life
history parameters for the listed species being assessed. More detailed life-history and
distribution information can be found in Attachment 3.
44
-------
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed Species1
Assessed Species
California red-
legged frog
(Rana aurora
draytonii)
San Francisco
garter snake
(Thamnophis
sirtalis
tetrataenid)
California Clapper
Rail
(Rallus
longirostris
obsoletus)
Size
Adult
(85-138 cm
in length),
Females -
9-238 g,
Males -
13-163 g;
Juveniles
(40-84 cm
in length)
Adult
(46-13 1cm
in length),
Females -
227 g,
Males -
H3g;
Juveniles
(18-20 cm
in length)
250 - 350 g
Current Range
Northern CA coast, northern
Transverse Ranges, foothills of
Sierra Nevada, and in southern CA
south of Santa Barbara
San Mateo County
Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin,
Napa, San Francisco, San Mateo,
Santa Clara, Solano, and Sonoma
counties
Habitat Type
Freshwater perennial
or near-perennial
aquatic habitat with
dense vegetation;
artificial
impoundments;
riparian and upland
areas
Densely vegetated
freshwater ponds
near open grassy
hillsides; emergent
vegetation; rodent
burrows
Tidal marsh habitat
Designated
Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
No
Reproductive
Cycle
Breeding: Nov. to Apr.
Tadpoles: Dec. to Mar.
Young juveniles: Mar. to
Sept.
Oviparous Reproduction3
Breeding: Spring (Mar.
and Apr.) and Fall (Sept.
to Nov.)
Ovulation and Pregnancy:
Late spring and early
summer
Young: Born 3-4 months
after mating
Breeding: Feb. - August
Nesting: mid-March- Aug.
Lav Eggs: March - July
Incubation: 23 to 29 days;
Leave nest: 35 to 42 days
after hatch; Juveniles
fledge at ten weeks and
can breed during the
spring after they hatch
Diet
Aquatic -phase2: algae,
freshwater aquatic
invertebrates
Terrestrial-phase:
aquatic and terrestrial
invertebrates, small
mammals, fish and
frogs
Juveniles: frogs
(Pacific tree frog,
CRLF, and bullfrogs
depending on size) and
insects
Adults: primarily frogs
(mainly CRLFs; also
bullfrogs, toads); to a
lesser extent newts;
freshwater fish and
invertebrates; insects
and small mammals
Opportunistic feeders:
freshwater and
estuarine invertebrates,
seeds, worms, mussels,
snails, clams, crabs,
insects, and spiders;
occasionally consume
small birds and
mammals, dead fish, up
45
-------
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed Species1
Assessed Species
Salt marsh harvest
mouse
(Reithrodontomys
raviventris)
Bay checkerspot
butterfly (BCB)
(Euphydryas
editha bayensis)
Size
Adult
8-14g
Adult
butterfly - 5
cm in length
Current Range
Northern subspecies can be found
in Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Solano,
and northern Contra Costa
counties. The southern subspecies
occurs in San Mateo, Alameda,
and Santa Clara counties with
some isolation populations in
Marin and Contra Costa counties.
Santa Clara and San Mateo
Counties [Because the BCB
distribution is considered a
metapopulation, any site with
appropriate habitat in the vicinity
of its historic range (Alameda,
Contra Costa, San Francisco, San
Mateo, and Santa Clara counties)
should be considered potentially
occupied by the butterfly (USFWS
1998, p. 11-177)].
Habitat Type
Dense, perennial
cover with preference
for habitat in the
middle and upper
parts of the marsh
dominated by
pickleweed and
peripheral halophytes
as well as similar
vegetation in diked
wetlands adjacent to
the Bay
1) Primary habitat -
native grasslands on
large serpentine
outcrops;
2) Secondary habitat
- 'islands' of smaller
serpentine outcrops
with native grassland;
3) Tertiary habitat -
non-serpentine areas
where larval food
plants occur
Designated
Critical
Habitat?
No
Yes
Reproductive
Cycle
Breeding: March -
November
Gestation period: 21 - 24
days
Larvae hatch in March -
May and grow to the 4th
instar in about two weeks.
The larvae enter into a
period of dormancy
(diapause) that lasts
through the summer. The
larvae resume activity
with the start of the rainy
season. Larvae pupate
once they reach a weight
of 300 -500 milligrams.
Adults emerge within 15
to 30 days depending on
thermal conditions, feed
on nectar, mate and lay
eggs during a flight
season that lasts 4 to 6
weeks from late February
Diet
to 15% plant material
Leaves, seeds, and
plant stems; may eat
insects; prefers "fresh
green grasses" in the
winter and pickleweed
and saltgrass during the
rest of the year; drinks
both salt and fresh
water
Obligate with dwarf
plantain. Primary diet
is dwarf plantain plants
(may also feed on
purple owl's-clover or
exserted paintbrush if
the dwarf plantains
senesce before the
larvae pupate). Adults
feed on the nectar of a
variety of plants found
in association with
serpentine grasslands
46
-------
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed Species1
Assessed Species
Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
(Desmocerus
californicus
dimorphus)
San Joaquin kit
fox
(Vulpes macrotis
mutica)
Size
Males:
1.25-2.5 cm
length
Females:
1.9-2.5 cm
length
Adult
~2kg
Current Range
Central Valley of California (from
Shasta County to Fresno County in
the San Joaquin Valley)
Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno,
Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced,
Monterey, San Benito, San
Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, Santa
Barbara, Santa Clara, Stanislaus,
Tulare and Ventura counties
Habitat Type
Completely
dependent on its host
plant, elderberry
(Sambucus species),
which is a common
component of the
remaining riparian
forests and adjacent
upland habitats of
California's Central
Valley
A variety of habitats,
including grasslands,
scrublands (e.g.,
chenopod scrub and
sub-shrub scrub),
vernal pool areas, oak
woodland, alkali
meadows and playas,
and an agricultural
matrix of row crops,
irrigated pastures,
orchards, vineyards,
and grazed annual
grasslands. Kit foxes
dig their own dens,
modify and use those
already constructed
by other animals
(ground squirrels,
Designated
Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No, but has
designated
core areas
Reproductive
Cycle
to early May
The larval stage may last
2 years living within the
stems of an elderberry
plant. Then larvae enter
the pupal stage and
transform into adults.
Adults emerge and are
active from March to June
feeding and mating, when
the elderberry produces
flowers.
Mating and conception:
late December - March.
Gestation period: 48 to 52
days.
Litters born: February -
late March
Pups emerge from their
dens at about 1 -month of
age and may begin to
disperse after 4-5
months usually in Aug. or
Sept.
Diet
Obligates with
elderberry trees
(Sambucus sp). Adults
eat the elderberry
foliage until about June
when they mate. Upon
hatching the larvae
tunnel into the tree
where they will spend
1-2 years eating the
interior wood which is
their sole food source.
Small animals
including blacktailed
hares, desert
cottontails, mice,
kangaroo rats, squirrels,
birds, lizards, insects
and grass. It satisfies its
moisture requirements
from prey and does not
depend on freshwater
sources.
47
-------
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed Species1
Assessed Species
California tiger
salamander
(Ambystoma
californiense)
Delta smelt
(Hypomesus
transpacificus)
Size
50 g
Up to 120
mm in
length
Current Range 1 Habitat Type
There are two distinct population
segments; one in Santa Barbara
County and the other in Sonoma
County.
Suisun Bay and the Sacramento-
San Joaquin estuary (known as the
Delta) near San Francisco Bay, CA
badgers, and
coyotes), or use
human-made
structures .(culverts,
abandoned pipelines,
or banks in sumps or
roadbeds). They
move to new dens
within their home
range often (likely to
avoid predation by
coyotes)
Freshwater pools or
ponds (natural or
man-made, vernal
pools, ranch stock
ponds, other fishless
ponds); Grassland or
oak savannah
communities, in low
foothill regions;
Small mammal
burrows
The species is
adapted to living in
fresh and brackish
water. They typically
occupy estuarine
areas with salinities
below 2 parts per
thousand (although
they have been found
Designated
Critical
Habitat?
Yes
Yes
Reproductive
Cycle
Emerge from burrows and
breed: fall and winter
rains
Eggs: laid in pond Dec. -
Feb., hatch: after 10 to 14
days
Larval stage: 3-6 months,
until the ponds dry out,
metamorphose late spring
or early summer, migrate
to small mammal burrows
They spawn in fresh or
slightly brackish water
upstream of the mixing
zone. Spawning season
usually takes place from
late March through mid-
May, although it may
occur from late winter
(Dec.) to early summer
Diet
Aquatic Phase: algae,
snails, zooplankton,
small crustaceans, and
aquatic larvae and
invertebrates, smaller
tadpoles of Pacific tree
frogs, CRLF, toads;
Terrestrial Phase:
terrestrial invertebrates,
insects, frogs, and
worms
They primarily
planktonic copepods,
cladocerans,
amphipods, and insect
larvae. Larvae feed on
phytoplankton;
juveniles feed on
zooplankton.
48
-------
Table 2.9 Summary of Current Distribution, Habitat Requirements, and Life History Information for the Assessed Listed Species1
Assessed Species
California
freshwater shrimp
(Syncaris pacified)
Size
Up to 50
mm
postorbital
length (from
the eye orbit
to tip of tail)
Current Range
Marin, Napa, and Sonoma
Counties, CA
Habitat Type
in areas up to 18ppt).
They live along the
freshwater edge of
the mixing zone
(saltwater-freshwater
interface).
Freshwater, perennial
streams; they prefer
quiet portions of tree-
lined streams with
underwater
vegetation and
exposed tree roots
Designated
Critical
Habitat?
No
Reproductive
Cycle
(July-August). Eggs
hatch in 9 - 14 days.
Breed once a year,
typically in Sept. Eggs
adhere to the pleopods
and are cared for 8 - 9
months; embryos emerge
during May or early June.
Diet
Feed on detritus (algae,
aquatic macrophyte
fragments,
zooplankton, and
aufwuchs)
1 For more detailed information on the distribution, habitat requirements, and life history information of the assessed listed species, see
Attachment 3
2 For the purposes of this assessment, tadpoles and submerged adult frogs are considered "aquatic" because exposure pathways in the water
are considerably different than those that occur on land.
3 Oviparous = eggs hatch within the female's body and young are born live.
49
-------
2.6 Designated Critical Habitat
Critical habitats have only been designated for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CIS, and DS.
'Critical habitat' is defined in the ESA as the geographic area occupied by the species at
the time of the listing where the physical and biological features necessary for the
conservation of the species exist, and there is a need for special management to protect
the listed species. It may also include areas outside the occupied area at the time of
listing if such areas are 'essential to the conservation of the species.' Critical habitat
receives protection under Section 7 of the ESA through prohibition against destruction or
adverse modification with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal
Agency. Section 7 requires consultation on federal actions that are likely to result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.
To be included in a critical habitat designation, the habitat must be 'essential to the
conservation of the species.' Critical habitat designations identify, to the extent known
using the best scientific and commercial data available, habitat areas that provide
essential life cycle needs of the species or areas that contain certain primary constituent
elements (PCEs) (as defined in 50 CFR 414.12(b)). PCEs include, but are not limited to,
space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food, water, air,
light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites
for breeding, reproduction, rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are
protected from disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and
ecological distributions of a species. Table 2.10 describes the PCEs for the critical
habitats designated for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CIS, and DS.
50
-------
Table 2.10 Designated Critical Habitat PCEs for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS.
Species
CRLF
California tiger
salamander
Valley
Elderberry
Longhorn
Beetle
Bay
Checkerspot
Butterfly
PCEs1
Alteration of channel/pond morphology or geometry and/or increase
in sediment deposition within the stream channel or pond.
Alteration in water chemistry /quality including temperature,
turbidity, and oxygen content necessary for normal growth and
viability of juvenile and adult CRLFs and their food source.
Alteration of other chemical characteristics necessary for normal
growth and viability of CRLFs and their food source.
Reduction and/or modification of aquatic-based food sources for pre-
metamorphs (e.g., algae)
Elimination and/or disturbance of upland habitat; ability of habitat to
support food source of CRLFs: Upland areas within 200 ft of the
edge of the riparian vegetation or dripline surrounding aquatic and
riparian habitat that are comprised of grasslands, woodlands, and/or
wetland/riparian plant species that provides the CRLF shelter,
forage, and predator avoidance
Elimination and/or disturbance of dispersal habitat: Upland or
riparian dispersal habitat within designated units and between
occupied locations within 0.7 mi of each other that allow for
movement between sites including both natural and altered sites
which do not contain barriers to dispersal
Reduction and/or modification of food sources for terrestrial phase
juveniles and adults
Alteration of chemical characteristics necessary for normal growth
and viability of juvenile and adult CRLFs and their food source.
Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and man-made
(e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and dune ponds, and other
ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically become
inundated during winter rains and hold water for a sufficient length
of time (i.e., 12 weeks) necessary for the species to complete the
aquatic (egg and larval) portion of its life cycle2
Barrier-free uplands adjacent to breeding ponds that contain small
mammal burrows. Small mammals are essential in creating the
underground habitat that juvenile and adult California tiger
salamanders depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the
elements and predation
Upland areas between breeding locations (PCE 1) and areas with
small mammal burrows (PCE 2) that allow for dispersal among such
sites
Areas that contain the host plant of this species [/'. e., elderberry trees
(Sambucus sp.)] (a dicot)
The presence of annual or perennial grasslands with little to no
overstory that provide north/south and east/west slopes with a tilt of
more than 7 degrees for larval host plant survival during periods
of atypical weather (e.g., drought).
The presence of the primary larval host plant, dwarf plantain
(Plantago erecta) (a dicot) and at least one of the secondary host
plants, purple owl's-clover or exserted paintbrush, are required for
reproduction, feeding, and larval development.
The presence of adult nectar sources for feeding.
Reference
50CFR414.12(b),
2006
FR Vol. 69 No. 226
CTS, 68584, 2004
43 FR 35636 35643,
1978
66 FR 21449 21489,
2001
51
-------
Table 2.10 Designated Critical Habitat PCEs for the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and PS.
Species
PCEs
Reference
Aquatic features such as wetlands, springs, seeps, streams, lakes, and
ponds and their associated banks, that provide moisture during
periods of spring drought; these features can be ephemeral, seasonal,
or permanent.
Soils derived from serpentinite ultramafic rock (Montara, Climara,
Henneke, Hentine, and Obispo soil series) or similar soils
(Inks, Candlestick, Los Gatos, Pagan, and Barnabe soil series)
that provide areas with fewer aggressive, normative plant species for
larval host plant and adult nectar plant survival and reproduction.2
The presence of stable holes and cracks in the soil, and surface rock
outcrops that provide shelter for the larval stage of the bay
checkerspot butterfly during summer diapause.2
Delta Smelt
Spawning Habitatshallow, fresh or slightly brackish backwater
sloughs and edgewaters to ensure egg hatching and larval viability.
Spawning areas also must provide suitable water quality (i.e., low
"concentrations of pollutants) and substrates for egg attachment
(e.g., submerged tree roots and branches and emergent vegetation).
59 FR 65256 65279,
1994
Larval and Juvenile TransportSacramento and San Joaquin Rivers
and their tributary channels must be protected from physical
disturbance and flow disruption. Adequate river flow_is necessary to
transport larvae from upstream spawning areas to rearing habitat in
Suisun Bay. Suitable water quality must be provided so that
maturation is not impaired by pollutant concentrations.
Rearing HabitatMaintenance of the 2 ppt isohaline and suitable
water quality (low concentrations of pollutants) within the Estuary is
necessary to provide delta smelt larvae and juveniles a shallow
protective, food-rich environment in which to mature to adulthood.
Adult Migration Unrestricted access to suitable spawning habitat
in a period that may extend from December to July. Adequate flow
and suitable water qualityjnay need to be maintained to
attract migrating adults in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River
channels and their associated tributaries. These areas also should be
protected from physical disturbance and flow disruption during
migratory
periods.
1 These PCEs are in addition to more general requirements for habitat areas that provide essential life cycle
needs of the species such as, space for individual and population growth and for normal behavior; food,
water, air, light, minerals, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; sites for
breeding, reproduction, rearing (or development) of offspring; and habitats that are protected from
disturbance or are representative of the historic geographical and ecological distributions of a species.
2 PCEs that are abiotic, including, physico-chemical water quality parameters such as salinity, pH, and
hardness are not evaluated because these processes are not biologically mediated and, therefore, are not
relevant to the endpoints included in this assessment.
More detail on the designated critical habitat applicable to this assessment can be found
in Attachment 1 (for the CRLF) and Attachment 3 for the SFB species. Activities that
may destroy or adversely modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs and
jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Evaluation of actions related to use of
chlorpyrifos that may alter the PCEs of the existing designated critical habitats for the
CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS form the basis of the critical habitat impact analysis.
52
-------
As previously noted in Section 2.1, the Agency believes that the analysis of direct and
indirect effects to listed species provides the basis for an analysis of potential effects on
the designated critical habitat. Because chlorpyrifos is expected to directly impact living
organisms within the action area, critical habitat analysis for chlorpyrifos is limited in a
practical sense to those PCEs of critical habitat that are biological or that can be
reasonably linked to biologically mediated processes.
2.7 Action Area
For listed species assessment purposes, the action area is considered to be the area
affected directly or indirectly by the federal action and not merely the immediate area
involved in the action (50 CFR 402.02). It is recognized that the overall action area for
the national registration of chlorpyrifos is likely to encompass considerable portions of
the United States based on the large array of agricultural and/or non-agricultural uses.
However, the scope of this assessment limits consideration of the overall action area to
those portions that may be applicable to the protection of the CRLF and SFB species and
their designated critical habitat within the state of California. Although the watershed for
the San Francisco Bay extends northward into the very southwestern portion of Lake
County, Oregon, and westward into the western edge of Washoe County, Nevada, the
non-California portions of the watershed are small and very rural with little, if any,
agriculture. Therefore, no use of chlorpyrifos is expected in these areas..
The definition of action area requires a stepwise approach that begins with an
understanding of the federal action. The federal action is defined by the currently labeled
uses for chlorpyrifos. An analysis of labeled uses and review of available product labels
was completed. Several of the currently labeled uses are special local needs (SLN) uses
or are restricted to specific states and are excluded from this assessment. In addition, a
distinction has been made between food use crops and those that are non-food/non-
agricultural uses. For those uses relevant to the assessed species, the analysis indicates
that, for chlorpyrifos, the following agricultural uses are considered as part of the federal
action evaluated in this assessment:
Following a determination of the assessed uses, an evaluation of the potential "footprint"
of chlorpyrifos use patterns (i.e., the area where pesticide application occurs) is
determined. This "footprint" represents the initial area of concern, based on an analysis
of available land cover data for the state of California. The initial area of concern is
defined as all land cover types and the stream reaches within the land cover areas that
represent the labeled uses described above. Because of the diverse nature of the
registered chlorpyrifos uses being covered in this assessment an initial area of concern
map has not been created.
Once the initial area of concern is defined, the next step is to define the potential
boundaries of the action area by determining the extent of offsite transport via spray drift
and runoff where exposure of one or more taxonomic groups to the pesticide exceeds the
listed species LOCs.
53
-------
The Agency's approach to defining the action area under the provisions of the Overview
Document (U.S. EPA, 2004) considers the results of the risk assessment process to
establish boundaries for that action area with the understanding that exposures below the
Agency's defined Levels of Concern (LOCs) constitute a no-effect threshold. Deriving
the geographical extent of this portion of the action area is based on consideration of the
types of effects that chlorpyrifos may be expected to have on the environment, the
exposure levels to chlorpyrifos that are associated with those effects, and the best
available information concerning the use of chlorpyrifos and its fate and transport within
the state of California. Specific measures of ecological effect for the assessed species
that define the action area include any direct and indirect toxic effect to the assessed
species and any potential modification of its critical habitat, including reduction in
survival, growth, and fecundity as well as the full suite of sublethal effects available in
the effects literature. Therefore, the action area extends to a point where environmental
exposures are below any measured lethal or sublethal effect threshold for any biological
entity at the whole organism, organ, tissue, and cellular level of organization. In
situations where it is not possible to determine the threshold for an observed effect, the
action area is not spatially limited and is assumed to be the entire state of California.
Due to the lack of a defined no effect concentration for the most sensitive reported effect
and/or a positive result in a mutagenicity test, the spatial extent of the action area (i.e., the
boundary where exposures and potential effects are less than the Agency's LOG) for
chlorpyrifos cannot be determined. Therefore, it is assumed that the action area
encompasses the entire state of California, regardless of the spatial extent (i.e., initial area
of concern or footprint) of the pesticide use(s).
This determination is also supported by the fact that chlorpyrifos and it's oxon degradate
have been shown to transport long distances from the site of application and at
concentrations that would approach effects levels. In addition, chlorpyrifos has several
studies without a NOEC/NOEAL (e.g., De Silva & Samayawardhena, 2002; Richards &
Kendall, 2003) and is a potential mutagen. Both of these factors together support the
establishment of the entire state of California as the action area for this assessment.
2.8 Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect
Assessment endpoints are defined as "explicit expressions of the actual environmental
value that is to be protected."7 Selection of the assessment endpoints is based on valued
entities (e.g., CRLF), organisms important in the life cycle of the assessed species, and
the PCEs of its designated critical habitat), the ecosystems potentially at risk (e.g.,
waterbodies, riparian vegetation, and upland and dispersal habitats), the migration
pathways of chlorpyrifos (e.g., runoff, spray drift, etc), and the routes by which
ecological receptors are exposed to chlorpyrifos (e.g., direct contact, etc.).
1 From U.S. EPA (1992). Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
54
-------
2.8.1 Assessment Endpoints
Assessment endpoints for the CRLF and SFB species include direct toxic effects on the
survival, reproduction, and growth of individuals, as well as indirect effects, such as
reduction of the prey base or modification of its habitat. In addition, potential
modification of critical habitat is assessed by evaluating potential effects to PCEs, which
are components of the habitat areas that provide essential life cycle needs of the assessed
species. Each assessment endpoint requires one or more "measures of ecological effect,"
defined as changes in the attributes of an assessment endpoint or changes in a surrogate
entity or attribute in response to exposure to a pesticide. Specific measures of ecological
effect are generally evaluated based on acute and chronic toxicity information from
registrant-submitted guideline tests that are performed on a limited number of organisms.
Additional ecological effects data from the open literature are also considered. It should
be noted that assessment endpoints are limited to direct and indirect effects associated
with survival, growth, and fecundity, and do not include the full suite of sublethal effects
used to define the action area. According the Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), the
Agency relies on acute and chronic effects endpoints that are either direct measures of
impairment of survival, growth, or fecundity or endpoints for which there is a
scientifically robust, peer reviewed relationship that can quantify the impact of the
measured effect endpoint on the assessment endpoints of survival, growth, and fecundity.
A complete discussion of all the toxicity data available for this risk assessment, including
resulting measures of ecological effect selected for each taxonomic group of concern, is
included in Section 4 of this document. A summary of the assessment endpoints and
measures of ecological effect selected to characterize potential assessed direct and
indirect risks for each of the assessed species associated with exposure to chlorpyrifos is
provided in Section 2.5 and Table 2.11.
As described in the Agency's Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), the most sensitive
endpoint for each taxon is used for risk estimation. For this assessment, evaluated taxa
include aquatic-phase amphibians, freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, aquatic
plants, birds (surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians), mammals, terrestrial
invertebrates, and terrestrial. Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity
information is characterized based on registrant-submitted studies and a comprehensive
review of the open literature on chlorpyrifos.
Table 2.11 identifies the taxa used to assess the potential for direct and indirect effects
from the uses of chlorpyrifos for each listed species assessed here. The specific
assessment endpoints used to assess the potential for direct and indirect effects to each
listed species are provided in Table 2.12.
55
-------
Table 2.11 Taxa Used in the Analyses of Direct and Indirect Effects for the Assessed Listed Species.
Listed Species
California red-
legged frog
San Francisco
garter snake
California
clapper rail
Salt marsh
harvest mouse
Bay
checkerspot
butterfly
Valley
elderberry
longhorn
beetle
San Joaquin
kit fox
California
tiger
salamander
Delta smelt
(USE THE
MOST
SENTITIVE
OF THE
FRESHWATE
RANDE/M
FISH FOR
DIRECT
EFFECTS)
California
freshwater
shrimp
Birds
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(rearing
sites)
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
N/A
N/A
Mammals
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Indirect
(rearing
sites)
N/A
N/A
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Terr.
Plants
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(food,
habitat)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
*
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
*
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Terr.
Inverts.
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
FW Fish
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Direct (IF
MORE
SENSITI
VE
THAN
EM
FISH)
N/A
FW
Inverts.
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
Indirect
(prey)
Direct
Indirect
(prey)
Estuarine
/Marine
Fish
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Direct (IF
MORE
SENSITI
VE
THANF
FISH)
N/A
Estuarine
/Marine
Inverts.
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(prey)
N/A
Aquatic
Plants
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
Indirect
(habitat)
N/A
N/A
N/A
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
Indirect
(food/
habitat)
N/A = Not applicable
Terr. = Terrestrial
Invert. = Invertebrate
FW = Freshwater
* = obligate relationship
56
-------
Table 2.12 Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for the Use of
Chlorpyrifos to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed Listed Species
- CRLF, Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly.
Taxa Used to Assess
Direct and/or Indirect
Effects to Assessed
Species
Assessed Listed
Species
Assessment Endpoints
Measures of Ecological Effects
1. Freshwater Fish and
Aquatic-phase
Amphibians
Direct Effect -
-Aquatic-phase CRLF
-Aquatic-phase CTS
-Delta Smelt
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via direct effects
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Aquatic-phase and
Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-S. F. Garter Snake
-Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., fish and aquatic-phase
amphibians)
la. Amphibian acute LC50 (ECOTOX) or
most sensitive fish acute LC50 (guideline
or ECOTOX) if no suitable amphibian
data are available
Ib. Amphibian chronic NOAEC
(ECOTOX) or most sensitive fish chronic
NOAEC (guideline or ECOTOX)
Ic. Amphibian early-life stage data
(ECOTOX) or most sensitive fish early-
life stage NOAEC (guideline or
ECOTOX) (if sufficient data are
available, split the evaluation for eggs
and larvae out, and use the ELS endpoint
2. Freshwater
Invertebrates
Direct Effect -
-California Freshwater
Shrimp
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Aquatic-phase and
Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-S. F. Garter Snake
-Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., freshwater
invertebrates)
2a. Most sensitive freshwater
invertebrate EC50 (guideline or ECOTOX)
2b. Most sensitive freshwater
invertebrate chronic NOAEC (guideline
or ECOTOX)
. Estuarine/Marine Fish
Direct Effect -
-Delta Smelt
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., estuarine/marine fish)
3a. Most sensitive estuarine/marine fish
EC50 (guideline or ECOTOX)
3b. Most sensitive estuarine/marine fish
chronic NOAEC (guideline or ECOTOX)
4. Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Clapper Rail
-Delta Smelt
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
aquatic prey food supply
(i.e., estuarine/marine
invertebrates)
4a. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
invertebrate EC50 (guideline or ECOTOX)
4b. Most sensitive estuarine/marine
invertebrate chronic NOAEC (guideline
or ECOTOX)
5. Aquatic Plants
(freshwater/marine)
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat)
-Aquatic-phase CRLF
-Aquatic-phase CTS
-Clapper Rail
-Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse
-S. F. Garter Snake
-Delta Smelt
California Freshwater
Shrimp
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
habitat, cover, food supply,
and/or primary productivity
(i.e., aquatic plant
community)
5a. Vascular plant acute EC50 (duckweed
guideline test or ECOTOX vascular plant)
5b. Non-vascular plant acute EC50
(freshwater algae or diatom, or ECOTOX
non-vascular)
57
-------
Table 2.12 Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for the Use of
Chlorpyrifos to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed Listed Species
- CRLF, Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly.
Taxa Used to Assess
Direct and/or Indirect
Effects to Assessed
Species
Assessed Listed
Species
Assessment Endpoints
Measures of Ecological Effects
6. Birds
Direct Effect
-Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-S. F. Garter Snake
-Clapper Rail
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via direct effects
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Clapper Rail
-San Joaquin Kit Fox
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
terrestrial prey (birds)
6a. Most sensitive bird or terrestrial-
phase amphibian acute LC50 or LD50
(guideline or ECOTOX)
6b. Most sensitive birdb or terrestrial-
phase amphibian chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
7. Mammals
Direct Effect
-Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse
-San Joaquin Kit Fox
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via direct effects
7a. Most sensitive laboratory rat acute
LC50 or LD50 (guideline or ECOTOX)
7b. Most sensitive laboratory rat chronic
NOAEC (guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect
(prey/habitat from
burrows)
-Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-San Joaquin Kit Fox
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
terrestrial prey (mammals)
8. Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Direct Effect
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via direct effects
8a. Most sensitive terrestrial invertebrate
acute EC50 or LC50 (guideline or
ECOTOX)C
8b. Most sensitive terrestrial invertebrate
chronic NOAEC (guideline or ECOTOX)
Indirect Effect (prey)
-Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-Clapper Rail
-Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse
-S. F. Garter Snake
-San Joaquin Kit Fox
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on
terrestrial prey (terrestrial
invertebrates)
9. Terrestrial Plants
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat) (non-
obligate relationship)
-Terrestrial-phase CRLF
-Clapper Rail
-Salt Marsh Harvest
Mouse
-S. F. Garter Snake
-San Joaquin Kit Fox
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of individuals
via indirect effects on food
and habitat (i.e., riparian
and upland vegetation)
9a. Distribution of EC2s for monocots
(seedling emergence, vegetative vigor, or
ECOTOX
9b. Distribution of EC2s (EC05 or
NOAEC for the Bay checkerspot butterfly
and the valley elderberry longhorn beetle)
for dicots (seedling emergence, vegetative
vigor, or ECOTOX)
58
-------
Table 2.12 Taxa and Assessment Endpoints Used to Evaluate the Potential for the Use of
Chlorpyrifos to Result in Direct and Indirect Effects to the Assessed Listed Species
- CRLF, Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly.
Taxa Used to Assess
Direct and/or Indirect
Effects to Assessed
Species
Assessed Listed
Species
Assessment Endpoints
Measures of Ecological Effects
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat) (obligate
relationship)
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
2.8.2 Assessment Endpoints for Designated Critical Habitat
As previously discussed, designated critical habitats are assessed to evaluate actions
related to the use of chlorpyrifos that may alter the PCEs of the assessed species'
designated critical habitat. PCEs for the assessed species were previously described in
Section 2.6. Actions that may modify critical habitat are those that alter the PCEs and
jeopardize the continued existence of the assessed species. Therefore, these actions are
identified as assessment endpoints. It should be noted that evaluation of PCEs as
assessment endpoints is limited to those of a biological nature (i.e., the biological
resource requirements for the listed species associated with the critical habitat) and those
for which chlorpyrifos effects data are available.
Some components of these PCEs are associated with physical abiotic features (e.g.,
presence and/or depth of a water body, or distance between two sites), which are not
expected to be measurably altered by use of pesticides. Measures of ecological effect
used to assess the potential for adverse modification to the critical habitat of the CRLF
and SFB species are described in Table 2.13.
59
-------
Table 2.13 Summary of Assessment Endpoints and Measures of Ecological Effect
for Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat for CRLF and
SFB Species (Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California
tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin
kit fox, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly).
Taxon Used to
Assess
Modification of
PCE
1. Aquatic Plants
(freshwater/marine)
2. Terrestrial
Invertebrates
3. Terrestrial Plants
Assessed Listed
Species Associated
with the PCE
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat)
-Aquatic -phase
CRLF
-Aquatic -phase CTS
-Delta Smelt
Direct Effect
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley elderberry
longhorn beetle
Indirect Effect
(prey)
-Terrestrial-phase
CRLF
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat) (non-
obligate
relationship)
-Terrestrial-phase
CRLF
Indirect Effect
(food/habitat)
(obligate
relationship)
-Bay Checkerspot
Butterfly
-Valley Elderberry
Longhorn Beetle
Assessment
Endpoints
Modification of critical
habitat via change in
habitat, cover, food
supply, and/or primary
productivity (i.e.,
aquatic plant
community)
Survival, growth, and
reproduction of
individuals via direct
effects
Modification of critical
habitat via change in
terrestrial prey
(terrestrial
invertebrates)
Modification of critical
habitat via change in
food and habitat (i.e.,
riparian and upland
vegetation)
Measures of Ecological Effects
la. Vascular plant acute EC50
(duckweed guideline test or
ECOTOX vascular plant)
Ib. Non-vascular plant acute
EC50 (freshwater algae or diatom,
or ECOTOX non-vascular)
2a. Most sensitive terrestrial
invertebrate acute EC50 or LC50
(guideline or ECOTOX)C
2b. Most sensitive terrestrial
invertebrate chronic NOAEC
(guideline or ECOTOX)
3a. Distribution of EC2s for
monocots (seedling emergence,
vegetative vigor, or ECOTOX
3b. Distribution of EC2s (EC05 or
NOAEC for the Bay checkerspot
butterfly and the valley elderberry
longhorn beetle) for dicots
(seedling emergence, vegetative
vigor, or ECOTOX)
60
-------
2.9 Conceptual Model
2.9.1 Risk Hypotheses
Risk hypotheses are specific assumptions about potential adverse effects (i.e., changes in
assessment endpoints) and may be based on theory and logic, empirical data,
mathematical models, or probability models (U.S. EPA, 1998). For this assessment, the
risk is stressor-linked, where the stressor is the release of chlorpyrifos to the environment.
The following risk hypotheses are presumed for each assessed species in this assessment:
The labeled use of chlorpyrifos within the action area may:
directly affect the CRLF, CTS, SFGS, CCR, SMHM, BCB, VELB, SJKF, CFS,
and DS by causing mortality or by adversely affecting growth or fecundity;
indirectly affect the CRLF, CTS, SFGS, CCR, SMHM, BCB, VELB, SJKF, CFS,
and DS and/or modify their designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the
composition of food supply;
indirectly affect the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS and/or modify their
designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the composition of the aquatic
plant community in the species' current range, thus affecting primary productivity
and/or cover;
indirectly affect the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS and/or modify their
designated critical habitat by reducing or changing the composition of the
terrestrial plant community in the species' current range;
indirectly affect the CRLF, BCB, VELB, CTS, and DS and/or modify their
designated critical habitat by reducing or changing aquatic habitat in their current
range (via modification of water quality parameters, habitat morphology, and/or
sedimentation).
2.9.2 Diagram
The conceptual model is a graphic representation of the structure of the risk assessment.
It specifies the chlorpyrifos release mechanisms, biological receptor types, and effects
endpoints of potential concern. The conceptual models for aquatic and terrestrial phases
of the CRLF and SFB species and the conceptual models for the aquatic and terrestrial
PCE components of critical habitat are shown in Figures 2.3 and 2.4. Although the
conceptual models for direct/indirect effects and modification of designated critical
habitat PCEs are shown on the same diagrams, the potential for direct/indirect effects and
modification of PCEs will be evaluated separately in this assessment. Exposure routes
shown in dashed lines are not quantitatively considered because the contribution of those
potential exposure routes to potential risks to the CRLF and SFB species and
modification to designated critical habitat is expected to be negligible.
61
-------
Stressor
Source
Exposure
Media
Pesticide applied to use site
1
1
\ Spray drift|
t 1* ">Dermal uptake/lngestion-^
Long range
atmospheric
transport
Terrestrial/riparian plants
grasses/forbs, fruit, seeds
(trees, shrubs)
Root uptake^T
Wet/dry depositio
Ingestion
Receptors
Attribute
Change
Birds/terrestrial-
phase
amphibians/
reptilesfmammals
3s[rr
Individual organisms
Reduced survival
Reduced growth
Reduced reproduction
t
Ingestion^,
J
Food chain
Reduction in prey
Modification of
PCEs related to
prey availability
Habitat integrity
Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover
ommunity change
Modification of PCEs related to
nabitat
Figure 2.2 Conceptual Model for Terrestrial-Phase of the Assessed Species.
62
-------
Stressor
Source
Exposure
Media
Receptors
Attribute
Change
Pesticide applied to use site
| |
Spray drift 1 1 Runoff 1
Surface water/
Sediment
_, ,_
at
4
~~*
ong range
mospheric
transport
T
Uptake/gills
or
Uptake/gills
or
+
Aquatic Animals
Invertebrates
Vertebrates
Ingestio
Fish/aquatic-
phase amphibians
Piscivorous
mammals and
birds i
Individual
organisms
Reduced survival
Reduced growth
Uptake/cell,
roots,
Aquatic Plants
Non-vascular
Vascular
t
Ingestio
Food chain
Reduction in algae
Reduction in prey
Modification of PCEs
related to prey
availability
Habitat integrity
Reduction in primary productivity
Reduced cover
Community change
Modification of PCEs related to
nabitat
Figure 2.3 Conceptual Model for Aquatic-Phase of the Assessed Species.
2.10 Analysis Plan
In order to address the risk hypothesis, the potential for direct and indirect effects to the
CRLF and SFB Species, prey items, and habitat is estimated based on a taxon-level
approach. In the following sections, the use, environmental fate, and ecological effects of
chlorpyrifos are characterized and integrated to assess the risks. This is accomplished
using a risk quotient (ratio of exposure concentration to effects concentration) approach.
Although risk is often defined as the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological
effects, the risk quotient-based approach does not provide a quantitative estimate of
likelihood and/or magnitude of an adverse effect. However, as outlined in the Overview
Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), the likelihood of effects to individual organisms from
particular uses of chlorpyrifos is estimated using the probit dose-response slope and
either the level of concern (discussed below) or actual calculated risk quotient value.
63
-------
2.10.1 Measures to Evaluate the Risk Hypothesis and Conceptual Model
2.10.1.1 Measures of Exposure
The environmental fate properties of chlorpyrifos along with available monitoring data
indicate that runoff and spray drift are the principle potential transport mechanisms of
chlorpyrifos to the aquatic and terrestrial habitats of the CRLF and SFB Species. In
addition, monitoring data for air and rain suggest the long range transport of chlorpyrifos
and the formation of chlorpyrifos oxon cannot be precluded though the exact mechanism
by which the oxon forms is uncertain. In this assessment, transport of chlorpyrifos
through runoff and spray drift is considered in deriving quantitative estimates of
chlorpyrifos exposure to CRLF and SFB Species, their prey and habitats. A semi-
quantitative analysis of potential long range transport will be conducted using available
monitoring data.
Measures of exposure are based on aquatic and terrestrial models that predict estimated
environmental concentrations (EECs) of chlorpyrifos using maximum labeled application
rates and methods of application. The models used to predict aquatic EECs are the
Pesticide Root Zone Model coupled with the Exposure Analysis Model System
(PRZM/EXAMS). The model used to predict terrestrial EECs on food items is T-REX.
These models are parameterized using relevant reviewed registrant-submitted
environmental fate data.
PRZM (v3.12.2, May 2005) and EXAMS (v2.98.4.6, April 2005) are screening
simulation models coupled with the input shell pe5.pl (Aug 2007) to generate daily
exposures and l-in-10 year EECs of chlorpyrifos that may occur in surface water bodies
adjacent to application sites receiving chlorpyrifos through runoff and spray drift. PRZM
simulates pesticide application, movement and transformation on an agricultural field and
the resultant pesticide loadings to a receiving water body via runoff, erosion and spray
drift. EXAMS simulates the fate of the pesticide and resulting concentrations in the
water body. The standard scenario used for ecological pesticide assessments assumes
application to a 10-hectare agricultural field that drains into an adjacent 1-hectare water
body, 2-meters deep (20,000 m3 volume) with no outlet. PRZM/EXAMS was used to
estimate screening-level exposure of aquatic organisms to chlorpyrifos. The measure of
exposure for aquatic species is the l-in-10 year return peak or rolling mean concentration.
The 1-in-10-year 60-day mean is used for assessing chronic exposure to fish; the 1-in-10-
year 21-day mean is used for assessing chronic exposure for aquatic invertebrates.
As discussed above, the primary degradate of chlorpyrifos is 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol
or 'TCP'. Comparison of available toxicity information for TCP indicates that it is
significantly less toxic than the parent for freshwater and estuarine/marine fish,
invertebrates, birds, and mammals. TCP has been shown to form at up to roughly 1/3 of
the applied parent and is more mobile and less persistent than chlorpyrifos and therefore
is likely to occur in the environment. However this increased exposure is not expected to
contribute significantly to overall risk because in general TCP is between 1 to 4 orders of
64
-------
magnitude less toxic. Therefore, TCP has not been qualitatively assessed in this
evaluation.
As mentioned previously, chlorpyrifos may oxidize in the environment to form
chlorpyrifos-oxon. Available data indicate that chlorpyrifos-oxon is more toxic to
amphibians than the parent compound (Sparling and Fellers, 2007). Chlorpyrifos-oxon
toxicity data for freshwater fish, freshwater invertebrates, and birds would reduce the
amount of uncertainty in the ecological risk assessment. Submitted environmental fate
studies for chlorpyrifos do not identify chlorpyrifos-oxon. However, chlorpyrifos-oxon
has been detected in air, precipitation and surface water samples (Lenoir et al., 1999;
Sparling et al., 2001; Landers et al., 2008), indicating that it is present in the
environment.
In order to address this uncertainty the Agency has requested additional environmental
fate data for chlorpyrifos oxon including studies to address the potential formation in the
vapor phase. Submission of acceptable environmental fate data on adsorption/desorption
and aerobic soil metabolism of the oxon will provide a minimal data set to allow the
Agency to provide a more realistic estimate of chlorpyrifos oxon-specific concentrations
using either Tier I or Tier II models. However, this oxon-specific environmental fate data
has not been submitted to that Agency at this time and thus the Agency cannot conduct a
quantitative assessment of risk from the oxon at this time. Therefore, in order to address
potential exposure to aquatic organisms the Agency will qualitatively compare the risk
conclusions from the parent relative to the possible range of toxicity noted for the oxon
and assuming complete conversion describe how the risk might be influenced by that
assumption.
Exposure estimates for the terrestrial animals assumed to be in the target area or in an
area exposed to spray drift are derived using the T-REX model (version 1.3.1,
12/07/2006). This model incorporates the Kenega nomograph, as modified by Fletcher et
al. (1994), which is based on a large set of actual field residue data. The upper limit
values from the nomograph represented the 95th percentile of residue values from actual
field measurements (Hoerger and Kenega, 1972).
For modeling purposes, direct exposures of the CRLF to and SFB Species chlorpyrifos
through contaminated food are estimated using the EECs for the small bird (20 g) which
consumes small insects. Dietary-based and dose-based exposures of potential prey (small
mammals) are assessed using the small mammal (15 g) which consumes short grass. The
small bird (20 g) consuming small insects and the small mammal (15 g) consuming short
grass are used because these categories represent the largest RQs of the size and dietary
categories in T-REX that are appropriate surrogates for the CRLF and one of its prey
items. Estimated exposures of terrestrial insects to chlorpyrifos are bound by using the
dietary based EECs for small insects and large insects.
Birds are currently used as surrogates for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles.
However, amphibians and reptiles are poikilotherms (body temperature varies with
environmental temperature) while birds are homeotherms (temperature is regulated,
65
-------
constant, and largely independent of environmental temperatures). Therefore,
amphibians and reptiles tend to have much lower metabolic rates and lower caloric intake
requirements than birds or mammals. As a consequence, birds are likely to consume
more food than amphibians and reptiles on a daily dietary intake basis, assuming similar
caloric content of the food items. Therefore, the use of avian food intake allometric
equation as a surrogate to amphibians and reptiles is likely to result in an over-estimation
of exposure and risk for reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. Therefore, T-REX
(version 1.3.1) has been refined to the T-HERPS model (v. 1.0), which allows for an
estimation of food intake for poikilotherms using the same basic procedure as T-REX to
estimate avian food intake.
Because there is some evidence of the potential for bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in
aquatic organisms, an additional exposure pathway that was considered in this assessment is
the consumption of contaminated fish or aquatic invertebrates that have bioaccumulated
chhlorpyrifos dissolved in water and their aquatic diet. The potential risk from this pathway
was evaluated using a food web bioaccumulation model (K<,w-based Aquatic
Bioaccumulation Model, or KABAM), v. 1.0. KABAM estimates potential
bioaccumulation of hydrophobic organic pesticides such as chlorpyrifos in freshwater
aquatic food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of
contaminated aquatic prey. The bioaccumulation portion of KABAM was based upon
work by Arnot and Gobas (2004) who parameterized a bioaccumulation model based on
PCBs and some pesticides (e.g., lindane, DDT) in freshwater aquatic ecosystems.
KABAM relies on a chemical's octanol-water partition coefficient (Kow) to estimate
uptake and elimination constants through respiration and diet of organisms in different
trophic levels. Chlorpyrifos tissue residues were calculated for different levels of the
aquatic food web. The model then used chlorpyrifos tissue concentrations in aquatic
animals to estimate dose- and dietary-based exposures and associated risks to mammals
and birds consuming aquatic organisms, using an approach that is similar to the T-REX
model (USEPA 2008).
KABAM incorporated 7 trophic levels to describe bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in a
model aquatic food web: phytoplankton, zooplankton (e.g., Daphnia sp.), benthic
invertebrates (e.g., Chironomus sp., crayfish), filter feeders (e.g., mussels, clams), small
fish (e.g., young of the year), medium-sized fish (e.g., adult bluegill), and larger upper-
trophic level fish (e.g., largemouth bass). Chlorpyrifos concentrations in organisms of
the aquatic trophic levels listed above were used to estimate acute and chronic exposures
of mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms. Available pesticide-specific acute
and chronic toxicity data for mammals and birds were used to calculate risk quotients for
estimated exposures due to bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in an aquatic ecosystem.
Spray drift models, AGDISP and/or AgDRIFT are used to assess exposures of terrestrial
animals to chlorpyrifos deposited on terrestrial habitats by spray drift. In addition to the
buffered area from the spray drift analysis, the downstream extent of chlorpyrifos that
exceeds the LOG for the effects determination is also considered.
At this time the Agency does not have tools for quantitatively predicting oxon formation
and transport due to volatility. In order to account for the impact of offsite movement of
66
-------
chlorpyrifos oxon available monitoring data will be used as a surrogate for terrestrial
exposure estimates with an understanding that these data are limited and may under-
represent actual oxon exposure levels.
2.10.1.2 Measures of Effect
Data identified in Section 2.8 are used as measures of effect for direct and indirect effects
to the CRLF and SFB Species. Data were obtained from registrant submitted studies or
from literature studies identified by ECOTOX. The ecotoxicology database (ECOTOX)
was searched in order to provide more ecological effects data and in an attempt to bridge
existing data gaps. ECOTOX is a source for locating single chemical toxicity data for
aquatic life, terrestrial plants, and wildlife. ECOTOX was created and is maintained by
the U.S. EPA, Office of Research and Development, and the National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's Mid-Continent Ecology Division.
The assessment of risk for direct effects to the terrestrial-phase CRLF and terrestrial-
phase tiger salamanders, Alameda whipsnakes, San Francisco garter snakes] makes the
assumption that toxicity of chlorpyrifos to birds is similar to or less than the toxicity to
terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles (this also applies to potential prey items).
The acute measures of effect used for animals in this screening level assessment are the
LD50, LCso and ECso. LD stands for "Lethal Dose", and LD50 is the amount of a material,
given all at once, that is estimated to cause the death of 50% of the test organisms. LC
stands for "Lethal Concentration" and LC50 is the concentration of a chemical that is
estimated to kill 50% of the test organisms. EC stands for "Effective Concentration" and
the ECso is the concentration of a chemical that is estimated to produce a specific effect in
50% of the test organisms. Endpoints for chronic measures of exposure for listed and
non-listed animals are the NOAEL/NOAEC and NOEC. NOAEL stands for "No
Ob served-Adverse-Effect-Level" and refers to the highest tested dose of a substance that
has been reported to have no harmful (adverse) effects on test organisms. The NOAEC
(i.e., "No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Concentration") is the highest test concentration at
which none of the observed effects were statistically different from the control. The
NOEC is the No-Observed-Effects-Concentration. For non-listed plants, only acute
exposures are assessed (i.e., EC25 for terrestrial plants and ECso for aquatic plants).
It is important to note that the measures of effect for direct and indirect effects to the
assessed species and their designated critical habitat are associated with impacts to
survival, growth, and fecundity, and do not include the full suite of sublethal effects used
to define the action area. According the Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), the
Agency relies on effects endpoints that are either direct measures of impairment of
survival, growth, or fecundity or endpoints for which there is a scientifically robust, peer
reviewed relationship that can quantify the impact of the measured effect endpoint on the
assessment endpoints of survival, growth, and fecundity.
2.10.1.3 Integration of Exposure and Effects
67
-------
Risk characterization is the integration of exposure and ecological effects characterization
to determine the potential ecological risk from agricultural and non-agricultural uses of
chlorpyrifos, and the likelihood of direct and indirect effects to CRLF and SFB Species in
aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The exposure and toxicity effects data are integrated in
order to evaluate the risks of adverse ecological effects on non-target species. For the
assessment of chlorpyrifos risks, the risk quotient (RQ) method is used to compare
exposure and measured toxicity values. EECs are divided by acute and chronic toxicity
values. The resulting RQs are then compared to the Agency's levels of concern (LOCs)
(U.S. EPA, 2004) (see Appendix B).
For this endangered species assessment, listed species LOCs are used for comparing RQ
values for acute and chronic exposures of chlorpyrifos directly to the CRLF and SFB
Species. If estimated exposures directly to the assessed species of chlorpyrifos resulting
from a particular use are sufficient to exceed the listed species LOG, then the effects
determination for that use is "may affect". When considering indirect effects to the
assessed species due to effects to prey, the listed species LOCs are also used. If
estimated exposures to the prey of the assessed species of chlorpyrifos resulting from a
particular use are sufficient to exceed the listed species LOG, then the effects
determination for that use is a "may affect." If the RQ being considered also exceeds the
non-listed species acute risk LOG, then the effects determination is a LAA. If the acute
RQ is between the listed species LOG and the non-listed acute risk species LOG, then
further lines of evidence (i.e. probability of individual effects, species sensitivity
distributions) are considered in distinguishing between a determination of NLAA and a
LAA. If the RQ being considered for a particular use exceeds the non-listed species LOG
for plants, the effects determination is "may affect". Further information on LOCs is
provided in Appendix B.
2.10.2 Data Gaps
A number of environmental fate and effects data have been requested as part of OPP's
Registration Review process. These data are focused primarily on filling gaps in the
assessment of the oxon of chlorpyrifos and include aerobic soil metabolism,
adsorption/desorption (batch equilibrium), field volatility, acute freshwater fish toxicity,
acute freshwater invertebrate toxicity, acute avian oral toxicity, and acute avian dietary
toxicity for the oxon. In addition, photodegradation in air and Tier I Phytotoxicity studies
have been requested for parent chlorpyrifos.
3 Exposure Assessment
Chlorpyrifos is formulated as a liquid, flowable concentrate, and granular
formulations. Application equipment includes ground application, aerial application,
band treatment, incorporated treatment, various sprayers (low-volume, hand held,
directed), and spreaders for granular applications]. Risks from ground boom and
aerial applications are considered in this assessment because they are expected to
result in the highest off-target levels of chlorpyrifos due to generally higher spray
drift levels. Ground boom and aerial modes of application tend to use lower volumes
68
-------
of application applied in finer sprays than applications coincident with sprayers and
spreaders and thus have a higher potential for off-target movement via spray drift.
3.1 Label Application Rates and Intervals
Chlorpyrifos labels may be categorized into two types: labels for manufacturing uses
(including technical grade chlorpyrifos and its formulated products) and end-use
products. While technical products, which contain chlorpyrifos of high purity, are not
used directly in the environment, they are used to make formulated products, which
can be applied in specific areas to control insects. The formulated product labels
legally limit chlorpyrifos's potential use to only those sites that are specified on the
labels. The uses being assessed are summarized in Table 3.1.
69
-------
Table 3.1 Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Exposure Assumptions for Chlorpyrifos
PRZM
Scenario
CA alfalfa OP
CA row crop
RLF
CA forestry
RLF
CA citrus STD
CA cole crop
RLF
Uses
Represented
Alfalfa
Clover
Alfalfa
Clover
Asparagus
Asparagus
Peanut
Soybean
Soybean
Peanut
Christmas trees
Citrus
Citrus Floor
Citrus Floor
Cole Crop
Leafy Vegetable
Rutabaga
Turnip
Radish
Legumes
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Application
Method
Air and ground
Ground incorporated
Air and ground
Ground incorporated
Ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Seed treatment
Ground incorporated
Ground
Airblast
Ground
Ground incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground
Ground
Maximum
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
1
1
1.5
1
2
1
2
1
4
2
1
3
2.75
0.5
No.
Apps.
4
1
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
10
NA
10
10
10
14
10
7
30
10
10
NA
NA
First
Application
Date
March 1
March 1
August 1
August 1
August 1
August 1
August 1
June 1
October 1
October 1
October 1
March 1
March 1
March 1
70
-------
Table 3.1 Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Exposure Assumptions for Chlorpyrifos
PRZM
Scenario
CA corn OP
CA cotton
STD
CA grape STD
OR mint STD
CA onion STD
CA almond
STD
Uses
Represented
Legumes
Cole Crop
Leafy Vegetable
Rutabaga
Turnip (in
furrow)
Field and sweet
corn
Field and sweet
corn
Field and sweet
corn
Cotton
Cotton
Grapes
Mint
Dry bulb onion
Fig
Orchard Floor
Tree Fruit and
Nuts (dormant)
Formulation
Type
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Application
Method
Seed treatment
Ground incorporated
Air and ground
Ground incorporated
Seed Treatment
Air and ground
Seed Treatment
Ground
Ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground
Airblast
Maximum
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
2.75
1
1
1
2.25
2
1
2
2
2
No.
Apps.
1
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
5
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
NA
10
10
10
NA
10
NA
NA
10
NA
First
Application
Date
March 1
May 1
May 1
August 1
March 1
April 1
March 1
May 1
May 1
December 1
71
-------
Table 3.1 Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Exposure Assumptions for Chlorpyrifos
PRZM
Scenario
CA fruit STD
CA wheat
RLF
CA
strawberry
RLF
CA sugar beet
OP
Uses
Represented
Tree Fruit and
Nuts (foliar)
Pear
Apple (dormant)
Grain sorghum
(milo)
Grain sorghum
(milo)
Grain sorghum
Sunflower
Wheat
Wheat
Sunflower
Strawberry
Sugarbeet (foliar)
Sugarbeet (soil
incorporated)
Sugarbeet (soil
incorporated)
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Application
Method
Air and ground
Ground
Airblast
Air and ground
Ground incorporated
Seed Treatment
Ground & ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Seed Treatment
Ground incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground incorporated
Maximum
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
2
2
2
1
1.5
1.5
0.5
1.3
1
1
2
2
No.
Apps.
3
1
2
3
1
3
2
1
2
3
3
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
10
NA
10
10
NA
10
10
NA
10
10
10
NA
First
Application
Date
May 1
March 1
December 1
August 15
August 15
August 15
August 15
August 15
August 15
October 1
October 1
October 1
72
-------
Table 3.1 Summary of PRZM/EXAMS Exposure Assumptions for Chlorpyrifos
PRZM
Scenario
CA potato
RLF
CA rangeland
RLF
CA nursery
CA right of
way RLF
CA turf RLF
Uses
Represented
Sweet potato
Sweet potato
Ant mounds
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Road median
Road median
Turfgrass for Sod
Turfgrass
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Application
Method
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground incorporated
Ground spot treatment
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Maximum
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
2
2
2
8
4
6
1
1
4
1
No.
Apps.
1
1
2
1
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
NA
NA
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
First
Application
Date
October 1
October 1
May 1
March 1
March 1
March 1
June 1
June 1
June 1
June 1
73
-------
3.2 Aquatic Exposure Assessment
3.2.1 Modeling Approach
Aquatic exposures are quantitatively estimated for all of assessed uses using scenarios that
represent high exposure sites for chlorpyrifos use. Each of these sites represents a 10 hectare
field that drains into a 1-hectare pond that is 2 meters deep and has no outlet. Exposure
estimates generated using the standard pond are intended to represent a wide variety of
vulnerable water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa
lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and intermittent and first-order
streams. As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than
the standard surrogate pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of drainage area to water
body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the standard pond. These water
bodies will be either shallower or have large drainage areas (or both). Shallow water bodies tend
to have limited additional storage capacity, and thus, tend to overflow and carry pesticide in the
discharge whereas the standard pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases beyond 10
hectares, at some point, it becomes unlikely that the entire watershed is planted to a single crop,
which is all treated with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations
higher than the standard pond, but they tend to persist for only short periods of time and are then
carried downstream. Uncertainties related to modeling EECs in estuarine/marine environments,
refer the reader to the Uncertainties Section.
Currently a suite of more than 80 PRZM scenarios are available for use in ecological risk
assessments representing predominantly agricultural uses. A total of 28 California specific
scenarios are available for this assessment. Each scenario is intended to represent a high-end
exposure setting for a particular crop. Each scenario location is selected based on various factors
including crop acreage, runoff and erosion potential, climate, and agronomic practices. Once a
location is selected, a scenario is developed using locally specific soil, climatic, and agronomic
data. Each PRZM scenario is assigned a specific climatic weather station providing 30 years of
daily weather values. Specific scenarios were selected for use in this assessment using two
criteria. First, an evaluation of all available PRZM scenarios was conducted, and those scenarios
that represent chlorpyrifos uses (e.g. corn) were selected for modeling. Weather information was
assigned to these scenarios at development. Of the 28 available scenarios 21 were selected for
modeling purposes.
Further description (metadata) and copies of the existing PRZM scenarios may be found at the
following websites.
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/index.htmtfprzmexamsshell
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/water/przmenvironmentdisclaim.htm
Use-specific management practices for all of the assessed uses of chlorpyrifos were used for
modeling, including application rates, number of applications per year, application intervals, and
buffer widths and resulting spray drift values modeled from AgDRIFT and AgDISP, and the first
application date for each use. The date of first application was developed based on several
sources of information including data provided by BEAD, a summary of individual applications
from the CDPR PUR data, and Crop Profiles maintained by the USD A. A sample of the
74
-------
distribution of chlorpyrifos applications to grapes from the CDPR PUR data for 2007 used to
pick a March 1 application date is shown in Figure 3.1
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
\
_cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv> _cv>
1 ««V ^VVVVVV*
Figure 3.1 Summary of Applications of Chlorpyrifos to Grapes in 2007 from CDPR PUR
data.
More detail on the crop profiles and the previous assessments may be found at:
http://pestdata.ncsu.edu/cropprofiles/cropprofiles.cfm
3.2.2 Model Inputs
Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide used on a wide variety of food and non-food crops. Chlorpyrifos
environmental fate data used for generating model parameters is listed in Table 2.2. The input
parameters for PRZM and EXAMS are in Table 3.2.
75
-------
Table 3.2 PRZM/EXAMS chemical specific input parameters for chlorpyrifos a
Parameter
CAM
Soil Incorporation
Application efficiency
Spray drift1
Vapor pressure (25 °C)
Solubility in water
Molecular weight
Henry's Law constant
Soil adsorption coefficient Koc
Hydrolysis half-life
Aqueous photolysis half-life
Aerobic soil metabolism
Aerobic aquatic metabolism (ti/2)
Anaerobic aquatic metabolism
(tl/2)
Input Value and Unit
2 - Foliar
1 - Soil surface broadcast (no
incorporation)
4 - Incorporated
0 cm - Foliar & granular surface
broadcast (alfalfa, asparagus, ant
mound, citrus, nursery, right of
way, & turf)
5 cm incorporation - cole crop,
corn, sorghum, soybean,
sugarbeet, sunflower
7.5 cm incorporation - peanut
10 cm incorporation - sweet
potato
0.95 (aerial & airblast)
0.99 (ground)
1.00 (granular)
3.9% (aerial)
0.6% (air-blast)
0.7% (ground)
0.0% (granular)
1. 82x1 0'5 torr
2mg/L
350.6 g/moles
4.2xlO-6atm-m3/mol
6070 L/mg-OC
72 days (pH 7)
29.6 days @ pH7
76.9 days2
153. 8 days
81.5 days
Source
Depths of incorporation
determined from labels
EFED Model Input Guidance,
Version II (2002)
AgDrift Modeling Using Label
Restrictions
Solubility
U.S. EPA 2002
U.S. EPA 2002
U.S. EPA 2002
U.S. EPA 2002
2x the aerobic soil metabolism
input value
2x the anaerobic soil metabolism
rate
a Guidance for Selecting Input Parameters in Modeling the Environmental Fate and Transport of
Pesticides, Version II" dated February 28, 2002.
1 - Alternate drift values for wheat are used based on different labeled buffers. The alternate values are 2.4% for
aerial applications using a 300 ft buffer and 0.7% for ground applications using a 30 ft buffer.
2 - 90th % of all available aerobic soil metabolism data
In addition, chlorpyrifos is registered as a flowable concentrate which is used as a seed treatment
use. EFED modeled these uses using the labels rates summarized in Table 3.3. These rates were
76
-------
adjusted from the labeled rates in ounces of product per 100 Ibs of seed to Ibs ai/acre. Each use
was modeled as a soil applied application similar to granular applications and no drift was
assumed. The resulting EEC are summarized with all other uses assessed in Table 3.4.
Table 3.3 Application Rates for Chlorpyrifos Pre-plant Seed Treatment
(Mist, Slurry and
Use Pattern
Corn
Cotton
Soybean
Cucumbers
Sorghum
Beans
Wheat
Planter/Drill boxes)
Application
Rate (cwt *)
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
0.059
Seeding Rate
(lb/Acre)8
18.3
10
60
3
12
0.5
89
Application Rate (Ib a.i./Acre)
0.010797
0.0059
0.0354
0.00177
0.00708
0.000295
0.05251
cwt= hundredweight (i.e., lbs/100 Ibs of seeds).
3.2.3 Results
The aquatic EECs for the various scenarios and application practices are listed in Table 3.4.
Several labeled uses allow for both soil surface and soil incorporated applications. Where
appropriate, both application types have been assessed. The incorporation depths have been
selected based on label instructions. The majority of PRZM scenarios yielded peak EEC
between 0.3 ppb and 8.0 ppb. Two exceptions to this were peak EEC for cole crops at 16.3 ppb
and outdoor nursery uses with EEC between 22 ppb and 45 ppb depending on the formulation
and use rate. The cole crop EEC is driven by the fact that these are coastal uses with a relatively
high application rate (3 Ibs applied 3 times per year). The nursery EEC are likely over-estimates
because the modeling assumes a broadcast application across the use site while the label
specifies that chlorpyrifos is typically applied directly to the target plant and not across the entire
site. If the percent coverage for the target plant (e.g. ornamental trees) across the use site were
10 to 20% of the entire site these EEC would be consistent with the other uses modeled. In
general, these modeled EEC are consistent with data in surface water monitoring particularly
from the CDPR data (discussed below) that show chlorpyrifos detections as high as 4 ppb as
recently as 2003.
8 Barley: http://www.aq.ndsu.edu/procrop/bar/baseed04.htm
Corn, cotton, rice and wheat: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/duke energy/
Flax, rye, safflower sorghum: http://www.hort.purdue.edu/newcrop/afcm/flax.html
Oats: http://extension.oregonstate.edu/catalog/html/em/em8692/
Tomatoes: http://aggie-horticulture.tamu.edu/extension/vegetable/cropguides/tomato.html
Triticali: http://southeastfarmpress.com/news/90204Triticale-cover/
Other Reference: http://www.reimerseeds.com/Search.aspx?Kevword=Triticali
77
-------
Table 3.4 Aquatic EECs (ug/L) for Chlorpyrifos Uses in California
PRZM
Scenario
CA alfalfa
OP
CA row crop
RLF
CA forestry
RLF
CA citrus
STD
CA cole crop
RLF
Uses
Represented
Alfalfa
Clover
Alfalfa
Clover
Asparagus
Asparagus
Peanut
Soybean
Soybean
Peanut
Christmas trees
Citrus
Citrus Floor
Citrus Floor
Cole Crop
Leafy Vegetable
Rutabaga
Turnip
Radish
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Application
Method
Air and ground
Ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Ground
incorporated
Ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Seed treatment
Ground
incorporated
Ground
Airblast
Ground
Ground
incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
1
1
1.5
1
2
1
0.0354
2
1
4
2
1
3
2.75
No.
Apps.
4
1
3
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
10
NA
10
10
NS
14
14
10
7
30
10
10
NA
Peak
EEC
4.1
0.3
4.8
2.0
2.6
2.9
2.1
0.07
0.8
6.3
2.8
1.8
0.5
16.3
5.9
21-day
average
EEC
2.5
0.2
2.8
0.9
1.2
1.6
1.0
0.03
0.4
2.9
1.3
1.0
0.2
8.3
2.9
60-day
average
EEC
1.9
0.1
1.8
0.5
0.7
1.2
0.6
0.02
0.2
1.9
0.7
0.6
0.1
5.4
1.9
78
-------
Table 3.4 Aquatic EECs (ug/L) for Chlorpyrifos Uses in California
PRZM
Scenario
CA corn OP
CA cotton
STD
CA grape
STD
OR mint
STD
CA onion
STD
CA almond
STD
Uses
Represented
Legumes
Legumes
Cole Crop
Leafy Vegetable
Rutabaga
Turnip (in
furrow)
Field and sweet
corn
Field and sweet
corn
Field and sweet
corn
Cotton
Cotton
Grapes
Mint
Dry bulb onion
Fig
Orchard Floor
Tree Fruit and
Nuts (dormant)
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Liquid
liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Application
Method
Ground
Seed treatment
Ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Ground
incorporated
Seed treatment
Air and ground
Seed treatment
Ground
Ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Ground
Airblast
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
0.5
0.000295
2.75
1
1
0.0108
1
0.0059
2.25
2
1
2
2
2
No.
Apps.
1
1
1
3
3
3
3
3
1
3
1
1
5
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
NA
NA
NA
10
10
10
10
10
NA
NS
NA
NA
10
NA
Peak
EEC
1.1
0.0003
6.3
3.9
1.1
0.01
5.1
0.007
1.2
2.4
1.9
1.1
1.0
6.8
3.3
21-day
average
EEC
0.5
0.0001
3.2
2.3
0.6
0.006
2.5
0.005
0.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
0.5
3.7
1.5
60-day
average
EEC
0.3
0.00007
2.0
1.6
0.3
0.003
2.0
0.004
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
2.0
0.9
79
-------
Table 3.4 Aquatic EECs (ug/L) for Chlorpyrifos Uses in California
PRZM
Scenario
CA fruit
STD
CA wheat
RLF
CA
strawberry
RLF
CA
sugarbeet OP
CA wheat
RLF
CA potato
RLF
Uses
Represented
Tree Fruit and
Nuts (foliar)
Pear
Apple (dormant)
Grain sorghum
(milo)
Grain sorghum
(milo)
Grain sorghum
Strawberry
Sugarbeet
(foliar)
Sugarbeet (soil
incorporated)
Sugarbeet (soil
incorporated)
Sunflower
Wheat
Wheat
Sunflower
Sweet potato
Formulation
Type
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Flowable
Concentrate
Liquid
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Flowable
Concentrate
Granular
Liquid
Application
Method
Air and ground
Ground
Airblast
Air and ground
Ground
incorporated
Seed treatment
Ground & ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Ground
incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Air and ground
Ground & ground
incorporated
Seed treatment
Ground
incorporated
Ground & ground
incorporated
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
2
2
2
1
1.5
0.00708
1
1
2
2
1.5
0.5
0.05251
1.3
2
No.
Apps.
3
1
2
3
1
1
2
3
3
1
3
2
2
1
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
10
NA
10
10
NA
NA
10
10
10
NA
10
NS
NS
NA
NA
Peak
EEC
7.1
1.3
3.2
5.3
0.9
0.004
4.5
3.3
3.6
0.5
7.9
1.3
0.07
0.8
1.7
21-day
average
EEC
4.2
0.6
1.8
2.5
0.5
0.002
1.9
1.9
1.6
0.2
3.8
0.7
0.04
0.4
0.7
60-day
average
EEC
3.0
0.3
0.8
1.8
0.3
0.002
1.2
1.4
1.1
0.1
2.7
0.5
0.03
0.3
0.4
80
-------
Table 3.4 Aquatic EECs (ug/L) for Chlorpyrifos Uses in California
PRZM
Scenario
CA
rangeland
RLF
CA nursery
CA right of
way RLF
CA turf RLF
Uses
Represented
Sweet potato
Ant mounds
Ant mounds
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
Road median
Road median
Turfgrass for
Sod
Turfgrass
Formulation
Type
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Liquid
Granular
Application
Method
Ground
incorporated
Ground spot
treatment
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground
Ground -
broadcast
Application
Rate
(Ibs ai/acre)
2
2
2
8
4
6
1
1
4
1
No.
Apps.
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Minimum
Interval
(days)
NA
10
10
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Peak
EEC
0.4
1.9
1.9
45.1
22.6
32.1
1.5
1.5
1.6
0.08
21-day
average
EEC
0.2
0.9
0.9
20.1
10.1
14.4
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.04
60-day
average
EEC
0.1
0.7
0.5
11.9
6.0
8.6
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.02
81
-------
In addition, a limited set of sediment concentration were estimated using PRZM/EXAMS. The
scenarios resulting in the highest and lowest water concentrations were used to predict both
sediment and pore water. The scenarios selected were the outdoor nursery use, cole crop
(selected to provide the next lowest EEC due to uncertainty with the nursery scenario), and the
granular turf use. The granular turf yielded the lowest water EEC. Results for these three
scenarios are presented in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Summary of Sediment and Pore Water EEC using selected PRZM
scenarios
Pore Water Concentration Sediment Concentration
Scenario
CA Cole Crops
CA Nursery
CA Turf
Peak
3.789
5.898
0.018
fag/L)
21-day
average
3.740
5.799
0.018
60-day
average
3.497
5.341
0.017
Peak
0.921
1.431
0.004
(mg/kg)
21-day
average
0.909
1.411
0.004
60-day
average
0.850
1.296
0.004
Considering that the log Kow value for chlorpyrifos exceeds 4, and that chlorpyrifos can persist
for relatively long periods of time in aquatic ecosystems, the KABAM model was used to
evaluate potential exposure and risk via bioaccumulation and biomagnification in aquatic food
webs. Previous analyses using an earlier version of the KABAM model indicate relatively close
agreement between its predicted bioconcentration factor (BCF) and those reported from
experimental studies for chlorpyrifos (USEPA 2007; D346213). Details of the bioaccumulation
assessment for chlorpyrifos in relation to the assessed species are provided in Section 5.2.4.1.
Estimated Bioconcentration Factor values
In order to estimate Bioconcentration Factor (BCF) values for aquatic organisms accumulating
chlorpyrifos, KABAM was run, using a log (Kow) of 4.7 to represent the partitioning of
chlorpyrifos to aquatic organisms. The body characteristics of organisms in the model trophic
levels are depicted in Table 3.6. The resulting BCF values for these trophic levels are depicted in
Table 3.7. Output files from KABAM are provided in Table 5.19 and Appendix C.
Table 3.6 Characteristics of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.
Trophic Level
sediment*
phytoplankton
zooplankton
benthic invertebrates
filter feeders
small fish
medium fish
large fish
Wet Weight (kg)
N/A
N/A
1.0E-07
1.0E-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
% lipids
0.0%
2.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
% Non-lipid Organic
Matter
4.0%
8.0%
12.0%
21 .0%
13.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
% Water
96.0%
90.0%
85.0%
76.0%
85.0%
73.0%
73.0%
73.0%
* N/A = not applicable Note that sediment is not a trophic level. It is included in this table
because it is consumed by aquatic organisms of the KABAM foodweb.
82
-------
Table 3.7 Total BCFand BAF values of Chlorpyrifos in aquatic trophic levels.
Trophic Level
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Benthic Invertebrates
Filter Feeders
Small Fish
Medium Fish
Large Fish
Total Bioconcentration Factor
(ug/kg-ww)/(ug/L)
2407
1715
1837
1208
2363
2363
2409
Total Bioaccumulation Factor
(ug/kg-ww)/(ug/L)
2312
1738
1894
1245
2618
2861
3411
KABAM was run in default mode (see user's guide for full description), with a Log Kow = 4.7, a
Koc = 6070 L/mg-OC (see Table 3.2); and surface water and pore water EECs of 5.36 and 3.31
ppb, respectively. These EECs were generated by PRZM/EXAMS and based on the cole crop
ground application (See Table 3.7).
3.2.4 Existing Monitoring Data
A critical step in the process of characterizing EECs is comparing the modeled estimates with
available surface water monitoring data. Included in this assessment are chlorpyrifos data from
the USGS NAWQA program (http://water.usgs.gov/nawqa) and data from the California
Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) as well as a summary of data from open literature
and registrant submitted studies. In addition, air monitoring data for chlorpyrifos are
summarized.
3.2.4.1 USGS NAWQA Surface Water Data
The USGS NAWQA program database was accessed on May 27, 2009 and all chlorpyrifos
related data was extracted including both parent chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon in surface
water. The data extraction was limited to NAWQA sites within California only. For parent
chlorpyrifos a total of 2230 samples were available where chlorpyrifos had been analyzed for.
Of these, there are 865 samples with detectable levels of chlorpyrifos and 286 samples with
estimated concentrations below the limit of quantitation (LOQ). The combined detections and
estimated detections yield a frequency of detection for chlorpyrifos of 52%. The maximum
detected value was 0.4 ppb in 2001 from Merced county (Station ID #11261100). The NAWQA
samples with the highest detections typically occur in a period between late winter and mid
summer.
For chlorpyrifos oxon a total of 430 samples were analyzed and of these a total of 4 samples had
estimated detections below the LOQ for a frequency of detection of 1%. The maximum
estimated value was 0.0346 ppb from 2004 in Merced county (Station ID #373112120382901)
83
-------
3.2.4.2 USGS NAWQA Groundwater Data
The USGS NAWQA program database was accessed on June 8, 2009 and all chlorpyrifos related
data was extracted including both parent chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos oxon in groundwater.
The data extraction was limited to NAWQA sites within California only. For parent chlorpyrifos
a total of 828 samples were available where chlorpyrifos had been analyzed for. Of these, there
are 1 sample with detectable levels of chlorpyrifos and no samples with estimated concentrations
below the limit of quantitation (LOQ). The combined detections and estimated detections yield a
frequency of detection for chlorpyrifos of 0.1%. The maximum detected value was 0.006 ppb in
1993 from Merced county (Station ID # 363805119345001). For chlorpyrifos oxon a total of
328 samples were analyzed and of these no samples had either detected or estimated detections.
While not conclusive these data suggest that groundwater is not a significant route of exposure
for this chlorpyrifos.
3.2.4.3 California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CPR) Data
The California Department of Pesticide Regulation (CDPR) maintains a Surface Water Database
of pesticide detections in surface waters of the entire state updated through June 2008. The
Agency accessed this data base and extracted the chlorpyrifos specific results. The database is
split into regional files which the Agency re-assembled into a single spreadsheet for analysis. In
addition, the database contains data on sediment sampling and these also were extracted for
chlorpyrifos. The data represents monitoring data collected between 1991 and 2005.
For surface water the database contained 7400 samples with 1857 detections of chlorpyrifos
yielding a frequency of detection of roughly 25%. The maximum detection was 3.96 ppb in
2003 from a sample in Quail Creek (ID # 7929) in Monterey County. Overall, 10 samples had
concentrations greater than 1 ppb though most of these were collected prior to 2000. However,
three of the samples greater than one were collected post 2000 with most of the highest
detections occurring in Monterey and Stanislaus counties. In addition, the samples with the
highest concentratins typically occur in the spring and summer. The locations of the surface
water sites are shown in Figure 3.2.
84
-------
Figure 3.2 Location of CDPR surface water sites with chlorpyrifos detections relative to
landcover.
Sites in red represent locations with detections greater than 1 ppb.
The Agency also accessed the sediment portion of the database. A total of 24 analytical results
were available from 2004 in Placer County. Of these, 9 samples had detectable levels of
chlorpyrifos in sediment. The highest concentration detected was 0.019 ppm.
3.2.4.4 Open Literature Data
The Agency has also completed a review of open literature data on the occurrence of
chlorpyrifos in surface waters of the State of California (Bailey et al., 2000; Kozlowski et al.,
2004; Schulz, 2004; Schiff and Tiefenthaler, 2003; Schiff and Sutual, 2004; Bacey and Spurlock,
2007; Bacey 2005; Starner et al., 2003; Spurlock, 2002; Giesy et al., 1999; and Poletika et al.,
2002; and Ross et al., 2000). The focus of this review has been on occurrence data subsequent to
2000 although an overall CDPR summary review (Spurlock et al., 2002) provided an excellent
85
-------
summary of pre-RED exposures. In general, these studies cover a range of aquatic habitats from
small highly vulnerable habitats such as irrigation ditches to rivers and coastal lagoons. Overall,
chlorpyrifos exposures in these studies ranged from lows of 0.004 ppb to high of 3.8 ppb.
Exceptions to this were high concentrations from Kozlowski et al., 2004; Schiff and
Thiefenthaler, 2003; and Singhasemanon, et al., 1998. Kozlowski et al., 2004 documented a
maximum concentration of 28.5 ppb, however the value in Kozlowski represented a total
chlorpyrifos exposure including a water component of 0.85 ppb and chlorpyrifos bound to
suspended sediment of roughly 27 ppb. In Schiff and Thiefenthaler, 2003 surface water
concentrations from residential neighborhoods were documented in both wet and dry seasons
with chlorpyrifos concentrations generally below 1 ppb although a single exposure period in
2001 yielded concentrations as high as 10 ppb from two of three sites. It should be noted that the
residential values in Schiff represented a period prior to the phase out of urban uses of
chlorpyrifos. In Singhasemanon et al., 1998 sampling was conduced from POTW influent and
effluent sampling and chlorpyrifos was again generally below 1 ppb though a single effluent
sample from a POTW with a pet grooming facility was as high as 38 ppb which again was from
a period prior to the phase out of many non agricultural uses. Finally, a series of registrant
sponsored edge of field runoff studies were considered which indicated generally higher
exposures of up to 58 ppb in runoff. The overall trend is for decreasing exposures likely due to
label changes and use limitations implemented in the RED process and that lower exposures are
generally found in rivers relative to smaller habitats such as ditches and tributaries.
3.2.4.5 Atmospheric Monitoring Data
Both parent chlorpyrifos and chlorpyrifos-oxon have been detected in numerous studies
indicating atmospheric transport is a significant concern (McConnell et al., 1998; Sparling et al.,
2001; Lenoir et al., 1999; Fellers et al., 2004; Majewski and Capel, 1995; Zamora et al., 2003;
Vogel et al., 2008; Landers et al., 2008; Aston and Seiber, 1997; Hageman et al., 2006; Zabik
and Seiber, 1993; and Usenko et al., 2005). Evidence that these data represent long range
transport and not edge of field spray drift events are noted in the studies and focus primarily on
occurrence in areas far afield from agricultural sites where chlorpyrifos is likely applied. In fact,
many of these studies document the occurrence of chlorpyrifos in various media (air, rain, and
snow) at high elevations in the Sierra Nevada mountains where no applications occur. The
following summarizes some of the key findings from selected studies with emphasis on
occurrence data from California.
Majewski and Capel, 1995 summarized available literature documenting atmospheric transport
across the United States and found chlorpyrifos in rain between 1.3 to 180 ng/1, in air between
0.005 to 199 ng/m3, and in fog between 1.3 to 14,200 ng/1. Locally McConnell et al., 1998
detected chlorpyrifos up to 220 ng/1 in high mountain lake water, in rain/snow samples in high
Sierra mountain locations up to 180 ng/1, and in fog water up to 14,200. McConnell, 2005 found
chlorpyrifos in Tahoe snow at approximately 4.5 ng/1, Yosemite snow at 11 ng/1, Sequoia snow
at 9 ng/1, and in Sequoia National Park found chlorpyrifos oxon at 5.5 ng/1. Sparling et al., 2001
found chlorpyrifos in air at 25ng/g while LeNoir et al., 1999 found chlorpyrifos in air at up to
17.5 ng/m3 and chlorpyrifos oxon at up to 30.4 ng/m3, in dry deposition samples found
chlorpyrifos at up to 24 ng.m2/day and the oxon at up to 80 ng/m2/day, and LeNoir found parent
above 1000 m > 100 ng/1 and the oxon above 1000 m > 37 ng/1. Landers et al, 2008 found
86
-------
chlorpyrifos in vegetation samples from US National Parks between 1 to 31 ng/g lipid with
increasing concentrations with elevation and the highest samples from Yosemite Park.
Additional studies by USGS and the State of California (Zamora et al., 2003; Vogel et al., 2008;
Spector et al., 2004) found local concentrations in agricultural settings of between 0.04 and 1.84
ppb in rainfall for parent and up to 0.1 ppb of chlorpyrifos oxon in the Central Valley..
3.2.4.6 Comparison of Modeling and Surface Water Monitoring Data
In general comparison of modeled and monitored surface water data suggests that EEC estimated
by PRZM/EXAMS are providing a reasonable upper bound estimate of potential exposure from
chlorpyrifos to CRLF and SFB species in most aquatic habitats. In addition a total of 28 PRZM
scenarios are available for California and of these 21 were used in this assessment including the
most vulnerable scenarios available which are associated with uses in Northern California and
the coastal regions near San Francisco (where the CRLF and SFB species are located). With the
exception of the nursery scenarios most modeled EEC are between 0.1 ppb and 16 ppb with the
bulk of the use sites between 1 ppb and 6 ppb. By way of comparison most monitoring data
yields exposures well below 1 ppb although individual results have yielded results as high as 10
ppb for water only and up to 28 ppb for water/sediment mixtures. Higher concentrations were
seen in registrant sponsored edge of field runoff studies and while these may represent extreme
exposures they will generally represent transient exposures that will ultimately be diluted once
reaching aquatic habitats. Overall, these data suggest a general concurrence between modeling
and lend credence to the use of the modeled EEC in estimating risk.
3.3 Terrestrial Animal Exposure Assessment
T-REX (Version 1.3.1) is used to calculate dietary and dose-based EECs of chlorpyrifos for
birds, mammals, and terrestrial invertebrates. T-REX simulates a 1-year time period. For this
assessment, spray and granular applications of chlorpyrifos are considered, as discussed below.
RQ's for granular and seed treatment applications are not based on EECs but rather calculated in
terms of LDso per square foot. Therefore, EECs for granular and seed treatments are not
generated for these uses.
Terrestrial EECs for foliar formulations of chlorpyrifos were derived for the uses summarized in
Table 3.8. Crop-specific decline data for residues of chlorpyrifos from submitted crop field trial
studies are available for several commodities. Based on available data, foliar dissipation half-
lives have been derived all commodities treated with liquid formulations. Using conservative
assumptions, maximum half-life values from representative commodities were used for
individual commodities (e.g., sugarbeet tops for leafy commodities, sorghum for grain crops and
dormant tree crops, apple for fruit and nut commodities etc.) Use-specific input values,
including number of applications, application rate, foliar half-life and application interval are
provided in Tables 3.8 to 3.10. An example output from T-REX is available in Appendix D.
87
-------
Table 3.8 Input Parameters for Foliar Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs for
Chlorpyrifos with T-REX
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground,
Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut
(Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig
(Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground;
Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn,
Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage,
Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip
(Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Application
rate
(Ibs ai/A)
1
2
2
1.5
2
1
4
1
o
J
1.5
2.25
2
1
2
1
1.5
0.5
4
4
Number
of
Applications
4
3
2
3
1
3
2
3
3
2
1
3
3
1
3
3
2
I5
26
Application
Interval
(days)
10
10
10
10
NA
7
30
10
10
10
N/A
N/A
14
N/A
10
10
10
NA
7
Foliar
Dissipation
Half-Life
18 1
22 2
53
18
5
18
II4
5
18
22
5
18
5
22
18
5
5
18
18
Alfalfa, Asparagus, Christmas Tree, Cole Crop, Mint, Strawberry, Sugarbeet, Ornamentals, Turf Grass - Representative
commodity - Sugarbeet tops (MRID 00101566)
2 Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, Cranberry, Strawberry - Representative commodity Apple (MRID
00095264)
3 Apple, Cherry, Com/Cotton, Grape, Fig, Sunflower, Wheat - Representative commodity Sorghum (MRID 00046785)
4 Citrus - Representative commodity Orange (MRID 00095260)
Number of applications and application intervals are not specified on the label; a single application is assumed
Number of applications is not specified on the label; two applications at 7 day intervals are assumed
N/A = Non-applicable
-------
Table 3.9 Input Parameters for Granular Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial EECs
for Chlorpyrifos with T-REX
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa, Onion (In-furrow)
Asparagus, Citrus Orchard Floors, Corn, Road Median, Turf Grass
(Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated)
Citrus Orchard Floor (Broadcast: Ground Unincorporated)
Cole Crop (Brassica) Leafy Vegetables and Radish, Rutabaga and Turnip
(T-band: Lightly Incorporated)
Corn (Broadcast: Aerial)
Peanut, Sweet Potato, Tobacco (Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated)
Sorghum - Grain Sorghum (Milo) (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Soybean (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sugarbeet (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sunflower (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sweet Potato (Broadcast; Ground Incorporated)
Outdoor Nurseries (Broadcast; Unincorporated)
Application
rate (Ibs
ai/A)
1
1
1
2.25
1
2
1.5
2
1.2
1.3
2
62
Row
Spacing
(in)1
18
NA
NA
18
NA
NA
18
18
18
18
NA
NA
Band
Width
(in)
4
NA
NA
4
NA
NA
6
4
4
4
NA
NA
1 Row spacing and band width parameters based on label specifications
6 Ib ai/A for commercial approved use only
Table 3.10 Input Parameters for Seed Treatment Applications Used to Derive Terrestrial
EECs for Chlorpyrifos with T-REX
Use
Field Beans, Green Beans, Kidney Beans, Lima Beans, Navy Beans, Snap
Beans, String Beans, Wax Beans, Black-Eyed Peas, Field Peas, Garden
Peas, Corn, Cucumbers, Pumpkins
Cotton
Sorghum, Wheat
Application rate (fl oz/100 Ibs seed)
2.75
5.5
0.114
Upper-bound Kenega nomogram values reported by T-REX are used for derivation of dietary
EECs for the CRLF, California clapper rail, CA tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake,
and their potential prey (Table 3.11 & 3.12). Potential direct effects of Chlorpyrifos to the
terrestrial-phase CRLF, juvenile California clapper rail, CA tiger salamander and San Francisco
garter snake are derived by considering dose-based exposures modeled in T-REX for a small bird
(20g) consuming small invertebrates. Potential direct effects to the adult California clapper rail
are derived by considering dose-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a 100 g bird consuming a
variety of dietary items.
89
-------
Table 3.11 Chlorpyrifos Dietary and Dose-Based EECs for CRLF, Juvenile California
clapper rail, CA tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake and their Prey
Use (Application method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut,
(Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig
(Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground;
Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn,
Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, Collar,
Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
EECs for SFB Listed
Species
Dietary-
based EEC
(ppm)
332
611
338
434
270
317
636
177
868
350
304
579
157
270
289
266
84
540
952
Dose-based
EEC1
(mg/kg-bw)
378
696
384
494
308
361
724
202
989
399
346
659
179
308
330
303
96
615
1085
EECs for Prey
(small mammals)
Dietary-
based EEC
(ppm)
590
1086
600
772
480
563
1130
315
1543
623
540
1029
279
480
514
473
150
960
1693
Dose-based
EEC2
(mg/kg-bw)
563
1035
572
736
458
537
1077
300
1471
594
515
981
266
458
490
451
143
915
1614
20 g Avian Consuming Broadleaf Plants/sm Insects 15 g Mammal Consuming Short Grass
(Size/class not used for dietary-based EECs)
90
-------
Table 3.12 Chlorpyrifos Dose-Based EECs for the Adult California Clapper Rail
Use (Application method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese
Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg-bw)
216
397
219
281
176
206
413
115
564
228
197
376
102
176
188
173
55
351
619
1 100 g Avian Consuming Broadleaf Plants/sm Insects
Potential direct acute and chronic effects specifically to the Salt Marsh harvest mouse are derived
by considering dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a small mammal (15 g)
consuming a variety of dietary items. Potential direct acute and chronic effects specifically to
the San Joaquin fox are derived by considering dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX
for a large mammal (1,000 g) consuming a variety of dietary items (Table 3.13).
91
-------
Table 3.13 Chlorpyrifos Dietary and Dose-based EECs for the Salt Marsh Mouse and San
Joaquin Kit Fox
Use (Application method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig
(Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground;
Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton,
Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale,
Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
San Joaquin Kit
Fox
Dose-based EEC
(mg/kg/bw) '
90
166
92
118
73
86
173
48
236
95
83
157
43
73
79
72
23
147
259
Salt Marsh Mouse
Dietary-
based EEC
(ppm)
590
1086
600
772
480
563
1130
315
1543
623
540
1029
279
480
514
473
150
960
1693
Dose-based
EEC
(mg/kg-bw) 2
563
1035
572
736
458
537
1077
300
1471
594
515
981
266
458
490
451
143
915
1614
1 1000 g Mammal Consuming Short Grass; 2 15 g Mammal Consuming Short Grass
T-REX is also used to calculate EECs for terrestrial insects exposed to chlorpyrifos. Dietary-
based EECs calculated by T-REX for small and large insects (units of a.i./g) are used to bound
an estimate of exposure to bees. Available acute contact toxicity data for bees exposed to
chlorpyrifos (in units of jig a.i./bee), are converted to jig a.i./g (of bee) by multiplying by 1
bee/0.128 g. The EECs are later compared to the adjusted acute contact toxicity data for bees in
order to derive RQs. Dietary-based EECs for small and large insects reported by T-REX as well
as the resulting adjusted EECs are available in Table 3.14. An example output from T-REX v.
1.4.1 is available in Appendix D.
92
-------
Table 3.14 EECs (ppm) for Terrestrial Invertebrates
Use
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast
Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage,
Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Small Insect
332
611
338
434
270
317
636
177
868
350
304
579
157
270
289
266
84
540
952
Large Insect
37
68
38
48
30
35
70
20
97
39
42
64
18
30
32
30
9
60
105
3.4 Terrestrial Plant Exposure Assessment
Since there are no terrestrial plant toxicity data available, exposures were not quantitatively
estimated. See Section 5.2 for a qualitative discussion regarding the potential effects of
chlorpyrifos on CRLF via effects to terrestrial plants.
4 Effects Assessment
This assessment evaluates the potential for chlorpyrifos to directly or indirectly affect the
California red-legged frog, Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse,
California tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp, San
Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly, or modify their
designated critical habitat. As previously discussed in Section 2.7, assessment endpoints for the
effects determination for the assessed species include direct toxic effects on survival,
reproduction, and growth, as well as indirect effects, such as reduction of the prey base and/or
effects to habitat. In addition, potential effects to critical habitat were assessed by evaluating
effects to the PCEs, which are components of the critical habitat areas that provide essential
needs of each assessed species, such as water quality and food base (see Section 2.4). Direct
effects to the Delta smelt and aquatic-phase of both California red-legged frog and California
tiger salamander were based on toxicity information for freshwater fish and amphibian data,
93
-------
while terrestrial-phase amphibian effects (terrestrial-phase of both California red-legged frog and
California tiger salamander) and reptiles (San Francisco garter snake) were based on avian
toxicity data, given that birds are generally used as a surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians
and reptiles.
As described in the Agency's Overview Document (U.S. EPA, 2004), the most sensitive
endpoint for each taxon is used for risk estimation. For this assessment, evaluated taxa include
the species listed in the previous paragraph, but their evaluation necessitated the evaluation of
other freshwater fish (also used as a surrogate for aquatic-phase amphibians), freshwater
invertebrates, estuarine/marine fish, estuarine/marine invertebrates, aquatic plants, birds (also
used as a surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians and reptiles), mammals, terrestrial
invertebrates, and terrestrial plants. Acute (short-term) and chronic (long-term) toxicity
information was characterized based on registrant-submitted studies and a comprehensive review
of the open literature on chlorpyrifos.
Toxicity endpoints were established based on data generated from guideline studies submitted by
the registrant, and from open literature studies that meet the criteria for inclusion into the
ECOTOX database maintained by EPA/Office of Research and Development (ORD) (U.S. EPA,
2004). Open literature data presented in this assessment were obtained from the Re-registration
Eligibility Decision (RED) document (USEPA, 2002) as well as ECOTOX information obtained
on October 23, 2007 and June 4, 2009. In order to be included in the ECOTOX database, papers
must meet the following minimum criteria:
toxic effects are related to single chemical exposure;
toxic effects are on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species;
a biological effect is identified on live, whole organisms;
a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or application rate is
reported; and
duration of exposure is explicit.
Data that pass the ECOTOX screen are evaluated along with the registrant-submitted data, and
may be incorporated qualitatively or quantitatively into this endangered species assessment. In
general, only effects data in the open literature that are more conservative than the registrant-
submitted data are considered. In this case, all amphibian and copepod (the favorite food of the
red-legged frog) data that passed the ECOTOX screening were considered. The degree to which
open literature data are quantitatively or qualitatively characterized for the effects determination
is dependent on whether the information is relevant to the assessment endpoints (i.e., survival,
reproduction, and growth; or, alteration of PCEs in the critical habitat impact analysis) identified
in the problem formulation. For example, endpoints such as biochemical modifications are
unlikely to be used to calculate risk quotients unless it is possible to quantitatively link these
endpoints with reduction in survival, reproduction, or growth (e.g., the magnitude of effect on
the biochemical endpoint needed to result in effects on survival, growth, or reproduction is
known). Although the effects determination relies on endpoints measurably linked to assessment
endpoints of survival, growth, or reproduction, please note that the full suite of sublethal
endpoints available in effects literature (regardless of their significance to assessment endpoints)
were considered to define the action area for chlorpyrifos.
94
-------
Submitted studies and reviewed open literature are summarized in Appendix E. A bibliography
of all open literature considered as part of this assessment regardless of whether the data were
accepted or rejected by ECOTOX are included in Appendices F and G, respectively. Most
open literature accepted by the ECOTOX screen were not used in this risk assessment because
the endpoints were less sensitive than those already accepted from past assessments; these
citations, as well as those that were included in Appendix E, are listed in Appendix F.
Appendix G includes a list of citations that did not pass the ECOTOX screening and a rationale
for rejection of those studies. A detailed spreadsheet of the available ECOTOX open literature
data, including the full suite of lethal and sublethal endpoints is presented in Appendix H.
Appendix I also includes a summary of the human health effects data for chlorpyrifos.
Open literature toxicity data for other 'target' insect species (not including bees, butterflies,
beetles, and non-insect invertebrates including soil arthropods and worms), which include
efficacy studies, are not currently considered in deriving the most sensitive endpoint for
terrestrial insects. Efficacy studies do not typically provide endpoint values that are useful for
risk assessment (e.g., NOAEC, EC50, etc.), but rather are intended to identify a dose that
maximizes a particular effect (e.g., EC 100). Therefore, efficacy data and non-efficacy
toxicological target insect data are not included in the ECOTOX open literature summary table
provided in Appendix H. For the purposes of this assessment, 'target' insect species are defined
as all terrestrial insects with the exception of bees, butterflies, beetles, and non-insect
invertebrates (i.e., soil arthropods, worms, etc.) which are included in the ECOTOX data
presented in Appendix H. The list of citations including toxicological and/or efficacy data on
target insect species not considered in this assessment is provided in Appendix G.
In addition to registrant-submitted and open literature toxicity information, other sources of
information, including reviews of the Ecological Incident Information System (EIIS), were
conducted to further refine the characterization of potential ecological effects associated with
exposure to chlorpyrifos. A summary of the available incident information for chlorpyrifos are
provided in Sections 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.1.2.
Toxicity data for degradates of the chlorpyrifos parent compound, were sparse. The potential for
additional risk to the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and Delta smelt,
from exposure to chlorpyrifos oxon as a transformation product of applied chlorpyrifos is
characterized in the risk description (Section 5.2), along with indirect effects to the other species
of concern. A detailed summary of the available ecotoxicity information for chlorpyrifos oxon
and citations that include studies using degradates and formulated products can be found in
Section 4.6 and Appendices F, and G, respectively.
As discussed in the problem formulation, toxicity data show that other pesticides may combine
with chlorpyrifos to produce synergistic, additive, and/or antagonistic toxic interactions.
Toxicity studies of mixtures of chlorpyrifos with other pesticides are listed in Appendix A. If
chlorpyrifos is present in the environment in combination with other chemicals, the toxicity of
the mixture may be increased relative to the toxicity of each individual chemical, offset by other
environmental factors, or even reduced by the presence of antagonistic contaminants if they were
also present in the mixture. The variety of chemical interactions presented in the available data
95
-------
set suggest that the toxic effect of chlorpyrifos, in combination with other pesticides used in the
environment, can be a function of many factors including but not necessarily limited to (1) the
exposed species, (2) the co-contaminants in the mixture, (3) the ratio of chlorpyrifos and co-
contaminant concentrations, (4) differences in the pattern and duration of exposure among
contaminants, and (5) the differential effects of other physical/chemical characteristics of the
receiving waters (e.g. organic matter present in sediment and suspended water). Quantitatively
predicting the combined effects of all these variables on mixture toxicity to any given taxon with
confidence was beyond the capabilities of the available data.
4.1 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Aquatic Organisms
A brief summary of open literature data considered relevant to this ecological risk assessment for
the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, California freshwater
shrimp and listed species that rely on aquatic organisms for food, is presented in Appendix E.
The most sensitive of these endpoints are listed in Table 4.1; this selection was based on an
evaluation of both the submitted studies and the open literature, as previously discussed. These
endpoints were used to calculate RQs that relied on aquatic data. Amphibian data were used to
calculate acute and chronic RQs for direct effects on the aquatic-phase California red-legged frog
and California tiger salamander and indirect effects on organisms that feed on aquatic-phase
amphibians. Freshwater and estuarine/marine fish data were used to calculate RQs for direct
effects on the Delta smelt and indirect effects on organisms that feed on fish. Freshwater
crustacean data were used to calculate RQs for direct effects on the California freshwater shrimp.
Freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate data were used to calculate RQs for indirect effects
on organisms that feed on these aquatic invertebrates, respectively. The non-vascular plant
datum was used to represent all plant groups and calculate potential indirect effects for all
species studied.
96
-------
Table 4.1 Aquatic toxicity profile for chlorpyrifos
Taxon
Aquatic-
phase
Amphibians
Freshwater
Fish
Estuarine/
Marine Fish
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Estuarine/
Marine
Invertebrates
Non-vascular
plant
Exposure
Duration
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Crustacean
Acute
Insect
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Most Sensitive
Species Tested
African clawed
frog tadpole,
Xenopus laevis
African clawed
frog tadpole, X.
laevis
Bluegill Sunfish
Lepomis
macrochirus
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Tidewater
silverside
Menidia
peninsulae
Atlantic silverside
M. menidia
Daphnid,
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
Blackfly
Simulium vittatum
IS- 7
Daphnid, C. cf
dubia
Mysid shrimp
Americamysis
bahia
Mysid shrimp
A. bahia
Alga
Isochrysis
galbana
Toxicity Value
LC50 = 0.6 ug/L
LOAEC = 0.1ug/L
No NOAEC
LC50= 1.8 ug/L
Life-Cycle
NOAEC = 0.57
ug/L
LC50= 0.70 ug/L
NOAEC = 0.28
ug/L
LC50 = 0.07 ug/L
LC50 = 0.06 ug/L
NOAEC = 0.025
ug/L
LC50 = 0.035 ug/L
NOAEC < 0.0046
ug/L
EC50 = 140 ug/L
Acute
Toxicity
Category
Very highly
toxic
N/A
Very highly
toxic
N/A
Very highly
toxic
N/A
Very highly
toxic
Very highly
toxic
N/A
Very highly
toxic
N/A
N/A
Reference
E86343
Richards, 2000
E7 1867 Richards
& Kendall, 2003
40098001
Mayer &
Ellersieck, 1986
42834401
Mayesetal., 1993
E11868Borthwick
etal., 1985
00154718
Goodman et al.
1985
E108483 Pablo et
al., 2008
E80409
Hydere/a/.,2005
E65825 Rose et
al., 2002
40228401
Mayer 1986
42664901
Svedetal. 1993
40228401
Mayer 1986
Toxicity to fish, aquatic invertebrates, birds, and mammals is categorized using the system
shown in Table 4.2 (USEPA, 2004). For non-target terrestrial insects, chemicals with LDso
values of <2, 2 - 11, and >11 jig/bee are classified as highly toxic, moderately toxic, and
practically nontoxic, respectively Toxicity categories for terrestrial and aquatic plants have not
been defined.
97
-------
Table 4.2 Categories of Acute Toxicity for Terrestrial and Aquatic Animals.
Toxicity Category
Very highly toxic
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
Practically nontoxic
Aquatic Animals
[LC5o/EC5o (mg/L)]
<0.1
0.1 -1
>1-10
> 10 - 100
>100
Birds and Mammals
[LD50 (mg/kg-bw)]
<10
10-50
51-500
501-2000
>2000
Birds
[LC50 (mg/kg-diet)]
<50
50 - 500
501 - 1000
1001-5000
>5000
4.1.1 Toxicity to Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-Phase Amphibians
Fish and aquatic-phase amphibian toxicity data were used to evaluate direct effects to the Delta
smelt and to aquatic-phase California tiger salamander and California red-legged frog, as well as
potential indirect effects to the California clapper rail and San Francisco garter snake. A
summary of acute and chronic freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibian data, including data
from the open literature, is provided below in Sections 4.1.1.1 through 4.1.1.3. Additional
information is included in Appendices E, F and G.
4.1.1.1 Freshwater Fish: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
Acceptable chlorpyrifos toxicity data were available for several fish species, including fathead
minnows (Oncoryncus mykiss\ guppies (Poecilla reticulate)., rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus
mykiss), and bluegill sunfish (Lepomis macrochirus). LCso values were similar between most of
these species, but a few species were quiet resistant, with freshwater values ranging from 1.8 to
280 ug/L chlorpyrifos in bluegill sunfish and channel catfish, respectively (MRID 40098001 and
40098001), Appendix E (also see USEPA, 2002). Chlorpyrifos is classified as very highly toxic
to most fish on an acute exposure basis.
The most sensitive species among the freshwater and estuarine/marine fish species tested was
used to calculate risk quotients and characterize the risk for the Delta smelt, regardless of the
salinity environment because the Delta smelt enters both freshwater and saltwater environments.
No acceptable acute LCso values for fish were located in the open literature, that were more
sensitive than those already accepted from former assessments. Therefore, the lowest LC50
reported for fish, which was 1.8 ug/L chlorpyrifos for bluegill sunfish (MRID 40098001), was
used for risk quotient (RQ) calculations for the Delta smelt (Table 4.1).
4.1.1.2 Freshwater Fish: Chronic Exposure (Growth/Reproduction) and Sublethal Effects
Studies
The collection of chronic studies reviewed in the most recent chlorpyrifos RED (USEPA, 2002,
summarized in Appendix E) provide enough data to show that reproductive effects are likely to
result from chlorpyrifos exposures. The fathead minnow NOAEC value was selected as the fish
chronic endpoint in that RED, because survival was significantly reduced at 1.09 ppb (the
LOAEC; MRID 42834401); the NOAEC was 0.57 ppb chlorpyrifos. This test reported
98
-------
significant (P < 0.05) effects on adult length and adult body weight. These effects were
determined to be temporal and/or non-dose related, hence they were not used for the LOAEC
determination. Rather, the LOAEC of 1.09 ppb was based on significant reduction in survival
for adults (14 % by Day 12) and offspring (35% by Day 5). This life-cycle study showed that the
second generation was more sensitive than the first generation. This study fulfilled guideline
requirement for a chronic freshwater fish study with technical grade chlorpyrifos and was used to
calculate chronic RQs for the Delta smelt (Table 4.1)
Sublethal effects were also reviewed in the open literature where the exposure duration was sub-
chronic (Appendix E). One such study (De Silva & Samayawardhena, 2002) using a typical
end-use product, reported mortality, paralysis and histological abnormalities in juvenile guppies
exposed to chlorpyrifos. This study showed guppies to be more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than
fathead minnows, but the study did not produce an NOAEC. Authors looked at behavioral and
histological effects of low concentrations of Lorsban to early life stages of guppies (Poecilla
reticulate). The test concentrations were expressed as ug/L Lorsban, rather than ug/L
chlorpyrifos. The Lorsban used in the study contained.400 ug/L chlorpyrifos, purity 98%. It
may be assumed that the actual LCso and LOAEC were approximately 60% lower than those
reported but since concentrations were not measured, it was not possible to confirm these data,
and, thus the data could not be used to calculate the risk quotient. Concentrations as low as 1
ug/L caused changes in swimming behavior within 96 h. Authors stated that from the onset of
the experiment, the initial quick swimming behavior shifted to unusual swimming behavior. By
day-14 signs of paralysis and hemorrhaging were recorded in the lowest concentration tested 0.5
ug/L Lorsban, which calculates to 0.2 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Therefore the LOAEC was 0.2 ug/L
chlorpyrifos but no NOAEC was determined. This was the most sensitive endpoint for fish but
could not be confirmed and so was not used to calculate RQs.
The dose:response relationships were a bit different between fish and amphibians in the data
EPA reviewed. Explicitly, looking at fathead minnow data from the most recent RED (USEPA,
2002; Appendix E) chronic effects were measured in concentrations over 300 times lower than
the concentration range where acute toxicity was measured. In guppies, also, chronic effects
were seen in concentrations over 100 times lower than those where acute toxicity was measured.
This indicates a dose:response relationship for fish that is not very shallow. This characteristic
was used to compare chlorpyrifos toxicity between fish and amphibians in the risk
characterization section (see Sections 5.5.1.1. and 5.5.2.1).
4.1.1.2 Aquatic-phase Amphibian: Acute and Chronic Studies
Toxicity tests on amphibians are typically not required. It was assumed that acute oral toxicity
data for birds and acute toxicity data for fish will protect adult and aquatic life stages of
amphibians, respectively. Studies reviewed in the most recent chlorpyrifos RED (USEPA, 2002)
showed that chlorpyrifos via oral exposure is at most moderately toxic to amphibians, suggesting
that avian acute toxicity data are protective of adult amphibians. The results from that aquatic
data showed however, that chlorpyrifos is very highly toxic to larval amphibians. Small tadpoles
appeared to be more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than older life stages. The fact that young tadpoles
were equal to or more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than the most sensitive fish species raises
concerns for risks in shallow waters which are a typical habitat for frogs and tadpoles. The
99
-------
tadpole 96-hour LCso value (0.6 ppb) was slightly more sensitive than the most sensitive fish
species (bluegill LCso 1.8 ppb; Table 4.1).
Table 4.3 Amphibian Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos
- all frog tests supplemental, no current EPA approved method.
Assessment
Endpoint
Aquatic-Phase
Amphibians
Acute/
Chronic
Acute
Species of
Tadpole
African clawed
frog tadpole,
Xenopus laevis
X. laevis
Indian bullfrog
tadpole, Rana
tigrina
Yellow-legged
frog tadpole,
Rana boylii
R. boylii
Northern Pacific
treefrog tadpole,
Pseudacris
regilla
X. laevis
Southern leopard
frog tadpole,
Rana
sphenocephala
Toxicity Value Used
in Risk Assessment (ug
a.i./L)
96-hLC50 = 0.6
96-h LC50 = 560 for
metamorphs
96-h LC50= 146 for
premetamorphs
24-hLC50= 19
24-hLC50 = 3000
40-d toxicity
LC50 = 67
LC50 = 365
LOAEC = 0.1
No NOAEC
(NOAEC=<0.1)
LOAEC = 100
NOAEC = 10
MRID/
ECOTOX Ref.
E86343
Richards, 2000
E68227
Richards and
Kendall, 2002
E61878 Abbasi,
andSoni, 1991
E92498
Sparling &
Fellers 2007
Sparling &
Fellers 2009
(too recent for
an ECOTOX
number)
E71867
Richards &
Kendall, 2003
E101289
Widder&
Bidwell, 2006
Comment
Not native
species.
Not native
species.
Not native
species. Missing
information.
Test
concentrations not
confirmed.
Test
concentrations not
confirmed.
No NOAEC, not
native species.
None.
100
-------
Table 4.3 Amphibian Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos
- all frog tests supplemental, no current EPA approved method.
Assessment
Endpoint
Acute/
Chronic
Chronic
Species of
Tadpole
North American
anuran frog
tadpoles, Hyla
chrysoscelis,
Rana
sphenocephala,
Acris crepitans
Gastrophyne
olivacea
X. laevis
R. boy Hi
P. regilla
R. boy Hi
Toxicity Value Used
in Risk Assessment (ug
a.i./L)
12-d Growth:
LOAEC= 200
NOAEC=100
ChE Activity1:
LOAEC= 1
NOAEC=<1
12-d Growth:
LOAEC= 10
NOAEC=1
ChE Activity:
LOAEC= 100
NOAEC=10
12-d Growth:
LOAEC= >200
NOAEC=200
ChE Activity:
LOAEC= 10
NOAEC= 1
12-d Growth:
LOAEC= 200
NOAEC= 100
ChE Activity:
LOAEC= 10
NOAEC=1
TC502= 162
LOAEC = 200
NOAEC = 50
LOAEC = 200
NOAEC = 50
MRID/
ECOTOX Ref.
E101727
Widder&
Bidwell, 2008
E76738
Bonfanti, et al.
2004
Sparling &
Fellers 2009
E92498
Sparling &
Fellers 2007
Comment
None.
Not native
species.
Test
concentrations not
confirmed.
Test
concentrations not
confirmed.
1 ChE Activity: Cholinesterase activity impairment.
2TC50 - Teratogenic concentration affecting 50% of test organisms.
Acute and chronic studies with amphibians were reviewed in the open literature (Table 4.3).
Since EPA does not have an approved method for amphibian toxicity tests, all studies reviewed
101
-------
were considered supplemental. Chlorpyrifos toxicity data were available for several aquatic
phase amphibian species, including three species of the same genus as the California red-legged
frog the Yellow-legged frog, Rana boylii, Southern leopard frog, R. sphenocephala, and Indian
bullfrog, R. tigrina. The yellow-legged frog datum was used to calculate the acute risk quotient
for the California red-legged frog and tiger salamander (Table 4.1). Also available were data on
the Northern Pacific treefrog, Pseudacris regilla and other North American anuran frogs, Hyla
chrysoscelis, Acris crepitam and Gastrophyne olivacea, as well as the much-studied African
clawed frog, Xenopus laevis. X. laevis., a non-native species had the most sensitive endpoints for
both acute and chronic, with an LC50 of 0.6 ug/L and an NOAEC of <0.1 ug/L chlorpyrifos.
Even though this species was non-native, both acute and chronic studies were determined to be
scientifically sound and these endpoints were used to calculate risk quotients for the California
red-legged frog and California tiger salamander (Table 4.1). The steep dose:response
relationship forX. laevis is compared to the much more shallow dose:response relationship for
fish in the risk characterization section (see Sections 5.5.1.1. and 5.5.2.1).
4.1.2 Toxicity to Freshwater Invertebrates
Aquatic invertebrate toxicity studies were used to assess direct effects to California freshwater
shrimp and potential indirect effects to the California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter
snake, California clapper rail, California tiger salamander and Delta smelt. A summary of acute
and chronic freshwater invertebrate data, including data published in the open literature, is
provided below in Sections 4.1.2.1 through 4.1.2.2.
4.1.2.1 Freshwater Invertebrates: Acute Exposure Studies
The best data for assessing direct effects to the California freshwater shrimp was determined to
be that of another freshwater crustacean, a daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia, which had a 96-hr LCso
of 0.07 ug/L chlorpyrifos (Pablo, et a/., 2008). For the indirect effects assessment, the most
sensitive aquatic invertebrate species was used to estimate the risk to the food source of several
species of concern (see previous paragraph), which is consistent with USEPA (2004). The most
sensitive aquatic invertebrate tested was the freshwater blackfly (Simulium vittatum IS-7), with
an LCso of 0.06 ug/L chlorpyrifos (Hyder et a/., 2005). The sensitivity range in these data is very
narrow and both of these acute endpoints have similar sensitivity to that used in the most recent
RED (USEPA, 2002); chlorpyrifos is considered very highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates.
4.1.2.2 Freshwater Invertebrates: Chronic Exposure Studies
Toxicity data from chronic exposure to chlorpyrifos were available for freshwater daphnids,
insects and one freshwater shrimp. The sensitivity range was very narrow. The most sensitive
endpoint was found in the daphnid, Ceriodaphnia cf dubia (a non-native sub-species of C. dubia)
which had a 33-d NOAEC of 25 ug/L chlorpyrifos (Rose et al., 2002). This endpoint was used
for risk estimations of indirect effects from chronic toxicity to food items of species listed in
Section 4.1.2. Midge studies showed that midges can be affected by 0.02 ug/L chlorpyrifos in
the water column or 0.32 ug/Kg chlorpyrifos in the sediment (see Appendix E). A few aquatic
invertebrate studies had both acute and chronic data available, showing that the range of acute to
chronic effects concentrations were very close, indicating a steep dose:response relationship.
This is similar to the relationship found in amphibian studies but different from that found in fish
102
-------
studies; fish studies had a much shallower dose:response relationship with the acute effects
concentrations being two orders of magnitude greater than the chronic effects concentrations.
This information helps describe the risks from toxicity by giving insights into toxicity profiles
(see Sections 5.5.1.1 and 5.5.2.1)
The most important food organism for all sizes of the Delta smelt has been reported to be the
copepod, Eurytemora affmis (USFWS, 1995 and 2004), which was a marine copepod.
Supplemental toxicity data were available from the open literature for copepods. In one
mesocosm study (Rene, etal., 1996), theNOAEC for copepods was <0.1 ug/L chlorpyrifos,
which was similar to that of the African clawed frog as seen in Table 4.3. This does raise some
concerns, although this study was not designed to fulfill FIFRA requirements and did not
produce an acceptable LOAEC or NOAEC.
4.1.3 Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Fish
Estuarine and marine fish toxicity data were used to evaluate direct effects to the Delta smelt and
potential indirect effects to the California clapper rail (Table 4.1). A summary of acute and
chronic estuarine/marine fish data, including data published in the open literature shows that the
LCso values for estuarine/marine fish were less sensitive than for freshwater species, ranging
from 96 to 520,000 ug/L chlorpyrifos in Tidewater silversides and Gulf toadfish, respectively
(MRID 40228401 and 40228401, Appendix E; also see USEPA, 2002). Chlorpyrifos is
classified as very highly toxic to most fish on an acute exposure basis.
As mentioned in Section 4.1.1.1, the Delta smelt enters both freshwater and saltwater
environments. The most sensitive species among the freshwater and estuarine/marine fish
species tested was used to calculate risk quotients, which was in this case a freshwater species,
the bluegill sunfish (Table 4.1).
4.1.4 Toxicity to Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Estuarine and marine invertebrate toxicity data were used to evaluate potential indirect effects to
the California clapper rail and Delta smelt. A summary of acute and chronic estuarine/marine
invertebrate data, including data published in the open literature, shows that chlorpyrifos is very
highly toxic to marine and estuarine invertebrates. The mysid shrimp, Americamysis bahia, had
a 96 h LC50 of 35 ug/L and an NOAEC of 0.0046 ug/L chlorpyrifos (Mayer, 1986 and Sved et
al., 1993, respectively). This data was used to estimate risk from indirect effects to the rail and
smelt (Table 4.1).
4.1.5 Toxicity to Aquatic Plants
Aquatic plant toxicity studies were used as one of the measures of effect to evaluate whether
chlorpyrifos may affect primary production. Aquatic plants may also be part of food chains for
the California red-legged frog, San Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail, Salt marsh
harvest mouse, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt and California freshwater shrimp. In
addition, freshwater non-vascular plant data were used to evaluate a number of the PCEs
associated with the critical habitat impact analysis. Plant toxicity studies using chlorpyrifos were
103
-------
extremely sparse in the open literature. The endpoint used in the most recent RED (USEPA,
2002) was also used to estimate risks in this assessment; the EC50 for the alga, Isochrysis
galbana, was 140 ug/L chlorpyrifos (Mayer, 1986, Table 4.1).
4.1.6 Freshwater Field/Mesocosm Studies
Three mesocosm studies were reviewed from the open literature. Biever et al. (1994) found that
chlorpyrifos when sprayed in a single dose had a half-life of approximately 4 days (Table 4.4).
Most freshwater invertebrate and fish communities were able to recover within a few weeks with
the possible exception of Chironominae, a subfamily of Chironomidae. Van den Brink et al.
(1996) found that the NOAEC for zooplankton/macroinvertebrate communities was 0.1 ug/L
chlorpyrifos. Van Wijngaarden et al. (1996) compared in-lab single species tests with outdoor
mesocosm test results and found that the lab and caged studies differed by a factor of
approximately 3. Also notable were copepod data; total copepods had an NOAEC of <0.1 ppm,
but copepod nauplii had a NOAEC of 0.9 ppm. Copepod data is especially important to this risk
assessment since it is the chief food of the California red-legged frog, as mentioned earlier.
104
-------
Table 4.4 Mesocosm Studies
Application
Spray Drift -
single
application of
0.05 to 5% of
a 1.12 kg
Al/ha
application (to
yield 0.03 to
3.0ug/L
chlorpyrifos
in water)
Spray Drift -
One
application of
0.05 to 5% of
a 1.12 kg
Al/ha app
Lab data
vs.
Field data
Communities
FW Insects
Chironomids
Ephemeroptera
FW Zooplankton
Copepods
Ostracods
Cladocera
FW Fish
Total
macroinvertebrate/
zooplankton
community.
Copepods:
All ages
Nauplii
Effects
Concentration in
Water (ug a.i./L)
LOAEC = 0.10
NOAEC = 0.03
LOAEC = 0.10
NOAEC = 0.03
LOAEC = 0.10
NOAEC = 0.03
LOAEC = 0.3
NOAEC = 0.1
LOAEC = 0.3
NOAEC = 0.1
LOAEC =>3.0
NOAEC = 3.0
LOAEC = 0.3
NOAEC = 0.1
LOAEC =1.0
NOAEC = 0.3
LOAEC = 0.9
NOAEC = 0.1
NOAEC =
O.0001
NOAEC =
0.0009
ECOTOX
Ref.
E62037
Bieveretal.,
1994
E17218 Van
den Brink et
al., 1996
E17254 Van
Wijngaarden
etal, 1996
Comment
Supplemental; Ostracods were the
LEAST sensitive taxon (LOAEC =
>3.0). Chironominae was the MOST
sensitive macroinvertebrate taxon, with
significant affects in all treatments. The
NOAEC may have been <0.03 but was
not confirmed. Also, this group did not
recover in the highest treatment by the
end of the study, whereas most other
communities did recover after two and a
half months.
Supplemental; recovery was seen in 24
weeks. Some copepods and other
Crustacea recovered within 12 weeks.
Supplemental
4.2 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Terrestrial Organisms
Table 4.5 summarizes the most sensitive terrestrial toxicity endpoints, based on an evaluation of
both the submitted studies and the open literature. In addition to the parent chlorpyrifos, toxicity
data on metabolites and degradates are also considered when available. The major chlorpyrifos
degradate, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), forms a large percent of the recoverable active
105
-------
ingredient in various compartments of the environment. However, OPP has determined that TCP
is not of toxicological concern to mammals as a plant metabolite based on available mammalian
toxicity data. TCP also exhibits low toxicity in birds based on available avian toxicity data.
Available fate data indicates that the chlorpyrifos-oxon may be an environmental degradate in
soil and water. Based on available toxicity data, the oxon may be significantly more toxic than
the parent. However, there are currently insufficient data on toxicity and expected
environmental concentrations available to support a quantitative assessment of potential risks to
listed species from exposure to the oxon via water and soil intake routes. A brief summary of
submitted and open literature data considered relevant to this ecological risk assessment is
presented below.
Table 4.5 Terrestrial Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos
Endpoint
Birds
(surrogate for
terrestrial-
phase
amphibians
and reptiles)
Mammals
Terrestrial
invertebrates
Terrestrial
plants
Acute/
Chronic
Acute Dose-
based
Acute
Dietary-based
Chronic
Dietary-based
Acute Dose-
based
Acute
Dietary-based
Chronic
Dietary-based
Acute
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Species
Common
Crackle
Mallard Duck
Mallard Duck
Rat
Rat
Rat
Honey Bee
Seedling
Emergence
Monocots
Seedling
Emergence
Dicots
Vegetative
Vigor
Monocots
Vegetative
Vigor
Dicots
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment
LD50 = 5.62
mg/kg
LC50 = 136
ppm
NOAEC = 25
ppm
LD50 = 118
mg/kg
LC50= 1330
ppm
NOAEC = 20
ppm1
NOAEL = 1
mg/kg
LD50 = 0.059
ug a.i./bee
Citation
MRID#
40378401
00095007
00046952
EcoRef No.: 37866
44585409
41930301
05001991
Classification
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable LOAEC =
60 ppm based on
reduced number of
eggs & reduced body
weight of rakes & hens
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable LOAEC =
100 ppm based reduced
pup weight and
increased pup mortality
inFl generation.
Acceptable
No Data Available
1 A scaling factor of 20x (FDA, 1959) was applied to the NOAEL of 1 mg/kg to derive the NOAEC (ppm in diet)
N/A: not applicable
106
-------
Acute toxicity to terrestrial animals is categorized using the classification system shown in Table
4.6 (U.S. EPA, 2004). Toxicity categories for terrestrial plants have not been defined.
Table 4.6 Categories of Acute Toxicity for Avian and Mammalian Studies
Toxicity Category
Very highly toxic
Highly toxic
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
Practically non-toxic
Oral LD50
< 10 mg/kg
10 - 50 mg/kg
51 -500 mg/kg
50 1-2000 mg/kg
> 2000 mg/kg
Dietary LC50
< 50 ppm
50 - 500 ppm
501- 1000 ppm
1001 - 5000 ppm
> 5000 ppm
4.2.1 Toxicity to Birds, Reptiles, and Terrestrial-Phase Amphibians
As specified in the Overview Document, the Agency uses birds as a surrogate for reptiles and
terrestrial-phase amphibians when toxicity data for each specific taxon are not available (U.S.
EPA, 2004). No terrestrial-phase amphibian or reptile data are available for chlorpyrifos;
therefore, acute and chronic avian toxicity data are used to assess the potential direct effects of
myclobutanil to terrestrial-phase CRLFs. A summary of acute and chronic bird data, including
data published in the open literature is provided below in Sections 4.2.1.1 through 4.2.1.4.
4.2.1.1 Birds: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
Extensive acute and subacute dietary avian test data are available on technical grade
chlorpyrifos. Acute LD50 values for technical grade chlorpyrifos are available for 15 avian
species with a range of LD50 values from 5.62 to 476 mg/kg. Two avian species have LDSOs
less than 10 mg/kg (very highly toxic), eight species have LDSOs less than 50 mg/kg (highly
toxic), and 5 species have LDSOs less than 500 mg/kg (moderately toxic). The most acutely
sensitive avian species are common grackle (5.62 mg/kg), ring-necked pheasant (8.41 mg/kg),
common pigeons (10 mg/kg) and house sparrow (10 mg/kg). Based on the submitted acute oral
toxicity study for the common grackle house (MRID 40378401), chlorpyrifos is categorized as
very highly toxic to birds on a dose basis with an acute LDso of 5.62 mg/kg bw (3.16-10 mg/kg,
95% C.I.)-
Avian acute toxicity values are also available for microencapsulated and granular chlorpyrifos
products and the major degradate, TCP. Avian toxicity data on these two products and the major
degradate indicate that they are less toxic (i.e., less hazardous) than technical grade chlorpyrifos.
107
-------
Table 4.7 Chlorpyrifos Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Ring-necked Pheasant (male)
Phasianus colchicus
(female)
Northern Bobwhite (male &
female) Colinus virginianus
Mallard Duck (female)
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Common Crackle
Quiscalus quiscula
Common Pigeon
Columba livia
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
House Sparrow (male)
Passer domesticus
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
Red-winged Blackbird
Agelaius phoeniceus
Coturnix Quail
Coturnix japonica
Coturnix Quail (males)
Coturnix japonica
Sandhill Crane (male)
Grus canadensis
Rock Dove (male & female)
Columba livia
White Leghorn Cockerel
Gallus domesticus
Canada Goose (male &
female)
Branta canadensis
Chuckar (female)
Alectoris chukar (male)
California Quail (female)
Callipepla californica
Starling
Sturnus vulgaris
Mallard Duck (duckling)
Anas platyrhynchos (male &
female)
%AI
94.5
Tech.
99
96.3
94.5
94.5
94.5
94.5
99.6
94.5
94.5
94.5
99.9
94.5
94.5
99.9
94.5
99.9
94.5
94.5
99
LD50
(mg/kg ai)
8.41
17.7
32
75.6
476
5.62
10.0
10.0
21
122
13.1
13.3
15.9
17.8
25
50
26.9
34.8
40-80
60.7
61.1
68.3
75
112
MRID
00160000
41043901
00160000
40854701
40378401
40378401
40378401
00160000
440571-02
40378401
40378401
00160000
00160000
00160000
00242149
00160000
00160000
00160000
40378401
00160000
Toxicity
Category
very highly toxic
Highly toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
very highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
moderately
toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Endpoint used in risk assessment is in bold
Avian subacute dietary studies are available for four bird species. The lowest avian subacute
LCso value used for assessing dietary risks is 136 ppm (84-212 ppm, 95% C.I.) for mallard
ducklings (moderately toxic) (MRID 00144288). Results from these acceptable and
supplementary studies indicate that chlorpyrifos is moderately to highly toxic to avian species on
a subacute dietary basis. Reduced food consumption and was evident in several studies
108
-------
especially at higher test concentrations. There were mortalities in six studies. Most deaths
occurred on Days 3 to 5 for bobwhite and Days 3 to 7 for mallards. In some cases, deaths
continued to Day 8, the last day of the test.
Table 4.8 Formulation Avian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
(male & female)
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
(male & female)
House Sparrow
Passer domesticus
(male & female)
%AI
25.65
Dursban ME 20
15
Lorsban 15 G
15
Lorsban 15 G
LD50
(mg/kg
ai)
545
108
109
MRID No.
41885201
41043901
44057101
Toxicity
Category
slightly toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Table 4.9 Chlorpyrifos Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Ring-necked
Pheasant Phasianus
colchicus
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Coturnix Quail
Coturnix japonica
Coturnix Quail
Coturnix japonica
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Coturnix Quail
Coturnix japonica
%AI
99
96.8
96.8
99
96.8
Assumed
Tech.
97.0
96.8
94
Assumed
Technical
97
97.0
97.0
41
LC50
(ppm ai)
136
203
423
505
506
531
553
590
863
283
293
299
940
492
MRID No.
00095007
40854702
00046955
00095123
40854703
44585401
00022923
00046954
44585403
44585401
00115301
00022923
00022923
00115301
Toxicity
Category
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
moderately toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
highly toxic
moderately toxic
highly toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Endpoint used in risk assessment is in bold
109
-------
Avian dietary toxicity values for formulations (i.e., emulsified concentrate (4 EC) and
microencapsulated (ME 20) indicate less toxicity than technical grade chlorpyrifos.
Table 4.10 Formulation Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Coturnix Quail
Coturnix japonica
Northern bobwhite
Colinus irginianus
Mallard Duck
Anas latyrhynchos
%AI
40.7
Lorsban 4 EC
25.65
Dursban ME 20
25.65
Dursban ME 20
LC50
(ppm ai)
492
387
803
MRIDNo.
00115301
41965502
41965501
Toxicity
Category
highly toxic
moderately toxic
slightly toxic
Classification
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
The major chlorpyrifos degradate, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), forms a large percent of the
recoverable active ingredient in various compartments of the environment. Therefore, a special
(70-2) 8-day subacute oral test with either waterfowl or upland game bird was required to
address these concerns. Test results are provided below
Table 4.11 TCP Degradate Avian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings
Surrogate
Species
Mallard Duck
Anas
platyrhynchos
%AI
99.9 %
3,5,6-TC-2-P
LCgo
(ppm ai)
> 5,620
MRID No.
41829002
Toxicity
Category
slightly toxic
Classification
Supplemental
LC50 uncertain due to high
reduction in food
consumption
4.2.1.2 Birds: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies
Five avian chronic toxicity studies are available for chlorpyrifos. While some of the avian
reproduction studies are inadequate to assess risks alone, together the studies are adequate to
assess effects on avian reproduction. All 5 studies indicate reductions in the number of eggs laid.
Other reproductive effects found were eggshell thinning and fewer young. Chronic effects
identified include increased adult mortality and adult body weight reduction. Mallard ducks
were the most sensitive species and show a pattern of lethal effects on adults, reduced egg
production, eggshell thinning, reduced body weight of hatchlings and reduced number of young
at 60, 100, and/or 125 ppm. One reproductive study on mallard ducks indicates that chlorpyrifos
reduces the number of eggs laid and the adult body weights at 60 ppm (MRID 42144901). The
dietary concentration in this study was reduced from 90 ppm to 60 ppm at the beginning of week
8 due to body weight losses and mortality. A second mallard duck study showed 84 percent
reduction in the number of eggs and 89 percent reduction in the number of young at 125 ppm,
the LOAEC. Bobwhite quail reproduction results suggest that the LOAEC is 130 ppm based on
reduced number of eggs produced. The risk assessment endpoint for avian reproduction is a
NOAEC of 25 ppm.
110
-------
Table 4.12 Avian Reproduction Findings
Surrogate Species
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
(8-week prelim study)
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Mallard Duck
Anas platyrhynchos
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
Northern Bobwhite
Colinus virginianus
%
A.I.
96.7
96.8
96.8
96.8
96.8
NOAEC-
LOAEC
(ppm)
NOAEC 46
LOAEC 100
NOAEC 30
LOAEC 60
NOAEC 25
LOAEC 125
NOAEC 40
LOAEC 130
NOAEC 25
LOAEC >
125
Statistically (P < 0.05)
Significant Endpoints
100 ppm - 84%
reduction in # of eggs
60 ppm - 46% red. #
eggs red. body weight of
rakes & hens
125 ppm - 40% drakes &
16% hens died;
84% red. # eggs;
9% red. Eggshell
thickness;
89% fewer young
130 ppm- 27% red. #
eggs
125 ppm - 12%
reduction in # of eggs;
not stat. sign.
MRID
No.
00046953
42144901
00046952
42144902
00046951
Classification
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
Supplemental
Supplemental
Endpoint used in risk assessment is in bold
4.2.1.3 Birds: Terrestrial Field Studies
Three submitted terrestrial field studies are available on corn, citrus, and golf courses and a large
pen, simulated field study was conducted on turf with bobwhite quail. In an Iowa field study on
corn, chlorpyrifos was applied as either Lorsban 4E, an emulsifiable concentrate formulation, to
4 fields (4 applications per field; 1.7 to 3.4 kg/ha [1.5-3 Ibs ai/A]) or as Lorsban 15G, a granular
formulation, to 4 fields (3 applications per field; 1.1 to 2.9 kg/ha [1 - 2.6 Ibs ai/A]). Chlorpyrifos
levels were measured in various environmental samples. Field investigators considered any
death likely to be treatment-related if analytical analyses tested positive for chlorpyrifos residues
in samples. Carcass searches made in the corn field study found evidence of 14 avian post-
treatment casualties.
In a California orange grove field study, chlorpyrifos (i.e., Lorsban 4 E) was applied with two
spray regimes. Under regime A, 4 fields were treated with 2 applications each: 1.5 Ibs ai/A
followed about 30 days later by a treatment at 6.0 Ibs ai/A. Regime B also treated each of 4
fields twice (sprayed once at 3.5 Ibs ai/A followed about 30 days later by a second treatment at
4.0 Ibs ai/A). Searches for dead wildlife identified 192 carcasses. Twenty one carcasses were
analyzed for the presence of chlorpyrifos. Six of tested carcasses tested positive for chlorpyrifos
residues (28.6%). Consequently, those deaths may be presumed to be associated with
chlorpyrifos treatments. Species that tested positive for chlorpyrifos were a mockingbird, an
unidentified passerine nestling, house mouse, ground squirrel, pocket gopher, and a western
rattlesnake. While the number of dead wildlife found during carcass searches does not show a
dose-relationship with treatment levels, the number of carcasses testing positive for chlorpyrifos
suggests that there could be a dose-relationship (i.e., 4 carcasses at 6 Ibs ai/A, 1 each at 3.5 and 4
Ibs ai/A, and none at 1.5 Ibs ai/A). However the number of positive carcasses is too small to
verify this conclusion.
Ill
-------
Results of the third study, a Central Florida golf course field study indicated that, in general, turf
areas on golf courses are not attractive habitat to many wildlife species. Most wildlife observed
in the study lived and fed in areas adjacent to the golf courses.
A large pen, simulated field study was conducted on turf with bobwhite quail. The turf and food
(seeds) were treated with two applications of Pyrinex 4 E at 3 Ibs ai/A (applied at a 2 week
interval), another area was treated at 6 Ibs ai/A. The maximum measured chlorpyrifos levels
470, 570 and 1400 ppm on grass and 18, 21 and 30 ppm on seeds. The maximum, measured
residue levels on the turf approximate the chlorpyrifos EECs (720 and 1440 ppm). Statistically
significant effects were reported for abnormal behavior in bobwhite exposed to the 6 Ibs ai/A
treatment. According to the author, the NOAEL and LOAEL for this turf study are 3 and 6 Ibs
ai/A, respectively, based on abnormal behavior.
4.2.1.4 Reptile and Terrestrial-phase Amphibian Studies
No species-specific studies available on reptiles or terrestrial-phase amphibians. However,
results from terrestrial field studies in total provide evidence of chlorpyrifos-related mortality in
reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians (i.e., snakes, turtles, toads).
4.2.2 Toxicity to Mammals
A summary of acute and chronic mammalian data, including data published in the open
literature, is provided below in Sections 4.2.2.1 through 4.2.1.2.
4.2.2.1 Mammals: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
The available mammalian acute oral LD50 values indicate that chlorpyrifos is moderately toxic
to small mammals on an acute oral basis. In acute oral studies on chlorpyrifos, LD50 values
range from 118-245 mg/kg bw (EcoRef No.: 37866). The most sensitive endpoint for the
technical formulation, the rat LD50 of 118 mg/kg is used estimate risk via direct effects
mammals and indirect effects to birds, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians. [Note The
lowest LD50 of 118 mg/kg from a literature study (EcoRef No.: 37866) is used in place of the
LD50 value of 97 mg/kg used in previous chlorpyrifos assessments. Based on the information
provided in this study, the previously used LD50 of 97 mg/kg is actually the lower bound of a
95% confidence limit from Dow-Wister rat study (MRID 41043901). The LD50 from Dow-
Wister study is actually 163 mg/kg (97-276 mg/kg 95% CI). Given that a study on Sherman rats
results in a lower LD50 of 118 mg/kg compared to the correct LD50 of 163 in Dow-Wister rats,
the lower LD50 is more appropriately used to assess risk to mammals.]
112
-------
Table 4.13 Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Albino Rat (Male)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Male)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Female)
Rattus norvegicus
Rat (Female)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Male)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Female)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Male)
Rattus norvegicus
Albino Rat (Male)
Rattus norvegicus
%AI
97.2
97.2
Unknown
Tech.
99.0 %
97.2
Unknown
Unknown
LD50
(mg/kg ai)
118
135
135
137
151
155
163
245
MRID No.
EcoRef No.: 37866
EcoRef No.: 37866
EcoRef No.: 37866
00000179
00160000
EcoRef No.: 37866
41043901
EcoRef No.: 37866
EcoRef No.: 37866
Toxicity
Category
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
moderately
toxic
Classification
Supplemental
Supplemental
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
Acceptable
Acceptable
Endpoint used in risk assessment is in bold
Mammalian subacute dietary test data are useful to assess short-term risks to small mammals in
addition to using an estimated 1-day LDSOs from acute oral studies. The subacute dietary data
are based on 14-day studies with a 5-day exposure period followed by a 9-day untreated,
observation period (McCann et al. 1981). Mammalian LCso's are reported below. These
mammalian subacute dietary LCso values indicate that chlorpyrifos is slightly toxic to small
mammals.
Table 4.14 Mammalian Subacute Dietary Toxicity Findings
Surrogate Species
Albino Rat
Rattus norvegicus
(male & female)
Albino Rat
Rattus norvegicus
(male & female)
Albino Rat
Rattus norvegicus
(male & female)
Albino Rat
Rattus norvegicus
(male & female)
Albino Rat
Rattus norvegicus
(male & female)
%AI
97.1 %
97.1 %
97.1 %
Unknown
97.1 %
LC50
(ppm ai)
1330
1390
1780
2970
3500
MRID No.
44585409
44585410
44585411
44585413
44585414
Toxicity
Category
slightly toxic
slightly toxic
slightly Toxic
slightly toxic
slightly toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Endpoint used in risk assessment is in bold
The major chlorpyrifos degradate, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), forms a large percent of the
recoverable active ingredient in various compartments of the environment. Therefore, acute oral
113
-------
tests with rats and mice were required by HED to address these concerns. Results of those
studies are provided below.
Table 4.15 TCP Degradate Mammalian Acute Oral Toxicity Findings
Surrogate
Species
Mice
(Male/Female)
Mus sp.
Rats
(Male/Female)
Rattus sp.
%AI
Tech.
3,5,6-TC-2-P
Tech.
3,5,6-TC-2-P
LD50
(mg/kg)
380/415
794/870
MRID
3F2884 4/1/91
3F2884 4/1/91
Toxicity
Category
Moderately toxic
Slightly toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
4.2.2.2 Mammals: Chronic Exposure (Growth, Reproduction) Studies
Two rat reproduction (2-generation and 3-generation) studies are available for chlorpyrifos
(MRIDs 41930301 and 00029064). The chronic exposure endpoint used in the assessment is
from the 2-generation rat reproduction study. The NOAEC/NOAEL in the 2-generation study is
20 ppm (1 mg/kg bw/day) with a LOAEC/LOAEL of 100 ppm (5 mg/kg bw/day). Reproductive
effects in 100 ppm Fl pups included reduced pup weights and increased pup mortality that
corresponded to slightly but significantly reduced body weight gain in FO Dams during lactation
days 1-21. In the 3-generation reproduction study, reproductive effects were not seen at the
highest dose tested. While parental toxicity (cholinesterase inhibition) at lower doses in both
reproduction studies (2 and 6 ppm), the selected reproduction endpoint is used in the risk
assessment because the parental systemic toxicity endpoints are not considered to be relevant to
either growth or reproductive effects.
114
-------
Table 4.16 Mammalian Chronic Toxicity Data
Common Name
Laboratory rat
Rsjthtv
l\LlllLi&
norvegicus
Laboratory rat
Rattus
norvegicus
%AI
97.8-98.5
Presumed
Technical
Study Parameters
2-Generation
reproduction study
30 rats/sex/group
0, 2, 20 or 100 ppm
0.1, 1 or 5 mg/kg
bw/day
3 -Generation
reproduction study
10 M rats/sex/group
20 M rats/sex/group
0, 0.03, 0.1 or 0.3
mg/kg/day 1st
Generation
0, 0.1, 0.3 or 1.0
mg/kg/day 2nd 3rd
Generations
NOAEC/LOAEC
Parental
NOAEC/NOAEL: 2
ppm/0.1 mg/kg bw/day
Parental LOAEC/LOAEL:
20 ppm/1 mg/kg bw/day
based on significant
plasma and red blood cell
cholinesterase inhibition
Offspring/Reproductive
NOAEC/NOAEL: 20
ppm/1 mg/kg/day
Offspring/Reproductive
LOAEC/LOAEL: 100
ppm/5 mg/kg/day based
reduced pup weight and
increased pup mortality in
Fl generation.
Parental NO AEL: 0.1
mg/kg bw/day
Parental LOAEL: 0.3
ppm/1 mg/kg bw/day
based on plasma and red
blood cell cholinesterase
inhibition
Offspring/Reproductive
NOAEC/NOAEL: > 1
mg/kg (HOT)
Offspring/Reproductive
LOAEL: not identified.
MRID
41930301
00029064
00064934
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
1 Bold value is the value that will be used to calculate risk quotients
4.2.2.3 Mammals: Terrestrial Field Toxicity Studies
Three submitted terrestrial field studies are available on corn, citrus, and golf courses. In an
Iowa field study on corn, chlorpyrifos was applied as either Lorsban 4E, an emulsifiable
concentrate formulation, to 4 fields (4 applications per field; 1.7 to 3.4 kg/ha [1.5-3 Ibs ai/A]) or
as Lorsban 15G, a granular formulation, to 4 fields (3 applications per field; 1.1 to 2.9 kg/ha [1 -
2.6 Ibs ai/A]). Chlorpyrifos levels were measured in various environmental samples. Field
investigators considered any death likely to be treatment-related if analytical analyses tested
positive for chlorpyrifos residues in samples. Carcass searches made in the corn field study
found evidence of 10 mammalian post-treatment casualties. The supplementary corn field study
provides useful information which generally supports other available data on residue levels and
mammalian mortality.
115
-------
In a California orange grove field study, chlorpyrifos (i.e., Lorsban 4 E) was applied with two
spray regimes. Under regime A, 4 fields were treated with 2 applications each: 1.5 Ibs ai/A
followed about 30 days later by a treatment at 6.0 Ibs ai/A. Regime B also treated each of 4
fields twice (sprayed once at 3.5 Ibs ai/A followed about 30 days later by a second treatment at
4.0 Ibs ai/A). Searches for dead wildlife identified 192 carcasses. Twenty one carcasses were
analyzed for the presence of chlorpyrifos. Six of tested carcasses tested positive for chlorpyrifos
residues (28.6%). Consequently, those deaths may be presumed to be associated with
chlorpyrifos treatments. While the number of dead wildlife (including birds) found during
carcass searches does not show a dose-relationship with treatment levels, the number of
carcasses testing positive for chlorpyrifos suggests that there could be a dose-relationship (i.e., 4
carcasses at 6 Ibs ai/A, 1 each at 3.5 and 4 Ibs ai/A, and none at 1.5 Ibs ai/A). However the
number of positive carcasses are too few to verify this conclusion.
Results of the third study, a Central Florida golf course field study indicated that, in general, turf
areas on golf courses are not attractive habitat to many wildlife species. Most wildlife observed
in the study lived and fed in areas adjacent to the golf courses.
4.2.3 Toxicity to Terrestrial Invertebrates
A summary of acute terrestrial invertebrate data, including data published in the open literature,
is provided below in Sections 4.2.3.1 through 4.2.3.2.
4.2.3.1 Terrestrial Invertebrates: Acute Exposure (Mortality) Studies
Chlorpyrifos is classified as very highly toxic to bees based on the three available acute toxicity
studies. The acute contact LD50 of 0.059 ug/bee or 0.46 ppm (MRID 05001991). This endpoint
will be used to quantitatively assess risk via indirect effects to terrestrial invertebrates.
Table 4.17 Nontarget Insect Acute Contact Toxicity Findings
Surrogate
Species
Honey Bee
Apis mellifera
Honey Bee
Apis mellifera
Honey Bee
Apis mellifera
%AI
Tech.
Tech.
Tech.
LD50
(jig a.i./bee)
0.059
0.114
<0.1 100% dead at 0.01%
solution LD50 not determined
MRID
05001991
00066220
05011163
Toxicity
Category
highly
toxic
highly
toxic
highly
toxic
Classification
Acceptable
Acceptable
Supplemental
4.2.3.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates: Foliar Residue and Field Studies
Foliar residue studies indicate that chlorpyrifos has short-term residual toxicity to bees. Based
on two laboratory studies of chlorpyrifos residues on alfalfa foliage following application of two
formulation indicate residual toxicity which may remain high as long as 24 hours to honey and
alfalfa leaf-cutter bees on alfalfa or may decline significantly between 8 and 24 hours
posttreatment. Residues on alfalfa foliage samples from application of Dursban 4EC at 0.5 and
116
-------
1.0 Ib ai/A were highly toxic through 8 hours to three bee species (honey bee, Apis mellifera;
alkali bee, Nomea melanderi; and alfalfa leaf-cutter bee, Megachile rotundatd). At 24 hours,
residues on alfalfa foliage remained highly toxic to the honey bee and alfalfa leaf-cutter bee and
moderately toxic to the alkali bee (MRID 00040602). Alfalfa foliage samples with chlorpyrifos
residues from an application of Dursban 2 EC on alfalfa fields at 1 Ib ai/A were highly toxic to
the honey bees at 3 hours when placed in cages with bees, but foliage samples were not toxic at
24 hours (MRID 00060632).
In the only available field study, honey bee visitation was suppressed 46 percent for three days in
alfalfa fields treated with Dursban 4EC at 0.5 Ib ai/A. The overall hazard to bees was low
(MRID 00074486).
There is also sufficient information available to characterize chlorpyrifos as toxic to lady beetles
when beetles are exposed to direct application. In the submitted study, survival of adult lady
beetles (Stethoruspunctum) was reduced to 30 percent, 48 hours after direct application of
Dursban 4EC at 0.25 Ib ai per 100 gallons of water (MRID 00059461).
4.2.4 Toxicity to Terrestrial Plants
There were no registrant submitted terrestrial plant toxicity data and no data in available
literature studies for chlorpyrifos. Therefore, a quantitative assessment of the potential for
indirect effects to the aquatic- and terrestrial-phase listed species via effects to riparian
vegetation or effects to the primary constituent elements (PCEs) relevant to the aquatic- and
terrestrial-phase listed species could not be conducted. In the absence of vegetative vigor and
seedling emergence toxicity data, the potential risk to the listed species via indirect effects to
terrestrial plants is described in a qualitative manner (Section 5.2).
4.3 Use of Probit Slope Response Relationship to Provide Information on the Endangered
Species Levels of Concern
The Agency uses the probit dose response relationship as a tool for providing additional
information on the potential for acute direct effects to individual listed species and aquatic
animals that may indirectly affect the listed species of concern (U.S. EPA, 2004). As part of the
risk characterization, an interpretation of acute RQs for listed species is discussed. This
interpretation is presented in terms of the chance of an individual event (i.e., mortality or
immobilization) should exposure at the EEC actually occur for a species with sensitivity to
Chlorpyrifos on par with the acute toxicity endpoint selected for RQ calculation. To accomplish
this interpretation, the Agency uses the slope of the dose response relationship available from the
toxicity study used to establish the acute toxicity measures of effect for each taxonomic group
that is relevant to this assessment. The individual effects probability associated with the acute
RQ is based on the mean estimate of the slope and an assumption of a probit dose response
relationship. In addition to a single effects probability estimate based on the mean, upper and
lower estimates of the effects probability are also provided to account for variance in the slope, if
available.
117
-------
Individual effect probabilities are calculated based on an Excel spreadsheet tool IECV1.1
(Individual Effect Chance Model Version 1.1) developed by the U.S. EPA, OPP, Environmental
Fate and Effects Division (June 22, 2004). The model allows for such calculations by entering
the mean slope estimate (and the 95% confidence bounds of that estimate) as the slope parameter
for the spreadsheet. In addition, the acute RQ is entered as the desired threshold.
4.4 Incident Database Review
A review of the EIIS database for ecological incidents involving chlorpyrifos was completed on
August 31, 2009. The results of this review for aquatic and terrestrial incidents are discussed
below in Sections 5.5.1.1. and 5.5.1.2., respectively. A complete list of the incidents involving
Chlorpyrifos including associated uncertainties is included as Appendix J.
4.5 Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos Oxon
Toxicity of chlorpyrifos oxon, a degradate of the parent chlorpyrifos, was sparse.
A detailed summary of the available ecotoxicity information for all chlorpyrifos degradates and
formulated products can be found in Appendices E, F and G.
118
-------
Table 4.18 Toxicity Profile for Chlorpyrifos Oxon
Species
Foothill
yellow-legged
frog, Rana
boylii
Channel
catfish,
Ictalurus
punctatus
Australian
coral,
Acropora
millepora
(Ehrenberg),
7-8 d old
larvae
Rat, Ratus sp.
Substance
Tested;
Comparison
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos
oxon
Oxon >100x
more toxic
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos
oxon
Oxon 30x
more toxic
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos
oxon
Oxon 3x more
toxic
Chlorpyrifos
Chlorpyrifos
oxon
Oxon 1.7x
more toxic
Toxicity Value
Used in Risk
Assessment (ug
LC50 = 3000
LC50 = [< 5]
LOAEC = 250 (No
NOAEC)
NOAEC = <250
LOAEC = 7 (No
NOAEC)
NOAEC = <7
LOAEC =1.0
NOAEC = 0.3
LOAEC = 0.3
NOAEC = 0.1
LOAEC = 50
(rag/kg)
NOAEC = <50
(rag/kg)
LOAEC = 30
(rag/kg)
NOAEC = <30
(rag/kg)
ECOTOX Ref.
E92498
Sparkling and
Fellers, 2007
E67666 Carr et
al., 1995
E100575
Markey et al.,
2007
E91393
Chambers and
Carr, 1993
Comment
Supplemental,
missed range, too
much mortality
for chronic test
and bimodal
results for oxon
mortality, LC50
questionable.
Supplemental; test
set up to evaluate
AChE levels over
time, only one
concentration
used; no
confirmable
NOAEC.
Supplemental,
non-native
species, no
measured
concentrations
Supplemental; test
substance was
injected in rats,
not realistic
environmental
exposure; not set
up to derive a
dose:response, no
NOAEC.
Data from the open literature show a wide range in the comparison between Chlorpyrifos toxicity
and Chlorpyrifos oxon toxicity (Table 4.6). In one study with the Foothills yellow-legged frog, a
species closely related to the California red-legged frog, authors claimed that Chlorpyrifos oxon
was 100 times more toxic than Chlorpyrifos parent, but the results were a bit confusing due to
bimodal mortality data in the oxon results. This certainly does raise concerns for the red-legged
119
-------
frog. Other studies with aquatic species showed that chlorpyrifos oxon was between 3 and 30
times more toxic than chlorpyrifos parent. In rats, chlorpyrifos oxon was approximately 2 times
more toxic, though the exposure was via injection, which was not an environmentally realistic
exposure route.
The other major degradate of chlorpyrifos, 3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridinol (TCP), was found in the
most recent RED (USEPA, 2002) to be moderately to slightly toxic to freshwater fish species,
considerably less toxic than chlorpyrifos parent. It was slightly toxic to freshwater invertebrates,
also considerably less toxic than chlorpyrifos parent. Effects from TCP were, therefore, not
evaluated in this risk assessment.
5 Risk Characterization
Risk is estimated by calculating the ratio of exposure to toxicity. This ratio is the risk quotient
(RQ), which is then compared to pre-established acute and chronic levels of concern (LOCs) for
each category evaluated (Appendix B). For acute exposures to the aquatic animals, as well as
terrestrial invertebrates, the LOG is 0.05. For acute exposures to the birds (and, thus, reptiles and
terrestrial-phase amphibians) and mammals, the LOG is 0.1. The LOG for chronic exposures to
animals, as well as acute exposures to plants is 1.0.
Acute and chronic risks to aquatic organisms are estimated by calculating the ratio of exposure to
toxicity using l-in-10 year EECs based on the label-recommended chlorpyrifos usage scenarios
summarized in Table 3.1 and the appropriate aquatic toxicity endpoint from Table 4.1. Acute
and chronic risks to terrestrial animals are estimated based on exposures resulting from
applications of chlorpyrifos (Tables 3.8 through 3.9) and the appropriate toxicity endpoint from
Table 4.3. Exposures are also derived for terrestrial plants, as discussed in Section 3.3, based on
the highest application rates of chlorpyrifos use within the action area.
5.1 Exposures in the Aquatic Habitat
The species considered in this risk assessment include several diverse taxa: a frog, a salamander,
a fish, a snake, a bird, a mouse, a fox, a shrimp and two insect species. Direct effects were
estimated by using toxicity data from each taxonomic group or a similar surrogate taxon (Table
5.1). Indirect effects were estimated by reviewing the life history of each species to see which
taxa represent their staple food source, and assessing the risk to those taxa. Direct effects to the
Delta smelt were evaluated using the lowest acute and chronic toxicity values across freshwater
and saltwater fish species, since the Delta smelt's life history includes both habitats. Direct
effects to the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander were evaluated using
aquatic-phase amphibian data, and indirect effects to the San Francisco garter snake, were
evaluated using freshwater fish and aquatic-phase amphibian data. Indirect effects to the clapper
rail were evaluated using all fish and amphibian toxicity data. Direct effects to the California
freshwater shrimp and indirect effects to the California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander and San Francisco garter snake were assessed using freshwater invertebrate data; one
difference was the use of freshwater crustacean data only for direct effects to the California
freshwater shrimp. All freshwater and estuarine/marine invertebrate toxicity data were used to
assess indirect effects to the Delta smelt and California clapper rail. Non-vascular plant toxicity
120
-------
data were not nearly as sensitive as animal data. This was used to assess indirect risks to all
species of concern except the two insect species, whose food chains were considered to be all
terrestrial.
Table 5.1 Types of Data Used to Assess Direct Risk to Listed Species and Indirect Risk to
these Species through the Food Chain
Type of Toxicity Data
Freshwater Fish and
Aquatic -phase Amphibians
Estuarine/Marine Fish
Freshwater Invertebrates
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
Non-vascular Plants
Direct Risk
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
Delta smelt
California freshwater shrimp
Indirect Risk
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
California freshwater shrimp
Salt marsh harvest mouse
5.1.1 Freshwater Fish and Aquatic-phase Amphibians
Acute risk to fish and aquatic-phase amphibians is based on peak EECs in the standard pond and
the lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater fish or aquatic-phase amphibians (Table 5.2).
Chronic risk is based on 21- or 60-day EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for freshwater
fish or aquatic-phase amphibians. Based on acute toxicity data from studies with the bluegill
sunfish and African clawed frog, chlorpyrifos poses very high risks to both fish and aquatic-
phase amphibians. For species directly affected by chlorpyrifos concentrations acutely toxic to
freshwater fish, risk exceeded the level of concern (LOG) in all but one use, the turfgrass
granular broadcast use. Only this use did not exceed the acute LOG (0.05) for endangered fish.
For species directly affected by chlorpyrifos concentrations acutely toxic to aquatic-phase
amphibians, risk exceeded the level of concern (LOG) in all uses. Therefore, all uses have the
potential to directly affect the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander, and all
uses, except one, have the potential to directly affect the Delta smelt. Indirect effects using the
acute LOG of species that are not endangered (0.5) is not shown in the table since the chronic
RQs were exceeded for all but one use (below) and was more conservative.
121
-------
Table 5.2 Summary of Acute RQs for Freshwater Amphibians and Fish.
Uses/Application Rate
Species
Peak EEC Qig/L)
Acute RQ1
Fish Data
Ornamentals - liquid,
ground, 8 Ibs a.i./acre
Bluegill Sunfish
Lepomis macrochirus
45.12
25.0
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs between 0.3 and 45.1ug/L) that exceeded the LOG.
Alfalfa Clover -granular,
incorporated, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Bluegill Sunfish
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill Sunfish
Lepomis macrochirus
0.33
0.08
0.17
0.04
Amphibian Data
Ornamentals - liquid,
ground, 8 Ibs a.i./acre
African clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
45.1
75.2
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs between 0.08 and 45.1ug/L) that exceeded the LOG.
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
African clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
0.08
0.13
:LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05 for direct effects to endangered species) are bolded and shaded. Acute RQ =
use-specific peak EEC / 1.8 for fish and 0.6 for amphibians (lowest acute value, bluegill or African clawed frog
LC50). 2Highest Peak EEC. 3Lowest Peak EEC with an exceedance. All uses not shown in this table had
exceedances.
Based on sublethal and chronic toxicity data from studies with the African clawed frog and
fathead minnow, chlorpyrifos poses higher chronic risks to amphibians than fish (Table 5.3),
although acute data (Table 5.2) showed slightly higher risks to fish. Only one use, Turfgrass -
granular broadcast, did not exceed the chronic LOG (0.10) for either amphibians or fish.
Twenty-one uses (Table 5.3) showed potential for direct effects to amphibians but not fish.
Twenty-five uses exceeded chronic RQs for both fish and amphibians and have the potential to
directly affect the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and Delta smelt. All
uses, but the turfgrass use mentioned above, have the potential to directly affect the Delta smelt.
For species indirectly affected by loss offish or aquatic-phase amphibians (the San Francisco
garter snake and California clapper rail) the LOG was 0.5 for acute toxicity and 1 for chronic
toxicity. The chronic LOG (1.0) for indirect effects is the same as the chronic LOG for
endangeres species, which caused RQ exceedances in all uses but one, the turfgrass use.
122
-------
Table 5.3 Summary of Chronic RQs for Freshwater Amphibians and Fish.
Uses/Application Rate
Species
60-day EEC Qig/L)
Chronic RQ1
Fish Data
Ornamentals - liquid, ground, 8 Ibs
a.i./acre
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
11.9
21
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs >0.5 to 11.9 ug/L) that exceeded the LOC for fish.
Asparagus - granular, incorporated, 1
Ib a.i./acre
Ant mounds - granular, ground, 2 Ibs
a.i./acre
Road median - liquid, ground, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
Road median - granular, ground, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
Wheat - liquid, ground and
incorporated, 0.5 Ibs a.i./acre
Sweet potato - liquid, ground and
incorporated, 2 Ibs a.i./acre
Fig - liquid, ground, 2 Ibs a.i./acre
Turfgrass - liquid, ground, 4 Ibs
a.i./acre
Field and sweet corn, granular,
incorporated, 1 Ibs a.i./acre
Grapes - liquid, ground, 2.25 Ibs
a.i./acre
Pear- liguid, ground, 2 Ibs a.i./acre
Legumes - liquid, ground, 0.5 Ibs
a.i./acre
Legumes - liquid, ground, 0.5 Ibs
a.i./acre
Fig - liquid, incorporated, 2 Ibs
a.i./acre
Grain sorghum - granular,
incorporated, 1.5 Ibs a.i./acre
Sunflower - granular, incorporated, 1.3
Ibs a.i./acre
Peanut - granular, incorporated, 2 Ibs
a.i./acre
Alfalfa Clover -granular, incorporated,
1 Ib a.i./acre
Citrus Floor - granular, incorporated, 1
Ib a.i./acre
Sugarbeet - granular, ground and
incorporated, 2 Ib a.i./acre
Sweet potato - granular, incorporated,
2 Ib a.i./acre
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
0.52
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
123
-------
Table 5.3 Summary of Chronic RQs for Freshwater Amphibians and Fish.
Uses/Application Rate
Turfgrass - granular, broadcast, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
Species
Fathead minnow,
Pimephales promelas
60-day EEC Qig/L)
0.02
Chronic RQ1
0.04
Amphibian Data 21-day EEC Oig/L)
Ornamentals - liquid, ground, 8 Ibs
a.i./acre
African clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
20.1
>201
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs between 0.2 and 20.1 ug/L) that exceeded the LOG for amphibians.
Sweet potato - granular, incorporated,
2 Ib a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular, broadcast, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
African clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
African clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
0.2
0.04
>2
>0.4
:LOC exceedances (chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded and shaded. Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / <0. 1
(lowest chronic value, amphibian NOAEC) or use specific 60-day EEC/ 0.57 (lowest fish value, fathead
minnow life cycle NOAEC). 2Highest 60-day EEC without an exceedance. All uses not shown had
exceedances for both 21- and 60-day EECs.
5.1.2 Freshwater Invertebrates
Acute risk to freshwater invertebrates was based on peak EECs in the standard pond and the
lowest acute toxicity value for freshwater invertebrates. Chronic risk is based on 21-day EECs
and the lowest chronic toxicity valued for freshwater crustaceans (used for the shrimp only) and
other invertebrates. All uses have the potential to directly affect the California freshwater shrimp
and indirectly affect the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, San
Francisco garter snake and California clapper rail (Table 5.4).
124
-------
Table 5.4 Summary of Acute RQs for Freshwater Invertebrates.
Uses/Application Rate
Species
Peak EEC (jig/L)
Acute RQ1
Crustacean Data
Ornamentals - liquid,
ground, 8 Ibs a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia
dubia
Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia
dubia
45.1
0.08
644
1.1
All Invertebrate Data
Ornamentals - liquid,
ground, 8 Ibs a.i./acre
Cole crops, Leafy
Vegetable, Rutabaga,
Turnip - liquid, ground and
incorporated, 3 Ibs a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Blackfly
Simulium vittatum
IS-7
Blackfly
Simulium vittatum
IS-7
Blackfly
Simulium vittatum
IS-7
45.1
16.3
0.08
752
272
1.3
:LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05) are bolded and shaded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC / 0.07 for lowest
crustacean acute value (Ceriodaphnia LC50) or 0.06 lowest acute value for all other taxa (blackfly LC50). Note: For
freshwater invertebrates all acute RQs exceeded the LOG, only highest and lowest Peak EECs are shown.
Table 5.5 Summary of Chronic RQs for Aquatic Invertebrates.
Uses/Application Rate
Ornamentals - liquid, ground, 8 Ibs
a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular, broadcast, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
Species
Water Flea
Daphnia magna
Water Flea
Daphnia magna
21-day EEC (jig/L)
20.1
0.04
Chronic RQ1
503
1
:LOC exceedances (chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded and shaded. Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.04
(lowest chronic value, daphnid NOAEC). Note: For freshwater invertebrates all chronic RQs exceeded the LOG,
only highest and lowest 21 -day EECs are shown.
Based on chronic data using Daphnia magna, another crustacean, chlorpyrifos has the potential
to directly affect the California freshwater salamander. Additionally, since the acute and chronic
RQs were exceeded, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely on
freshwater invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle; this list includes the
California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, California clapper rail and
San Francisco garter snake (Table 5.5).
125
-------
5.1.3 Estuarine/Marine Fish
Acute risk to estuarine/marine fish is based on peak EECs in the standard pond and the lowest
acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine fish. Chronic risk is based on 60-day EECs and the
lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine fish is used. For species directly affected by
chlorpyrifos concentrations acutely toxic to estuarine/marine fish, risk exceeded the LOG (0.05)
in all but two uses, the Turfgrass granular broadcast and Alfalfa clover granular incorporated
uses. All uses except these two have the potential to directly affect the Delta smelt (Table 5.6).
Table 5.6 Summary of Acute RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish.
Uses/Application Rate
Ornamentals - liquid,
ground, 8 Ibs a.i./acre
Species
Tidewater silverside,
Menidia peninsulae
Peak EEC Qig/L)
45.12
Acute RQ1
64
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs between 0.4 and 45.1 ug/L) that exceeded the LOC.
Sweet Potato - granular,
incorporated, 2 Ib a.i./acre
Alfalfa Clover -granular,
incorporated, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Tidewater silverside,
Menidia peninsulae
Tidewater silverside,
Menidia peninsulae
Tidewater silverside,
Menidia peninsulae
0.4
0.3
0.08
0.6
0.4
0.1
:LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.5) are bolded and shaded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak EEC / 0.7 (lowest acute
value, Tidewater silverside LC50). 2Highest EEC. 3Lowest EEC with an exceedance. All uses not shown had
exceedances.
Table 5.7 Summary of Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Fish.
Uses/Application Rate
Ornamentals - liquid, ground, 8 Ibs
a.i./acre
Species
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
21-day EEC Qig/L)
20.1
Chronic RQ1
72
Missing uses here had RQs (EECs between 0.4 and 20.1 ug/L) that exceeded the LOC.
Peanut - granular, incorporated, 2 Ibs
a.i./acre
Sugarbeet - granular, incorporated, 2
Ibs a.i./acre
Citrus Floor - granular, incorporated, 1
Ibs a.i./acre
Sweet potato - granular, incorporated,
2 Ibs a.i./acre
Alfalfa Clover - granular,
incorporated, 1 Ibs a.i./acre
Turfgrass - granular, broadcast, 1 Ib
a.i./acre
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
0.42
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.04
1.4
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.1
:LOC exceedances (chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded and shaded. Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.28
(lowest chronic value, Atlantic silverside NOAEC). 2Lowest 21-day EEC with an exceedance. All uses not shown
had exceedances.
Based on sublethal and chronic toxicity data from studies with estuarine and marine fish,
chlorpyrifos has the potential to directly affect the Delta smelt. Only five uses did not exceed the
126
-------
chronic LOG (1.0): Turfgrass granular broadcast, and Alfalfa clover, Sweet potato, Citrus Floor
and Sugarbeet granular, incorporated. All uses, except these five, have the potential to directly
affect the Delta smelt, as well as the food source relied upon by the California clapper during at
least some portion of its life-cycle (Table 5.7).
5.1.4 Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates
Acute risk to estuarine/marine invertebrates is based on peak EECs in the standard pond and the
lowest acute toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates. Chronic risk is based on 21-day
EECs and the lowest chronic toxicity value for estuarine/marine invertebrates. For species
directly or indirectly affected by chlorpyrifos concentrations acutely or chronically toxic to
estuarine/marine invertebrates, risk exceeded the level of concern (0.05 for acute and 0.10 for
chronic) for all uses. All uses have the potential to indirectly affect the California clapper rail
(Table 5.8)
Table 5.8 Summary of Acute and Chronic RQs for Estuarine/Marine Invertebrates.
Uses/Application Rate
Turfgrass - granular,
broadcast, 1 Ib a.i./acre
Species
Mysid shrimp
Americamysis
bahia
Peak EEC
(Mg/L)
0.082
21-day
EEC
(Hg/L)
0.042
Acute RQ1
2.2
Chronic RQ1
8.7
:LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.05; chronic RQ > 1.0) are bolded and shaded. Acute RQ = use-specific peak
EEC / 0.035 (lowest acute value, mysid LC50). Chronic RQ = use-specific 21-day EEC / 0.0046 (lowest chronic
value, mysid NOAEC). 2Lowest EECs - all uses had exceedances.
Since all acute and chronic RQs are exceeded, there is a potential for indirect effects to any listed
species that relies on estuarine/marine invertebrates during at least some portion of its life-cycle
(i.e., the California clapper rail).
5.1.5 Non-vascular Aquatic Plants
Acute risk to aquatic non-vascular plants is based on peak EECs in the standard pond and the
lowest acute toxicity value. For species directly or indirectly affected by chlorpyrifos
concentrations acutely toxic to non-vascular aquatic plants, risk did not exceed the level of
concern (0.10) for any uses. No uses have the potential via this route to indirectly affect the
California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, California freshwater
shrimp, California clapper rail and San Francisco garter snake (Table 5.9).
Table 5.9 Summary of Acute RQs for Non- Vascular Aquatic Plants.
Uses
Ornamentals - liquid
Application rate (Ib
ai/A) and type
8 Ibs a.i./acre, Ground
Peak EEC
(Hg/L)
45. 12
RQ1
0.3
:LOC exceedances (RQ > 1) are bolded and shaded. RQ = use-specific peak EEC/140 (endpoint, Alga,
Isochrysis galbana EC50). 2Highest Peak EEC - no uses had exceedances.
127
-------
Since the acute RQs are not exceeded, these data show no measurable potential for indirect
effects to those listed species that rely on non-vascular aquatic plants during at least some
portion of their life-cycle (i.e., California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta
smelt, California freshwater shrimp, California clapper rail and San Francisco garter snake). No
acceptable data were found for chlorpyrifos effects to aquatic vascular plants. Incident data,
however, did show some severe effects due to chlorpyrifos, which will be covered more in the
uncertainties section.
5.2 Exposures in the Terrestrial Habitat
5.2.1 Birds (surrogate for Reptiles and Terrestrial-phase amphibians)
As previously discussed in Section 3.3, potential direct effects to terrestrial species are based on
foliar, granular and seed treatment applications of Chlorpyrifos. Potential risks to birds (and,
thus, reptiles and terrestrial-phase amphibians) are derived using T-REX, acute and chronic
toxicity data for the most sensitive bird species for which data are available, and a variety of
body-size and dietary categories.
Potential direct acute effects specifically to the California clapper rail are derived by considering
dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a small bird [20 g (for juveniles) and 100 g
(for adults)] consuming a variety of dietary items (Table 3.8) and acute oral and subacute dietary
toxicity endpoints for avian species. Potential direct acute effects to the terrestrial-phase CRLF
San Francisco garter snake and terrestrial-phase California tiger salamander are derived by
considering dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a small bird (20 g) consuming
small invertebrates (Table 3.9) and acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity endpoints for avian
species.
Potential direct chronic effects to the California clapper rail are derived by considering dietary-
based EECs modeled in T-REX for a small bird [20 g (juveniles) and 100 g (adults)] consuming
a variety of dietary items and acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity endpoints for avian species.
Potential direct chronic effects of chlorpyrifos to the terrestrial-phase CRLF San Francisco garter
snake and CA tiger salamander are derived by considering dietary-based exposures modeled in
T-REX for a small bird (20g) consuming small invertebrates. Chronic effects are estimated
using the lowest available toxicity data for birds. EECs are divided by toxicity values to estimate
chronic dietary-based RQs. As previously noted, RQ's for granular and seed treatment
applications are not based on EECs but rather calculated in terms of LD50 per square foot.
Therefore, EECs for granular and seed treatments are not generated for these uses.
128
-------
Table 5.10 Acute Dose-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos California Red Legged Frog,
Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig
(Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton,
Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi,
Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Small SFB Species
RQ1
87
159
87
113
70
83
165
46
224
91
78
150
41
70
76
70
22
141
248
Adult CA Clapper
Rail RQ 2
38
70
38
49
32
36
72
21
99
40
34
65
17
32
34
30
11
61
108
Based on house sparrow acute oral LD50 of 10 mg/kg and bw of 20 g
2 Based on house sparrow acute oral LD50 of 10 mg/kg and bw of 100 g
LOG exceedances (RQ > 0.1) are bolded and shaded
Table 5.11 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and California Red
Legged Frog, Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig
(Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton,
Broccoli, Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi,
Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Acute RQ 1
2
5
3
3
2
2
5
1
6
3
Chronic RQ 2
13
24
14
17
11
13
25
7
35
14
129
-------
Table 5.11 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and California Red
Legged Frog, Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
2
4
1
2
2
2
1
4
7
12
23
6
11
12
11
3
22
38
1 Based on Mallard Duck LC50 of 136 ppm
2 Based on Mallard Duck NOAEC of 25 ppm
LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1, chronic RQ > 1) are bolded and shaded.
Table 5.12 LD50/sq ft for Granular Applications Chlorpyrifos California Red Legged
Frog, Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa, Onion (In-furrow 3)
Asparagus, Citrus Orchard Floors, Corn, Road Median, Turf Grass
(Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated 4)
Citrus Orchard Floor (Broadcast: Ground Unincorporated 5 )
Cole Crop (Brassica) Leafy Vegetables and Radish, Rutabaga and Turnip
(T-band: Lightly Incorporated)
Corn (Broadcast: Aerial)
Peanut, Sweet Potato, Tobacco (Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated)
Sorghum - Grain Sorghum (Milo) (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Soybean (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sugarbeet (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sunflower (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sweet Potato (Broadcast; Ground; Incorporated 6)
Outdoor Nurseries (Broadcast; Unincorporated)
Small SFB
Species LD501
6
18
119
181
119
36
81
161
97
98
3
700
Adult CA
Clapper Rail
LD502
0.8
2.8
19
28
19
6
13
25
15
16
0.4
100
1 Based on common grackle oral LD50 of 5.62 mg/kg and bw of 20 g
2 Based on common grackle oral LD50 of 5.62 mg/kg and bw of 100 g
In- furrow = 1% unincorporated
4Lightly incorporated = 15% unincorporated
5 Unincorporated = 100% unincorporated
Incorporated =1% unincorporated
LOG exceedances (RQ > 0.1) are bolded and shaded
130
-------
Table 5.13 Acute and Chronic RQs Seed Treatment and California Red Legged
Frog, Clapper Rail, Tiger Salamander and San Francisco Garter Snake
Use
Field Beans, Green Beans, Kidney Beans, Navy Beans, String Beans,
Wax Beans,
Black-Eyed Peas
Cucumbers, Pumpkins :
Corn
Cotton
Field Peas, Garden Peas
Lima Beans, Snap Beans
Sorghum
Wheat
Acute RQ
mg ai ft 2 /
(LD50*bw)
34
11
0.2
5
8
39
21
0.07
1
Chronic RQ
(mg/kg seed)
/NOAEC
72
72
72
72
143
72
72
3
3
1 Maximum seeding rate = 5 Ib ai/A (HED ExpoSAC SOP 15)
LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1, chronic RQ > 1) are bolded and shaded.
Results of the dose-based EEC analysis of direct effects to the terrestrial phase species evaluated
indicate acute LOC exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1, chronic RQ > 1) for all uses of chlorpyrifos
(Table 5.10; also see Tables 5.11 through 5.13). Based on these results, Chlorpyrifos does have
the potential to directly affect the CRLF, California Clapper Rail, California tiger salamander
and San Francisco garter snake. Additionally, since the acute and/or chronic RQs are exceeded,
there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely on birds (and, thus, reptiles
and/or terrestrial-phase amphibians) during at least some portion of their life-cycle (i.e., CLRF,
California Clapper Rail, California tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake.).
5.2.2 Mammals
Potential risks to mammals are derived using T-REX, acute and chronic rat toxicity data, and a
variety of body-size and dietary categories.
Potential direct acute effects specifically to the Salt Marsh harvest mouse are derived by
considering dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a small mammal (15 g)
consuming a variety of dietary items (Tables 5.14 and 5.15) and acute oral and subacute dietary
toxicity endpoints for rats. Potential direct acute effects specifically to the San Joaquin fox are
derived by considering dose- and dietary-based EECs modeled in T-REX for a large mammal
(1,000 g) consuming a variety of dietary items and acute oral and subacute dietary toxicity
endpoints for rats. RQ's for granular and seed treatment applications are not based on EECs but
rather calculated in terms of LDso per square foot. Therefore, EECs for granular and seed
treatments are not generated for these uses.
131
-------
Table 5.14 Acute Dose-Based RQs for Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Apple, Grape (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum, Fig (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast
Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Cranberry, Strawberry, Sugarbeet Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, Citrus (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage,
Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
SMH Mouse
RQ1
2
4
3
1
6
1
0.6
S J Fox RQ 1
1
2
1
0.5
3
0.5
0.3
1 Based on rat LD50 =118 mg/kg and bw of 15g
2 Based on rat LD50 =118 mg/kg and bw of 1000 g
LOG exceedances (RQ > 0.1) are bolded and shaded.
Table 5.15 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast
Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton, Broccoli, Cabbage,
Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish, Turnip (Foliar;
Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Acute RQ1
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.2
1.2
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.2
0.4
0.4
Chronic RQ2
30
54
30
39
24
28
57
16
77
31
27
51
14
24
26
132
-------
Table 5.15 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox
Use (Application Method)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Acute RQ1
0.4
0.1
0.7
1.3
Chronic RQ2
24
8
48
85
1 Based on rat LC50 = 1330 ppm
2 Based on rat NOAEC = 20 ppm
LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1; chronic RQ > 1) are bolded and shaded
Table 5.16 LD50/sq ft for Granular Applications for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa, Onion (In-furrow 3)
Asparagus, Citrus Orchard Floors, Corn, Road Median, Turf Grass
(Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated 4)
Citrus Orchard Floor (Broadcast: Ground Unincorporated 5 )
Cole Crop (Brassica) Leafy Vegetables and Radish, Rutabaga and Turnip
(T-band: Lightly Incorporated)
Corn (Broadcast: Aerial)
Peanut, Sweet Potato, Tobacco (Broadcast: Ground Lightly Incorporated)
Sorghum - Grain Sorghum (Milo) (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Soybean (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sugarbeet (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sunflower (T-band; Lightly Incorporated)
Sweet Potato (Broadcast; Ground; Incorporated 6)
Outdoor Nurseries (Broadcast; Unincorporated)
SMH Mouse
LD501
0.1
0.4
3
4
3
0.8
2
4
2
2
0.05
4
SF Fox LD502
0.01
0.02
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.03
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
O.01
0.2
1 Based on rat LD50 =118 mg/kg and bw of 1 5g
2 Based on rat LD50 =118 mg/kg and bw of 1 000 g
3 In-furrow = 1% unincorporated
4 Lightly incorporated = 15% unincorporated
5 Unincorporated = 100% unincorporated
6 Incorporated = 1% unincorporated
LOG exceedances (RQ > 0.1) are bolded and shaded
133
-------
Table 5.17 Acute and Chronic RQs for Seed Treatment for Chlorpyrifos and Salt Marsh
Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox
Use
Field Beans, Green Beans, Kidney Beans, Navy Beans, String Beans, Wax
Beans
Cucumbers, Pumpkins :
Black-Eyed Peas
Corn
Cotton
Field Peas, Garden Peas
Lima Beans, Snap Beans
Sorghum
Wheat
Acute RQ
mg ai ft 2 /
(LD50*bw)
0.8
<0.01
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.5
<0.01
0.03
Chronic RQ
(mg/kg seed) /
NOAEC
90
90
90
90
179
90
90
4
4
1 Maximum seeding rate = 5 Ib ai/A (HED ExpoSAC SOP 15)
LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1; chronic RQ > 1) are bolded and shaded
Results of the dose-based EEC analysis of direct effects to the mammalian species evaluated
indicate acute LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1, chronic RQ > 1) for all uses of chlorpyrifos.
(Tables 5.14 through 5.17). Based on these results, Chlorpyrifos does have the potential to
directly affect the Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse and San Joaquin Fox. Additionally, since the acute
and/or chronic RQs are exceeded, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species
that rely on mammals during at least some portion of their life-cycle (i.e., CRLF, California
Clapper Rail, California tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake).
5.2.3 Terrestrial Invertebrates
In order to assess the risks of Chlorpyrifos to terrestrial invertebrates, the honey bee is used as a
surrogate for terrestrial invertebrates. The toxicity value for terrestrial invertebrates is calculated
by multiplying the lowest available acute contact LD50 of 0.059 jig a.i./bee by 1 bee/0.128g,
which is based on the weight of an adult honey bee. EECs (jig a.i./g of bee) calculated by T-
REX for small and large insects are divided by the calculated toxicity value for terrestrial
invertebrates, which is 0.46 jig a.i./g of bee. Larvae for both the Bay checkerspot butterfly and
the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle are considered 'small insects' in this assessment, while the
adults of these species are considered 'large insects' (Table 5.18).
134
-------
Table 5.18 Acute and Chronic Dietary-Based RQs for Chlorpyrifos and Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Use (Application Method)
Alfalfa (Broadcast Aerial/Ground, Chemigation)
Almond, Sour Cherry, Filbert, Pecan, Walnut, (Foliar; Broadcast
Aerial/Ground)
Apple (Dormant/Delayed; Broadcast Ground)
Asparagus, Sunflower (Foliar Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cherry, Nectarine, Peach, Pear, Plum/Prune, Fig (Dormant/Delayed;
Broadcast Ground)
Christmas Trees (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Citrus Fruits (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Corn/Cotton (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground; Chemigation)
Cole Crop -Cauliflower Brussels Sprouts, Corn, Cotton, Broccoli,
Cabbage, Chinese Cabbage, Collar, Kale, Kohlrabi, Rudabaga, Radish,
Turnip (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Cranberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Grape (Dormant; Broadcast Ground)
Mint (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Sorghum, Soybean (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Strawberry (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sugarbeet (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Sunflower (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Wheat (Foliar; Broadcast Aerial/Ground)
Ornamentals (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Turf Grass (Foliar; Broadcast Ground)
Small Insect
RQ*
722
1328
735
943
587
689
1383
385
1887
761
661
1259
341
670
628
578
183
1174
2070
Large Insect
RQ*
80
148
83
104
65
76
152
43
211
85
91
139
39
80
70
65
20
130
228
1 Based on bee LD50 = 0.46 ppm
LOG exceedances RQ > 0.05 are bolded and shaded
Results of the dose-based EEC analysis of direct effects to the mammalian species evaluated
indicate acute LOG exceedances (acute RQ > 0.1, chronic RQ > 1) for all uses of chlorpyrifos.
Based on these results, Chlorpyrifos does have the potential to directly affect the Bay
checkerspot butterfly and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Additionally, since the acute and/or
chronic RQs are exceeded, there is a potential for indirect effects to those listed species that rely
on terrestrial invertebrates during at least some portion of their life-cycle (i.e., CRLF, California
Clapper Rail, California tiger salamander and San Francisco garter snake).
5.2.4 Terrestrial Plants
No useable quantitative or qualitative data was found in this search of the open literature for
terrestrial plants. Because of the absence of terrestrial plant effects data for chlorpyrifos, the
Agency turned to other lines of evidence to evaluate the potential for chlorpyrifos to affect
terrestrial vegetation. Available incident data provide some insight into the potential for
chlorpyrifos to affect terrestrial plants. Among the incident reports for chlorpyrifos there are 19
of 43 incidents that classify chlorpyrifos as a probable or highly probable causative agent for
adverse effects in crop plants (Section 5.5.1.2). These data suggest that, in the absence of actual
135
-------
controlled terrestrial plant effects studies, there is evidence that the pesticide can and does
adversely affect terrestrial vegetation, although the chemical exposure threshold for such damage
is not presently quantifiable.
5.2.4.1 Bioconcentration of Chlorpyrifos in Terrestrial Animals via Foodborne Uptake
from Aquatic Sources
The KABAM model was used to estimate potential bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in aquatic
food webs and subsequent risks to mammals and birds via consumption of contaminated fish.
KABAM incorporated 7 trophic levels to describe bioaccumulation of chlorpyrifos in a model
aquatic food web: phytoplankton, zooplankton (e.g., Daphnia sp.), benthic invertebrates (e.g.,
Chironomus sp., crayfish), filter feeders (e.g., mussels, clams), small fish (e.g., young of the
year), medium sized fish (e.g., adult bluegill), and larger upper-trophic level fish (e.g.,
largemouth bass). Chlorpyrifos concentrations in these aquatic trophic levels were used to
estimate acute and chronic exposures of mammals and birds consuming aquatic organisms.
Table 5.19 Calculation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming
fish contaminated by Chlorpyrifos.
Wildlife Species
Acute
Dose
Based
Dietary
Based
Chronic
Dose Based
Dietary
Based
Mammalian
fog/water shrew
rice rat/star-nosed
mole
small mink
large mink
small river otter
large river otter
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.05
0.06
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.8
3.5
4.8
5.3
5.7
7.4
0.51
0.51
0.77
0.77
0.77
0.91
Avian
sandpipers
cranes
rails
herons
small osprey
white pelican
LOG exceedances (acute ]
0.18
0.01
0.10
0.02
0.03
0.01
lQ>0.1;chron:
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0.04
cRQ>l)arebolded
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
and shaded.
0.08
0.08
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.13
136
-------
Based on results of KABAM (Table 5.19) LOCs (acute = 0.1 and chronic = 1.0) were exceeded
via foodborne uptake of aquatic organisms in terrestrial-phase frogs, rats, sandpipers and other
types of animals. These results apply directly to the California red-legged frog, California tiger
salamander, California clapper rail; and San Francisco garter snake.
5.3 Primary Constituent Elements of Designated Critical Habitat
For Chlorpyrifos use, the assessment endpoints for designated critical habitat PCEs involve the
same endpoints as those being assessed relative to the potential for direct and indirect effects to
the listed species assessed here. Therefore, the effects determinations for direct and indirect
effects are used as the basis of the effects determination for potential modification to designated
critical habitat.
5.4 Spatial Extent of Potential Effects
An LAA effects determination applies to those areas where it is expected that the pesticide's use
will directly or indirectly affect the CRLF Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest
mouse, California tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater shrimp,
San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly or their
designated critical habitats. To determine this area, the footprint of chlorpyrifos's use pattern is
identified, using land cover data that correspond to chlorpyrifos's use pattern. The spatial extent
of the effects determination also includes areas beyond the initial area of concern that may be
impacted by runoff and/or spray drift. The identified direct/indirect effects and/or modification
to critical habitat are anticipated to occur only for those currently occupied core habitat areas,
CNDDB occurrence sections, and designated critical habitat for the CRLF that overlap with the
initial area of concern plus 1000 feet from its boundary. The identified direct/indirect effects
and/or modification to critical habitat for the listed species with designated critical habitat are
anticipated to occur only for the designated critical habitat areas that overlap with the initial area
of concern plus 1000 feet from its boundary. It is assumed that non-flowing waterbodies (or
potential habitat) are included within this area.
In addition to the spray drift buffer, the results of the downstream dilution extent analysis result
in a distance of 283 kilometers which represents the maximum continuous distance of
downstream dilution from the edge of the initial area of concern. If any of these streams reaches
flow into the listed species habitat, there is potential to affect either the listed species or modify
its habitat. These lotic aquatic habitats within the CRLF and SFB Species (Delta smelt,
California Tiger Salamander, California freshwater shrimp, California clapper rail and San
Francisco garter snake) core areas and critical habitats potentially contain concentrations of
chlorpyrifos sufficient to result in LAA determination or modification of critical habitat.
The determination of the buffer distance and downstream dilution for spatial extent of the effects
determination is described below.
137
-------
5.4.1 Spray Drift
In order to determine terrestrial and aquatic habitats of concern due to Chlorpyrifos exposures
through spray drift, it is necessary to estimate the distance that spray applications can drift from
the treated area and still be present at concentrations that exceed levels of concern. An analysis
of spray drift distances was completed using AgDrift.
For Chlorpyrifos use relative to the aquatic-phase species, the results of the screening-level risk
assessment indicate that spray drift using the most sensitive endpoints for aquatic invertebrates
exceeds the 1,000 foot range of the AgDrift model for the Tier I ground mode (no higher tier
modeling for ground applications is available in AgDrift).
Because Chlorpyrifos is used on a number of use sites and because the action area represents the
entire state of California no additional efforts have been attempted to quantify the extent of off-
site effects. The maximum distance for buffers has been set to 1,000 feet
5.4.2 Downstream Dilution Analysis
The downstream extent of exposure in streams and rivers is where the EEC could potentially be
above levels that would exceed the most sensitive LOG. To complete this assessment, the
greatest ratio of aquatic RQ to LOG was estimated. Using an assumption of uniform runoff
across the landscape, it is assumed that streams flowing through treated areas (i.e. the initial area
of concern) are represented by the modeled EECs; as those waters move downstream, it is
assumed that the influx of non-impacted water will dilute the concentrations of Chlorpyrifos
present.
Using a LCso value of 0.06 ug/L for aquatic invertebrates (the most sensitive species) and a
maximum peak EEC for applications to ornamentals of 45.1 ug/L yields an RQ/LOC ratio of
15040. Using the downstream dilution approach (described in more detail in Appendix K)
yields a target percent crop area (PCA) of 0.006%. This value has been input into the
downstream dilution approach and results in a distance of 285 kilometers which represents the
maximum continuous distance of downstream dilution from the edge of the initial area of
concern. Because there is uncertainty associated with the EEC derived from modeling
Chlorpyrifos use on ornamentals (assumes 100% application by broadcast across a nursery setting
when most applications will be applied by hand on a subset of the site) a second downstream
evaluation was completed for the use site with the next lowest EEC (cole crops at 16 ppb). The
RQ/LOC ratio for this use is 5440 yielding a target PCA of 0.02%. This ratio also yields a
maximum downstream extent of 285 kilometers.
5.4.3 Overlap between CRLF and SFB Species habitat and Spatial Extent of Potential
Effects
An LAA effects determination is made to those areas where it is expected that the pesticide's use
will directly or indirectly affect the CRLF, Delta smelt, California clapper rail, Salt marsh
harvest mouse, California tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake, California freshwater
shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay checkerspot butterfly, or
138
-------
their designated critical habitats and the area overlaps with the core areas, critical habitat and
available occurrence data for CRLF and critical habitat for the Delta smelt, California clapper
rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, California tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake,
California freshwater shrimp, San Joaquin kit fox, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, or Bay
checkerspot butterfly.
For chlorpyrifos, the use pattern in the following land cover classes cultivated cropland,
orchards, residential, and forestry also includes areas beyond the initial area of concern that may
be impacted by runoff and/or spray drift overlaps with listed species habitat. Appendix K
provides maps of the initial area of concern, along with listed species habitat areas. It is
expected that any additional areas of critical habitat that are located 1000 ft (to account for
offsite migration via spray drift) and 285 kilometers of stream reach (to account for downstream
dilution) outside the initial area of concern may also be impacted and are part of the full spatial
extent of the LAA/modification of critical habitat effects determination.
5.5 Risk Description
The risk description synthesizes overall conclusions regarding the likelihood of adverse impacts
leading to an effects determination (i.e., "no effect," "may affect, but not likely to adversely
affect," or "likely to adversely affect") for the assessed species and the potential for modification
of their designated critical habitat.
If the RQs presented in the Risk Estimation (Section 5.1) show no direct or indirect effects for
the assessed species, and no modification to PCEs of the designated critical habitat, a "no
effect" determination is made, based on chlorpyrifos use in California. However, if LOCs for
direct or indirect effect are exceeded or effects may modify the PCEs of the critical habitat, the
Agency concludes a preliminary "may affect" determination for the FIFRA regulatory action
regarding chlorpyrifos. A summary of the risk estimation results are provided in Table 5.20 for
direct and indirect effects to the listed species assessed here and in Table 5.21 for the PCEs of
their designated critical habitat.
Table 5.20 Risk Estimation Summary for chlorpyrifos - Direct and Indirect Effects
Taxa
LOC Exceedances (Y/N)
Description of Results of
Risk Estimation
Assessed Species Potentially
Affected
Non-listed Species (Y)
Freshwater Fish and
Aquatic-phase
Amphibians
Listed Species (Y)
Bluegill Sunfish, Lepomis
macrochirus LC50 =1.8 ug/L
LOC exceeded for 46/47 uses
African clawed frog, Xenopus
laevis LC50 = 0.6 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
African clawed frog, Xenopus
laevis NOAEC = <0.1 ug/L
LOC exceeded for 46/47 uses
Fathead minnow, Pimephales
promelas NOAEC = 0.57 ug/L
LOC exceeded for 25/47 uses
Indirect Effects:
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
Direct Effects:
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
139
-------
Table 5.20 Risk Estimation Summary for chlorpyrifos - Direct and Indirect Effects
Taxa
LOC Exceedances (Y/N)
Description of Results of
Risk Estimation
Assessed Species Potentially
Affected
Non-listed Species (Y)
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Listed Species (Y)
Daphnid, Ceriodaphnia dubia
LC50 = 0.07 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Blackfly, Simulium vittatum
75-7 LC50 = 0.06 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Daphnid, Daphnia magna
NOAEC = 0.04 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
Direct Effects:
California freshwater shrimp
Non-listed Species (Y)
Estuarine/Marine
Fish
Listed Species (Y)
Tidewater silverside,
Menidia peninsulae
LC50 = 0.7 ug/L
LOC exceeded for 45/47 uses
Atlantic silverside
Menidia menidia
NOAEC = 0.28 ug/L
LOC exceeded for 42/47 uses
Indirect Effects:
California clapper rail
Direct Effects:
Delta smelt
Estuarine/Marine
Invertebrates
Non-listed Species (Y)
Mysid shrimp
Americamysis bahia
LC50 = 0.035 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
NOAEC = 0.0046 ug/L
LOC exceeded for ALL uses
Indirect Effects:
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
Non-Vascular
Aquatic Plants
Non-listed Species (N)
Alga, Isochrysis galbana
EC50 = 140 ug/L
LOC was NOT exceeded for
ANY use
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
California tiger salamander
Delta smelt
California clapper rail
San Francisco garter snake
California freshwater shrimp
Salt marsh harvest mouse
Non-listed Species (Y)
Birds, Reptiles, and
Terrestrial-Phase
Amphibians
Acute dose-based and acute
and chronic dietary-based RQs
for non-listed species are
exceeded for all uses.
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
Listed Species (Y)
Acute dose-based and acute
and chronic dietary-based RQs
for listed species are exceeded
for all uses.
Direct Effects:
California re-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
140
-------
Table 5.20 Risk Estimation Summary for chlorpyrifos - Direct and Indirect Effects
Taxa
LOC Exceedances (Y/N)
Description of Results of
Risk Estimation
Assessed Species Potentially
Affected
Non-listed Species (Y)
Mammals
Acute dose-based and acute
and chronic dietary-based RQs
for non-listed species are
exceeded for the majority of
uses.
Indirect Effects:
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Listed Species (Y)
Acute dose-based and acute
and chronic dietary-based RQs
for listed species are exceeded
for the majority of uses.
Direct Effects:
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Listed Species (Y)
Acute and chronic dietary-
based RQs for listed species
are exceeded for all uses.
Direct/Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
California freshwater shrimp
Terrestrial Plants
Monocots
Non-listed Species (Y)
No vegetative vigor or
seedling emergence plant
toxicity data were available. A
qualitative discussion of risk is
provided. Based on includent
data risk is assumed.
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
California freshwater shrimp
Non-listed Species (Y)
Terrestrial Plants
Dicots
No vegetative vigor or
seedling emergence plant
toxicity data were available. A
qualitative discussion of risk is
provided. Based on includent
data risk is assumed.
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
California freshwater shrimp
Non-listed Species (Y)
No vegetative vigor or
seedling emergence plant
toxicity data were available.
Indirect Effects:
California red-legged frog
San Francisco garter snake
141
-------
Table 5.20 Risk Estimation Summary for chlorpyrifos - Direct and Indirect Effects
Taxa
LOC Exceedances (Y/N)
Description of Results of
Risk Estimation
Assessed Species Potentially
Affected
Non-listed Species (cont.)
A qualitative discussion of risk
is provided. Based on
includent data risk is assumed.
California clapper rail
California tiger salamander
Salt marsh harvest mouse
San Joquin kit fox
Bay checkerspot butterfly
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle
California freshwater shrimp
Most of the RQs for chlorpyrifos exceeded the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for
aquatic-phase amphibians, freshwater fish and estuarine/marine fish. All of the RQs for 20 g
birds that eat short grass (used as a screening-level surrogate for terrestrial-phase amphibians in
this assessment) also exceeded LOCs. All of the RQs for chlorpyrifos exceeded the LOCs (acute
and chronic) for freshwater invertebrates. Therefore, a potential exists for direct effects to
aquatic-phase and terrestrial-phase California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander,
and for the Delta smelt from all chlorpyrifos uses except one (turfgrass), and for the California
freshwater shrimp from all uses.
All of the RQs for chlorpyrifos exceeded the LOCs (acute and chronic) for freshwater
invertebrates; therefore, the potential exists for indirect effects to the California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, California clapper rail and San Francisco garter snake.
Since most of the RQs were exceeded for freshwater fish and aquatic-phase invertebrates, and all
of the RQs were exceeded for marine invertebrates, the potential exists for indirect effects to the
California clapper rail, San Francisco garter snake and Delta smelt.
142
-------
Table 5.21 Risk Estimation Summary for chlorpyrifos - Effects to Designated Critical Habitat.
(PCEs)
Taxa
LOC Exceedances (Y/N)
Description of Results of
Risk Estimation
Species Associated with a
Designated Critical Habitat
that May Be Modified by
the Assessed Action
Vascular Aquatic
Plants
Non-listed Species (N)
Data not available so based on
non-vascular plant data. .
California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander,
Delta smelt
Non-Vascular
Aquatic Plants
Non-listed Species (N)
Alga, Isochrysis galbana
EC50 = 140 ug/L
LOC was NOT exceeded for
ANY use
California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander,
Delta smelt
Terrestrial Plants
Monocots
Non-listed Species (Y)
No vegetative vigor or
seedling emergence plant
toxicity data were available. A
qualitative discussion of risk is
provided. Based on includent
data risk is assumed.
California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander,
Delta smelt
Terrestrial Plants
Dicots
Non-listed Species (Y)
No vegetative vigor or
seedling emergence plant
toxicity data were available. A
qualitative discussion of risk is
provided. Based on includent
data risk is assumed.
California red-legged frog,
California tiger salamander,
Delta smelt
Bay checkerspot butterfly,
Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle - if dicots harmed, harm
to these two spp. is likely.
The California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt, Bay checkerspot
butterfly and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle have designated critical habitat. This includes
both aquatic and terrestrial plants for the three aquatic or semi-aquatic species and dicot
terrestrial plants for the two insects (Tables 5.20. and 5.21). None of the RQs for chlorpyrifos
exceeded the listed species LOCs (acute and chronic) for aquatic non-vascular plants. Because
of the absence of terrestrial plant effects data for chlorpyrifos, the Agency turned to other lines of
evidence to evaluate the potential for chlorpyrifos to affect terrestrial vegetation. Available
incident data suggest that, in the absence of actual controlled terrestrial plant effects studies,
there is evidence that the pesticide can and does adversely affect terrestrial vegetation, although
the chemical exposure threshold for such damage is not presently quantifiable. The potential for
direct and/or indirect effects from the animal data also shows that chlorpyrifos use "may affect"
all the species listed in this assessment and/or their designated critical habitat.
Following a "may affect" determination, additional information is considered to refine the
potential for exposure at the predicted levels based on the life history characteristics (i.e., habitat
range, feeding preferences, etc.) of the assessed species. Based on the best available
information, the Agency uses the refined evaluation to distinguish those actions that "may affect,
but are not likely to adversely affect" from those actions that are "likely to adversely affect" the
assessed species and its designated critical habitat.
143
-------
The criteria used to make determinations that the effects of an action are "not likely to adversely
affect" the assessed species or modify its designated critical habitat include the following:
Significance of Effect: Insignificant effects are those that cannot be meaningfully
measured, detected, or evaluated in the context of a level of effect where "take" occurs
for even a single individual. "Take" in this context means to harass or harm, defined as
the following:
Harm includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in
death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavioral patterns
such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Harass is defined as actions that create the likelihood of injury to listed species
to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavior patterns which
include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.
Likelihood of the Effect Occurring: Discountable effects are those that are extremely
unlikely to occur.
Adverse Nature of Effect: Effects that are wholly beneficial without any adverse effects
are not considered adverse.
A description of the risk and effects determination for each of the established assessment
endpoints for the assessed species and their designated critical habitat is provided in Sections
5.5.1. through 5.5.2. The effects determination section for each listed species assessed will
follow a similar pattern. Each will start with a discussion of the potential for direct effects,
followed by a discussion of the potential for indirect effects. For those listed species that have
designated critical habitat, the section will end with a discussion on the potential for modification
to the critical habitat from the use of chlorpyrifos.
5.5.1 Direct Effects
5.5.1.1 Aquatic Species
Effects to aquatic-phase amphibians, as well as both freshwater and saltwater fish are significant
and not discountable. Runoff may cause effects wherever chlorpyrifos is used near sites
inhabited by the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, Delta smelt or
California freshwater shrimp.
Based on the weight-of-evidence, a quite marked potential does exist for direct effects to both
aquatic- and terrestrial-phase of the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander,
and the Delta smelt.
Aquatic-Phase Amphibians and Fish
The aquatic-phase of the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander consists of
life stages in which they are obligatory aquatic organisms; these are mainly the egg and larval
stages. The aquatic-phase also includes, to a lesser degree, submerged terrestrial-phase juveniles
144
-------
and adults, which spend a portion of their time in water bodies that may receive runoff and spray
drift containing chlorpyrifos.
Toxicity tests on aquatic-phase amphibians are typically not required. It is assumed that acute
toxicity data for fish will protect aquatic life stages of amphibians, just as oral toxicity data for
birds is expected to protect the terrestrial-phase. Studies reviewed in the most recent
chlorpyrifos RED (USEPA, 2002) showed that chlorpyrifos is very highly toxic to larval
amphibians. Small tadpoles appeared to be more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than older life stages.
Water pH had little effect on the toxicity of chlorpyrifos to tadpoles. The fact that young
tadpoles were equal to or more sensitive to chlorpyrifos as the most sensitive fish species in the
1999 RED data, raised concerns for assessing risks.
A comparison of the dose:response relationships for various taxa is somewhat revealing from the
data reviewed for this risk assessment. In fish, acute effects were seen at concentrations two
orders of magnitude greater than concentrations where chronic effects were seen (Table 4.1);
however, for amphibians (Table 4.3) and freshwater invertebrates (Appendix E), acute effects
concentrations were much closer to chronic effects concentrations (within the same order of
magnitude) suggesting perhaps different toxicity mechanisms at work in fish than in amphibians
and aquatic invertebrates. Acute fish toxicity data was less similar to acute aquatic-phase
amphibian data than chronic data from the two classes, but this may be due to life stages tested.
As mentioned earlier, Richards and Kendall (2002 and 2003) found that when tadpoles were
exposed to chlorpyrifos while still drawing nutrients from the yolksac (premetamorph stage) they
were particularly resistant; this data raises the steepness of the dose:response relationship for X.
laevis drastically. These data suggest that tadpoles are particularly resistant as premetamorphs
and thus, toxicity data should be used from more sensitive life stages. Fish fry also obtain
nutrition from a yolksac; however, since amphibians metamorphose and fish grow with much
less morphological change, any assessment to aquatic-phase amphibians should be conducted
with data from sensitive amphibian life stages or with fish data as surrogates. Data from more
resistant life-stages of amphibians may not adequately assess the risk.
Aquatic-Phase California Red-Legged Frog and California Tiger Salamander
All but one (turfgrass use) of the RQs for aquatic-phase amphibians exceeded the chronic LOCs
for listed amphibians. The listed species acute LOG of 0.05 is associated with a probability of an
individual effect of approximately 1 in 418,000,000 (using a default slope of 4.5). A more
detailed look was taken at amphibian data by reviewing all amphibian studies in the ECOTOX
accepted papers list (Appendix F). Supplemental chlorpyrifos toxicity data were available for
several aquatic phase amphibian species including the African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, the
Southern leopard frog, Rana sphenocephala and other North American anuran frogs, Hyla
chrysoscelis, Acris crepitans and Gastrophyne olivacea.
Richards and Kendall (2003) examined changes in body length, mass and swimming ability of
two developmental stages (premetamorph and metamorph) of the African clawed frog, and found
that metamorphs were more sensitive than premetamorphs. Metamorph body length and
swimming ability were significantly impaired by 0.1 ug/L chlorpyrifos, the LOAEC and the
lowest concentration tested. Authors also calculated that chlorpyrifos has a 0.1-32.8%
145
-------
probability of exceeding a 96-h time-weighted average of 0. 1 ug/L in U.S. surface waters.
Widder and Bidwell (2006) found cholinesterase (ChE) activity in a North American anuran
frog, Rana sphenocephala tadpoles to be significantly inhibited by 100 ug/L chlorpyrifos in 12
days. The NOEC was 10 ug/L chlorpyrifos, which was not as sensitive as the chronic effects
level for the fathead minnow, 0.57 ug/L chlorpyrifos. These authors in a later study (Widder and
Bidwell, 2008) compared chlorpyrifos toxicity in four species of North American anuran frogs,
Hyla chrysoscelis, Rana sphenocephala, Acris crepitans and Gastrophyne olivacea. Exposure
durations were 4- and 12-days. Authors analyzed growth, cholinesterase activity (ChE)
inhibition and swim speed. NOAECs showed a very wide range among frog species tested,
ranging from <1 to >200 ug/L chlorpyrifos. R sphenocephala was the least sensitive species as
measured by ChE activity staying above 50% of control levels except in the highest
concentration tested. Growth (mass), however, was significantly impaired in the 10 ug/L non-
sediment treatment, and so the LOEC for this species is 10 ug/L and the NOEC 1 ug/L
chlorpyrifos. R. sphenocephala was actually the most sensitive species tested in the growth
study. This is important since it is of the same genus as the California red-legged frog (Rana
aurora draytonii) and since growth is an endpoint which is accepted by EPA for use in
determining risk quotients.
Acute toxicity data from the genus, Rana, was fairly consistent, with LCSOs ranging from 19 to
67 ug/L chlorpyrifos, and NOAECs from 1 to 50 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Acute toxicity data for all
frog studies reviewed was much more varied, with LCSOs ranging from 0. 6 to 14,600 ug/L
chlorpyrifos (both high and low from the African clawed frog, X. laevis). If the data point
14,600 is removed as an outlier, however, the data are somewhat more consistent, but still ranges
from 0.6 to 560 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Interestingly, the 14,6000 data point was obtained from a test
using premetamorph tadpoles, which still depend on a yolksac for nourishment and absorb very
little from their environment. Since chlorpyrifos chief toxicity mechanism is the inhibition of
acetylcholinesterase, a lack of toxicity is not surprising if uptake is not yet occurring in the
tadpole. Chronic toxicity data for all frog studies reviewed was also quite varied, with NOAECs
ranging from <0. 1 to 100 ug/L chlorpyrifos. These data suggest that age of test organisms, frog
taxa and perhaps additional factors can greatly influence frog toxicity endpoints.
Delta Smelt
All but one (turfgrass use) of the RQs for freshwater fish exceeded acute LOG for listed fish; and
more than half exceeded the chronic LOG for listed fish. All but two (turfgrass and alfalfa clover
uses) of the RQs for saltwater fish exceeded the acute LOG for listed fish; and all but five
exceeded the chronic LOG for listed fish. Toxicity data for freshwater and saltwater fish were
fairly consistent (in studies considered), ranging from 1.8 to 2.9 ug/L chlorpyrifos for acute
freshwater and 0.70 ug/L to 0.96 ug/L for acute saltwater LCSOs, and from <0.20 to 0.56 ug/L
chlorpyrifos for chronic freshwater; the only data point included for chronic saltwater NOAECs
was also consistent, 0.28 ug/L for the Atlantic silverside.
New supplemental data were available from the open literature for freshwater fish to help
characterize effects to aquatic species of concern (see Appendix E). One such study (De Silva
and Samayawardhena, 2002) using a typical end-use product, reported mortality, paralysis and
histological abnormalities in juvenile guppies exposed to chlorpyrifos. This study showed
146
-------
guppies to be more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than fathead minnows, but the study did not produce
an NOAEC. Authors looked at behavioral and histological effects of low concentrations of
Lorsban to early life stages of guppies (Poecilla reticulate). The test concentrations were
expressed as ug/L Lorsban, rather than ug/L chlorpyrifos. The Lorsban used in the study
contained 400 ug/L chlorpyrifos, purity 98%. The LCso and LOAEC were approximately 60%
lower than those reported and were recalculated to convert to ug chlorpyrifos/L; however, since
concentrations were not measured, it was not possible to confirm these data, and, thus the data
could not be used to calculate the risk quotient. Concentrations, as low as 1 ug/L, caused
changes in swimming behavior within 96 h. Authors stated that from the onset of the
experiment, the initial quick swimming behavior shifted to unusual swimming behavior. By
day-14 signs of paralysis and hemorrhaging were recorded in the lowest concentration tested 0. 5
ug/L Lorsban, which calculates to 0. 2 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Therefore the LOAEC was 0. 2 ug/L
chlorpyrifos but no NOAEC was determined. This was the most sensitive endpoint for fish but
could not be confirmed.
Carr, et al. (1995) sought to better understand the process by which chlorpyrifos and parathion
are taken up and metabolized to their oxidized forms which affect acetylcholinesterase (AChE)
activity. They exposed fmgerling channel catfish (Ictaluruspunctatus) to single concentrations
of high doses each of chlorpyrifos (250 ug/L), chlorpyrifos-oxon (7 ug/L), parathion (2.5 mg/L)
and paraoxon (30 ug/L) and then measured inhibition and aging of AChE in brain tissue. The
AChE activity in all treatments was significantly different from controls at all times sampled.
This study was not designed to produce toxicity endpoints that EPA could use for a risk
assessment. Rather, it was designed to study AChE trends over time in response to pesticide
exposure and gives an interesting perspective on the patterns of AChE activity following
exposure, useful in effects characterization. Chiefly, authors found that aging of inhibited AChE
did not appear to cause the persistent inhibition following chlorpyrifos exposure (as compared to
parathion exposure), but rather attributed the persistence to the lipophilicity of chlorpyrifos.
The toxicities of chlorpyrifos and chlorothalonil (a fungicide) were compared in a study by
Sherrard et al. (2002) using Ceriodaphnia dubia and the fathead minnow, Pimephalespromelas.
Daphnia were more sensitive to chlorpyrifos and fathead minnows were more sensitive to
chlorothalonil. For the fathead minnow, the 10-d LC50 was 150 ug/L chlorpyrifos. For
surviving fish, no significant difference was found between treatment groups and the control.
For daphnia, even though there was significant mortality in the 0.09 ug/L treatment an LC50 was
not determined. The lower and upper thresholds for mortality in this study were 0.05 and 0.09
ug/L chlorpyrifos, with an estimated 10-d LC50 of 0.07 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Despite this, there
was no significant reproductive impairment in the lowest concentration tested, 0.05 ug/L
chlorpyrifos. The most salient point from this study may be that fish seem to be more sensitive
to chlorothalonil, and daphnids to chlorpyrifos, which is not surprising, given the sensitivity of
invertebrates to chlorpyrifos found in data reviewed for this assessment.
California Freshwater Shrimp
In general, all aquatic invertebrate data reviewed (Section 5.2.1.2) had similar effect levels.
Comparing freshwater shrimp data to other invertebrate data, both freshwater and saltwater, we
see that freshwater shrimp toxicity levels are consistent with those from other aquatic
147
-------
invertebrates combined. The California freshwater shrimp RQs were calculated using acute and
chronic freshwater crustacean data. Endpoints were so similar that several good endpoints were
available for calculating these RQs. The Ceriodaphnia dubia endpoint used (LC50, 0.07 ug/L
chlorpyrifos) was only minutely different from the blackfly endpoint (LC50, 0.06 ug/L
chlorpyrifos) used for freshwater invertebrates, in general (indirect effects calculations for
aquatic-phase amphibians and fish). The most sensitive chronic endpoint turned out to be
another freshwater crustacean (D. magna, NOAEC, 0.04 ug/L chlorpyrifos). Therefore, the same
chronic endpoint was used for RQ calculations for the shrimp as for other freshwater
invertebrates. Either way, RQs for ALL uses exceeded the LOG for endangered species (0.05 for
acute and 0.10 for chronic).
Olima et al. (1997) compared the tolerance for chlorpyrifos among three naturally occurring
populations of freshwater shrimp (Paratya australiensis) by conducting 96-h toxicity tests.
Acetylcholinesterase activity (AChE) and mortality were measured. The populations from an
unpolluted site were less tolerant than the organisms from polluted sites. The authors attributed
the chlorpyrifos tolerance to previous exposure to pollutants including pesticides, and in one site
with a long human presence to evolution of resistant organisms. Shrimp from the unpolluted site
were the most sensitive, with an LC50 of 0.08 ppb, NOAEC of 0.04 ppb and LOAEC of 0.07
ppb. Shrimp from the polluted sites had LCSOs ranging from 0.14 - 0.28 ppb, NOAECs ranging
from 0.09 - 0.20 ppb, and LOAECs ranging from 0.12 - 0.27 ppb. Van Wijngaarden et al. (1996,
reviewed above) found that within Crustacea, the toxicity range differed by a factor of 103, with
the freshwater shrimp, P. coxalis, having a 96-hr LC10 of >20 ug/L. This data is somewhat
inconsistent with the data found in this review; this review, however only concerned aquatic
invertebrate papers identified by the ECOTOX database as being the most sensitive endpoints.
Undoubtedly, some variation in sensitivity exists among Crustacea and other invertebrate taxa.
A strong potential exists for significant effects to the California freshwater shrimp and these are
not discountable. Runoff may cause effects wherever chlorpyrifos is used near sites inhabited by
the California freshwater shrimp.
Aquatic Incidents
A review of the incident databases shows a total of 280 reported ecological incidents associated
with the use of chlorpyrifos (see Appendix J). Chlorpyrifos has been reported as the 'probable'
or 'highly probable' causative agent for 110 (of the reported 123) adverse aquatic incidents (e.g.,
fish kills). These incidents were reported over the period of 1974 to 2009. These incidents
resulted from the legal, registered uses of chlorpyrifos as well as misuses. In addition, in some
cases it could not be determined if the incident resulted from the legal use of chlorpyrifos or
misuse. Although the number of reported incidents has dropped considerably since mitigation
measures were implemented following the 2002 IRED, the absence of reported incidents in 2006
and 2007 should not be construed as the absence of incidents. EPA's changes in the registrant
reporting requirements of incidents or other factors may account for the reduced number of
reported incidents. Overall, the incident data that are available indicate that exposure pathways
for chlorpyrifos are complete and that exposure levels are sufficient to result in field-observable
effects.
148
-------
Five incidents were attributed to chlorpyrifos since EPA's most recent review of the EIIS
database (10/16/07 new use - need to add the reference), four involved mostly aquatic
organisms. In 2007, Koi carp (Cyprinus carpio<\l individuals) were killed (EIIS Incident No.
1019051-003) from a backyard pond in a residential area, after 2-3 days exposure to
Mosquitomist 1.5 ULV Concentrate (active ingredient Chlorpyrifos). A wide area had been
sprayed in the vicinity of the pond. The legality was undetermined and certainty probable;
chlorpyrifos is highly toxic to fish and the spray could have caused the mortality. The route of
exposure was spray drift.
In 2008, the Iowa Department of Natural Resources reported a large fish kill (EIIS Incident No.
1020252-001) in which dead fish were found along a five mile stretch of a stream in Louisa
County, Iowa. The total number of dead fish were approximately 15,300 including an estimated
7000 minnows (Cyprinidae), 3000 stonerollers, 2700 Johnny darters (Percidae), 800 green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), 800 bullheads (Ameiurus sp), 1000 white suckers (Catostomus
commersomi), 40 bluegills (Lepomis macrochirus), and 2 largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Iowa Department of Natural Resources has not been able to determine exactly how
the chemicals entered the stream; however, the report states that there was both aerial and ground
spraying of Headline (active ingredient, pyraclostrobin, a fungicide, 099100), Lorsban (active
ingredient, chlorpyrifos), and Cobalt (active ingredient, chlorpyrifos) on corn and soybean fields
in the vicinity prior to the incident. Chlorpyrifos was measured at 1.8 ppb (which,
coincidentally, is the 96-hr LC50 for bluegill sunfish, the acute endpoint for freshwater fish, used
in this risk assessment) using in a water sample taken close to the field that had been sprayed.
Pyraclostrobin was measured in water samples at 29 ppb close to the field and at 13 ppb a couple
of miles downstream. These levels were also greater than the LC50 for freshwater fish (6.2 -
11.4 ppb). No evidence was found of other stressors, including ammonia, low dissolved oxygen,
manure runoff, or other pesticides (there were only "trace amounts" of other pesticides in the
water samples). Legality was undetermined, certainty probable, but the role of chlorpyrifos vs.
that of pryaclostrobin was unclear. Use was for corn and soybeans.
More recently, two large fish kills occurred in Iowa. In July, 2009, in which approximately 540
fish were killed: 480 bluegills, 43 minnows, 9 largemouth bass, 8 Johnny darters, and 1 each
slender madtom and yellow bullhead. Chlorpyrifos was almost certainly the primary cause if
this kill. Measured concentrations of chlorpyrifos were as high as 12 ppb, several times the
LC50 for bluegill sunfish (1.8 ppb). Pyraclostrobin was also present and cannot be ruled out as a
possible contributing factor. Measured concentrations were as high as 1 ppb, which compares to
a bluegill LC50 11.4 ppb. Myclobutanil was also detected at low levels but probably was not a
factor considering its low toxicity to fish (bluegill LC50 2400 ppb). Causes for this incident
were deemed "highly probable" for chlorpyrifos, "possible" for pyraclostrobin, and "unlikely" for
myclobutanil.
Then in an August 21, 2009 incident, approximately 945 fish were killed in a stream near
Kanawha, Iowa. The dead fish were mostly suckers, along with darters, catfish, sunfish and
minnows The stream ran through soybean and corn farms with little to no buffers. The incident
was attributed to the ariel spraying of chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos was measured in the stream at
concentrations as high as 1.7 ppb, which is very close to the LC50 for bluegill sunfish.
149
-------
5.5.1.2 Terrestrial Species
As stated in the Risk Estimation section (Section 5.1.2.1), the acute and chronic avian and
mammalian dose and dietary-based RQs estimated with T-REX exceed the LOCs listed species
for all uses of chlorpyrifos, including granular and seed treatment uses. Since the T-REX model
is designed to assess direct effects to birds and mammals, results of the T-REX analysis are
considered appropriate for assessing potential effects to the California Clapper Rail, the salt
marsh harvest mouse and the San Joaquin fox from exposure to chlorpyrifos. No additional
refinements to the T-REX assessments for these species are required. However, further
evaluation of potential direct impact to the non-avian species of concern is required. To refine
the acute dose-based risk estimates for non-bird species, the T-REX model was modified to
account for the lower metabolic rate and lower caloric requirement of amphibians (compared to
birds). Acute dose- and dietary-based RQs were recalculated for using the T-HERPS (Ver. 1.0)
model with species-specific body weights for frog, snake, and salamander species.
There were no avian or amphibian studies available in the ECOTOX open literature for
chlorpyrifos. Relevant data from mammalian studies available in ECOTOX have been
incorporated into the mammalian ecological assessment. Reported incidents involving
chlorpyrifos exposures to birds, terrestrial-phase amphibians, and mammals have been reviewed,
documented and considered as part of this assessment.
California Clapper Rail
The acute avian dose and dietary-based RQs estimated using the T-REX model exceed the acute
and chronic listed LOCs of 0.1 and 1 respectively for the California Clapper Rail for all uses of
chlorpyrifos, including granular and seed treatment uses. Extensive available acute avian
toxicity data for chlorpyrifos indicate that chlorpyrifos is highly toxic to a number of bird
species. There are 19 available acute toxicity studies on technical grade chlorpyrifos covering 15
different avian species. Adverse effects were observed in the available acute studies at levels
ranging from moderate to very highly toxic. The majority of the available acute studies resulted
in effects categorized as highly or very highly toxic for a variety of species (12 of 19 studies).
Subacute dietary studies in several bird species also indicate that chlorpyrifos can be highly toxic
to birds. Results from the 14 available subacute toxicity studies representing four different avian
species indicate that effects occurred at exposure levels categorized as moderately to highly
acutely toxic. Of the available subacute studies, results from at least one study for each of the
four avian species tested resulted in effects at levels categorized as highly toxic. Additionally,
mortalities occurred in two species in six avian subacute dietary studies. Adverse growth and
reproduction effects were consistently observed within a relatively narrow dose range (60 - 125
ppm) in studies in mallard duck and bobwhite quail species. Adverse growth/reproductive
effects were seen in both species in four of the five available reproduction studies. The evidence
from a number studies on a range of avian species indicates potential for direct effects to the
CCR. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
California Red Legged Frog
In a refined assessment for the CRLF, dose-based RQs were recalculated for all application
scenarios using the T-HERPS model for small (1 g), medium (37 g), and large (238 g) frogs.
150
-------
The range of dose-based RQs generated by T-HERPS (Table 5.22). The highest dose-based
RQs are associated with use of chlorpyrifos on cole crops. For this use, the acute RQs exceed
the acute listed species LOG of 0.1 for small, medium and large frogs for all but two of the food
consumption scenarios assessed. Use of chlorpyrifos on wheat generated the lowest RQs for
agricultural uses. RQ's for use on wheat exceed the acute LOG for three of the seven dietary
exposure scenarios assessed. For the non-agricultural uses of chlorpyrifos on ornamentals and
turf grass, RQs exceed the acute LOG for all weight classes of frogs for all but two of the feeding
scenarios assessed. As noted, the evidence from a number of surrogate toxicity studies on a
range of avian species which are considered indicates potential for direct effects to the CRLF.
The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
Table 5.22 T-HERPS Dose-based RQs for CRLF
Use/Application
Rate (Ibai/A)
Cole Crop
3 Ib aiA
Wheat
0.5 Ib aiA
Ornamentals
4 Ib aiA
Turf Grass
4 Ib aiA
Diet
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
S(lg)
EEC
60
27
34
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
3
o
3
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
37
17
21
2
N/A
N/A
N/A
66
30
37
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
RQ
11
5
6
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
3
4
0.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
12
5
7
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
M(37g)
EEC
59
27
33
4
962
60
1
6
o
3
o
3
0
93
6
0
37
17
21
2
598
37
1
65
30
36
4
1055
66
1
RQ
10
5
6
1
171
11
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.6
0.1
16.6
1.0
0.0
7
3
4
0.4
106
7
0.1
12
5
6
1
188
12
0.2
L (238 g)
EEC
39
18
22
2
150
9
1
4
2
2
0
15
1
0
24
11
14
2
93
6
0
42
19
24
o
J
164
10
1
RQ
7
3
4
0.4
27
2
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.4
<0.1
2.6
0.2
<0.1
4
2
2
0.3
17
1
0.1
8
3
4
0
29
2
0.2
Bold indicates that the RQ exceeds the listed species LOG (0.1 acute, 1 chronic)
151
-------
San Francisco Garter Snake
T-HERPs was used to refine the SFGS assessment. Dose-based RQs were recalculated for all
use scenarios using the T-HERPS model for juvenile (2 g), adult male (113 g), and adult female
(227 g) snakes. The range of dose-based RQs for the SFGS generated by T-HERPs for
agricultural applications and ornamental and turf uses are presented in Table 5.23. With the
exception of three dietary exposure scenarios for use of chlorpyrifos on wheat and ornamentals,
the acute RQs exceed the acute listed species LOG of 0.1 for all dietary exposure scenarios
assessed for snakes. As noted, the evidence from a number of surrogate toxicity studies on a
range of avian species which are considered indicates potential for direct effects to the SFGS.
The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
Table 5.21 T-HERPS Dose-based RQs for SFGS
Use/AR
(Ibai/A)
Cole Crop
3 Ib aiA
Wheat
0.5 Ib aiA
Ornamentals
4 Ib aiA
Turf Grass
4 Ib aiA
Diet
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Juvenile (2 g)
EEC
55.3
25.3
31.1
3.5
N/A
N/A
N/A
5.4
2.5
3.0
0.3
N/A
N/A
N/A
34.4
15.8
19.3
2.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
60.7
27.8
34.1
3.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
RQ
10
5
6
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.0
0.4
0.5
0.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
6
3
3
0.4
N/A
N/A
N/A
11
5
6
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
Adult M (113 g)
EEC
45.7
21.0
25.7
2.9
315.0
19.7
0.9
4.4
2.0
2.5
0.3
30.6
1.9
0.1
28.4
13.0
16.0
1.8
195.9
12.2
0.6
50.2
23.0
28.2
3.1
345.6
21.6
1.0
RQ
8
4
5
1
56
4
0.1
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.0
5.4
0.3
0.1
5
2
3
0
35
2
0.1
9
4
5
1
61
4
0.2
Adult F (227 g)
EEC
39.0
17.9
22.0
2.4
156.8
9.8
0.8
3.8
1.7
2.1
0.2
15.2
1.0
0.1
24.3
11.1
13.7
1.5
97.5
6.1
0.5
42.8
19.6
24.1
2.7
172.0
10.8
0.8
RQ
7
3
4
0
28
2
0.1
0.7
0.3
0.4
<0.1
2.7
0.2
<0.1
4
2
2
0
17
1
0.1
8
3
4
0
31
2
0.2
Bold indicates that the RQ exceeds the listed species LOG (0.1 acute, 1 chronic)
152
-------
California Tiger Salamander
Dose-based RQs were recalculated for all use scenarios using the T-HERPS model for average
weight salamander species. T-HERPs dose-based RQs for the CIS are presented in Table 5.24.
These RQs were recalculated for all use scenarios using the T-HERPS model and average body
weight assumptions for the salamander. The evidence indicates potential for direct effects to the
CTS. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
Table 5.23 T-HERPS Dose-based RQs for CTS
Use/Application Rate
(Ibai/A)
Cole Crop
3 Ib aiA
Wheat
0.5 Ib aiA
Ornamentals
4 Ib aiA
Turf Grass
4 Ib aiA
Diet
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Small herbivore mammals
Small insectivore mammals
Small terrestrial phase amphibian
Average (50 g)
EEC
55
25
31
3
712
45
1
5
3
3
>1
69
4
>1
34
16
19
2
443
28
1
60
28
34
4
781
49
1
RQ
11
4.5
5
0.55
128
8
0.2
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.2
1
0.7
0.2
6
3
3
0.4
79
5
0.1
55
5
6
0.7
141
9
0.2
Bold indicates that the RQ exceeds the listed species LOG (0.1 acute, 1 chronic)
153
-------
Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse
The acute and chronic mammalian dose and/or dietary-based RQs estimated using the T-REX
model exceed the acute and chronic LOG for the salt mouse harvest mouse for all spray
applications of chlorpyrifos and for the majority of granular and seed treatment uses. Based on
available toxicity data, chlorpyrifos is moderately toxic to small mammals on an acute oral basis
and slightly toxic to mammals via subacute exposure. Reproductive effects observed in a 2-
generation rat study included reduced pup weights and increased pup mortality. The evidence
indicates potential for direct effects to the SMHM. The effects determination is likely to
adversely affect.
San Joaquin Kit Fox
The acute and chronic mammalian dose and/or dietary-based RQs estimated using the T-REX
model exceed the acute and chronic LOG for the San Joaquin kit fox for all spray applications of
chlorpyrifos and for the majority of granular and seed treatment uses. The evidence indicates
potential for direct effects to the SJKF. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
Bay Checkerspot Butterfly and Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
The RQs for both small and large insects significantly exceed the acute LOG for listed species
for all chlorpyrifos uses. The acute RQs for small insects range from 180 (wheat) to 2070 (turf)
and the acute RQs for large insects range from 20 to 228 for wheat and turf respectively. The
highest terrestrial invertebrate endpoint from the available acute toxicity studies is 0.114 jig
ai/bee. The lowest RQ, using the endpoint from this study is xx (wheat) which still exceeds the
acute list species LOG of 0.05. There are also two laboratory studies that evaluate toxicity to
honey, alfalfa leaf-cutter and alkali bees from residues on of chlorpyrifos on alfalfa foliage after
application of the 4EC formulation. These studies indicate high residual toxicity to all bee
species through 8 hours post-application and continued high toxicity to honey and leaf-cutter
bees at 24 hours post-treatment. A submitted study on adult lady beetles also indicates
chlorpyrifos toxicity to beetles from direct application of the 4EC chlorpyrifos formulation based
on a 70% reduction in survival of adult lady beetles 48 hours after application. The only
available field study on bees showed significantly suppressed visitation (46%) for three days
post-treatment but indicated low overall toxicity to bees. The evidence indicates potential for
direct effects to the BCB and VELB. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
Terrestrial Incidents
As stated in Section 5.5.1.1., a review of the incident databases shows a total of 280 reported
ecological incidents associated with the use of chlorpyrifos (see Appendix J). Chlorpyrifos has
been reported as the 'probable' or 'highly probable' causative agent for 80 (of the reported 108)
terrestrial incidents, many of which were bird and honey bee kills. These incidents were reported
over the period of 1974 to 2009 and resulted from the legal, registered uses of chlorpyrifos as
well as misuses. Some cases were never resolved as to whether the cause was legal use of
chlorpyrifos or misuse. Although the number of reported incidents has dropped considerably
since mitigation measures were implemented following the 2002 IRED, the absence of reported
154
-------
incidents in 2006 and 2007 should not be construed as the absence of incidents since EPA's
registrant reporting requirements changed for incidents Overall, the incident data that are
available indicate that exposure pathways for chlorpyrifos are complete and that exposure levels
are sufficient to result in field-observable effects.
Three incidents were attributed to chlorpyrifos since EPA's most recent review of the EIIS
database (October 16, 2007), two involved mostly aquatic organisms and are described above.
The third involved mostly terrestrial organisms. In 2008, a corn field was sprayed via aerial
applicator with Lorsban-4E and caused mortality in nearby bee colonies (this is covered in more
detail in the terrestrial section). Other notable aquatic incidents from past data include an
incident in 1992 (EIIS Incident No. 1000087-001) in which an unknown number of frogs were
killed by chlorpyrifos, but misuse was suspected in this case. Incident data clearly show
chlorpyrifos' potential for causing toxicity to aquatic animals.
A query of the American Bird Conservancy Database, on September 1, 2009 showed 3,630
incidents attributed to chlorpyrifos, resulting in the deaths of 430,718 birds (see Appendix J).
The EIIS database had one new study to report. In 2008, a corn field was sprayed via aerial
applicator with Lorsban-4E emilsifiable concentrate (active ingredient chlorpyrifos) at
Sacramento County, California (EIIS Incident No. 1020441-001). The aircraft was spraying for
army worms. One hundred and eighty (180) beehives (Apis milliferd) were on levees or roadways
on each side of the corn field. The majority of the bees in these hives were completely killed
with only sealed brood remaining. Three hundred hives, within a mile from the main kill
location, also were found to have mortality; dead field bees were noticed around these hives.
These hives were not directly sprayed and had adequate food supplies for the winter. Report
authors attributed the bee kill and the slow die off to Lorsban residue in the corn pollen that
continued to kill bees after the spraying. Corn pollen was the only pollen source in drought years
which the bees brought back to the hives. Corn pollen contaminated with chlorpyrifos was the
most likely explanation of bee mortality. The aerial applicator that applied Lorsban agreed to
pay for the loss in a settlement agreement. The bee kill was determined to be due to a legally
registered use and certainty was probable. Other notable items include a fox killed by runoff
(EIIS Incident No. 1000962-001) and a raccoon, rat, squirrel and lobster killed by drift (EIIS
Incident No. 1010831-005) of chlorpyrifos.
No terrestrial plant phytotoxicity data were available to quantitatively assess the potential risk to
terrestrial plants; however evidence from the EIIS suggests that chlorpyrifos poses a risk to
terrestrial plants. Chlorpyrifos had been reported (at the time of the last RED, USEPA, 2002) as
the 'probable' or 'highly probable' causative agent for 19 (of the reported 43) incidents of plant
(agricultural crop) damage. Chlorpyrifos was linked as a 'possible' causative agent in 22 (of the
reported 43) plant incidents. No new incidents were found in this query.
155
-------
5.5.2 Indirect Effects
Potential Loss of Prey
5.5.2.1 Aquatic Organisms
Pesticides have the potential to indirectly affect listed species by causing changes in structural or
functional characteristics of affected communities. Structural changes usually mean those
changes that involve the loss of a plant or animal from the community that the listed species
relies upon for food or shelter. Functional changes involve rates, for example, primary
productivity, which can be impaired by pesticides. Reduction in such a rate can affect the food
source of the listed species. These are considered indirect effects of the pesticide, and can be
part of the critical habitat modification evaluation. To assess indirect effects, direct effects LOCs
were used from taxonomic groups (e.g., freshwater fish, invertebrates and aquatic plants)
essential to the life history of the listed species, to infer the potential for indirect effects upon
listed species (USEPA, 2004); this approach has been endorsed by the Services (USFWS/NMFS,
2004).
The California red-legged frog's diet consists mainly of algae during its earliest stages and then
freshwater aquatic invertebrates and fish. In its terrestrial-phase, the frog's diet consists of
terrestrial invertebrates, small mammals, and frogs. The California tiger salamander's diet
during the aquatic-phase consists of algae, snails, zooplankton, small crustaceans, aquatic larvae
and invertebrates, smaller tadpoles of Pacific tree frogs and California red-legged frogs. As an
adult, its diet consists of terrestrial invertebrates, insects, frogs, and worms. The Delta smelt's
diet consists of small zooplankton, primarily planktonic copepods, cladocera, amphipods, and
insect larvae. However, the most important food organism appears to be Eurytemora affinis,
which is a euryhaline copepod (USFWS, 1995 and 2004). Since the potential for direct effects to
fish and amphibians have been described, this section will focus on potential effects to aquatic
and terrestrial invertebrates and plants, and on small mammals and worms. Special emphasis is
placed on copepod effects since it is the favorite food of the Delta smelt.
Freshwater invertebrate toxicity studies were reviewed for this assessment (Appendix E). The
Delta Smelt also needs saltwater invertebrates as a food source. No new, more-sensitive
saltwater invertebrate studies were found in this review; however, several freshwater studies
were reviewed. Freshwater studies showed a very narrow range of toxicities among invertebrate
taxa, ranging from 0.06 ug/L chlorpyrifos for blackfly to 0.08 ug/L for ceriodaphnia and
freshwater shrimp; acute sediment test results ranged from 32 to 180 ug/Kg (midge and daphnid,
respectively). Invertebrate NOAECs ranged from 0.025 to 0.04 ug/L chlorpyrifos (both
daphnids); chronic sediment toxicity test results ranged from 32 to 52 ug/Kg. Acute to chronic
values so close suggest a threshold concentration and that acute and chronic toxicity result from
the same, or similar, mechanisms; however, in at least one case this may be in part due to low
dissolved oxygen concentrations, making the acute value lower than it should be.
Such a narrow effects range may help to explain findings of Van der Hoeven and Gerritsen
(1997), that exposed daphnids removed to clean water, still died. They tested acute and chronic
effects of chlorpyrifos, and recovery from exposure in Daphniapulex. Chlorpyrifos-ethyl was
156
-------
the test substance. The CAS number for chlorpyrifos-ethyl is 39475-55-3; the CAS number for
chlorpyrifos is 2921-88-2. Both chlorpyrifos-ethyl and chlorpyrifos are common names,
however, for EPA PC Code 059101. Lab and field tests were conducted and compared.
Authors also noticed that daphnids became immobilized several days before death and that when
immobilized daphnids were removed from exposure to the test substance, they did not recover,
but died. The lowest NOAEC found was 0.05 ug/L chlorpyrifos in the 17 d study, and the LOEC
was 0.10 ug/L chlorpyrifos. In this study, the EC50 at day 3 was 0.09 ug/L chlorpyrifos. This
was from the 17-d laboratory test using the technical grade of chlorpyrifos. Both acute and
chronic endpoints from this test were more sensitive than those which EPA used in the last risk
assessment (USEPA, 2002), 0.04 ug/L chlorpyrifos as the NOAEC and 0.10 ug/L chlorpyrifos as
the LC50. However, the results are reported in nominal concentrations, rather than measured
concentrations and data was not available to confirm these concentrations.
Crustaceans and aquatic insects had similar sensitivities. Hyder et al. (2005) compared the
sensitivities between two blackfly sibling species, Simulium vittatum Zetterstedt cytospecies IS-7
and S. vittatum Zetterstedt cytospecies HIL-J, to chlorpyrifos. Authors also looked at
sensitivities at different life stages. Authors concluded that the two sister species did not have
significantly different susceptibility among instar groupings and recommend the mid-instars for
use in toxicity tests since they are more sensitive than the late instars but easier to handle than the
early instars. The most sensitive data point found was with S. vittatum IS-7 early instars (second
and third instars), which had an LC50 of 0.06 ug/L chlorpyrifos. The test duration was only 24-
h. EPA recommends that acute test duration be 96-h except for daphnids, mysids and oyster
larvae, which can be 48-h. This endpoint, however, should only be more sensitive if the test
duration were greater. Therefore, this study was used to calculate RQs in this assessment.
Bailey et al. (1996) compared the responses of three pesticides, carbofuran, diazinon and
chlorpyrifos, to procedures used in toxicity identification evaluations (TIEs). The effect of a
metabolic inhibitor, piperonyl butoxide, on the toxicity of each pesticide was determined. All
three pesticides eluted separately in characteristic methanol/water fractions. Chlorpyrifos was
not effectively reduced by acid or base conditions. Chlorpyrifos was also not effectively
removed by solid-phase extraction. Its toxicity, however, was ameliorated by piperonyl
butoxide. Chlorpyrifos recoveries were not affected by pH, but hydrolysis was found to be
favored by alkaline conditions, but authors cited other work that concluded that the half-lives
associated with such reactions were generally days in duration unless a catalyst is present.
Similar recoveries were found in all three pesticides from C-8 and C-18 columns when 100%
methanol was used to elute the columns. Chlorpyrifos, however, had lower overall recoveries in
methanol than the other two pesticides, especially at lower methanol concentrations. Piperonyl
butoxide was effective in reducing toxicity of chlorpyrifos and diazinon, both metabolically
activated organophosphorous insecticides. Authors derived an endpoint, 96-h LC50 of 0.06 ug/L
chlorpyrifos. This study, however, does not meet the criteria for acceptance for use in
calculating RQs due to lack of a range of test concentrations; however, it helps confirm the
blackfly endpoint used, which was also 0.06 ug/L chlorpyrifos.
Van Wijngaarden et al. (1993) compared increasing levels of realism in testing techniques by
using single species toxicity tests, then indoor and outdoor microcosm tests, then outdoor
mesocosm tests. Sixteen species were used; test organisms were all indigenous to the
157
-------
Netherlands. Dursban (chlorpyrifos) was the test substance. Data derived in this study show a
broad range of sensitivities to chlorpyrifos. Gammaruspulex had the most sensitive endpoint
tested, with a 96-hr LC10 of 0.02 ug/L chlorpyrifos, a 48-hr LC50 of 0.08 ug/L and a 96-hr
LC50 of 0.07 ug/L chlorpyrifos, using Dursban 4E and tap water. Within Crustacea, the toxicity
range differed by a factor of 103, with the freshwater shrimp, P. coxalis, having a 96-hr LC10 of
>20 ug/L. The level seen in G. pulex (96-hr LC50 of 0.07 ppb) was similar in sensitivity to the
blackfly endpoint used to calculate RQs.
Andersen et al. (2006) investigated causes of toxicity and macroinvertebrate impacts in the
Salinas River. They conducted toxicity tests with amphipods (Hyalella azteca), baetid mayflies
(Procloeon sp.) and midges (Chironomus dilutus, Shobanov, formerly Chironomus tentans).
They looked at the toxicity of two organophosphate and two pyrethroid pesticides, and at the
effects caused by increasing particle loads. Chlorpyrifos was only tested on the mayflies in this
study. They used data from another published study to compare amphipod and midge LCSOs to
Salinas River concentrations. The two chief stressors turned out to be chlorpyrifos and
permethrin. The mayfly was sensitive to chlorpyrifos and permethrin within the range of
concentrations of these pesticides measured in the river and the midge was sensitive to
chlorpyrifos within the ranges of concentrations measured in the river. The LC50 for
chlorpyrifos toxicity to Procloeon was 81 ng/L (0.08 ppb). The most contaminated station in
the Salinas River had a mean chlorpyrifos concentration of 183 ng/L (50-520 ng/L), more than
twice the LC50 for the mayfly.
Foster and Korth (1998) investigated toxicity in an irrigation area in New South Wales,
Australia, by conducting acute toxicity tests using ten individual pesticides that were routinely
used in the area: atrazine, bensulfuron-methyl, bromacil, chlorpyrifos, diuron, malathion,
metolachlor, molinate, simazine and thiobencarb. Toxicity testing was done in the lab using the
cladoceran, Ceriodaphnia dubia. Chlorpyrifos and malathion were the most toxic pesticides
tested. In their discussion, they compared findings to those by other authors and found C. dubia
ten times more sensitive to chlorpyrifos than Daphnia longispina. For atrazine, chlorpyrifos,
metolachlor, simazine and malathion, 48 h toxicity was greater in the reconstituted water than the
ambient water. Authors speculated that particles in the ambient water may have adsorbed more
hydrophobic compounds and decreased bioavailability. Exceptions to this trend were molinate
and diuron, which were more toxic in ambient water. The 48-h EC50 in the reconstituted water
was 0.08 ug/L chlorpyrifos.
Rose et al. (2002) studied the effect on Ceriodaphnia cf dubia of three chemicals with different
mechanisms of action (3,4-dichloroaniline, fenoxycarb, and chlorpyrifos) under both limited and
abundant food conditions. Limited food significantly increased the toxicity of chlorpyrifos. This
was attributed to the tendency of organophosphates to bind irreversibly to acetylcholinesterase
(AChE), requiring the organism to use more energy to destroy and synthesize more AChE.
Organophosphates also cause uncontrolled muscle contractions, which use energy. Data derived
in this study show that chlorpyrifos is more toxic to daphnia under low food conditions than high
food conditions. Well-fed Ceriodaphnia had an NOEC of 0.045 ug/L, but combined with low-
food stress, Ceriodaphnia had an NOEC of 0.025 ug/L.
158
-------
A few studies were found that tested sediment toxicity from chlorpyrifos runoff. Hootfman et al.
(1993) purposed to develop a set of acute and chronic test systems with both sediment/water and
pore water as matrices, for testing contaminated sediments for the Netherlands Integrated Soil
Program (PCBB). Acute and chronic protocols were tested on Daphnia magna and Chironomus
riparius. D. magna acute and chronic (reproduction) tests were conducted at three institutes.
Subchronic tests with C. riparius were conducted at two of the institutes. The general
conclusion was that most of the toxicity was attributable to the aqueous phase.
Rakotondravelo et al. (2006) studied effects of long-term (45-d) exposure of atrazine, DDT and
chlorpyrifos on Chironomus tentans. Chironomids exposed to 0.1 ug/L chlorpyrifos, had 67%
reduction in survivorship by day 20, but a 1.5-fold increase in ash-free dry weight and an 81%
increase in adult emergence rate, though actual numbers that emerged were significantly lower.
Authors attributed the increased weight gain and emergence rate to less competition for
resources due to mortality. Data derived in this study show sediment toxicity from chlorpyrifos
atalevelof20ug/Kg.
As previously mentioned, the most important food organism the Delta is the copepod,
Eurytemora affinis which is euryhaline (can survive in fresh- or saltwater). Copepod data from
the ECOTOX database were reviewed in this assessment regardless of whether the endpoints
were more sensitive than those previously used for invertebrates (Table 4.4). One particularly
sensitive endpoint was found by Rene, et al (1996); the NOAEC for one copepod was <0. 1 ug/L
chlorpyrifos, which was similar to that of the African clawed frog as seen in Table 4.3. This
does raise concerns, for the food source of the Delta smelt. Biever et al. (1994) found that
chlorpyrifos when sprayed in a single dose had a half-life of approximately 4 days but did
partition in the sediment when treatments produced water column concentrations as low as 0.3
ug/L chlorpyrifos. Most freshwater invertebrate and fish communities were able to recover
within a few weeks with the possible exception of Chironominae, a subfamily of Chironomidae.
Using multivariate ordination analysis, Van den Brink et al. (1996) found that the NOAEC for
zooplankton/macroinvertebrate communities was 0.1 ug/L chlorpyrifos. Copepods and other
Crustacea recovered by week 12 after single application treatments and other invertebrate taxa by
week 24. Van Wijngaarden et al. (1996) compared in-lab single species tests with outdoor
mesocosm test results. Standard species and those indigenous to the Netherlands were used. In
mesocosms, dosing was done once and macroinvertebrates and zooplankton were sampled, along
with several species exposed via in-situ cages. In general, the lab and caged studies differed by a
factor of approximately 3. Also notable were copepod data; total copepods had an NOAEC of
<0.1 ppm, but copepod nauplii had a NOAEC of 0.9 ppm.
The California freshwater shrimp is dependent on algae and detritus as its food source.
Chlorpyrifos is not very toxic to algae (Section 5.2.1.2) and no RQs exceeded the LOG for
endangered species. These data show that no significant indirect effects on the shrimp from food
source reduction are expected from chlorpyrifos use.
These data show, however, that significant effects are expected on the food source of the
California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander and Delta smelt and that these effects are
not discountable. These effects also apply to the food source of the San Francisco Garter Snake
159
-------
and California Clapper Rail. Runoff may cause effects wherever chlorpyrifos is used near sites
inhabited by the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander or Delta smelt.
5.5.2.2 Terrestrial Invertebrates
The diets of terrestrial-phase juvenile and adult CRLF and SFGS consist largely of terrestrial
invertebrates. The CCR and terrestrial phase CTS also consume terrestrial invertebrates as part of
their diets. As previously noted, the RQs for both small and large insects significantly exceed
the acute LOG for listed species for all chlorpyrifos uses and available laboratory studies provide
evidence of high toxicity to multiple bee species from exposure to chlorpyrifos. Based on the
weight-of-evidence, there is a potential indirect impact to the CCR, CRLF, SFGS, and CTS
based on this endpoint. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect
5.5.2.3 Mammals
Life history data for CCR, SFGS and terrestrial-phase SFGS indicate that large adults of those
species consume terrestrial vertebrates, including mice. As previously noted, the acute and
chronic mammalian dose and/or dietary-based RQs estimated using the T-REX model exceed the
acute and chronic LOG for the salt mouse harvest mouse for all spray applications of
chlorpyrifos and for the majority of granular and seed treatment uses. Based on the weight-of-
evidence, uses for chlorpyrifos may indirectly impact the CCR, CRLF, SFGS, and CTS through
effects to the mammalian prey base. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect.
5.5.2.4 Terrestrial-phase Amphibians
Listed species that consume frogs include the terrestrial-phase adult CRLFs, juvenile and adult
SFGS, and terrestrial phase CTS. The T-HERPs RQ values representing direct exposures of
chlorpyrifos to these species are used to represent exposures of chlorpyrifos to frogs in terrestrial
habitats. Based on the assessment of risk to the terrestrial-phase amphibians (direct effects), the
Agency concludes that chlorpyrifos may indirectly impact the terrestrial phase adult CRLF,
juvenile and adult SFGS, and terrestrial phase CTS through effects to the terrestrial-phase
amphibian prey base. The effects determination is likely to adversely affect (see Section 5.2.1.2
for more details).
5.5.3 Potential Modification of Habitat
Aquatic plants serve several important functions in aquatic ecosystems. Non-vascular aquatic
plants are primary producers and provide the autochthonous energy base for aquatic ecosystems.
Vascular plants provide structure, rather than energy, to the system, as attachment sites for many
aquatic invertebrates, and refugia for juvenile organisms, such as fish and frogs. Emergent
plants help reduce sediment loading and provide stability to nearshore areas and lower
streambanks. In addition, vascular aquatic plants are important as attachment sites for egg
masses of aquatic species.
Terrestrial plants serve several important habitat-related functions for the listed assessed species.
In addition to providing habitat and cover for invertebrate and vertebrate prey items of the listed
160
-------
assessed species, terrestrial vegetation also provides shelter and cover from predators while
foraging. Upland vegetation including grassland and woodlands provides cover during dispersal.
Riparian vegetation helps to maintain the integrity of aquatic systems by providing bank and
thermal stability, serving as a buffer to filter out sediment, nutrients, and contaminants before
they reach the watershed, and serving as an energy source.
Chlorpyrifos is an insecticide and not expected to significantly affect either aquatic or terrestrial
plants. Chlorpyrifos was not very toxic to the freshwater green alga (Pseudokirchneriella
subcapitata, formerly Selenastrum capricornutum), with a 120-hr ECso of 140 ug a.i./L, based on
reduced cell density (MRID40228401, Mayer, 1986). This level is not expected to be exceeded
by the current uses of Chlorpyrifos.
There are no registrant-submitted studies, ECOTOX literature studies available for assessment of
the potential for indirect effects to the terrestrial-phase species of concern for chlorpyrifos via
effects to riparian vegetation or effects to the relevant primary constituent elements (PCEs). The
only potentially relevant data available in the ECOTOX literature are efficacy studies on food
crops and turf. The available plant studies do not show adverse effects to the terrestrial plants
assessed. The labeled uses of chlorpyrifos include direct application to a variety of terrestrial
plants (agricultural and ornamental) at multiple growth stages (e.g., seed treatment, pre-bloom,
bloom, foliar, post-bloom etc.) and there are no label restrictions pertaining to the potential for
chlorpyrifos to elicit phytotoxic effects. Consequently, it is probable that the damage to the
crops is not so extensive to inhibit the use of this pesticide by applicators.
An examination of the completed CRLF assessments for nine other organophosphates indicates
that the majority of the effects determinations for terrestrial plants were either "no effect" or "not
likely to adversely affect". For some of these organophosphates there is the potential for some
damage to plants. Two were determined to be "LAA"; however, one had herbicidal activity
from a known mechanism and the other used surrogate data from another pesticide. The
conclusions in those cases were generally that while effects to terrestrial plants may affect the
CRLF via habitat modification, they are not likely to adversely affect the CRLF based on the
type and extent of damage as observed.
As discussed previously, evidence from the EIIS suggests that chlorpyrifos poses a risk to
terrestrial plants. However, due to the lack of compound-specific terrestrial plant study data, the
potential for adverse effects to terrestrial plants from use of chlorpyrifos cannot be definitely
determined. Therefore, the effects determination is unlikely to effect. However, absent
sufficient data, adverse effects cannot be ruled out.
5.5.4 Modification of Designated Critical Habitat
Based on the lack of toxicity to plants there is little potential for the modification of the
California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander or Delta smelt designated critical habitat
based on this analysis. This finding also applies to the California freshwater shrimp, San
Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail and Salt-marsh harvest mouse. Based on the lack
of toxicity to plants there is little potential for the modification of the California freshwater
161
-------
shrimp's designated critical habitat based on this analysis. Any effects are expected to be
insignificant and discountable.
6 Uncertainties
6.1 Exposure Assessment Uncertainties
6.1.1 Oxon Exposure and Risk
The screening-level risk assessment focuses on characterizing potential ecological risks resulting
from chlorpyrifos only. Evidence suggests that chlorpyrifos oxon may form in the environment;
however the Agency has no means to quantitatively predict these exposures at this time. There is
evidence of higher toxicity associated with the oxon at least to some taxa though no data is
available for the specific species being assessed here. However, because the evidence suggests
greater toxicity for the oxon it is possible that where the oxon is present the risk conclusions
presented above may underestimate risk to the listed species covered by this assessment.
6.1.2 Maximum Use Scenario
The screening-level risk assessment focuses on characterizing potential ecological risks resulting
from a maximum use scenario, which is determined from labeled statements of maximum
application rate and number of applications with the shortest time interval between applications.
The frequency at which actual uses approach this maximum use scenario may be dependant on
pest resistance, timing of applications, cultural practices, and market forces.
6.1.3 Aquatic Exposure Modeling of Chlorpyrifos
The standard ecological water body scenario (EXAMS pond) used to calculate potential aquatic
exposure to pesticides is intended to represent conservative estimates, and to avoid
underestimations of the actual exposure. The standard scenario consists of application to a 10-
hectare field bordering a 1-hectare, 2-meter deep (20,000 m3) pond with no outlet. Exposure
estimates generated using the EXAMS pond are intended to represent a wide variety of
vulnerable water bodies that occur at the top of watersheds including prairie pot holes, playa
lakes, wetlands, vernal pools, man-made and natural ponds, and intermittent and lower order
streams. As a group, there are factors that make these water bodies more or less vulnerable than
the EXAMS pond. Static water bodies that have larger ratios of pesticide-treated drainage area
to water body volume would be expected to have higher peak EECs than the EXAMS pond.
These water bodies will be either smaller in size or have larger drainage areas. Smaller water
bodies have limited storage capacity and thus may overflow and carry pesticide in the discharge,
whereas the EXAMS pond has no discharge. As watershed size increases beyond 10-hectares, it
becomes increasingly unlikely that the entire watershed is planted with a single crop that is all
treated simultaneously with the pesticide. Headwater streams can also have peak concentrations
higher than the EXAMS pond, but they likely persist for only short periods of time and are then
carried and dissipated downstream.
162
-------
The Agency acknowledges that there are some unique aquatic habitats that are not accurately
captured by this modeling scenario and modeling results may, therefore, under- or over-estimate
exposure, depending on a number of variables. For example, some organisms may inhabit water
bodies of different size and depth and/or are located adjacent to larger or smaller drainage areas
than the EXAMS pond. In addition, the Services agree that the existing EXAMS pond
represents the best currently available approach for estimating aquatic exposure to pesticides
(USFWS/NMFS 2004).
This assessment includes a comparison of modeled EEC and available surface water monitoring
data. This analysis shows a reasonable concurrence between the model predictions and the
available monitoring data. It is worth noting though that most monitoring data are from flowing
waters while the PRZM/EXAMS estimates are derived from a static water body. This is
particularly important for the longer term average concentrations which do not account for flow
out of the system and are likely over-estimates for flowing waters.
Uncertainties regarding dilution and chemical transformations in estuaries
PRZM-EXAMS modeled EECs are intended to represent exposure of aquatic organisms in
relatively small ponds and low-order streams. Therefore it is likely that EECs generated from
the PRZM-EXAMS model will over-estimate potential concentrations in larger receiving water
bodies such as estuaries, embayments, and coastal marine areas because chemicals in runoff
water (or spray drift, etc.) should be diluted by a much larger volume of water than would be
found in the 'typical' EXAMS pond. However, as chemical constituents in water draining from
freshwater streams encounter brackish or other near-marine-associated conditions, there is
potential for important chemical transformations to occur. Many chemical compounds can
undergo changes in mobility, toxicity, or persistence when changes in pH, Eh (redox potential),
salinity, dissolved oxygen (DO) content, or temperature are encountered. For example,
desorption and re-mobilization of some chemicals from sediments can occur with changes in
salinity (e.g., Means 1995; Swarzenski et al., 2003; Jordan et al. 2008), changes in pH (e.g.,
Wood and Baptista, 1993; Parikh et al., 2004; Fernandez et al., 2005), Eh changes (Wood and
Baptista, 1993; Velde and Church, 1999), and other factors. Thus, although chemicals in
discharging rivers may be diluted by large volumes of water within receiving estuaries and
embayments, the hydrochemistry of the marine-influenced water may negate some of the
attenuating impact of the greater water volume; for example, the effect of dilution may be
confounded by changes in chemical mobility (and/or bioavailability) in brackish water. In
addition, freshwater contributions from discharging streams and rivers do not instantaneously
mix with more saline water bodies. In these settings, water will commonly remain highly
stratified, with fresh water lying atop denser, heavier saline water - meaning that exposure to
concentrations found in discharging stream water may propagate some distance beyond the
outflow point of the stream (especially near the water surface). Therefore, it is not assumed that
discharging water will be rapidly diluted by the entire water volume within an estuary,
embayment, or other coastal aquatic environment. PRZM-EXAMS model results should be
considered consistent with concentrations that might be found near the head of an estuary unless
there is specific information - such as monitoring data - to indicate otherwise. Conditions nearer
to the mouth of a bay or estuary, however, may be closer to a marine-type system, and thus more
subject to the notable buffering, mixing, and diluting capacities of an open marine environment.
163
-------
Conversely, tidal effects (pressure waves) can propagate much further upstream than the actual
estuarine water, so discharging river water may become temporarily partially impounded near
the mouth (discharge point) of a channel, and resistant to mixing until tidal forces are reversed.
The Agency does not currently have sufficient information regarding the hydrology and
hydrochemistry of estuarine aquatic habitats to develop alternate scenarios for assessed listed
species that inhabit these types of ecosystems. The Agency acknowledges that there are unique
brackish and estuarine habitats that may not be accurately captured by PRZM-EXAMS modeling
results, and may, therefore, under- or over-estimate exposure, depending on the aforementioned
variables.
In general, the linked PRZM/EXAMS model produces estimated aquatic concentrations that are
expected to be exceeded once within a ten-year period. The Pesticide Root Zone Model is a
process or "simulation" model that calculates what happens to a pesticide in an agricultural field
on a day-to-day basis. It considers factors such as rainfall and plant transpiration of water, as
well as how and when the pesticide is applied. It has two major components: hydrology and
chemical transport. Water movement is simulated by the use of generalized soil parameters,
including field capacity, wilting point, and saturation water content. The chemical transport
component can simulate pesticide application on the soil or on the plant foliage. Dissolved,
adsorbed, and vapor-phase concentrations in the soil are estimated by simultaneously considering
the processes of pesticide uptake by plants, surface runoff, erosion, decay, volatilization, foliar
wash-off, advection, dispersion, and retardation.
Uncertainties associated with each of these individual components add to the overall uncertainty
of the modeled concentrations. Additionally, model inputs from the environmental fate
degradation studies are chosen to represent the upper confidence bound on the mean values that
are not expected to be exceeded in the environment approximately 90 percent of the time.
Mobility input values are chosen to be representative of conditions in the environment. The
natural variation in soils adds to the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors such as application
date, crop emergence date, and canopy cover can also affect estimated concentrations, adding to
the uncertainty of modeled values. Factors within the ambient environment such as soil
temperatures, sunlight intensity, antecedent soil moisture, and surface water temperatures can
cause actual aquatic concentrations to differ for the modeled values.
Unlike spray drift, tools are currently not available to evaluate the effectiveness of a vegetative
setback on runoff and loadings. The effectiveness of vegetative setbacks is highly dependent on
the condition of the vegetative strip. For example, a well-established, healthy vegetative setback
can be a very effective means of reducing runoff and erosion from agricultural fields.
Alternatively, a setback of poor vegetative quality or a setback that is channelized can be
ineffective at reducing loadings. Until such time as a quantitative method to estimate the effect
of vegetative setbacks on various conditions on pesticide loadings becomes available, the aquatic
exposure predictions are likely to overestimate exposure where healthy vegetative setbacks exist
and underestimate exposure where poorly developed, channelized, or bare setbacks exist.
164
-------
6.1.4 Usage Uncertainties
County-level usage data were obtained from California's Department of Pesticide Regulation
Pesticide Use Reporting (CDPR PUR) database. Four years of data (2002 - 2005) were included
in this analysis because statistical methodology for identifying outliers, in terms of area treated
and pounds applied, was provided by CDPR for these years only. No methodology for removing
outliers was provided by CDPR for 2001 and earlier pesticide data; therefore, this information
was not included in the analysis because it may misrepresent actual usage patterns. CDPR PUR
documentation indicates that errors in the data may include the following: a misplaced decimal;
incorrect measures, area treated, or units; and reports of diluted pesticide concentrations. In
addition, it is possible that the data may contain reports for pesticide uses that have been
cancelled. The CPDR PUR data does not include home owner applied pesticides; therefore,
residential uses are not likely to be reported. As with all pesticide usage data, there may be
instances of misuse and misreporting. The Agency made use of the most current, verifiable
information; in cases where there were discrepancies, the most conservative information was
used.
6.1.5 Terrestrial Exposure Modeling of Chlorpyrifos
The Agency relies on the work of Fletcher et al. (1994) for setting the assumed pesticide residues
in wildlife dietary items. These residue assumptions are believed to reflect a realistic upper-
bound residue estimate, although the degree to which this assumption reflects a specific
percentile estimate is difficult to quantify. It is important to note that the field measurement
efforts used to develop the Fletcher estimates of exposure involve highly varied sampling
techniques. It is entirely possible that much of these data reflect residues averaged over entire
above ground plants in the case of grass and forage sampling.
It was assumed that ingestion of food items in the field occurs at rates commensurate with those
in the laboratory. Although the screening assessment process adjusts dry-weight estimates of
food intake to reflect the increased mass in fresh-weight wildlife food intake estimates, it does
not allow for gross energy differences. Direct comparison of a laboratory dietary concentration-
based effects threshold to a fresh-weight pesticide residue estimate would result in an
underestimation of field exposure by food consumption by a factor of 1.25 - 2.5 for most food
items.
Differences in assimilative efficiency between laboratory and wild diets suggest that current
screening assessment methods do not account for a potentially important aspect of food
requirements. Depending upon species and dietary matrix, bird assimilation of wild diet energy
ranges from 23 - 80%, and mammal's assimilation ranges from 41 - 85% (U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 1993). If it is assumed that laboratory chow is formulated to maximize
assimilative efficiency (e.g., a value of 85%), a potential for underestimation of exposure may
exist by assuming that consumption of food in the wild is comparable with consumption during
laboratory testing. In the screening process, exposure may be underestimated because metabolic
rates are not related to food consumption.
165
-------
For the terrestrial exposure analysis of this risk assessment, a generic bird or mammal was
assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving a treatment rate on the
field. Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species were not considered, and it
was assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the modeled treatment area.
Spray drift model predictions suggest that this assumption leads to an overestimation of exposure
to species that do not occupy the treated field exclusively and permanently.
6.1.6 Spray Drift Modeling
Although there may be multiple Chlorpyrifos applications at a single site, it is unlikely that the
same organism would be exposed to the maximum amount of spray drift from every application
made. In order for an organism to receive the maximum concentration of Chlorpyrifos from
multiple applications, each application of Chlorpyrifos would have to occur under identical
atmospheric conditions (e.g., same wind speed and - for plants - same wind direction) and (if it
is an animal) the animal being exposed would have to be present directly downwind at the same
distance after each application. Although there may be sites where the dominant wind direction
is fairly consistent (at least during the relatively quiescent conditions that are most favorable for
aerial spray applications), it is nevertheless highly unlikely that plants in any specific area would
receive the maximum amount of spray drift repeatedly. It appears that in most areas (based upon
available meteorological data) wind direction is temporally very changeable, even within the
same day. Additionally, other factors, including variations in topography, cover, and
meteorological conditions over the transport distance are not accounted for by the AgDRIFT
model (i.e., it models spray drift from aerial and ground applications in a flat area with little to
no ground cover and a steady, constant wind speed and direction). Therefore, in most cases, the
drift estimates from AgDRIFT may overestimate exposure even from single applications,
especially as the distance increases from the site of application, since the model does not account
for potential obstructions (e.g., large hills, berms, buildings, trees, etc.).
6.2 Effects Assessment Uncertainties
6.2.1 Age Class and Sensitivity of Effects Thresholds
It is generally recognized that test organism age may have a significant impact on the observed
sensitivity to a toxicant. The acute toxicity data for fish are collected on juvenile fish between
0.1 and 5 grams. Aquatic invertebrate acute testing is performed on recommended immature age
classes (e.g., first instar for daphnids, second instar for amphipods, stoneflies, mayflies, and third
instar for midges).
Testing of juveniles may overestimate toxicity at older age classes for pesticide active
ingredients that act directly without metabolic transformation because younger age classes may
not have the enzymatic systems associated with detoxifying xenobiotics. Conversely, it may, in
some cases, underestimate toxicity as seen in a study by Richards and Kendall (2002) where
chlorpyrifos was less toxic to an earlier developmental stage of tadpole than to a later stage that
had used up the yolksac and was more likely to uptake chlorpyrifos, causing acetylcholinesterase
inhibition. In so far as the available toxicity data may provide ranges of sensitivity information
166
-------
with respect to age class, this assessment uses the most sensitive life-stage information as
measures of effect for surrogate aquatic animals, and is therefore, considered as protective.
6.2.2 Use of Surrogate Species Effects Data
Guideline toxicity tests and open literature data on chlorpyrifos are not available for frogs or any
other aquatic-phase amphibian; therefore, freshwater fish are often used as surrogate species for
aquatic-phase amphibians. Although no submitted data are available for chlorpyrifos, the
available open literature information on chlorpyrifos toxicity to aquatic-phase amphibians shows
that acute and chronic ecotoxicity endpoints for aquatic-phase amphibians are generally similar
in sensitivity to freshwater fish. In this open literature query using ECOTOX, only studies with
the most sensitive fish endpoints were reviewed, but all pertinent frog studies were reviewed.
This artifact of procedure made it look like frogs have a higher acute to chronic ratio than fish,
with higher acute and lower chronic endpoints. This is an uncertainty that was not fully
investigated in this study. Endpoints based on freshwater fish ecotoxicity data are often assumed
to be protective of potential direct effects to aquatic-phase amphibians including the California
red-legged frog and California tiger salamander, and extrapolation of the risk conclusions from
the most sensitive tested species to aquatic-phase amphibians is likely to overestimate the
potential risks to those species. In this risk assessment sufficient amphibian data were found to
use frog data for the California red-legged frog and fish data were used for the Delta smelt;
however no salamander data were found to use for the California tiger salamander assessment.
No terrestrial-phase amphibian data was found to use in the terrestrial-phase amphibian
assessments, so bird data was used, which inputs a fair amount of uncertainty due to amphibians'
pokeliothermic and bird's homeothermic physiologies. Efforts are made to select the organisms
most likely to be affected by the type of compound and usage pattern; however, there is an
inherent uncertainty in extrapolating across phyla. In addition, the Agency's LOCs are
intentionally set very low, and conservative estimates are made in the screening level risk
assessment to account for these uncertainties.
6.2.3 Sublethal Effects
When assessing acute risk, the screening risk assessment relies on the acute mortality endpoint as
well as a suite of sublethal responses to the pesticide, as determined by the testing of species
response to chronic exposure conditions and subsequent chronic risk assessment. Consideration
of additional sublethal data in the effects determination t is exercised on a case-by-case basis and
only after careful consideration of the nature of the sublethal effect measured and the extent and
quality of available data to support establishing a plausible relationship between the measure of
effect (sublethal endpoint) and the assessment endpoints. However, the full suite of sublethal
effects from valid open literature studies is considered for the purposes of defining the action
area.
To the extent to which sublethal effects are not considered in this assessment, the potential direct
and indirect effects of chlorpyrifos on listed species may be underestimated. Perhaps the greatest
area of uncertainty at present is the effects of chlorpyrifos on plants. Effects to aquatic and
terrestrial plants have not been researched carefully since chlorpyrifos is an insecticide and not a
suspected plant toxin. Incident data, however, lists chlorpyrifos as a probable plant toxin in
167
-------
several cases of plant damage. Another area of uncertainty is chlorpyrifos' potential to act as an
endocrine disrupter. Of the studies reviewed in the open literature (all frog and copepod studies,
and other studies with the most sensitive endpoints) no endocrine disruption studies were found.
These areas of uncertainty should be addressed in future assessments.
6.2.4 Location of Wildlife Species
For the terrestrial exposure analysis of this risk assessment, a generic bird or mammal was
assumed to occupy either the treated field or adjacent areas receiving a treatment rate on the
field. Actual habitat requirements of any particular terrestrial species were not considered, and it
was assumed that species occupy, exclusively and permanently, the modeled treatment area.
Spray drift model predictions suggest that this assumption leads to an overestimation of exposure
to species that do not occupy the treated field exclusively and permanently.
7 Risk Conclusions
In fulfilling its obligations under Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act, the information
presented in this endangered species risk assessment represents the best data currently available
to assess the potential risks of Chlorpyrifos to the California red-legged frog (Rcma aurora
draytonii), California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense), San Francisco garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis tetrataenia), California clapper rail, (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), Salt
marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris), Bay checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas
editha bayensis), Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus), San
Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), California freshwater shrimp (Syncarispacifica), Delta
smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and their designated critical habitat.
Based on the best available information, the Agency makes a May Affect, Likely to Adversely
Affect determination for the all species covered by this assessment from the use of chlorpyrifos.
Additionally, the Agency has determined that there is the potential for modification of the
designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog, California tiger salamander, San
Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, Bay checkerspot
butterfly, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, San Joaquin kit fox, California freshwater shrimp,
and Delta smelt from the use of the chemical. Given the LAA determination for the listed
species described above and potential modification of designated critical habitat, HM, a
description of the baseline status and cumulative effects for the CRLF is provided in
Attachment 2 and the baseline status and cumulative effects for the California tiger salamander,
San Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail, Salt marsh harvest mouse, Bay checkerspot
butterfly, Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, San Joaquin kit fox, California freshwater shrimp,
and Delta smelt are provided in Attachment 4.
Based on the conclusions of this assessment, a formal consultation with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act should be initiated to seek
concurrence with the LAA determinations and to determine whether there are reasonable and
prudent alternatives and/or measures to reduce and/or eliminate potential incidental take.
When evaluating the significance of this risk assessment's direct/indirect and adverse habitat
modification effects determinations, it is important to note that pesticide exposures and predicted
168
-------
risks to the listed species and its resources (i.e., food and habitat) are not expected to be uniform
across the action area. In fact, given the assumptions of drift and downstream transport (i.e.,
attenuation with distance), pesticide exposure and associated risks to the species and its resources
are expected to decrease with increasing distance away from the treated field or site of
application. Evaluation of the implication of this non-uniform distribution of risk to the species
would require information and assessment techniques that are not currently available.
When evaluating the significance of this risk assessment's direct/indirect and adverse habitat
modification effects determinations, it is important to note that pesticide exposures and predicted
risks to the species and its resources (i.e., food and habitat) are not expected to be uniform across
the action area. In fact, given the assumptions of drift and downstream transport (i.e., attenuation
with distance), pesticide exposure and associated risks to the species and its resources are
expected to decrease with increasing distance away from the treated field or site of application.
Evaluation of the implication of this non-uniform distribution of risk to the species would require
information and assessment techniques that are not currently available. Examples of such
information and methodology required for this type of analysis would include the following:
Enhanced information on the density and distribution of California red-legged and
California tiger salamander, San Francisco garter snake, California clapper rail,
Salt marsh harvest mouse, Bay checkerspot butterfly, Valley elderberry longhorn
beetle, San Joaquin kit fox, California freshwater shrimp, and Delta smelt life
stages within the action area and/or applicable designated critical habitat. This
information would allow for quantitative extrapolation of the present risk
assessment's predictions of individual effects to the proportion of the population
extant within geographical areas where those effects are predicted. Furthermore,
such population information would allow for a more comprehensive evaluation of
the significance of potential resource impairment to individuals of the assessed
species.
Quantitative information on prey base requirements for the assessed species.
While existing information provides a preliminary picture of the types of food
sources utilized by the assessed species, it does not establish minimal
requirements to sustain healthy individuals at varying life stages. Such
information could be used to establish biologically relevant thresholds of effects
on the prey base, and ultimately establish geographical limits to those effects.
This information could be used together with the density data discussed above to
characterize the likelihood of adverse effects to individuals.
Information on population responses of prey base organisms to the pesticide.
Currently, methodologies are limited to predicting exposures and likely levels of
direct mortality, growth or reproductive impairment immediately following
exposure to the pesticide. The degree to which repeated exposure events and the
inherent demographic characteristics of the prey population play into the extent to
which prey resources may recover is not predictable. An enhanced understanding
of long-term prey responses to pesticide exposure would allow for a more refined
determination of the magnitude and duration of resource impairment, and together
with the information described above, a more complete prediction of effects to
individual species and potential modification to critical habitat.
169
-------
8 References
Abbasi, S. A. and Soni, R. 1991. Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Four Common
Pesticides on the Basis of Computer-Aided Studies. Indian J.Environ.Health 33: 22-24.
Ali, A., Chowdhury, M. A., Hossain, M. I, Ameen, M., Habiba, D. B., and Aslam, A. F. M.
(1999). Laboratory Evaluation of Selected Larvicides and Insect Growth Regulators
Against Field-Collected Culex quinquefasciatus Larvae from Urban Dhaka, Bangladesh.
J.Am.Mosq. ControlAssoc. 15: 43-47.
Altig, R. and R.W. McDiarmid. 1999. Body Plan: Development and Morphology. In R.W.
McDiarmid and R. Altig (Eds.), Tadpoles: The Biology of Anuran Larvae.University of
Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 24-51.
Alvarez, J. 2000. Letter to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service providing comments on the Draft
California Red-legged Frog Recovery Plan.
Anderson, B. S., Phillips, B. M., Hunt, J. W., Connor, V., Richard, N., and Tjeerdema, R. S.
2006. Identifying Primary Stressors Impacting Macroinvertebrates in the Salinas River
(California, USA): Relative Effects of Pesticides and Suspended Particles.
Environ.Pollut. 141:402-408.
Aston, L.S. and Seiber. 1997. Fate of summertime organophosphate pesticide residues in the
Sierra Nevada Mountains. J. Environ. Qual. 26: 1483-1492.
Atkins. E.L., E.A. Greywood, and R.L. MacDonald. 1975. Toxicity of pesticides and other
agricultural chemicals to honey bees. Laboratory studies. Univ. of Calif, Div. Agric.
Sci. Leaflet 2287. 38pp. (MRID# 000369-35).
Bacey, J. 2005. Biological Assessment of Urban and Agricultural Streams in the California
Central Valley (Fall 2002 through Spring 2004).
Bacey, J., F. Spurlock, 2007. Identifying Correlations Between Macroinvertebrate Communities
and Pesticides and Other Environmental Variables of Agricultural Runoff
Biever, R. C., Giddings, J. M., Kiamos, M., Annunziato, M. F., Meyerhoff, R., and Racke, K.
1994. Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Aquatic Microcosms over a Range of Off-Target Spray
Drift Exposure Levels. In: Proc.Brighton Crop Protection Conf.on Pests and Diseases,
Nov.21-24, 1994, Volume 3, Brighton, UK 1367-1372.
Blomquist, J. D., Denis, J. M., Cowles, J. P. Hetrick, J. A., Jones, R. D., and Birchfield, N.B.,
2001, Pesticides in selected water-supply reservoirs and finished drinking water, 1999-
2000: summary of results from a pilot monitoring program, U.S. Geological Survey
Open-File Report 01-456,65 p.
170
-------
Bonfanti, P., Colombo, A., Orsi, F., Nizzetto, I, Andrioletti, M., Bacchetta, R., Mantecca, P.,
Fascio, U., Vailati, G., and Vismara, C. 2004. Comparative Teratogenicity of
Chlorpyrifos and Malathion on Xenopus laevis Development. Aquat.Toxicol. 70: 189-
200.
Borthwick, P. W., Patrick, J. M. Jr., and Middaugh, D. P. 1985. Comparative Acute Sensitivities
of Early Life Stages of Atherinid Fishes to Chlorpyrifos and Thiobencarb.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 14: 465-473.
Burns, L. A. 2004. Exposure Analysis Modeling System (EXAMSII) Users Manual and System
Documentation. EPA/600/R-00/81 Revision G (May 2004), Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, GA.
Carousel, R.F. , J.C. Imhoff, P.R. Hummel, J.M. Cheplick, A.S. Donigian, Jr., and L.A. Suarez
2005. PRZM-3, A Model for Predicting Pesticide and Nitrogen Fate in Crop Root and
Unsaturated Soil Zones: Users Manual for Release 3.12.2; Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, GA.
Carr, R. L., Straus, D. L., and Chambers, J. E. 1995. Inhibition and Aging of Channel Catfish
Brain Acetylcholinesterase Following Exposure to Two Phosphorothionate Insecticides
and Their Active Metabolites. J. Toxicol.Environ.Health 45: 325-336.
Chambers JE, Carr RL. 1993. Inhibition patterns of brain acetylcholinesterase and hepatic and
plasma aliesterases following exposures to three phosphorothionate insecticides and their
oxons in rats. Fundamental and Applied Toxicology. Jul;21(l): 111_9.
Crawshaw, G.J. 2000. Diseases and Pathology of Amphibians and Reptiles in: Ecotoxicology of
Amphibians and Reptiles; ed: Sparling, D.W., G. Linder, and C. A. Bishop. SETAC
Publication Series, Columbia, MO.
Cryer and Dixon-White, 1995 (MRID 43760603)
Cryer and Robb 1995 (MRID 43853201)
De Silva, P. M. C. S. and Samayawardhena, L. A. 2002. Low Concentrations of Lorsban in
Water Result in Far Reaching Behavioral and Histological Effects in Early Life Stages in
Guppy. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 53: 248-254.
Fellers, G. M., et al. 2001. Overwintering tadpoles in the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii). Herpetological Review, 32(3): 156-157.
Fellers, G.M, L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-Legged
Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA.
Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 23 (9):2170-2177.
171
-------
Fellers, G.M, L.L. McConnell, D. Pratt, S. Datta. 2004. Pesticides in Mountain Yellow-Legged
Frogs (Rana Mucosa) from the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California, USA. Environ.
Tox. Chem. 23 (9):2170-2177.
Fellers, Gary M. 2005a. Rana draytonii Baird and Girard 1852. California Red-legged Frog.
Pages 552-554. In: M. Lannoo (ed.) Amphibian Declines: The Conservation Status of
United States Species, Vol. 2: Species Accounts. University of California Press,
Berkeley, California, xxi+1094 pp. (http://www.werc.usgs.gov/pt-
reves/pdfs/Rana%20dravtonii.PDF)
Fellers, Gary M. 2005b. California red-legged frog, Rana draytonii Baird and Girard. Pages 198-
201. In: L.L.C. Jones, et al (eds.) Amphibians of the Pacific Northwest. 227.
Fernandez, S., C. Santin, J. Marquinez, and M.A. Alvarez. 2005. Changes in soils due to
polderization in coastal plain estuaries. Geophysical Research Abstracts 7, 3pp.
Fletcher, J.S., I.E. Nellessen, and T.G. Pfleeger. 1994. Literature review and evaluation of the
EPA food-chain (Kenaga) nomogram, and instrument for estimating pesticide residues on
plants. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 (9): 1383-1391.
Foster, S., Thomas, M., and Korth, W. 1998. Laboratory-Derived Acute Toxicity of Selected
Pesticides to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Aust.J.Ecotoxicol. 4: 53-59.
Giesy JP, Solomon KR, Coates JR, Dixon KR, Giddings JM, and Kenaga EE. 1999.
Chlorpyrifos: ecological risk assessment in North American environments. Rev. Environ.
Contam.Toxicol. 160:1-129.
Hageman, KJ, SL Simonich, DD Campbell, GR Wilson, DH Landers, "Atmospheric deposition
of current-use and historic-use pesticides in snow at National Parks in the western United
States," Environmental Science & Technology, 2006, vol. 40, pp. 3174-3180
Hayes and Tennant. 1985. Diet and feeding behavior of the California red-legged frog. The
Southwestern Naturalist 30(4): 601-605.
Hayes, M.P. and M.M. Miyamoto. 1984. Biochemical, behavioral and body size differences
between Rana aurora aurora and R. a. draytonii. Copeia 1984(4): 1018-22.
Hayes, M.P. and M.R. Jennings. 1988. Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-
legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii):
Implications for management. Pp. 144-158. In Proceedings of the symposium on the
management of amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals in North America. R. Sarzo,
K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton (technical coordinators). USDA Forest Service General
Technical Report RM-166.
172
-------
Hoerger, F., and E.E. Kenaga. 1972. Pesticide residues on plants: Correlation of representative
data as a basis for estimation of their magnitude in the environment. In F. Coulston and
F. Korte, eds., Environmental Quality and Safety: Chemistry, Toxicology, and
Technology, Georg Thieme Publ, Stuttgart, West Germany, pp. 9-28.
Hooftman, R. N., Van de Guchte, K., and Roghair, C. J. 1993. Development of Ecotoxicological
Test Systems to Assess Contaminated Sediments. Project B6/8995, The Netherlands
Integrated Program on Soil Research (PCB) 41.
Hyder, A. H., Overmyer, J. P., andNoblet, R. 2005. Influence of Developmental Stage on
Susceptibilities and Sensitivities of Simulium vittatum IS-7 and Simulium vittatum IIIL-1
(Diptera: Simuliidae) to Chlorpyrifos. Environ. Toxicol.Chem. 23:2856-2862.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1985. Pre-1900 overharvest of California red-legged frogs
(Rana aurora draytonii): The inducement for bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) introduction.
Herpetological Review 31(1): 94-103.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in
California. Report prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland
Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, California. 255 pp.
Jennings, M.R., S. Townsend, and R.R. Duke. 1997. Santa Clara Valley Water District
California red-legged frog distribution and status - 1997. Final Report prepared by H.T.
Harvey & Associates, Alviso, California. 22 pp.
Jordan, T.E., J.C. Cornwell, R.B. Walter, and J.T. Anderson. 2008. Changes in phosphorus
biogeochemistry along an estuarine salinity gradient. Limnology and Oceanography
53(1): 172-184.
Karvonen, T., Koivusalo, H., Jauhiainen, M., Palko, J. and Weppling, K. 1999. A hydrological
model for predicting runoff from different land use areas, Journal of Hydrology, 217(3-
4): 253-265.
Kelly, B.C.; Ikonomou, M.G.; Blair, J.D.; Morin, A.E. and F.A.P.C. Gobas. 2007. Food web-
specific biomagnifications of persistent organic pollutants. Science, 317: 236.
Kozlowski DF, Watson M, Angelo, J. L. 2004. Monitoring chlorpyrifos and diazinon in impaired
surface waters of the lower Salinas region. Seaside, CA: The Watershed Institute. Report
nr Report No. WI-2004-03. 163 p.
Kuhn, J.O. 1991. Acute Oral Toxicity Study in Rats. CIBA-GEIGY Corporation, Agricultural
Division, Greensboro, NC. Study Number 7803-91.
Kupferberg, S. 1997. Facilitation of periphyton production by tadpole grazing: Functional
differences between species. Freshwater Biology 37:427-439.
173
-------
Kupferberg, S.J., J.C. Marks and M.E. Power. 1994. Effects of variation in natural algal and
detrital diets on larval anuran (Hyla regilla) life-history traits. Copeia 1994:446-457.
Landers, D.H., S.L. Simonich, D.A. Jaffe, L.H. Geiser, D.H. Campbell, A.R. Schwindt, C.B.
Schrect, M.L. Kent, W.D. Hafner, H.E. Taylor, KJ. Hageman, S. Usenko, L.K.
Ackerman, I.E. Schrlau, N.L. Rose, T.F. Blett, and M.M. Erway. 2008. The Fate,
Transport, and Ecological Impacts of Airborne Contaminants in Western National Parks
(USA). EPA/600/R-07/138. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, NFIEERL, Western Ecology Division, Corvallis, Oregon.
Landers, D.H., Simonich, S.L., Jaffe, D.A., Geiser, L.H., Campbell, D.H., Schwindt, A.R.,
Schreck, C.B., Kent, M.L., Hafner, W.D., Taylor, H.E., Hageman, K.J., Usenko, S.,
Ackerman, L.K., Schrlau, I.E., Rose, N.L., Blett, T.F, and Erway, M.M., 2008, The fate,
transport, and ecological impacts of airborne contaminants in Western National Parks
(USA), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ReportEPA/600/R-07/138.
http://www.epa.gov/nheerl/wacap
LeNoir, J.S., L.L. McConnell, G.M. Fellers, T.M. Cahill, J.N. Seiber. 1999. Summertime
Transport of Current-use pesticides from California's Central Valley to the Sierra Nevada
Mountain Range,USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 18(12): 2715-2722.
Majewski, M.S. and P.D. Capel. 1995. Pesticides in the atmosphere: distribution, trends, and
governing factors. Ann Arbor Press, Inc. Chelsea, MI.
Markey, K. L., Baird, A. H., Humphrey, C., and Negri, A. P. 2007. Insecticides and a Fungicide
Affect Multiple Coral Life Stages. Mar. Ecol. 330: 127-137.
McCann JA, Teeters W, Urban DJ, Cook N. 1981. A short-term dietary test on small mammals.
In: Avian and Mamallian Wildlife Toxicology: Second Conference. ASTM Special
Technical Publication 757D. W. Lamb, Mobay Chemical Corp., and E. E. Kenaga, The
Dow Chemical Co., editors. American Society for Testing and Materials, 1916 Race
Street, Phiiadeipiiia, Pa. 19103
Mcconnell, L.L., Drakeford, L., Fellers, G.M., Sparling, D.W., Cowman, D.F., Kleeman, P.M.,
Harner, T. 2005. Investigating pesticide exposure pathways in amphibian habitat of the
sierra nevada mountains. SETAC North America 26th Annual Meeting, 11/13-17/05.
170:41.
McConnell, L.L., J.S. LeNoir, S. Datta, J.N. Seiber. 1998. Wet deposition of current-use
pesticides in the Sierra Nevada mountain range, California, USA. Environmental
Toxicology & Chemistry 17(10):1908-1916.
McDonald M.A.I; Healey J.R.; Stevens P.A. 2002. The effects of secondary forest clearance and
subsequent land-use on erosion losses and soil properties in the Blue Mountains of
Jamaica. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, Volume 92, Number 1: 1-19.
174
-------
Means, J.C. 1995. Influence of salinity upon sediment-water partitioning of aromatic
hydrocarbons. Marine Chemistry 51(1): 3-16.
Okisaka S.; Murakami A.; Mizukawa A.; Ito J.; Vakulenko S.A.; Molotkov LA.; Corbett C.W.;
Wahl M.; Porter D.E.; Edwards D.; Moise C. 1997. Nonpoint source runoff modeling: A
comparison of a forested watershed and an urban watershed on the South Carolina coast.
Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, Volume 213, Number 1: 133-149.
Olima, C., Pablo, F., and Lim, R. P. 1997. Comparative Tolerance of Three Populations of the
Freshwater Shrimp (Paratya australiensis) to the Organophosphate Pesticide,
Chlorpyrifos. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 59: 321-328.
Pablo, F., Krassoi, F. R., Jones, P. R. F., Colville, A. E., Hose, G. C., and Lim, R. P. 2008.
Comparison of the Fate and Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos - Laboratory Versus a Coastal
Mesocosm System. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 71: 219-229.
Parikh S.J., J. Chorover, and W.D Burgos. 2004. Interaction of phenanthrene and its primary
metabolite (l-hydroxy-2-naphthoic acid) with estuarine sediments and humic fractions.
Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 72(1-4): 1-22.
Phuong V.T. and van Dam J. Linkages between forests and water: A review of research evidence
in Vietnam. In: Forests, Water and Livelihoods European Tropical Forest Research
Network. ETFRN NEWS (3pp).
Poletika NN, Woodburn KB, Henry KS. 2002. An ecological risk assessment for Chlorpyrifos in
an agriculturally dominated tributary of the San Joaquin River. Risk Anal. 22:291-308.
Racke et al 1994 (MRID 43786901)
Rakotondravelo, M. L., Anderson, T. D., Charlton, R. E., and Zhu, K. Y. 2006. Sublethal Effects
of Three Pesticides on Larval Survivorship, Growth, and Macromolecule Production in
the Aquatic Midge, Chironomus tentans (Diptera: Chironomidae).
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 352-359.
Rathburn, G.B. 1998. Rana aurora draytonii egg predation. Herpetological Review, 29(3): 165.
Reis, D.K. Habitat characteristics of California red-legged frogs (Rana aurora draytonii):
Ecological differences between eggs, tadpoles, and adults in a coastal brackish and
freshwater system. M.S. Thesis. San Jose State University. 58 pp
Rene' P.A. Van Wijngaarden,*| Paul J. Van Den Brink,| Steven J.H. Crum,t Jan H. Oude
Voshaar,% Theo C.M. Brock| and Peter Leeuwanghj |DLO Winand Staring Centre for
Integrated Land, Soil and Water Research (SC-DLO), P.O. Box 125, 6700 AC
Wageningen, The Netherlands JDLO Agricultural Mathematical Group (GLW-DLO),
P.O. Box 100, 6700 AC Wageningen, The Netherlands Environmental Toxicology and
Chemistry, Vol. 15, No. 7, pp. 1133-1142, 1996
175
-------
Richards, S. M. (2000). Chlorpyrifos: Exposure and Effects in Passerines and Anurans.
Ph.D. Thesis, Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock, TX147 p.
Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. 2002. Biochemical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two
Developmental Stages of Xenopus laevis. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 1826-1835.
Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. 2003. Physical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two Stages of
Xenopus laevis. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health Part A 66: 75-91.
Rose, R. M., Warne, M. St. J., and Lim, R. P. 2002. Food Concentration Affects the Life History
Response of Ceriodaphnia cf dubia to Chemicals with Different Mechanisms of Action.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 51: 106-114.
Ross, L.J., R. Stein, J. Hsu, J. White, and K. Hefner. 2000. Insecticide Concentrations in the San
Joaquin River Watershed, California.
Schiff K, Sutula M. 2004. Organophosphorus pesticides in storm-water runoff from southern
California (USA). Envirnomental Toxicology and Chemistry 23(8):1815-1821.
Schiff, K. and L. Tiefenthaler. 2003. Contributinos of organophosphorous pesticides from
residential land uses during dry and wet weather. Technical Report No. 406. Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project, Westminster, CA.
Schulz R. 2004. Field studies on exposure, effects, and risk mitigation of aquatic nonpoint-
source insecticide pollution: A review. Journal of Environmental Quality 33(2):419-448.
Seale, D.B. andN. Beckvar. 1980. The comparative ability of anuran larvae (genera: Hyla, Bufo
and Rana) to ingest suspended blue-green algae. Copeia 1980:495-503.
Singhasemanon, N., C. Nordmark, and T. Barry (1998). Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos in the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District Sewer System, Summer 1996. California Department of
Pesticide Regulation Publication EH 98-05.
Sparling, D. W. and Fellers, G. 2007. Comparative Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon,
Malathion and Their Oxon Derivatives to Larval Rana boylii. Environ.Pollut. 147: 535-
539.
Sparling, D. W. and Fellers, G. 2007. Comparative Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon,
Malathion and Their Oxon Derivatives to Larval Rana boylii. Environ.Pollut. 147: 535-
539.
Sparling, D.W., G.M. Fellers, L.L. McConnell. 2001. Pesticides and amphibian population
declines in California, USA. Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry 20(7): 1591-1595.
Sparling, Donald S. and Fellers, Gary M. 2009, Toxicity of two Insecticides to California, USA,
176
-------
Anurans and its Relevance to Declining Amphibian Populations. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1696-1703.
Spector, C, Karkoski, J, and Davis, G. 2004. Concentrations of Pesticides in Sacramento
Metropolitan Area Rainwater and Creeks during the 2001, 2002 and 2003 Orchard
Dormant Spray Seasons. CVRWQCB- Sacramento, California.
Spurlock, F. 2002. Analysis of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Surface Water Monitoring and Acute
Toxicity Bioassay Data, 1991-2001.
Starner, K. , F. Spurlock, S. Gill, K. Goh , H. Feng , J. Hsu, P. Lee , D. Iran , and J. White.
2003. Monitoring Surface Waters of the San Joaquin River Basin for Selected Summer-
Use Pesticides, 2002.
Swarzenski, P.W., D. Porcelli, P.S. Andersson, and J.M Smoak. 2003. The behavior of U- and
Th-series nuclides in the estuarine environment. Reviews in Mineralogy and
Geochemistry 52(1): 577-606.
Teske, Milton E., and Thomas B. Curbishley. 2003. AgDisp ver 8.07 Users Manual. USDA
Forest Service, Morgantown, WV.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1986. Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Chlorpyrifos.
(EPA 440/5-86-005).
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/criteria/librarv/ambientwqc/chlorpyrifos86.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1998. Guidance for Ecological Risk Assessment. Risk
Assessment Forum. EPA/630/R-95/002F, April 1998.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2000 Progress Report: Age and Interactive Toxicity of
Organophosphorus Insecticides, National Center for Environmental Research.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/ncer_abstracts/index.cfm/fuseacti on/display.abstractDetail/abstract/5
126/report/2000
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Interim Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision for
Chlorpyrifos (EPA 73 8-F-01-006).
http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/chlorpyrifos ired.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2003. Endangered and Threatened Species; Take of
Anadromous Fish. Federal Register: January 14, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 9). pp.
1819-1821.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment
Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs. Office of Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances. Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, D.C. January 23, 2004.
177
-------
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006a. Reregi strati on Eligibility Decision for
Chlorpyrifos http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/reregistration/REDs/chlorpyrifos red.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2006b. Organophosphorus Cumulative Risk
Assessment 2006- Update. Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances (EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0618-0002). http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/cumulative/2006-op/op era main.pdf
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. ECOTOXicology Database. Office of Research
and Development National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory's
(NHEERL's) Mid-Continent Ecology Division (MED), http://cfpub.epa.gov/ecotox/
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007&. Ecological Incident Information System.
http://www.epa.gov/espp/consultation/ecorisk-overview.pdf
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. User's Guide T-Rex vl.4.1, June 30, 2008,
Office of Pesticide Programs. Washington, DC
http://www.epa.gov/oppefedl/models/terrestri al/trex/t_rex_user_guide. htm
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS).
1998. Endangered Species Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting
Consultation and Conference Activities Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act.
Final Draft. March 1998.
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
determination of threatened status for the California red-legged frog. Federal Register
61(101):25813-25833.
Usenko, S, KJ Hageman, DW Schmedding, GR Wilson, SL Simonich, "Trace Analysis of
semivolatile organic compounds in large volume samples of snow, lake water, and
groundwater," Environmental Science & Technology, 2005, vol. 39, pp. 6006-6015.
USFWS. 2002. Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii).
Region 1, USFWS, Portland, Oregon.
(http://ecos.fws.gov/doc/recovery plans/2002/020528.pdf)
USFWS. 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: determination of critical habitat
for the California red-legged frog. 71 FR 19244-19346.
USFWS. Website accessed: 30 December 2006.
http://www.fws.gov/endangered/features/rl frog/rlfrog.html#where
USFWS/NMFS. 2004. 50 CFR Part 402. Joint Counterpart Endangered Species Act Section 7
Consultation Regulations; Final Rule. FR 47732-47762.
Van den Brink, P. J., Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Lucassen, W. G. H., Brock, T. C. M., and
Leeuwangh, P. 1996. Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient
178
-------
Chlorpyrifos) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches: II. Invertebrate Community Responses
and. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 1143-1153.
Van Wijngaarden, R., Leeuwangh, P., Lucassen, W. G. H., Romijn, K., Ronday, R., and Van der
Velde, R. 1993. Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Fish, a Newt, and Aquatic
Invertebrates. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 716-723.
Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Van den Brink, P. 1, Crum, S. J. H., Oude Voshaar, J. H., Brock, T.
C. M., and Leeuwangh, P. 1996. Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient
Chlorpyrifos) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches: I. Comparison of Short-Term Toxicity
Between. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 1133-1142.
Velde B. and T. Church. 1999. Rapid clay transformations in Delaware salt marshes. Applied
Geochemistry 14(5): 559-568
Vogel, J., Majewski, M, and Capel, P. 2008. Pesticides in Rain in Four Agricultural Watersheds
in the United States. Journal of Environmental Quality, 37:1101 - 1115.
Wassersug, R. 1984. Why tadpoles love fast food. Natural History 4/84.
Widder, P. D. and Bidwell, J. R. 2006. Cholinesterase Activity and Behavior in Chlorpyrifos-
Exposed Rana sphenocephala Tadpoles. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 25: 2446-2454.
Widder, P. D. and Bidwell, J. R. 2008. Tadpole Size, Cholinesterase Activity, and Swim Speed
in Four Frog Species after Exposure to Sub-Lethal Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos.
Aquat.Toxicol. 88: 9-18.
Willis, G.H. and L.L. McDowell. 1987. Pesticide Persistence on Foilage in Reviews of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology. 100:23-73.
Wood, T.M. and A.M. Baptista. 1993. A model for diagnostic analysis of estuarine
geochemistry. Water Resources Research 29(1): 51-71.
Zabik J.M. andN. Seiber. 1993. Atmospheric transport of organophosphate Pesicides from
California's central Valley to the Sierra Nevada Mountains. J. Environ. Qual. 22: 80 90.
Zamora, C., Kratzer, C., Majewski, M., and Knifong, D., 2003. Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Loads
in recipitation and Urban and Agricultural Storm Runoff during January and February
2001 in the San Joaquin River Basin, California. USGS Water-Resource Investigations
Report 03-4091. Sacramento, CA, 56 pgs.
179
-------
CHLORPYRIFOS
APPENDIX A
PRODUCT FORMULATIONS CONTAINING MULTIPLE ACTIVE
INGREDIENTS
The Agency does not routinely include, in its risk assessments, an evaluation of mixtures
of active ingredients, either those mixtures of multiple active ingredients in product
formulations or those in the applicator's tank. In the case of the product formulations of
active ingredients (that is, a registered product containing more than one active
ingredient), each active ingredient is subject to an individual risk assessment for
regulatory decision regarding the active ingredient on a particular use site. If effects data
are available for a formulated product containing more than one active ingredient, they
may be used qualitatively or quantitatively1' 2.
Currently, the Agency's guidance for assessing the potential risk of chemical mixtures is
limited to human health applications (USEPA, 2000). However, the guidance includes
principles for evaluating mixtures to assess potential interactive effects that are generally
applicable. Consistent with EPA's Overview Document (USEPA 2004), the Agency's
mixture guidance (USEPA 2000) discusses limitations in quantifying the risk of specified
mixtures when there is differential degradation, transport and fate of chemical
components following environmental release or application. The LD50 values are
potentially useful only to the extent that a wild mammal would consume plants or
animals immediately after these dietary items were directly sprayed by the product.
Increasing time post application, the differential rates of degradation, transport, etc. for
the active ingredients in the formulation only permit a qualitative discussion of potential
acute risk (USEPA 2004).
As discussed in USEPA (2000) a quantitative component-based evaluation of mixture
toxicity requires data of appropriate quality for each component of a mixture. In this
mixture evaluation, LDSOs with associated 95% confidence intervals are needed for the
formulated product. The same quality of data is also required for each component of the
mixture.
In the case of chloropyrifos, only one product (EPA Reg. No. 8329-36) has a definitive
product LD50 value with an associated confidence interval. Although there are no 95%
confidence intervals for the two active ingredients in this product (chlorpyrifos and
permethrin), an evaluation of the available data show that for EPA Reg. No. 8329-36, the
product toxicity can be attributed solely to the toxicity of chlorpyrifos. When the product
1 Overview of the Ecological Risk Assessment Process in the Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental
Protection Agency (January 2004) (Overview Document).
2 Memorandum to Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substance, US EPA conveying an evaluation
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service of an approach to assessing
the ecological risks of pesticide products (January 2004).
-------
LD50 (1836 mg/kg) and associated confidence interval (1476-2285 mg/kg) are adjusted
for the percent chlorpyrifos (12%); the adjusted LD50 value for the product is (220
mg/kg) is not lexicologically distinct from the LD50 value for the chlorpyrifos technical
(223 mg/kg).
Because the active ingredients are not expected to have similar mechanisms of action,
metabolites, or toxicokinetic behavior, it is reasonable to conclude that an assumption of
dose-addition would be inappropriate. Consequently, an assessment based on the toxicity
of chlorpyrifos is the only reasonable approach that employs the available data to address
the potential acute risks of the formulated products.
-------
Pesticide Products Formulated with Chlorpyrifos and Other Pesticide Active Ingredients
CHLORPYRIFOS PRODUCTS
3,4
PRODUCT/TRADE NAME
WHITMIRE PT 1920 TOTAL
RELEASE INSECTICIDE
ULV MOSQUITO MASTER 412
ULV MOSQUITO MASTER 2+6
WARRIOR INSECTICIDE CATTLE
EAR TAG
WOODLIFE F-4WT
EPA Reg.No.
000499-00405
008329-00036
008329-00073
039039-00006
060061-00100
%
Chlorpyrifos
8
12
6
10
0.1
PRODUCT
LD50
(mg/kg)
630
1836
No Data
No Data
>5000
CI (mg/kg)
No Data
1476-2285
No Data
No Data
N/A
ADJUSTED FOR
ACTIVE INGREDIENT
LD50
(mg/kg)
50
220
N/A
N/A
N/A
CI (mg/kg)
N/A
177-274
N/A
N/A
N/A
From registrant submitted data to support registration. Compiled by Office of Pesticide Programs Registration and Health Effects Divisions.
4 Chlorpyrifos: Oral LD50= 223 mg/kg
N/A= Not Applicable
-------
List of Citations on Chlorpyrifos Mixtures - studies rejected by ECOTOX due to
multiple active ingredients in the test substance.
The citations in this appendix were considered for inclusion in ECOTOX but rejected due to
multiple active ingredients. Citations include the ECOTOX Reference number, as well as
chemical codes and rejection codes (MIXTURE denotes multiple active ingredients). The
query was run in October, 1999 and revised March and June, 2000.
Ajeigbe, H. A. and Singh, B. B. (2006). Integrated Pest Management in Cowpea: Effect of Time and
Frequency of Insecticide Application on Productivity. Crop Prot. 25: 920-925.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Arthur, F. H. (2004). Evaluation of a New Insecticide Formulation (F2) as a Protectant of Stored Wheat,
Maize, and Rice. J.StoredProd.Res. 40: 317-330.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Baerg, R. J., Barrett, M., and Polge, N. D. (1996). Insecticide and Insecticide Metabolite Interactions with
Cytochrome P450 Mediated Activities in Maize. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 55: 10-20.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern:
DDA,12T,NSF,TBO,PRT,CPY,MLN,CBF,CBL,PMR,FNF,TBS Rejection Code: IN
VITRO/MIXTURE.
Biediger, D. L., Baumann, P. A., Weaver, D. N., Chandler, J. M., and Merkle, M. G. (1992). Interactions
Between Primisulfuron and Selected Soil-Applied Insecticides in Corn (Zea Mays). Weed
Technol. 6: 807-812.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: TBO,CBL,CBF,CPY,DZ,DS,FNF Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Borchert, D. M. and Walgenbach, J. F. (2000). Comparison of Pheromone-Mediated Mating Disruption and
Conventional Insecticides for Manangement of Tufted Apple Bud Moth (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 769-776.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY.MP.DMT.PSM Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Britson, C. A. and Threlkeld, S. T. (1998). Abundance, Metamorphosis, Developmental, and Behavioral
Abnormalities in Hyla Chrysoscelis Tadpoles Following Exposure to Three Agrichemicals and
Methyl Mercury in Outdoor Mesocosms. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 61: 154-161.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ,MSMA,CPY,Hg Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Bromilow, R. H., De Carvalho, R. F., Evans, A. A., and Nicholls, P. H. (2006). Behavior of Pesticides in
Sediment/Water Systems in Outdoor Mesocosms. J.Environ.Sci.Health Part B 41: 1-16.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,DFC,PMR,MCPP1,PDM,LNR Rejection Code:
FATE/MIXTURE.
Byford, R. L., Lockwood, J. A., Smith, S. M., Harmon, C. W., Johnson, C. C., Luther, D. G., Morris, H. F.,
and Penny, A. J. (1986). Insecticide Residues in Cattle Treated With a Cypermethrin,
Chlorpyrifos, Piperonyl Butoxide-Impregnated Ear Tag. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37: 692-
697.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,PPB Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Garden, P. W. (1987). Supervised Control of Apple Pest in Southern England. Crop Prot. 6: 234-243.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Chapin, J. W. and Thomas, J. S. Soil Insecticide and Fungicide Treatment Effects on Lesser Cornstalk
-------
Borer Injury, White Mold Incidence, and Peanut Yield, 1993. 1994; 19, 247 (No. 97F).
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CP Y. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Clements, R. 0., Lewis, G. C., Jackson, C. A., and Bentley, B. R. (1986). The Relative Importance of a
Range of Factors to the Herbage Yield of Newly-Sown Grass. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 7: 118-119.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: BMY,Captan,DMT,CP Y Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Davis, P. M. and Coleman, S. (1997). Managing Corn Rootworms: (Coleoptera Chrysomelidae) on Dairy
Farms: the Need for a Soil Insecticide. J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 205-217.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,TFT,TBO,ACR,ATZ,PDM,MTL,DMB,CZE Rejection
Code: MIXTURE.
De Vlaming, V., DiGiorgio, C., Fong, S., Deanovic, L. A., Carpio-Obeso, M. S., Miller, J. L., Miller, M.
J., and Richard, N. J. (2004). Irrigation Runoff Insecticide Pollution of Rivers in the Imperial
Valley, California (Usa). Environmental Pollution [Environ. Pollut.]. Vol. 132, no. 2, pp. 213-
229. Nov 2004. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Dow Chemical Co. (1992). Initial Submission: Dursban/Dimethoate Ef 772: Acute Oral Toxicity Study in
the Rat With Cover Letter Dated 041092. EPA/OTS Doc.#88-920001921 17 p.
(NTIS/OTS0539375).
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Feretti, D., Zerbini, I., Zani, C., Ceretti, E., Moretti, M., and Monarca, S. (2007). Allium cepa Chromosome
Aberration and Micronucleus Tests Applied to Study Genotoxicity of Extracts from Pesticide-
Treated Vegetables and Grapes. Food Addit.Contain. 24: 561-572.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: ES,DCNA,ACP,FRM,CTN,DM,Folpet,VCZ,IPD,BFT,
EP,AZ,FVL,DMT,OMT,CYP,MP,FNT,CBL,CPY,MYC,EPRN,GCYH,CMX,HCZ Rejection
Code: IN VITRO/MIXTURE.
George, T. K., Liber, K., Solomon, K. R., and Sibley, P. K. (1999). Assessment Of The Toxicity And
Interaction Of Pesticide Mixtures Using A Combination Approach Of Probabilistic Risk
Assessment And Toxic Equivalents. Proceedings Of The 26th Annual Aquatic Toxicity Workshop.,
Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, October 04-06, 1999.ycanadian Technical Report Of Fisheries And
Aquatic Sciences 0:82-83. Rejection Code: MIXTURE/METHOD
Gomes, J., Dawodu, A. H., Lloyd, 0., Revitt, D. M., and Anilal, S. V. (1999). Hepatic Injury and Disturbed
Amino Acid Metabolism in Mice Following Prolonged Exposure to Organophosphorus Pesticides.
Hum.Exp.Toxicol. 18: 33-37.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY,PIRM,DDVP,PFF Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Gruber, S. J. and Munn, M. D. (1998). Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides in Agricultural Waters
and Cholinesterase (Che) Inhibition in Common Carp (Cyprinus Carpio).
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 35: 391-396.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY,AZ,DS,CBL,MLN,EP Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Haffner, Karin, Buenemann, G., and Schenker, D. (Effects of insecticides on fruit quality of apples.
Gartenbauwissenschaft (1985) 50: 177-83 CODEN: GTBWAY; ISSN: 0016-478X.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Hogmire, H. W. and Winfield, T. (1997). Igr Evaluation Experiment 1, 1996. ArthropodManag.Tests 22:
6-7 (7A). Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,AZ,IMC,TUZ Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Ito, N., Hagiwara, A., Tamano, S., Hasegawa, R., Imaida, K., Hirose, M., and Shirai, T. (1995). Lack of
Carcinogenicity of Pesticide Mixtures Administered in the Diet at Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI)
-------
Dose Levels in Rats. Toxicol.Lett. 82/83: 513-520.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Ito, Nobuyuki, Imaida, Katsumi, Hirose, Masao, and Shirai, Tomoyuki (Medium-term bioassays for
carcinogenicity of chemical mixtures. Environ. Health Perspect. Suppl. (1998) 106: 1331-1334
CODEN: EHPSEO; ISSN: 1078-0475.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Jackson, R. E., Bradley, Jr JR, Van Duyn, J. W., and Gould, F. (2004). Comparative Production of
Helicoverpa Zea (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) From Transgenic Cotton Expressing Either One or Two
Bacillus Thuringiensis Proteins With and Without Insecticide Oversprays. J.Econ.Entomol. 97:
1719-1725.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Johnson, A. W., Csinos, A. S., Golden, A. M., and Glaze, N. C. (1992). Chemigation for Control of Black
Shank-Root-Knot Complex and Weeds in Tobacco. J.Nematol. 24: 648-655.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: PDM,IPN,PEB,CPY,MLX,FMP Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Karanth, S., Olivier, K. Jr., Liu, J., and Pope, C. (2001). In Vivo Interaction Between Chlorpyrifos and
Parathion in Adult Rats: Sequence of Administration Can Markedly Influence Toxic Outcome.
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. Ill: 247-255.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,PRN Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Kvien, C. K., Culbreath, A. K., Wilcut, J. W., Brown, S. L., and Bell, D. K. (1993). Peanut Production in
Systems Restricting Use of Pesticides Based on Carcinogenicity or Leachability. Peanut Sci. 20:
118-124 . Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern:
MLN,BMY,Captan,MZB,CTN,MLX,24DB,AND,CPY,MOM Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Lambert, M. R. K. (Environmental effects of heavy spillage from a destroyed pesticide store near Hargeisa
(Somaliland) assessed during the dry season, using reptiles and amphibians as bioindicators.
Arch. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. (1997) 32: 80-93
CODEN: AECTCV; ISSN: 0090-4341. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Latuszynska, J., Luty, S., Raszewski, G., Tokarska-Rodak, M., Przebirowska, D., Przylepa, E., and
Haratym-Maj, A. (2001). Neurotoxic Effect of Dermally-Applied Chlorpyrifos and Cypermethrin
in Wistar Rats. Ann.Agric.Environ.Med. 8: 163-170.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Leoni, V., Cremisini, C., Giovinazzo, R., Puccetti, G., and Vitali, M. (1992). Activated Sludge
Biodegradation Test As A Screening Method To Evaluate Persistence Of Pesticides In Soil.
Fourth International Workshop On Chemical, Biological And Ecotoxicological Behaviour Of
Pesticides In The Soil Environment, Rome, Italy, May 29-31, 1991. Sci Total Environ 123-124:
279-289. Rejection Code: MIXTURE. - Note: not tox. but fate. Only abs avail, in online lib.
Lewis, G. C. and Clements, R. 0. (1985). Effect of Fungicide Seed Treatment and Post-Emergence
Insecticide Sprays on the Establishment of Italian and Perennial Ryegrass. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv.
6: 66-67.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: OMT,BMY,Captan,CP Y Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Lodovici, M.; Aiolli, S.; Monserrat, C.; Dolara, P.; Medica, A., and Di Simplicio, P. Effect of a mixture of
15 commonly used pesticides on DNA levels of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine and xenobiotic-
metabolizing enzymes in rat liver. Toxicol. Oncol. (1994): 13(3), 163-8
CODEN: JEPOEC; ISSN: 0731-8898. Notes: Chemical of Concern: CPY. Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
-------
Lodovici, Maura; Casalini, Chiara; Briani, Carla, and Dolara, Piero. Oxidative liver DNA damage in rats
treated with pesticide mixtures. 117, (1): 55-60 CODEN: TXCYAC; ISSN: 0300-483X.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CP Y. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Lytle, J. S. and Lytle, T. F. (2002). Uptake and Loss of Chlorpyrifos and Atrazine by Juncus Effusus L. In a
Mesocosm Study With a Mixture of Pesticides. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 1817-1825.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: ATZ.CYP.MSMA.Hg.CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE
Maul, J. D. andFarris, J. L. (2005). Monitoring Exposure of Northern Cardinals, Cardinalis Cardinalis, to
Cholinesterase-Inhibiting Pesticides: Enzyme Activity, Reactivations, and Indicators of
Environmental Stress. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 24 : 1721-1730.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: MLN,DCTP,ACP,ADC,CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Moawad, G., Khidr, A. A., Zaki, M., Critchley, B. R., McVeigh, L. J., and Campion, D. G. (1991). Large-
Scale Use of Hollow Fibre and Microencapsulated Pink Bollworm Pheromone Formulations
Integrated With Conventional Insecticides for the Control of the Cotton Pest Complex in Egypt.
Trop.PestManag. 37: 10-16.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: TDC,CPY,FNV,CYF Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Moore, D., Ridout, M. S., and Clements, R. 0. (1988). Mortality of Oscinella Spp. Due to Parasitism in
Insecticide Treated and Untreated Ryegrass Reseeds. J.Appl.Entomol. 105: 154-159.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: GYP,CPY,DMT Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Moore, M. T., Denton, D. L., Cooper, C. M., Wrysinski, J., Miller, J. L., Reece, K., Crane, D., and Robins,
P. (Mitigation Assessment of Vegetated Drainage Ditches for Collecting Irrigation Runoff in
California. J environ qual. 2008 mar-apr; 37(2):486-93. [Journal of environmental quality]: J
Environ Qual.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Morrison, J. E. Jr., Williams, D. F., Oi, D. H., and Potter, K. N. (1997). Damage to dry Crop Seed by Red
Imported Fire Ant (Hymenoptera: Formicidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 90:218-222.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: Captan.CPYM.THM Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Ncibi, S., Ben Othman, M., Akacha, A., Krifi, M. N., and Zourgui, L. (2008). Opuntia Ficus indica Extract
Protects Against Chlorpyrifos-Induced Damage on Mice Liver. Food Chem.Toxicol. 46: 797-802.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY Rejection Code: CAS #
UNAVAILABLE/MIXTURE.
Neicheva, A., Karageorgiev, D., and Konstantinova, T. (1992). Gas Chromatographic Determination of
Some Modern Pesticides in Fruits. In: 4th Int. Workshop on Chemical, Biological and
Ecotoxicological Behaviour of Pesticides in the Soil Environment, May 29-31, 1991, Rome, Italy,
Sci.TotalEnviron. 123/124: 29-37.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern:
DM,IPD,PIRM,VCZ,DMT,DZ,PHSL,FNT,CPY,CYH,TFZ,FRM Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Pasquini, Rossana; Scassellati-Sforzolini, Giuseppina; Dolara, Piero; Pampanella, Lucia; Villarini, Milena;
Caderni, Giovanna; Fazi, Marilena, and Fatigoni, Cristina. Assay of linuron and a pesticide
mixture commonly found in the Italian diet, for promoting activity in rat liver carcinogenesis. 75,
(3.4); 170-6 CODEN: PHTOEH; ISSN: 0901-9928.
Notes: Chemical of Concern: CPY. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Peshney, N. L. (1990). Compatibility of Fungicides With Some Insecticides With Reference to
Fungitoxicity andPhytotoxicity. PKV (Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth) Res.J. 14: 35-37.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,PMR,PPHD,MLN,ES,HCCH,TBA,MZB,
ZIRAM,THM,TPM,ACP Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
-------
Pettigrove, V., Korth, W., Thomas, M., and Bowmer, K. H. (1996). The Impact of Pesticides Used in Rice
Agriculture on Larval Chironomid Morphology. CSIRO (Commonwealth Sci.Ind.Res.Org.)
Inf.Serv.Branch, Victoria, Australia 81-88.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,MLT Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Saleh, M. S. (1988). Use of Plastic Formulations of Chlorpyrifos and Sumithion as Mosquito Larvicides
and Their Delayed Effects on the Basal Follicle Numbers Developed by Female Survivors.
Anz.Schaedlingskd.Pflanzenschutz Umweltschutz6l: 14-17.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Schreck, E., Geret, F., Gontier, L., and Treilhou, M. (2008). Neurotoxic Effect and Metabolic Responses
Induced by a Mixture of Six Pesticides on the Earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa nocturna.
Chemosphere 11: 1832-1839. Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern:
FSTAL,CYH,CPY,MLX,Folpet,MYC Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Schulz, R. (2003). Using a Freshwater Amphipod in Situ Bioassay as a Sensitive Tool to Detect Pesticide
Effects in the Field. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 22: 1172-1176.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: AZ,ES,CP Y Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Schulz, R. and Liess, M. (1997). Runoff-Related Short-Term Pesticide Input Into Agricultural Streams:
Measurement by Use of an in Situ Bioassay With Aquatic Macroinvertebrates. Verh.Ges.Oekol.
27: 399-404 . Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNV Rejection Code: MIXTURE .
Serrano, R., Lopez, F. J., Hernandez, F., and Pena, J. B. (1997). Bioconcentration of Chlorpyrifos,
Chlorfenvinphos, and Methidathion in Mytilus Galloprovincialis. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.
59: 968-975 .
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CP Y,MDT Rejection Code: MIXTURE .
Sibley, P. K., Chappel, M. J., George, T. K., Solomon, K. R., and Liber, K. (2000). Integrating Effects of
Stressors Across Levels of Biological Organization: Examples Using Organophosphorus
Insecticide Mixtures in Field-Level Exposures. J.Aquat.Ecosyst.Stress Recovery 7: 117-130.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: AZ,CP Y,DZ Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Simwat, G. S. and Dhawan, A. K. (1993). Phytotoxic Effect Of Spraying Mixtures Of Systemic And
Contact Insecticides On Upland Cotton (Gossypium Hirsutum). Indian JAgric Sci 63: 390-392.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Smith, Milton R., Thomas, Nancy J., and Hulse, Craig ( Application of brain cholinesterase reactivation to
differentiate between organophosphorus and carbamate pesticide exposure in wild birds. J. Wildl.
Dis. (1995) 31: 263-7 CODEN: JWIDAW; ISSN: 0090-3558.
Rejection Code: MIXTURE
Somasundaram, L., Racke, K. D., and Coats, J. R. (Effect of manuring on the persistence and degradation
of soil insecticides. Bull. Environ. Contain. Toxicol. (1987) 39: 579-86 CODEN: BECTA6; ISSN:
0007-4861. Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Spaull, A. M., Clements, R. 0., Ridout, M. S., and Mewton, P. G. (1986). Ryegrass Establishment and
Yield in Relation to Pesticide Treatment, Irrigation and Fertilizer Level. Ann.Appl.Biol. 109: 353-
363.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: PCZ,CPY,MCB,OML Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Staton, J. L., Schizas, N. V., Klosterhaus, S. L., Griffitt, R. J., Chandler, G. T., and Coull, B. C. (2002).
Effect of Salinity Variation and Pesticide Exposure on an Estuarine Harpacticoid Copepod,
Microarthridion Littorale (Poppe), in the Southeastern Us. J.Exp.Mar.Biol.Ecol. 278: 101-110.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CP Y,DDT Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
-------
Stevens, P. J. G., Walker, J. T. S., Shaw, P. W., and Suckling, D. M. (1994). Organosilicone Surfactants:
Tools for Horticultural Crop Protection. In: Brighton Crop Prot.Conf.- Pests and Disease, Conf.,
Nov.21-24, 1994, Brighton, England 1-3: 755-760.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: TDF,Captan,CP Y,AZ,DOD,CBL,FUZ Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Suckling, D. M. and Shaw, P. W. (1992). Conditions That Favor Mating Disruption of Epiphyas
Postvittana (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). Environ.Entomol. 21: 949-956.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: AZ,CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Tarrant, K. A., Field, S. A., Langton, S. D., and Hart, A. D. M. (1997). Effects on Earthworm Populations
of Reducing Pesticide Use in Arable Crop Rotations. Soil Biol.Biochem. 29: 657-661.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: PIM,OMT,CPY,ADC,FUZ,CBD Rejection Code:
MIXTURE/NO CONC.
Torres-Vila, L. M., Rodriguez-Molina, M. C., and Lacasa-Plasencia, A. (2003). Testing Ipm Protocols for
Helicoverpa Armigera in Processing Tomato: Egg-Count- Vs. Fruit-Count-Based Damage
Thresholds Using Bt or Chemical Insecticides. Crop Prot. 22: 1045-1052.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: MOM,ES,CP Y,BFT Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Van den Brink, P. J., Hartgers, E. M., Gylstra, R., Bransen, F., and Brock, T. C. M. (2002). Effects of a
Mixture of Two Insecticides in Freshwater Microcosms: II. Responses of Plankton and Ecological
Risk Assessment. Ecotoxicology 11: 181-197.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY,HCCH Rejection Code: MIXTURE
Wang, Z. and Zhang, Y. (1987). Effect of Soil Pollution on Soil Animal Community Structure.
Nat.Sci. J.Hunan Norm. Univ. 10: 90-96.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: CPY Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Werner, L, Deanovic, L. A., Connor, V., De Vlaming, V., Bailey, H. C., and Hinton, D. E. (2000).
Insecticide-Caused Toxicity to Ceriodaphnia Dubia (Cladocera) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin
River Delta, California, Usa. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 19:215-227.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY,CBF Rejection Code: MIXTURE.
Wicks, T. J. and Granger, A. R. (1989). Effects of Low Rates of Pesticides on the Control of Pests and
Diseases of Apples. Aust.J.ExpAgric. 29: 439-444.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,Ziram,FRM,DOD,AZ,MZB Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Yeary, R. A. (1984). Oral Intubation of Dogs With Combinations of Fertilizer, Herbicide, and Insecticide
Chemicals Commonly Used on Lawns. Am.J.Vet.Res. 45: 288-290.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DMB,24DXY,CPY,MCPP1,BS Rejection Code:
MIXTURE.
Zhang, Z. Y., Liu, X. J., Yu, X. Y., Zhang, C. Z., and Hong, X. Y. (2007). Pesticide Residues in the Spring
Cabbage (Brassica Oleracea L. Var. Capitata) Grown in Open Field. Food Control 18: 723-730.
Chem Codes: Chemical of Concern: DM,CTN,DMT,CPY,CYH,CYP,FNV Rejection Code:
MIXTURE
-------
Appendix B: Directions EPA used to calculate downstream dilution and spray drift.
Downstream Dilution
Spraydrift
Use Endangered Species LOG
Use Endangered Species LOG
Calculate the highest RQ/LOC ratio based
on aquatic species endpoints (acute or
chronic)- based on use with the maximum
application rate and the maximum number
of applications. Acute LOG for
endangered animal species is 0.05; chronic
is 1. Acute LOG for aquatic plants is 1.
Calculate the highest RQ/LOC ratio based
on aquatic species AND terrestrial
endpoints (acute or chronic) - based on use
with the maximum application rate and
ONE application. For terrestrial
endangered species: acute LOG for birds is
0.1; for mammals is 0.1; for invertebrates is
0.05. Chronic LOC for all terrestrial
animals is 1 and acute terrestrial plant LOC
isl.
Determine RQ/LOC ratio and identify the
land use type that is associated with that
use (conservative approach - apply that
distance to all land use types have LOC
exceedances) and apply to maps.
Use Agdrift (input one application) to
determine maximum distance from initial
area of concern to the point where LOC are
no longer exceeded for that endpoint
(conservative approach - apply that
distance to all land use types that have
LOC exceedances)
Final product - longest distance
downstream from edge of initial area of
concern where LOCs are no longer
exceeded
Final product - longest spray drift distance
from edge of initial area of concern where
LOCs are no longer exceeded
Note: The guidance for spraydrift primarily applies to far field off-site transport in which
it is reasonable to assume that a species would receive only one application exposure. It is
recognized that close to the field a species could receive exposure from multiple
applications. More information will follow regarding near field exposure.
-------
EXAMPLE. Terrestrial Buffer and Downstream Dilution Analysis
Taxa
Fish
Aquatic plant-
nonvascular
(use EC25 not
NOAEC)
Aquatic plant
vascular
Aquatic
invertebrates
Birds -
dietary based
(no dose
based risk)
Terrestrial
Invertebrates
Mammals
Terr Plants
Use
Ornamentals
Ornamentals
EEC
Acute
45.1 |ig/L
Chronic
20|ig/L
45.1 |ig/L
Highest
RQ
75.2
201
0.3
ES LOC/
Chronic
LOC
0.05
1.0
1.0
Ratio RQ/
LOC
1504
201
NA
No LOG exceedances
Ornamentals
Avocado
Avocado
Avocado
Avocado
Acute
45.1 |ig/L
Chronic
25|ig/L
Acute/
Chronic -1076
ppm
(small insect)
1076 ppm
(small insect)
Acute/Chronic
1823 mg/kg
bw
0.05 Ib a.i./A
752
503
0.32
12.7
9.2
0.31
207
1.3
0.05
1.0
0.1
1.0
0.05
0.1
1.0
1.0
15040 -use
this for
downstream
dilution
503
3.2
12.7
184
3.1
207 - use
this for
spray drift
1.3
-------
Subset of Agdrift Directions - Calculate the "fraction of applied"
2) Calculate the distance from the field of application needed to be below an acute LOG:
- Under 'Calculations', enter "Initial Average Deposition" (Ib/ac). To calculate the
'Initial Average Deposition', use the following:
- (Fraction of applied) x (Application rate)
- The 'fraction of applied' =
First, calculate RQs based on one application. Determine the highest RQ/LOC
ratio for both aquatic and terrestrial species evaluating both the acute and chronic
endpoints.
For Agdrift, calculate LOC/RQ
Example:
for carbofuran use on corn (ground application), the acute LOG for listed
mammals is 0.1; the dose-based acute RQ calculated from T-REX,
broadleaf food category, is 8.19 (for the corn application rate); therefore
the 'fraction of applied' = 0.1/8.19 = 0.012
The 'Initial Average Deposition' is:
(Fraction of applied) x (Application rate for corn in Ib a.i./acre) =
0.012 x 1 = 0.012 Ib a.i./ac
- Once the 'Initial Average Deposition' is entered click the "calc" box and the "Distance
to... Area Average From Edge of Application Area" will be shown in ft. This is how far
off the field needed to be below the LOG.
-------
Appendix C: KABAM Results - September 3, 2009. The program was run in
default mode with Log Kow = 4.7; Koc = 6070 L/mg-OC; and surface water and
pore water EECs of 5.36 and 3.31 ppb, respectively.
Table 1. Chemical characteristics of Chlorpyrifos.
Characteristic
Value
Comments/Guidance
Pesticide Name
Chlorpyrifos
Required input
Log K
ow
4.7
Required input
Enter value from acceptable or supplemental study submitted
by registrant or available in scientific literature.
K,
ow
50119
No input necessary. This value is calculated automatically
from the Log K0w value entered above.
KOC
OC)
(L/kg
6070
Required input
Input value used in PRZM/EXAMS to derive EECs. Follow
input parameter guidance for deriving this parameter value
(USEPA 2002).
Time to steady
state (Ts; days)
16
No input necessary. This value is calculated automatically
from the Log K0w value entered above.
Pore water EEC
(M9/L)
3.31
Required input
Enter value generated by PRZM/EXAMS benthic file.
PRZM/EXAMS EEC represents the freely dissolved
concentration of the pesticide in the pore water of the
sediment. The appropriate averaging period of the EEC is
dependent on the specific pesticide being modeled and is
based on the time it takes for the chemical to reach steady
state. Select the EEC generated by PRZM/EXAMS which has
an averaging period closest to the time to steady state
calculated above. In cases where the time to steady state
exceeds 365 days, the user should select the EEC
representing the average of yearly averages. The peak EEC
should not be used.
Water Column
EEC (ug/L)
5.36
Required input
Enter value generated by PRZM/EXAMS water column file.
PRZM/EXAMS EEC represents the freely dissolved
concentration of the pesticide in the water column. The
appropriate averaging period of the EEC is dependent on the
specific pesticide being modeled and is based on the time it
takes for the chemical to reach steady state. The averaging
period used for the water column EEC should be the same as
the one selected for the pore water EEC (discussed above).
-------
Table 2. Input parameters for rate constants, "calculated" indicates that model will calculate
rate constant.
Trophic level
phytoplankton
zooplankton
benthic
invertebrates
filter feeders
small fish
medium fish
large fish
ki
(L/kg*d)
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
*2i
(d-1)
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
kD
(kg-food/kg-
org/d)
0*
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
kEi
(d-1)
0*
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
calculated
k<
(d-1)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
* Default value is 0.
k., and k2 represent the uptake and elimination constants respectively, through respiration.
kD and kE represent the uptake and elimination constants, respectively, through diet.
kM represents the metabolism rate constant.
Table 3. Mammalian and avian toxicity data for Chlorpyrifos. These are required inputs.
Animal
Avian
Mammalian
Measure of
effect (units)
LD50 (mg/kg-bw)
LC50 (mg/kg-
diet)
NOAEC (mg/kg-
diet)
Mineau Scaling
Factor
LD50 (mg/kg-bw)
LC50 (mg/kg-
diet)
Chronic
Endpoint
units of chronic
endpoint*
Value
112
423
136
1.15
118
N/A
20
ppm
Species
mallard duck
Northern bobwhite quail
mallard duck
Default value for all species is
1 . 1 5 (for chemical specific
values, see Mineau et al.
1996).
laboratory rat
other
laboratory rat
If selected
species is
"other,"
enter body
weight (in
kg) here.
-------
Table 4. Abiotic characteristics of the model aquatic ecosystem.
Characteristic
Concentration of Particulate
Organic Carbon
(XPOC; kg OC/ L)
Concentration of Dissolved
Organic Carbon
(XDOC; kg OC/L)
Concentration of Dissolved
Oxygen (Cox; mg O2/L)
Water Temperature (T; °C)
Concentration of Suspended
Solids (Css; kg/L)
Sediment Organic Carbon
(OC; %)
Value
O.OOE+00
O.OOE+00
5.0
15
3.00E-05
4.0%
Guidance*
When using EECs generated by
PRZM/EXAMS, use a value of "0" for both
POC and DOC.
Default value is 5.0 mg O2/L when using
EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS.
Value is defined by the average water
temperature of the EXAMS pond when
using EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS.
Model user should consult output file of
EXAMS to define this value.
Default value is 3. 00x1 0"5 kg/L when using
EECs generated by PRZM/EXAMS.
Default value is 4.0% when using EECs
generated by PRZM/EXAMS.
*When using pesticide concentrations from monitoring data or mesocosm studies, consult Appendix B of the
User's Guide for specific guidance on selecting values for these parameters.
Table 5. Characteristics of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.
Trophic Level
sediment*
phytoplankton
zooplankton
benthic invertebrates
filter feeders
small fish
medium fish
large fish
Wet Weight (kg)
N/A
N/A
1.0E-07
1 .OE-04
1.0E-03
1.0E-02
1.0E-01
1.0E+00
% lipids
0.0%
2.0%
3.0%
3.0%
2.0%
4.0%
4.0%
4.0%
% NLOM
4.0%
8.0%
12.0%
21 .0%
13.0%
23.0%
23.0%
23.0%
% Water
96.0%
90.0%
85.0%
76.0%
85.0%
73.0%
73.0%
73.0%
Do organisms in
>pire some pore water?
N/A
no
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
* N/A = not applicable Note that sediment is not a trophic level. It is included in this table because it is
consumed by aquatic organisms of the KABAM foodweb.
-------
Table 6. Diets of aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.
Benthic
Invertebrates
Trophic level in diet
Zoo plankton
Filter Feeder
Medium Fish
phytoplankton
benthic invertebrates
fi ter feeders
Note that sediment is not a trophic level. It is included in this table because it is consumed by aquatic organisms of the KABAM foodweb.
-------
Table 7. Identification of mammals and birds feeding on aquatic
biota of the model ecosystem.
Mammal/Bird #
Mammal 1
Mammal 2
Mammal 3
Mammal 4
Mammal 5
Mammal 6
Bird 1
Bird 2
BirdS
Bird 4
BirdS
Bird 6
Name
fog/water shrew
rice rat/star-nosed mole
small mink
large mink
small river otter
large river otter
sandpipers
cranes
rails
herons
small osprey
white pelican
Body weight (kg)
0.018
0.085
0.45
1.8
5
15
0.02
6.7
0.07
2.9
1.25
7.5
Table 8. Diets of mammals feeding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.
Trophic level in
diet
phytoplankton
zooplankton
benthic
invertebrates
filter feeders
small fish
medium fish
large fish
Total
Diet for:
fog/water
shrew
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
rice
rat/star-
nosed mole
0.0%
0.0%
34.0%
33.0%
33.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
small
mink
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
large
mink
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
small
river otter
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
large river
otter
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Table 9. Diets of birds feeding on aquatic biota of the model ecosystem.
Trophic level in
diet
phytoplankton
zooplankton
benthic
invertebrates
filter feeders
small fish
medium fish
large fish
Total
Diet for:
sandpipers
0.0%
0.0%
33.0%
33.0%
34.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
cranes
0.0%
0.0%
33.0%
33.0%
0.0%
34.0%
0.0%
100.0%
rails
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
herons
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
0.0%
50.0%
0.0%
100.0%
small
osprey
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
0.0%
100.0%
white
pelican
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
100.0%
100.0%
-------
Table 10. Input parameters and calculations relevant to derivation of CB.
Parameter
Phyto
plankton
Zoo
plankton
Benthic
Invertebrates
Filter
Feeders
Small Fish
Medium
Fish
Large Fish
Equation A1
CB
CBD
CBR
Cs
CWDP
CWTO
ki
k2
kD
kE
ke
kivi
m0
mp
I (Pi * CDi)
0
0.012393
0.000000
0.01239312
0.00931644
0.00014996
0.00916649
0.010153
0.000389
0.00976385
0.006672
0.000251
0.00642116
0.014033
0.001625
0.01240764
0.015337
0.003145
0.01219249
0.01828
0.006164
0.01212096
0.000804
0.00000331
0.00000536
5891.383
2.448012
0.000000
0.000000
0.100000
0
1
0
0
42585.416
24.832445
0.301304
0.056334
0.012559
0
1
0
0.012393117
3795.429
2.026721
0.106907
0.013834
0.003155
0
0.95
0.05
0.007437402
1695.356
1 .376922
0.046773
0.009205
0.001991
0
0.95
0.05
0.0074374
757.288
0.314366
0.053580
0.005264
0.001256
0
0.95
0.05
0.00973467
338.268
0.140422
0.037932
0.004649
0.000792
0
0.95
0.05
0.012093
151.099
0.062724
0.026854
0.003593
0.000500
0
1
0
0.01533728
1.00000000
Equation A2
XPOC
XDOC
KOW
0
0.0000000
0.0000000
50119
1.00000000
Equation A4
Cs
Csoc
CWDP
KOC
OC
0.0008
0.0201
0.00000
6070
4%
Equation AS
Cox
EW
Gv
ki
KOW
WB
N/A
N/A
N/A
5891.383138
5
0.539638424
0.007891472
42585.41622
0.703328201
3795.429216
3.14165167
1695.35596
14.0332425
757.287688
62.6841919
338.267985
280
151.098759
50119
N/A
0.0000001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Equation A6
ki
5891.383138
42585.41622
3795.429216
1695.35596
757.287688
338.267985
151.098759
-------
k2
KBW
KOW
VLB
VNB
VWB
P
2.448012245
2406.598721
24.83244474
1714.910339
2.026721169
1872.694318
1 .37692245
1231.26466
0.31436622
2408.93466
0.14042223
2408.93466
0.06272431
2408.93466
50119
0.02
0.08
0.9
0.35
0.03
0.12
0.85
0.03
0.21
0.76
0.02
0.13
0.85
0.04
0.23
0.73
0.04
0.23
0.73
0.04
0.23
0.73
0.035
Equation A7
ke
T
WB
0.1
0.012559432
0.003154787
0.00199054
0.00125594
0.00079245
0.0005
15
N/A
0.0000001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Equation A8
Cox
Css
ED
GD
Gv
kD
KOW
T
WB
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
3.00E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.496269144
6.07E-08
N/A
3.01 E-01
2.15E-05
N/A
1.07E-01
9.42E-05
3.14
4.68E-02
1.08E-03
N/A
5.36E-02
7.64E-03
N/A
3.79E-02
5.41 E-02
N/A
2.69E-02
50119
N/A
N/A
15
0.0000001
0.0001
0.001
0.01
0.1
1
Equation A9
Cox
Css
ED
GD
GF
Gv
kE
KGB
KOW
T
VLB
VLD
VLG
VNB
VND
VNG
VWB
VWD
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
5
3.00E-05
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.4963
0.0000
0.000000
N/A
0.0563
0.2660
0.0000
0.000015
N/A
0.0138
0.1843
0.0000942
0.000066
3.1417
0.0092
0.2804
0.0011
0.000726
N/A
0.0053
0.1462
0.0076
0.004965
N/A
0.0046
0.1887
0.0541
0.034777
N/A
0.0036
0.2082
50119
15
0.03
0.02
0.007966
0.12
0.08
0.03186
0.85
0.9
0.03
0.01650
0.005876
0.21
0.0796
0.02835
0.76
0.9039
0.02
0.0165
0.005876
0.13
0.0796
0.02835
0.85
0.9039
0.04
0.03
0.003571
0.23
0.165
0.09819
0.73
0.805
0.04
0.035
0.004311
0.23
0.22
0.13548
0.73
0.745
0.04
0.04
0.004979
0.23
0.23
0.14315
0.73
0.73
-------
VWG
WB
P
£L
£N
£w
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.9602
0.0000001
0.035
0.72
0.72
0.25
0.9658
0.0001
0.035
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.9658
0.001
0.035
0.75
0.75
0.25
0.8982
0.01
0.035
0.92
0.6
0.25
0.8602
0.1
0.035
0.92
0.6
0.25
0.8519
1
0.035
0.92
0.6
0.25
Calculation of BCF values
CBCF
0.012899369
0.009191919
0.00984569
0.00647337
0.01266497
0.01266497
0.01291189
Table 11. Estimated concentrations of Chlorpyrifos in ecosystem components.
Ecosystem Component
Water (total)*
Water (freely dissolved)*
Sediment (pore water)*
Sediment (in solid)**
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Benthic Invertebrates
Filter Feeders
Small Fish
Medium Fish
Large Fish
Total
concentration
(ug/kg-ww)
5
5
3
804
12,393
9,316
10,153
6,672
14,033
15,337
18,285
Lipid
normalized
concentration
(ug/kg-lipid)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
619656
310548
338430
333588
350827
383432
457125
Contribution
due to diet
(ug/kg-ww)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
149.96
389.05
250.61
1,625.46
3,144.79
6,164.03
Contribution
due to
respiration
(ug/kg-ww)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
12,393.12
9,166.49
9,763.85
6,421.16
12,407.64
12,192.49
12,120.96
* Units: |jg/L; **Units: |jg/kg-dw
Table 12. Total BCFand BAF values of Chlorpyrifos in aquatic
trophic levels.
Trophic Level
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Benthic Invertebrates
Filter Feeders
Small Fish
Medium Fish
Large Fish
Total BCF
(ng/kg-
ww)/(ug/i_)
2407
1715
1837
1208
2363
2363
2409
Total BAF
(ng/kg-
ww)/(ug/i_)
2312
1738
1894
1245
2618
2861
3411
-------
Table 13. Lipid-normalized BCF, BAF, BMP and BSAF values of Chlorpyrifos in aquatic
trophic levels.
Trophic Level
Phytoplankton
Zooplankton
Benthic Invertebrates
Filter Feeders
Small Fish
Medium Fish
Large Fish
BCF
(ng/kg-
lipid)/(ug/l_)
120330
57164
61229
60386
59072
59072
60223
BAF
(ng/kg-
lipid)/(ug/l_)
115607
57938
63140
62237
65453
71536
85284
BMP
(ng/kg-
lipid)/(ug/kg-
lipid)
N/A
0.50
1.10
1.09
1.08
1.11
1.19
BSAF
(ng/kg-
lipid)/(ug/kg-
OC)
31
15
17
17
17
19
23
Table 14. Calculation of EECs for mammals and birds consuming fish contaminated by Chlorpyrifos.
Wildlife Species
Biological Parameters
Body
Weight
(kg)
Dry Food
Ingestion
Rate (kg -dry
food/kg-
bw/day)
Wet Food
Ingestion
Rate (kg -wet
food/kg-
bw/day)
Drinking
Water
Intake
(L/d)
EECs (pesticide intake)
Dose Based
(mg/kg-
bw/d)
Dietary
Based
(ppm)
Mammalian
fog/water shrew
rice rat/star-nosed
mole
small mink
large mink
small river otter
large river otter
0.02
0.1
0.5
1.8
5.0
15.0
0.140
0.107
0.079
0.062
0.052
0.042
0.585
0.484
0.293
0.229
0.191
0.157
0.003
0.011
0.048
0.168
0.421
1.133
5.942
4.977
4.499
3.515
2.931
2.873
10.15
10.28
15.34
15.34
15.34
18.28
Avian
sandpipers
cranes
rails
herons
small osprey
white pelican
0.0
6.7
0.1
2.9
1.3
7.5
0.228
0.030
0.147
0.040
0.054
0.029
1.034
0.136
0.577
0.157
0.199
0.107
0.004
0.211
0.010
0.120
0.069
0.228
10.6739
1 .4634
6.9827
2.0063
3.0586
1.9512
10.32
10.77
12.09
12.75
15.34
18.28
-------
Table 15. Calculation of toxicity values for mammals and birds consuming
fish contaminated by Chlorpyrifos.
Wildlife Species
Toxicity Values
Acute
Dose
Based
(mg/kg-
bw)
Dietary
Based
(mg/kg-diet)
Chronic
Dose Based
(mg/kg-bw)
Dietary
Based
(mg/kg-diet)
Mammalian
fog/water shrew
rice rat/star-nosed
mole
small mink
large mink
small river otter
large river otter
247.79
168.09
110.81
78.36
60.70
46.12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.10
1.42
0.94
0.66
0.51
0.39
20
20
20
20
20
20
Avian
sandpipers
cranes
rails
herons
small osprey
white pelican
58.15
139.10
70.18
122.68
108.13
141.47
423.00
423.00
423.00
423.00
423.00
423.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
136
136
136
136
136
136
-------
Table 16. Calculation of RQ values for mammals and birds consuming fish
contaminated by Chlorpyrifos.
Wildlife Species
Acute
Dose
Based
Dietary
Based
Chronic
Dose Based
Dietary
Based
Mammalian
fog/water shrew
rice rat/star-nosed
mole
small mink
large mink
small river otter
large river otter
0.024
0.030
0.041
0.045
0.048
0.062
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.830
3.494
4.791
5.294
5.698
7.352
0.508
0.514
0.767
0.767
0.767
0.914
Avian
sandpipers
cranes
rails
herons
small osprey
white pelican
0.184
0.011
0.100
0.016
0.028
0.014
0.024
0.025
0.029
0.030
0.036
0.043
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.076
0.079
0.089
0.094
0.113
0.134
-------
Appendix D. T-REX Example Output
Upper Bound Kenaga Residues For RQ Calculation
Chemical Name:
Use
Formulation
Application Rate
Half-life
Application Interval
Maximum # Apps./Year
Length of Simulation
Chlorpyrifos
Cole Crop
Chemisco Fungicide Concentrate (EC)
3
18
10
3
1
Ibs a
i./acre
days
days
year
End point
Avian
Mammals
Dietary-based EECs (ppm)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Common Crackle
Mallard duck)
Mallard duck
Bobwhite quail
LD50 (mg/kg-bw)
LD50 (mg/kg-bw)
LC50 (mg/kg-diet)
NOAEL(mg/kg-bw)
NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)
LC50 (mg/kg-diet)
NOAEL (mg/kg-bw)
NOAEC (mg/kg-diet)
Kenaga
Values
1543.20
707.30
868.05
96.45
5.62
136.00
0.00
25.00
118.00
1330.00
1.00
20.00
Avian Results
Avian
Class
Small
Mid
Large
Granivores
Avian
Body
Weight (g)
20.00
Body
Weight (g)
20.00
100.00
1000.00
20.00
100.00
1000.00
Adjusted
LD50
(mg/kg-bw)
4.37
Ingestion
(Fdry)
(g bw/day)
4.56
12.99
58.15
4.56
12.99
58.15
Ingestion
(Fwet)
(g/day)
22.78
64.94
290.77
5.06
14.43
64.61
% body
wgt
consumed
113.89
64.94
29.08
25.31
14.43
6.46
Fl
(kg-
d let/day)
0.02
0.06
0.29
0.01
0.01
0.06
-------
Dose-based EECs
(mg/kg-bw)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broad leaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
100.00
1000.00
5.62
8.07
Avian Classes and Body Weights (grams)
small
20.00
1757.55
805.54
988.62
109.85
mid
100.00
1002.23
459.36
563.75
62.64
large
1000.00
448.71
205.66
252.40
28.04
Granivores(grams)
20.00
24.41
100.00
13.92
1000.00
6.23
Dose-based RQs (Dose-based EEC/adjusted LD50)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Seeds (granivore)
Dietary-based RQs (Dietary-based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Avian Acute RQs
402.63
184.54
226.48
25.16
5.59
178.33
81.74
100.31
11.15
2.48
RQs
Acute
11.35
5.20
6.38
0.71
Chronic
61.73
28.29
34.72
3.86
Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,
it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based
RQs be calculated when data are available
55.62
25.49
31.29
3.48
0.77
Mammalian Results
Mammalian
Class
Herbivores/
insectivores
Grainvores
Mammalian
Class
Herbivores/
insectivores
Grainvores
Body
Weight
15
35
1000
15
35
1000
Body
Weight
15
35
1000
15
35
Ingestion
(Fdry)
(g bwt/day)
2.86
4.61
30.56
2.86
4.61
30.56
Adjusted
LD50
259.34
209.84
90.76
259.34
209.84
Ingestion
Fwet)
(g/day)
14.3
23.06
152.78
3.18
5.13
33.95
Adjusted
NOAEL
2.2
1.78
0.77
2.2
1.78
% body wgt
consumed
95.34
65.89
15.28
21.19
14.64
3.4
Fl
(kg-
d let/day)
0.01
0.02
0.15
0
0.01
0.03
-------
Dose-Based EECs
(mg/kg-bw)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm Insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
Dose-based RQs (Dose-
based EEC/LD50 or NOAEL)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm insects
Fruits/pods/lg insects
Seeds (granivore)
Dietary-based RQs (Dietary-
based EEC/LC50 or NOAEC)
Short Grass
Tall Grass
Broadleaf plants/sm insects
Fruits/pods/seeds/lg insects
1000
90.76
0.77
Mammalian Classes and Body weight
Herbivores/ insectivores (grams)
15
1471.32
674.36
827.62
91.96
35
1016.88
466.07
572
63.56
Small mammal
15
Acute
5.67
2.6
3.19
0.35
0.08
grams
Chronic
669.44
306.83
376.56
41.84
9.3
Mammal RQs
Acute
1.16
0.53
0.65
0.07
Chronic
77.16
35.36
43.4
4.82
1000
235.77
108.06
132.62
14.74
Granivores(grams)
15
20.44
Medium mammal
35
Acute
4.85
2.22
2.73
0.3
0.07
grams
Chronic
571.83
262.09
321.66
35.74
7.94
Note: To provide risk management with the maximum possible information,
it is recommended that both the dose-based and concentration-based
RQs be calculated when data are available
35
14.12
1000
3.27
Large mammal
1000
Acute
2.6
1.19
1.46
0.16
0.04
grams
Chronic
306.5
140.5
172.4
19.16
4.26
-------
Appendix E. Chlorpyrifos Aquatic Toxicity Data Reviewed
Assessment
Endpoint
Freshwater fish
(can be used as
a surrogate for
aquatic-phase
amphibians)
Acute/
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Species
Bluegill
Sunfish,
Lepomis
macrocims
Guppy,
Poecilla
reticulate
Fathead
minnow,
Pimephales
promelas
Fathead
minnow, P.
promelas
Guppy, P.
reticulate
African
clawed frog,
Xenopus laevis
Yellow-legged
Toxicity
^alue Used in
Risk
Assessment
(ug a.i./L)
96-h LC50 =
1.8
96-h LC50 =
2.9
96-hr LC50 =
203
Life-Cycle
NOAEC =
0.57
14-dLOAEC
= 0.2
No NOAEC
(NOAEC =
<0.2)
96-hLC50 =
0.6
24-hLC50 =
MRID/ ECOTOX
Ref.
40098001 Mayer
&Ellersick, 1986
E72831 DeSilva
&
Samayawardhena,
2002
00155781
Holcombe, Phipps
& Tanner 1982
42834401
Mayese/a/., 1993
E72831 DeSilva
&
Samayawardhena,
2002
E86343 Richards,
2000
E92498 Sparling
& Fellers 2007
Comment
Acceptable; a static
test conducted using
TGAI1
Supplemental; the
study was conducted
using Lorsban; the
study was non-
guideline but
scientifically sound
Acceptable.
Supplemental;
acetone controls
significantly affected
number of spawns &
number of eggs
(flow-thru life cycle
test). LOAEC =
0. 00109 mg a.i./L.
Supplemental; the
study was conducted
using Lorsban; the
study was non-
guideline but
scientifically sound.
Mortality, paralysis
and histological
abnormalities (no
NOAEC)
Supplemental; not
native species; not
from peer-reviewed
literature, so not
useable for RQ.
Supplemental;
concentrations not
confirmed and study
-------
Appendix E. Chlorpyrifos Aquatic Toxicity Data Reviewed
Assessment
Endpoint
Aquatic -Phase
Amphibians
Freshwater
Invertebrates
Acute/
Chronic
Chronic
Acute
Species
frog, Rana
boylii
X. laevis
Blackfly,
Simulium
vittatum
IS-7
Daphnid,
Ceriodaphnia
dubia
Midge,
Chironomus
tentans
Daphnid,
Daphnia
magna
C. dubia
Freshwater
shrimp,
Paratya
Toxicity
^alue Used in
Risk
Assessment
(ug a.i./L)
3.0
LOAEC = 0.
1
No NOAEC
(NOAEC =
<0 1)
W. L J
24-h LC50 =
0.06
96-hLC50 =
0.07
96-h
sediment:
NOAEC = 32
ug/Kg
NOAEC =
180 ug/Kg
96-h LC50 =
0.08
96-hr LC50 =
0.08
MRID/ ECOTOX
Ref.
E7 1867 Richards
& Kendall, 2003
E80409 Hyder et
al, 2005
E108483 Pablo et
al., 2008
E13342Hooftman
etal., 1993
E67777 Foster et
al, 1998
E1846801imae/
al., 1997
Comment
was non-guideline (no
guidelines currently
exist for an
amphibian acute
toxicity test) but
scientifically sound
Supplemental; no
NOAEC, not native
species and study was
non-guideline (no
guidelines currently
exist for an
amphibian chronic
test) but scientifically
sound
Acceptable; the study
was conducted using
TGAI
Acceptable; the study
was conducted using
TGAI
Supplemental
Acceptable; the study
was conducted using
TGAI
Supplemental; non-
native species.
-------
Appendix E. Chlorpyrifos Aquatic Toxicity Data Reviewed
Assessment
Endpoint
Estuarine/
marine fish
Estuarine/
marine
invertebrates
Acute/
Chronic
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Acute
Species
australiensis
Daphnid, C. cf
dubia
Freshwater
shrimp, P.
australiensis
Midge, C.
tentans
Midge, C.
riparius
Daphnia
magna
Tidewater
silverside,
Menidia
peninsulas
M. peninsulas
Atlantic
silverside, M.
menidia
Mysid shrimp,
Americamysis
bahia
Toxicity
^alue Used in
Risk
Assessment
(ug a.i./L)
33-dNOAEC
= 0. 025
NOEC = 0.
04
20-d NOAEC
= 0.02
21-d
sediment:
NOAEC = 32
ug/Kg
NOAEC = 56
ug/Kg
LC50 = 0. 70
LC50 = 0. 96
NOAEC = 0.
28
LC50 = 0.
035 ug/Kg
MRID/ ECOTOX
Ref.
E65825 Rose et
al., 2002
0001 8468 Olimae/
al, 1997
E89548
Rakotondravelo et
al, 2006.
E13342Hooftman
etal., 1993
E11868Borthwick
etal., 1985
40228401 Mayer,
1986
00154718
Goodman et al.,
1985
40228401 Mayer,
1986
42664901
Comment
Supplemental
Supplemental; non-
native species.
Supplemental; no
NOAEC
Supplemental; *
midge had same acute
and chronic NOAEC,
possibly due to low
dissolved oxygen..
Supplemental;
unknown control
mortality, but
adjusted for mortality.
Supplemental; too
small Tidewater
Silverside (1-day old
larvae).
Supplemental; raw
data unavailable
Atlantic silverside
(28-day, flow-through
with measured
concentrations).
Acceptable; mysid
shrimp (1-day old
juveniles used).
Supplemental; strong
-------
Appendix E. Chlorpyrifos Aquatic Toxicity Data Reviewed
Assessment
Endpoint
Aquatic plants
Aquatic plants
Acute/
Chronic
Chronic
Acute
Chronic
Species
A. bahia
Alga,
Isochrysis
galbana
Toxicity
^alue Used in
Risk
Assessment
(ug a.i./L)
NOAEC < 0.
0046
EC50= 140
MRID/ ECOTOX
Ref.
Svede/a/., 1993
40228401 Mayer,
1986
Comment
solvent effects on
production of young
shrimp (flow-though
test; C14 measured)
Supplemental; not a
recommended test
species
No data available
TGAI = Technical grade active ingredient
-------
Appendix F. List of citations accepted by ECOTOX criteria and Database
The citations in Appendices F and G were considered for inclusion in ECOTOX. Citations include
the ECOTOX Reference number, as well as rejection codes (if relevant). The query was run in
October, 1999 and revised March and June, 2000. References in Section F.I include chlorpyrifos
papers accepted by both ECOTOX and OPP and cited within this risk assessment. Sections F.2
through F.4. include the full list of chlorpyrifos papers from the 2007, 2008 and 2009 ECOTOX runs
that were accepted by ECOTOX and OPP whether or not cited within the risk assessment and the full
list of papers accepted by ECOTOX but not by OPP.
ECOTOX Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes:
Papers must meet minimum criteria for inclusion in the ECOTOX database as established in the
Interim Guidance of the Evaluation Criteria for Ecological Toxicity Data in the Open Literature,
Phase Iand II, Office of Pesticide Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 16, 2004.
Each study must contain all of the following:
toxic effects from a single chemical exposure;
toxic effects on an aquatic or terrestrial plant or animal species;
biological effects on live, whole organisms;
concurrent environmental chemical concentrations/doses or application rates; and
explicit duration of exposure.
Appendix G includes the list of citations excluded by ECOTOX and the list of exclusion terms and
descriptions. For chlorpyrifos, hundreds of references were not accepted by ECOTOX for one or
more reasons.
OPP Acceptability Criteria and Rejection Codes for ECOTOX Data
Studies located and coded into ECOTOX should also meet OPP criterion for use in a risk assessment
(Section F.I). Studies that do not meet these criteria are designated in Section F.2 as "Accepted for
ECOTOX but not OPP." The intent of the acceptability criteria is to ensure data quality and
verifiability. The criteria parallel criteria used in evaluating registrant-submitted studies. Specific
criteria are listed below, along with the corresponding rejection code. In some cases, a study is
designated
The paper does not report toxicology information for a chemical of concern to OPP;
(Rejection Code: NO COC)
The article is not published in English language; (Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN)
The study is not presented as a full article. Abstracts will not be considered; (Rejection
Code: NO ABSTRACT)
-------
The paper is not publicly available document; (Rejection Code: NO NOT PUBLIC
(typically not used, as any paper acquired from the ECOTOX holding or through the
literature search is considered public)
The paper is not the primary source of the data; (Rejection Code: NO REVIEW)
The paper does not report that treatment(s) were compared to an acceptable control;
(Rejection Code: NO CONTROL)
The paper does not report an explicit duration of exposure; (Rejection Code: NO
DURATION)
The paper does not report a concurrent environmental chemical concentration/dose or
application rate; (Rejection Code: NO CONC)
The paper does not report the location of the study (e.g., laboratory vs. field); (Rejection
Code: NO LOCATION)
The paper does not report a biological effect on live, whole organisms; (Rejection Code:
NO IN-VITRO)
The paper does not report the species that was tested; and this species can be verified in a
reliable source; (Rejection Code: NO SPECIES)
The paper does not report effects associated with exposure to a single chemical. (Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE). It should be noted that all papers including data on pesticide
mixtures are considered.
The paper is not an efficacy only on target organisms (Rejection Code: NO TARGET).
Data were not originated from the OPP Pesticide Ecotoxicity Database (Rejection Code: NO
EFED). These data are already available to the chemical team and reviewed
separately from the open literature review.
F.I: Papers Accepted by ECOTOX and OPP and used in the Risk Assessment
Papers Used for Chlorpyrifos Toxicity Profile:
Borthwick, P. W., Patrick, J. M. Jr., and Middaugh, D. P. (1985). Comparative Acute
Sensitivities of Early Life Stages of Atherinid Fishes to Chlorpyrifos and
Thiobencarb. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 14: 465-473.
EcoReference No.: 11868
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBC; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
De Silva, P. M. C. S. and Samayawardhena, L. A. (2002). Low Concentrations of Lorsban in
Water Result in Far Reaching Behavioral and Histological Effects in Early Life
-------
Stages in Guppy. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 53: 248-254.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72831
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,PHY,CEL;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Foster, S., Thomas, M., and Korth, W. (1998). Laboratory-Derived Acute Toxicity of Selected
Pesticides to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Aust.J.Ecotoxicol. 4: 53-59.
EcoReference No.: 67777
Chemical of Concern: TBC,MLT,MTL,MLN,BSF,BMC,ATZ,DU,SZ,CPY; Habitat:
A; Effect Codes: PHY: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,BMC,MTL,ATZ,SZ,MLN),OK(ALLCHEMS).
Hooftman, R. N., Van de Guchte, K., and Roghair, C. J. (1993). Development of
Ecotoxicological Test Systems to Assess Contaminated Sediments. Project B6/8995,
The Netherlands Integrated Program on Soil Research (PCB) 41.
EcoReference No.: 13342
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,MOR,REP; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Hyder, A. H., Overmyer, J. P., and Noblet, R. (2005). Influence of Developmental Stage on
Susceptibilities and Sensitivities of Simulium vittatum IS-7 and Simulium vittatum
IIIL-1 (Diptera: Simuliidae) to Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 23: 2856-2862.
EcoReference No.: 80409
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Olima, C., Pablo, F., and Lim, R. P. (1997). Comparative Tolerance of Three Populations of the
Freshwater Shrimp (Paratya australiensis) to the Organophosphate Pesticide,
Chlorpyrifos. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 59: 321-328 .
EcoReference No.: 18468
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Pablo, F., Krassoi, F. R., Jones, P. R. F., Colville, A. E., Hose, G. C., and Lim, R. P. (2008).
Comparison of the Fate and Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos - Laboratory Versus a Coastal
Mesocosm System. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 71: 219-229.
EcoReference No.: 108483
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
Rakotondravelo, M. L., Anderson, T. D., Charlton, R. E., and Zhu, K. Y. (2006). Sublethal
-------
Effects of Three Pesticides on Larval Survivorship, Growth, and Macromolecule
Production in the Aquatic Midge, Chironomus tentans (Diptera: Chironomidae).
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 352-359.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89548
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DDT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,GRO,CEL,BCM,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(ATZ,CPY),OK(DDT).
Rose, R. M., Warne, M. St. I, and Lim, R. P. (2002). Food Concentration Affects the Life
History Response of Ceriodaphnia cf dubia to Chemicals with Different Mechanisms
of Action. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 51: 106-114.
EcoReferenceNo.: 65825
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FYC; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP,MOR,POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,FYC).
Sparling, D. W. and Fellers, G. (2007). Comparative Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon,
Malathion and Their Ox on Derivatives to Larval Rana boylii. Environ.Pollut. 147:
535-539.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92498
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,CPY,DZ,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO),OK(DZ,MLN).
Papers Used for Chlorpyrifos Amphibian Toxicity Profile:
Abbasi, S. A. and Soni, R. (1991). Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Four Common
Pesticides on the Basis of Computer-Aided Studies. Indian J.Environ.Health 33: 22-
24.
EcoReferenceNo.: 61878
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,ES,PHSL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY),OK(ES,PHSL).
Bonfanti, P., Colombo, A., Orsi, F., Nizzetto, I, Andrioletti, M., Bacchetta, R., Mantecca, P.,
Fascio, U., Vailati, G., and Vismara, C. (2004). Comparative Teratogenicity of
Chlorpyrifos and Malathion on Xenopus laevis Development. Aquat.Toxicol. 70:
189-200.
EcoReferenceNo.: 76738
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,CEL,MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY).
Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. (2002). Biochemical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two
Developmental Stages of Xenopus laevis. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 21: 1826-1835.
EcoReferenceNo.: 68227
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,GRO,MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. (2003). Physical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two Stages of
Xenopus laevis. J. Toxicol.Environ.Health Part A 66: 75-91.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71867
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,BEH,ACC; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Richards, S. M. (2000). Chlorpyrifos: Exposure and Effects in Passerines and Anurans.
Ph.D.Thesis, Texas Tech. Univ., Lubbock, TX147 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86343
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes:
BEH,CEL,BCM,PHY,MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Sparling, D. W. and Fellers, G. (2007). Comparative Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon,
Malathion and Their Ox on Derivatives to Larval Rana boylii. Environ.Pollut. 147:
535-539.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92498
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,CPY,DZ,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO),OK(DZ,MLN).
Sparling, Donald S. and Fellers, Gary M. 2009, Toxicity of two Insecticides to California, USA,
Anurans and its Relevance to Declining Amphibian Populations. Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1696-1703.
EcoReference No.: Not yet given.
Widder, P. D. and Bidwell, J. R. (2006). Cholinesterase Activity and Behavior in Chlorpyrifos-
Exposed Rana sphenocephala Tadpoles. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 25: 2446-2454.
EcoReferenceNo.: 101289
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM,GRO,PHY;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Widder, P. D. and Bidwell, J. R. (2008). Tadpole Size, Cholinesterase Activity, and Swim Speed
in Four Frog Species after Exposure to Sub-Lethal Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos.
Aquat.Toxicol. 88: 9-18.
EcoReference No.: 101727
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,BCM,BEH; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Mesocosm Studies Used:
-------
Biever, R. C., Giddings, J. M., Kiamos, M., Annunziato, M. F., Meyerhoff, R., and Racke, K.
(1994). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Aquatic Microcosms over a Range of Off-Target
Spray Drift Exposure Levels. In: Proc.Brighton Crop Protection Conf.on Pests and
Diseases, Nov.21-24, 1994, Volume 3, Brighton, UK 1367-1372.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62037
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Van den Brink, P. J., Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Lucassen, W. G. H., Brock, T. C. M., and
Leeuwangh, P. (1996). Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient
Chlorpyrifos) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches: II. Invertebrate Community
Responses and. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 1143-1153.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17218
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Van den Brink, P. J., Crum, S. J. H., Oude Voshaar, J. H., Brock, T.
C. M., and Leeuwangh, P. (1996). Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active
Ingredient Chlorpyrifos) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches: I. Comparison of Short-
Term Toxicity Between. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 1133-1142.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17254
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,POP,PHY; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
Oxon Papers Used:
Ali, A., Chowdhury, M. A., Hossain, M. I, Ameen, M., Habiba, D. B., and Aslam, A. F. M.
(1999). Laboratory Evaluation of Selected Larvicides and Insect Growth Regulators
Against Field-Collected Culex quinquefasciatus Larvae from Urban Dhaka,
Bangladesh. J .Am. Mosq. Control Assoc. 15: 43-47.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62487
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FPN,BFT,FNTH,CPYM,DFZ,CPY,CYP,MLN,PMR;
Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CPY).
Carr, R. L., Straus, D. L., and Chambers, J. E. (1995). Inhibition and Aging of Channel Catfish
Brain Acetylcholinesterase Following Exposure to Two Phosphorothionate
Insecticides and Their Active Metabolites. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health 45: 325-336.
EcoReferenceNo.: 67666
Chemical of Concern: PRN,CPY,CPYO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO).
Markey, K. L., Baird, A. H., Humphrey, C., and Negri, A. P. (2007). Insecticides and a
Fungicide Affect Multiple Coral Life Stages. Mar. Ecol. 330: 127-137.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 100575
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CPYO,PFF,ES,CBL,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
REP,GRO,MOR,PHY,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPYO,PFF,ES,CPY,PMR),OK(CBL).
F.2.: Full List of Papers Accepted by ECOTOX and OPP from the 2007 ECOTOX Run:
1. Abbasi, S. A. and Soni, R. (1991). Evaluation of Water Quality Criteria for Four Common Pesticides on the
Basis of Computer-Aided Studies. Indian J.Environ.Health 33: 22-24.
EcoReferenceNo.: 61878
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,ES,PHSL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
2. Abdel-Rahman, A., Dechkovskaia, A. M, Mehta-Simmons, H., Guan, X., Khan, W. A., and Abou-Donia, M. B.
(2003). Increased Expression of Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein in Cerebellum and Hippocampus:
Differential Effects on Neonatal Brain Regional Acetylcholinesterase Following Maternal Exposure to
Combined Chlorpyrifos and Nicotine. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health Pt.A 66: 2047-2066.
EcoReferenceNo.: 83931
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
3. Abdel-Rahman, A., Dechkovskaia, A. M., Mehta-Simmons, H., Sutton, J. M., Guan, X., Khan, W. A., and
Abou-Donia, M. B. (2004). Maternal Exposure to Nicotine and Chlorpyrifos, Alone and in
Combination, Leads to Persistently Elevated Expression of Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein in the
Cerebellum of the Offspring in Late Puberty. Arch.Toxicol. 78: 467-476.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86687
Chemical of Concern: CPY,NCTN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR,GRO,REP,PHY,CEL;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
4. Abdullah, A. R., Lim, R. P., and Chapman, J. C. (1993). Inhibition and Recovery of Acetylcholinesterase in
Paratya australiensis Exposed to the Organophosphate Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Fresenius
Emiron.Bull. 2: 752-757.
EcoReference No.: 16418
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
5. Aben, W. J. M., Houx, N. W. H., and Leistra, M. (1992). Toxicity of Pentachlorophenol and Chlorpyrifos in
Soil and in Solution to a Nematode and a Plant Species. Rep.No.59, U.S.Dep.of Commerce,
Agric.Res.DeptWinand Staring Ctr.for Integrated Land, Soil and Water Res., Wageningen,
Netherlands 39 p. (NTIS/PB93-221216).
EcoReference No.: 44356
Chemical of Concern: NaPCP,CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
6. Abo-El-Saad, M, Marzouk, M, and Shawir, M (1998). Molecular Interactions Correlated to Field Tolerance of
Spodoptera littoralis to Certain Insecticides. Alexandria Sci.Exchange J. 19: 39-50.
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
7. Abou-Donia, M. B., Wilmarth, K. R., Abdel-Rahman, A. A., Jensen, K. F., Oehme, F. W., and Kurt, T. L.
(1996). Increased Neurotoxicity Following Concurrent Exposure to Pyridostigmine Bromide, DEBT,
and Chlorpyrifos. Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 34:201-222.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90149
Chemical of Concern: DEET,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.CEL.BCM: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
8. Adamczyk, J. J. Jr., Fife, J. H., Leonard, B. R., and Graves, J. B. (1997 ). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides
Against Lepidoptera in Cotton, 1996. ArthropodManag.Tests 22: 236-237 (42F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 92318
Chemical of Concern: TUZ,TDC,CPY,MFZ,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(TDC,CPY,MFZ).
9. Addison, P. J. and Barker, G. M. (2006). Effect of Various Pesticides on the Non-Target Species Microctonus
hyperodae, a Biological Control Agent of Listronotus bonariensis. Entomol.Exp.Appl. 119: 71-79.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86585
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DFZ,GYP,PAQT,ASM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,REP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
10. Agnello, A. M., Spangler, S. M., Reissig, W. H., Lawson, D. S., and Weires, R. W. (1992). Seasonal
Development and Management Strategies for Comstock Mealybug (Homoptera: Pseudococcidae) in
New York Pear Orchards. J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 212-225.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73713
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CPY,CBL,MP,AZ,ES,RSM,EFV,MVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP,MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(RSM,EFV,AZ,CBL,MP,CPY).
11. Ahmad, M, Arif, M. I., and Ahmad, Z. (1999). Patterns of Resistance to Organophosphate Insecticides in Field
Populations of Helicoverpa armigera in Pakistan. Pestic.Sci. 55: 626-632.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
12. Ahmad, M., Hollingworth, R. M., and Wise, J. C. (2002). Broad-Spectrum Insecticide Resistance in
Obliquebanded Leafroller _Choristoneura rosaceana_ (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from Michigan. Pest
Manag.Sci. 58: 834-838.
EcoReference No.: 70966
Chemical of Concern:
IDC,CFP,EMMB,MFZ,TUZ,BFT,ZCYP,AZ,CPY,PSM,CYP,DM,EFV,FNV,ES,TDC,MOM,CBL,SS;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
13. Ahmed, M. T., Ahmed, Y. M., and Moustafa, A. S. (1987). Some Studies on the Development of Resistance to
Diflubenzuron in the Egyptian Cotton Leafworm.
Meded.Fac.Landbouwkd.Toegep.Biol.Wet. Univ.Gent 52: 477-483.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93346
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,DFZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP.BCM: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY,CYP),NO COC(TBF).
14. Ahmed, W. (1976). The Effectiveness of Predators of Rice Field Mosquitoes in Relation to Pesticide Use in
Rice Culture. Ph.D.Thesis, University of California, Davis, CA 55 p.
-------
EcoReference No.: 60691
Chemical of Concern: PRN,CPY,MLT,CuS,MCPA,EDT,DU,MP,CBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,POP,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
15. Ahrens, W. H. (1990). Enhancement of Soybean (Glycine max) Injury and Weed Control by Thifensulfuron-
Insecticide Mixtures. Weed Technol. 4: 524-528.
EcoReference No.: 68422
Chemical of Concern: THF,CPY,CBL,MOM,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
16. Akhtar, M. S. and Saleem, M. (1993). Toxicity of Insecticides Against Coptotermes heimi (Wasmann)
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). PakJ.Zool. 25: 139-142.
EcoReference No.: 40475
Chemical of Concern: DLD,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR. Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
17. Al-Mihanna, A. A., Salama, A. K., and Abdalla, M. Y. (1998). Biodegradation of Chlorpyrifos by Either Single
or Combined Cultures of Some Soilborne Plant Pathogenic Fungi. J.Environ.Sci.Health Part B 33:
693-704.
EcoReference No.: 63447
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
18. Aldridge, J. E., Meyer, A., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2005). Developmental Exposure to Terbutaline and
Chlorpyrifos: Pharmacotherapy of Preterm Labor and an Environmental Neurotoxicant Converge on
Serotonergic Systems in Neonatal Rat Brain Regions. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 203: 132-144.
EcoReference No.: 81273
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
19. Ali, A. (1981). Laboratory Evaluation of Organophosphate and New Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides Against
Pestiferous Chironomid Midges of Central Florida. Mosq.News 41: 157-161.
EcoReference No.: 5559
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FNTH,MLN,CPY,CYP,PMR,PYT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
20. Ali, A., Chowdhury, M. A., Hossain, M. I., Ameen, M., Habiba, D. B., and Aslam, A. F. M. (1999). Laboratory
Evaluation of Selected Larvicides and Insect Growth Regulators Against Field-Collected Culex
quinquefasciatus Larvae from Urban Dhaka, Bangladesh. J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 15: 43-47.
EcoReference No.: 62487
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FPN,BFT,FNTH,CP YM,DFZ,CPY,C YP,MLN,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
21. Ali, A., Majori, G., Ceretti, G., D'Andrea, F., Scattolin, M., and Ferrarese, U. (1985). A Chironomid (Diptera:
Chironomidae) Midge Population Study and Laboratory Evaluation of Larvicides Against Midges
Inhabiting the Lagoon of Venice, Italy. J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 1: 63-68.
EcoReference No.: 11927
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FNTH,FNT,CPY,CYP,PMR,DM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
-------
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
22. All, A., Nayar, J. K., and Xue, R.-D. (1995). Comparative Toxicity of Selected Larvicides and Insect Growth
Regulators to a Florida Laboratory Population of Aedes albopictus. J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 11: 72-
76.
EcoReferenceNo.: 16077
Chemical of Concern: PYX,BFT,DFZ,FNTH,MLN,CPY,TMP,CYP,PMR,MTPN; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
23. All, J. N. and All, J. D. (1987). Field Corn, Fall Armyworm Control in Whorl Stage Field Corn, Conventional
Tillage and no Tillage, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 181-182 (No. 213).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88712
Chemical of Concern: PPB,CBL,BFT,FNV,CYP,TLM,CPY,EFV,CYF,CYH,MOM; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CBL,BFT,CYP,EFV,CYF,MOM),TARGET(CPY).
24. All, J. N., Javid, A., and Chamberlin, J. R. (1987). Insecticide Control of Sorghum Head Worms in Georgia,
1986. ImecticAcaric.Tests 12: 266 (No. 314).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88706
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBL,CYP,CPY,TLM,PMR,PPB,MOM,BFT,FNV,EFV,CYH; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CYF,CBL,CYP,PMR,MOM,EFV),TARGET(CPY).
25. All, J. N. and Jellum, M. D. (1977). Efficacy of Insecticide-Nematocides on Sphenophorus callosus and
Phytophagous Nematodes in Field Corn. J.Georgia Entomol.Soc. 12: 283-291.
EcoReferenceNo.: 39684
Chemical of Concern: EP,CBF,ACP,FNF,ADC,PRN,OML,PRT,CPY,TBO,PHSL; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(CBF,ADC,ACP),OK TARGET(PRT,CPY).
26. Anderson, B. S., Phillips, B. M., Hunt, J. W., Connor, V., Richard, N., and Tjeerdema, R. S. (2006). Identifying
Primary Stressors Impacting Macroinvertebrates in the Salinas River (California, USA): Relative
Effects of Pesticides and Suspended Particles. Environ.Pollut. 141: 402-408.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90039
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,BFT,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED (CPY).
27. Anderson, G. L., Cole, R. D., and Williams, P. L. (2004). Assessing Behavioral Toxicity with Caenorhabditis
elegans. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 23: 1235-1240.
EcoReference No.: 75260
Chemical of Concern: Al,Pb,CuCl,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
28. Anderson, R. M., Teetes, G. L., and Pendleton, B. B. (1999). Sorghum Midge Suppression on Sorghum, 1998.
Arthropod Manage. Tests 24: 280-281 (F99).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88056
Chemical of Concern: PYT,CPY,CYF,CYH,AZD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(PYT,CPY,CYF,CYH,AZD).
29. Anderson, T. D. and Lydy, M. J. (2002). Increased Toxicity to Invertebrates Associated with a Mixture of
-------
Atrazine and Organophosphate Insecticides. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 1507-1514.
EcoReference No.: 64955
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DZ,CPY,MP; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
30. Ankley, G. T., Call, D. J., Cox, J. S., Kahl, M. D., Hoke, R. A., and Kosian, P. A. (1994). Organic Carbon
Partitioning as a Basis for Predicting the Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos in Sediments.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 13(4): 621-626.
EcoReference No.: 4019
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
31. Ankley, G. T. and Collyard, S. A. (1995). Influence of Piperonyl Butoxide on the Toxicity of Organophosphate
Insecticides to Three Species of Freshwater Benthic Invertebrates. Comp.Biochem.Physiol.C 110:
149-155.
EcoReference No.: 352
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CPY,DZ,PPB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
32. Ansari, M. A., Shah, F. A., Tirry, L., and Moens, M. (2006). Field Trials Against Hoplia philanthus
(Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) with a Combination of an Entomopathogenic Nematode and the Fungus
Metarhizium anisopliae CLO 53. Biol.Control 39: 453-459.
EcoReference No.: 92881
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CPY).
33. Antognelli, C., Baldracchini, F., Piazzoli, A., Frosiini, R., Talesa, V., and Giovannini, E. (2006). Activity
Changes of Glyoxalase System Enzymes and Glutathione-S-Transferase in the Bivalve Mollusc
Scapharca Inaequivalvis Exposed to the Organophosphate Chlorpyrifos. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 86:
72-77.
EcoReference No.: 90040
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
34. Anwar, T., Tahir, S., Ahmad, I., Khan, M. F., Naqvi, S. M. H. M., and Akhtar, S. (2005). Acute Toxicity and
Sub-lethal Effect of Selected Pesticides on Fresh Water Fish. J.Exp.Zool.India 8: 417-424.
EcoReference No.: 88286
Chemical of Concern: C YP,CPY,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CYP,CPY,MP).
35. Armenia, R., Martinez, A. M., Chapman, J. W., Magallanes, R., Goulson, D., Caballero, P., Cave, R. D.,
Cisneros, J., Valle, J., Castillejos, V., Penagos, D. I., Garcia, L. F., and Williams, T. (2003). Impact of
a Nucleopolyhedrovirus Bioinsecticide and Selected Synthetic Insecticides on the Abundance of Insect
Natural Enemies on Maize in Southern Mexico. J.Econ.Entomol. 96: 649-661.
EcoReference No.: 87502
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY,CBL,CYP).
36. Armstrong, J. S., Dregseth, B., and Schroeder, A. (1999). At-Planting and Post-Planting Applications Granular
Insecticides for Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control, 1998. Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 298-299 (Fl 18).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 88057
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CPY,TBO,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ADC,TBO,PRT),EFFICACY(CPY).
37. Arne, C. N, Becker, S. A., and Bailey, W. C. (1991). Alfalfa Weevil Control Missouri (Northern), 1989.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 123 (IF).
EcoReferenceNo.: 90636
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CBL,PMR,EFV,CYF,CYP,CBF,LCYT,PSM,TDC,CPY; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS),OK(CBF).
38. Arthur, F. H. (1992). Control of Lesser Grain Borer (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) with Chlorpyrifos-Methyl,
Bioresmethrin, and Resmethrin: Effect of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl Resistance and Environmental
Degradation. J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 1471-1475.
EcoReference No.: 70407
Chemical of Concern: BRSM,RSM,CPY-Methyl; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP .PHY: Rejection
Code: TARGET(RSM, CPYM).
39. Arthur, F. H. (1994). Cyfluthrin Applied with and Without Piperonyl Butoxide and Piperonyl Butoxide Plus
Chlorpyrifos-Methyl for Protection of Stored Wheat. J.Econ.Entomol. 87: 1707-1713.
Chemical of Concern: PPB,CYF,CPYM; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CYF,CPYM).
40. Arthur, F. H. (1992). Residual Efficacy of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl + Bioresmethrin and Chlorpyrifos-Methyl +
Resmethrin for Controlling Lesser Grain Borers (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), Rice Weevils
(Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and Red Flour Beetles (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) in Stored Wheat.
J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 570-575.
EcoReference No.: 70789
Chemical of Concern: BRSM,RSM,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,CPYM).
41. Ashauer, R., Boxall, A., and Brown, C. (2006). Uptake and Elimination of Chlorpyrifos and Pentachlorophenol
into the Freshwater Amphipod Gammarus pulex. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 542-548.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92242
Chemical of Concern: PCP,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
42. Asteraki, E. J., Hanks, C. B., and Clements, R. 0. (1992). The Impact of Two Insecticides on Predatory Ground
Beetles (Carabidae) in Newly-Sown Grass. Ann.Appl.Biol. 120:25-39.
EcoReference No.: 68970
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
43. Atallah, Y. H. and Ishak, M. M. (1971). Toxicity of Some Commonly Used Insecticides to the Snail
Biomphalaria alexandrina, Intermediate Host of Schistosoma mansoni in Egypt. Z.Angew.Entomol.
69: 102-106.
EcoReference No.: 6332
Chemical of Concern: DDT,MP,CBL,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MP,CBL),OK(DDT).
44. Atkins, E. L. (1972). Rice Field Mosquito Control Studies with Low Volume Dursban Sprays in Colusa County,
-------
California. V. Effects Upon Honey Bees. Mosq.News 32: 538-541.
EcoReference No.: 70245
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
45. Atkins, E. L. and Kellum, D. (1986). Comparative Morphogenic and Toxicity Studies on the Effect of
Pesticides on Honeybee Brood. J.Apic.Res. 25: 242-255 .
EcoReference No.: 70351
Chemical of Concern:
AND,DZ,Naled,MW,MLN,BMY,DS,CYT,DMT,FNV,PPG,PMR,OXD,FTT,MOM,EN,ES,CPY,ACP
,MP,CBL,Captan; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(Naled,MLN,DMT,MP,FNV,CPY),OK(DZ,DS,PMR,OXD,MOM,ACP,CBL,Captan).
46. Auman, J. T., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2000). Neonatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure Targets Multiple
Proteins Governing the Hepatic Adenylyl Cyclase Signaling Cascade: Implications for Neurotoxicity.
Dev.BrainRes. 121: 19-27.
EcoReference No.: 90091
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
47. Awadallah, S. M. (1997). Teratogenic Effects of Cypermethrin and Chlorpyrifos on Chick Embryo. Alexandria
Sci.Exchange J. 18: 287-296.
EcoReference No.: 72830
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.MOR.GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CYP,CPY).
48. Awchar, S. L., Satpute, U. S., Sarnaik, D. N, and Sarode, D. B. (1995). Effect of Certain Chemical and
Botanical Insecticides on Some Beneficial Insects Associated with Mustard. J.Biol.Control 9: 13-15.
EcoReference No.: 92825
Chemical of Concern: AZD,ES,CPY,FNV,DEM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,POP,BEH;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,FNV).
49. Babu, T. R. and Ramanamurthy, G. (1999). Residual Toxicity of Pesticides to the Adults of Cryptolaemus
montrouzieri Mulsant (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera). Int.Pest Control 41: 137-138.
EcoReference No.: 92067
Chemical of Concern: ACP,ES,CPY,FNV,CYP,CTN,AZD,MZB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(CTN,MZB),OK TARGET(ACP,CPY,FNV,CYP,AZD).
50. Bagchi, D., Bagchi, M., Hassoun, E. A., and Stohs, S. J. (1995). In Vitro and In Vivo Generation of Reactive
Oxygen Species, DNA Damage and Lactate Dehydrogenase Leakage by Selected Pesticides.
Toxicology 104: 129-140.
EcoReference No.: 78777
Chemical of Concern: ACR,EN,CHD,CPY,FNTH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL,BCM,PHY;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
51. Bagchi, D., Bagchi, M., Tang, L., and Stohs, S. J. (1997). Comparative In Vitro and In Vivo Protein Kinase C
Activation by Selected Pesticides and Transition Metal Salts. Toxicol.Lett. 91: 31-37.
EcoReference No.: 78778
-------
Chemical of Concern: EN,CHD,DDT,ACR,CPY,FNTH,Cd; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL,BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS).
52. Bagchi, D., Bhattacharya, G., and Stohs, S. J. (1996). In Vitro and In Vivo Induction of Heat Shock (Stress)
Protein (Hsp) Gene Expression by Selected Pesticides. Toxicology 112: 57-68.
EcoReference No.: 78783
Chemical of Concern: ACR,EN,CHD,CPY,FNTH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
53. Bailey, H. C., DiGiorgio, C., Kroll, K., Miller, J. L., Hinton, D. E., and Starrett, G. (1996). Development of
Procedures for Identifying Pesticide Toxicity in Ambient Waters: Carbofuran, Diazinon, Chlorpyrifos.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 837-845.
EcoReference No.: 16844
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,DZ,PPB,NH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,CBF,PPB).
54. Bailey, H. C., Miller, J. L., Miller, M. J., Wiborg, L. C., Deanovic, L., and Shed, T. (1997). Joint Acute Toxicity
of Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16: 2304-2308.
EcoReference No.: 18190
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,DZ),OK(ALL CHEMS).
55. Bailey, W. C. and Munson, R. E. (1987). Potato Leafhopper Control, Missouri (Northern), 1986.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 12: 163 (No. 191).
EcoReference No.: 88716
Chemical of Concern: CYF,FVL,EFV,FNV,MDT,CBF,CPY,MP,CBL,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CYF,FVL,EFV,MP,CBL,DMT),TARGET(CPY).
56. Bailey, W. C., Munson, R. E., and Booker, B. E. (1987). Potato Leafhopper Control, Missouri (Southern), 1986.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 12: 162 (No. 190).
EcoReference No.: 88719
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNV,EFV,MP,CYF,MDT,FVL,CBL,CBF,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY,FNV,MDT,CBF),OK
TARGET(CBL,EFV,MP,CYF,FVL,DMT),TARGET(CPY).
57. Baker, P. B. (1986). Responses by Japanese and Oriental Beetle Grubs (Coleoptera: Scarabaeidae) to
Bendiocarb, Chlorpyrifos, and Isofenphos. J.Econ.Entomol. 79: 452-454.
EcoReference No.: 63635
Chemical of Concern: BDC,CPY,IFP; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
58. Baker, P. B. and Bellamy, D. E. (2006). Field and Laboratory Evaluation of Persistence and Bioavailability of
Soil Termiticides to Desert Subterranean Termite Heterotermes aureus (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae).
J.Econ.Entomol. 99: 1345-1353.
EcoReference No.: 87501
Chemical of Concern: PMR,IMC,CYP,BFT,PYT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,POP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
59. Bakker, F. M. (1998). Accuracy and Efficiency of Sequential Pesticide Testing Protocols for Phytoseiid Mites.
-------
Ecotoxicol.[Int. Conf.J Meeting Date 1996, Editor(s): Haskell, Peter T.; McEwen, Peter.Publisher:
Kluwer, Dordrecht, Neth.CODEN: 68BTAO 148-165.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
60. Barata, C., Solayan, A., and Porte, C. (2004). Role of B-Esterases in Assessing Toxicity of Organophosphorus
(Chlorpyrifos, Malathion) and Carbamate (Carbofuran) Pesticides to Daphnia magna . Aquat.Toxicol.
66: 125-139.
EcoReference No.: 72805
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,MLN,CPY).
61. Bareth, S. S. and Gupta, H. C. (1989). Efficacy of Six Insecticides for the Protection of Stored Wheat Seeds
Against Rhizopertha dominica (Fab.). Seed Res. 17:43-46.
EcoReference No.: 93042
Chemical of Concern: DM,CYP,FNV,FNT,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CPY,FNV),OK(MLN,CYP).
62. Barnard, E. L., Dixon, W. N, Ash, E. C., Fraedrich, S. W., and Cordell, C. E. (1995). Scalping Reduces Impact
of Soilborne Pests and Improves Survival and Growth of Slash Pine Seedlings on Converted
Agricultural Croplands. South.J.Appl.For. 19:49-59.
EcoReference No.: 90506
Chemical of Concern: MB,ATZ,BMY,DZ,CPY,CBF,SMM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,POP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(DZ),NO
MIXTURE(SMM,ATZ),NO COC(MP).
63. Baxendale, F. P., Shearman, R. C., and Wit, L. A. (1988). Annual White Grub Control in Kentucky Bluegrass,
1987. InsecticAcaric.Tests 13: 330 (7G).
EcoReference No.: 88813
Chemical of Concern: EP,DZ,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ),OK(EP),OK TARGET(CPY).
64. Beatty, K. L. and Sohn, M. L. (1986). Effect of Three Insecticides on Growth Rates of Soil Fungi.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 36: 533-539.
EcoReference No.: 67232
Chemical of Concern: CBF,HCCH,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBF,CPY),OK(HCCH).
65. Beauvais, S. L., Atchison, G. J., Stenback, J. Z., and Crumpton, W. G. (1999). Use of Cholinesterase Activity to
Monitor Exposure of Chironomus riparius (Diptera: Chironomidae) to a Pesticide Mixture in Hypoxic
Wetland Mesocosms. Hydrobiologia 416: 163-170.
EcoReference No.: 62050
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,MTL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(ATZ,MTL,CPY).
66. Beers, E. H. and Eisner, E. A. (1987). Apple, First Generation White Apple Leafhopper Insecticide Evaluation,
1986 . InsecticAcaric.Tests 12: 3 (No. 004).
EcoReference No.: 88504
Chemical of Concern: ES,DZ,DMT,AZ,CPY,CBL,PPHD,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
-------
Rejection Code: OK(ES,CPY,PPHD),OK TARGET(DZ,DMT,AZ,CBL,ACP),TARGET(CPY).
67. Beers, E. H., Eisner, E. A., and Baird, R. J. (1987). Apple, Second Generation White Apple Leafhopper
Insecticide Evaluation, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 4 (No. 005).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88505
Chemical of Concern: CBL,ES,PPHD,CPY,FTTC1,AZ,OML,FYC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(ES,PPHD,CPY,FTTCI,OML,FYC),OK TARGET(CBL,AZ),TARGET(CPY).
68. Bejarano, A. C., Chandler, G. T., and Decho, A. W. (2005). Influence of Natural Dissolved Organic Matter
(DOM) on Acute and Chronic Toxicity of the Pesticides Chlorothalonil, Chlorpyrifos and Fipronil on
the Meiobenthic Estuarine Copepod Amphiascus tenuiremis. J.Exp.Mar.Biol.Ecol. 321: 43-57.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87778
Chemical of Concern: FPN,CPY,CTN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.REP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CTN,CPY),OK(FPN).
69. Belden, J. B. and Lydy, M. J. (2000). Impact of Atrazine on Organophosphate Insecticide Toxicity.
Emiron.Toxicol.Chem. 19: 2266-2274.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56553
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,MLN,MP,DZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,BEH,BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,ATZ,MLN,MP,CPY).
70. Belden, J. B. and Lydy, M. J. (2006). Joint Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos and Esfenvalerate to Fathead Minnows and
Midge Larvae. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 25: 623-629.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93276
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EFV; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,EFV).
71. Bellows, T. S. Jr. and Morse, J. G. (1993). Toxicity of Insecticides Used in Citrus to Aphytis Melinus debach
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Rhizobius lophanthae (Blaisd.) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).
Can.Entomol. 125: 987-994.
EcoReferenceNo.: 59334
Chemical of Concern:
MOM,AZ,BFT,EFV,FPP,FVL,CBL,TDC,MVP,Naled,TCF,CPY,FTT,ACD,AMZ,CYT,MDT,PRN,A
BM,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MOM),TARGET(TDC,FVL,BFT,EFV,AZ,CBL,Naled,DMT,CPY).
72. Benezet, H. J., Huffman, B. B., and Helms, C. W. (1988). Comparative Toxicity of Selected Insecticides to the
Cigarette Beetle at Different Temperatures. Tob.Sci. 32: 41-43.
EcoReference No.: 72099
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,CYP,CPY).
73. Bengston, M., Cooper, L. M., and Grant-Taylor, F. J. (1975). A Comparison of Bioresmethrin, Chlorpyrifos-
Methyl and Pirimiphos-Methyl as Grain Protectants Against Malathion-Resistant Insects in Wheat.
Queeml.J.Agric.Anim.Sci. 32: 51-78.
EcoReference No.: 72446
Chemical of Concern: BRSM,RSM,CPYM,MLN,TMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: TARGET(MLN,RSM,TMT,CPYM).
-------
74. Bengtson Nash, S. M, Quayle, P. A., Schreiber, U., and Muller, J. F. (2005). The Selection of a Model
Microalgal Species as Biomaterial for a Novel Aquatic Phytotoxicity Assay. Aquat.Toxicol. 72: 315-
326.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80943
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CuS,Du,NYP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.PHY.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(CuS,Du).
75. Bennett, R. S. (1989). Role of Dietary Choices in the Ability of Bobwhite to Discriminate Between Insecticide-
Treated and Untreated food. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 8: 731-738.
EcoReferenceNo.: 39691
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.BCM.MOR.GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MP,CPY).
76. Bennett, R. S. Jr. and Prince, H. H. (1981). Influence of Agricultural Pesticides on Food Preference and
Consumption by Ring-Necked Pheasants. J.Wildl.Manag. 45: 74-82.
EcoReference No.: 47473
Chemical of Concern: DZ,Captan,CPY,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(Captan,CPY),OK(DZ,CBF).
77. Bessin, R. and Townsend, L. H. (1992). Corn Rootworm Larval Control, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.),
Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 193-194 (31F).
EcoReference No.: 79782
Chemical of Concern: TBO,CBF,CPY,TFT,FNF,EP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(TBO,CBF,TFT,FNF,EP).
78. Betancourt, A. M., Burgess, S. C., and Carr, R. L. (2006). Effect of Developmental Exposure to Chlorpyrifos on
the Expression of Neurotrophin Growth Factors and Cell-Specific Markers in Neonatal Rat Brain.
Toxicol.Sci. 92: 500-506 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 93532
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.CEL.GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
79. Betancourt, A. M. and Carr, R. L. (2004). The Effect of Chlorpyrifos and Chlorpyrifos-Oxon on Brain
Cholinesterase, Muscarinic Receptor Binding, and Neurotrophin Levels in Rats Following Early
Postnatal Exposure. Toxicol.Sci. 77: 63-71.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80652
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CPYO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO).
80. Bhamburkar, M. W. (1986). Role of Systemic Insecticides on the Control of Sucking Pests in Relation to Cotton
Yield Under Dryland Condition. Pesticides (Bombay) 20: 24-25.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89379
Chemical of Concern: DMT,TDC,CPY,PPHD,ACP,MTM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(TDC),EFFICACY(MTM,ACP,CPY,DMT).
81. Biever, R. C., Giddings, J. M., Kiamos, M., Annunziato, M. F., Meyerhoff, R., and Racke, K. (1994). Effects of
Chlorpyrifos on Aquatic Microcosms over a Range of Off-Target Spray Drift Exposure Levels. In:
Proc.Brighton Crop Protection Conf.on Pests and Diseases, Nov. 21-24, 1994, Volume 3, Brighton, UK
1367-1372.
-------
EcoReference No.: 62037
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
82. Binelli, A., Ricciardi, F., Riva, C., and Provini, A. (2006). New Evidences for Old Biomarkers: Effects of
Several Xenobiotics on EROD and AChE Activities in Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha).
Chemosphere 62: 510-519.
EcoReference No.: 88372
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DDT,PCB,CPYO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY.ACC: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,CPY),OK(DDT),NO ENDPOINT(CPYO).
83. Birmingham, B. C. and Colman, B. (1977). The Effect of Two Organophosphate Insecticides on the Growth of
Freshwater Algae. Can.J.Bot. 55: 1453-1456.
EcoReference No.: 2704
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
84. Bishop, B., Grafius, E., Hayden, J., Stehr, J., and Davis, A. (1988). Insect Control on Broccoli, 1987.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 91-92 (No. 6E).
EcoReference No.: 88840
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EFV,PMR,CYP,CBL,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
85. Bishop, B., Grafius, E., Henry, P., Roragen, K., Maier, R., Stehr, M, and Linn, M. (1992). Colorado Potato
Beetle Control, 1989. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 122-124 (64E).
EcoReference No.: 79785
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,CYH,EFV,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,ADC,EFV),EFFICACY(CPY).
86. Blickenstaff, C. C. and Skoog, F. E. (1974). Insecticides Tested Versus Grasshoppers: Correlations Between
Results of Ground and Aerial Applications. J.Econ.Entomol. 67: 127-129.
EcoReference No.: 71348
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,DZ; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(DZ,CBL,CPY).
87. Bloomquist, J. R., Barlow, R. L., Gillette, J. S., Li, W., and Kirby, M. L. (2002). Selective Effects of
Insecticides on Nigrostriatal Dopaminergic Nerve Pathways. Neurotoxicology 23: 537-544.
EcoReference No.: 92572
Chemical of Concern: HPT,DM,PMR,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PMR).
88. Boag, B. (1985). Effect of Pesticides on Longidorus elongatus and the Yield of Swedes. Tests
Agrochem.Cultiv. 6: 32-33.
EcoReference No.: 74582
Chemical of Concern: BMY,CPY,ADC,DPDP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP .PHY; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ADC,CPY),OK(DPDP).
89. Boetel, M. A. and Fuller, B. W. (1999). Planting-Time and Post-Emergence Insecticide Treatments for
Controlling Corn Rootworms in South Dakota, 1998. Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 209-210 (F21).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 88058
Chemical of Concern: PBP,TBO,TFT,CEX,CPY,PRT,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
90. Boetel, M. A., Fuller, B. W., Brinkman, M. A., Catangui, M. A., Kahler, E. M., Jenson, J. M., Thompson, D. J.,
Nelson, D. J., Kieckhefer, R. W., and Beck, D. A. (1995). Foliar Rescue Insecticide Applications for
Management of Russian Wheat Aphids in South Dakota Winter Wheat, 1994. Arthropod Manag.Tests
20: 264-265 (141F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 91359
Chemical of Concern: LCYT,CPY,MP,TLM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MP,CPY).
91. Boetel, M. A., Fuller, B. W., Thompson, D. J., Voss, T. S., and Smith, M. P. (1996). Rescue Insecticide
Applications for Management of Pale Western Cutworms in Winter Wheat, 1995. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 21: 320 (163F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 91439
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,TLM,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY,MP).
92. Bonfanti, P., Colombo, A., Orsi, F., Nizzetto, I., Andrioletti, M., Bacchetta, R., Mantecca, P., Fascio, U.,
Vailati, G., and Vismara, C. (2004). Comparative Teratogenicity of Chlorpyrifos and Malathion on
XenopuslaevisDevelopment. Aquat.Toxicol.lQ'. 189-200.
EcoReference No.: 76738
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,CEL,MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY).
93. Boone, J. S. and Chambers, J. E. (1996). Time Course of Inhibition of Cholinesterase and Aliesterase Activities,
and Nonprotein Sulfhydryl Levels Following Exposure to Organophosphorus Insecticides in
Mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis). Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 29: 202-207.
EcoReference No.: 62030
Chemical of Concern: PRN,MP,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(MP,CPY).
94. Booth, G. M., Mortensen, S. R., Carter, M. W., and Schaalje, B. G. (2005 ). Hazard Evaluation for Northern
Bobwhite Quail (Colinus virginianus) Exposed to Chlorpyrifos-Treated Turf and Seed.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 60: 176-187.
EcoReference No.: 78023
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,REP,ACC,MOR,BEH,GRO; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
95. Booth, L. H., Bithell, S. L., Wratten, S. D., and Heppelthwaite, V. J. (2003). Vineyard Pesticides and Their
Effects on Invertebrate Biomarkers and Bioindicator Species in New Zealand.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 71: 1131-1138.
EcoReference No.: 73642
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TUZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code:
OK(TUZ),OK TARGET(CPY).
96. Booth, L. H., Heppelthwaite, V., and Eason, C. T. (1998). Cholinesterase and Glutathione S-Transferase in the
Earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa as Biomarkers of Organophosphate Exposure. Proc.N.Z.Plant
-------
Prot.Conf. 51: 138-142.
EcoReference No.: 71162
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY).
97. Booth, L. H., Hodge, S., and O'Halloran, K. (2001). Use of Biomarkers in Earthworms to Detect Use and Abuse
of Field Applications of a Model Organophosphate Pesticide. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 67: 633-
640.
EcoReference No.: 63600
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
98. Booth, L. H. and O'Halloran, K. (2001). A Comparison of Biomarker Responses in the Earthworm
Aporrectodea caliginosa to the Organophosphorus Insecticides Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 20: 2494-2502.
EcoReference No.: 63359
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.GRO.REP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY).
99. Borthwick, P. W., Patrick, J. M. Jr., and Middaugh, D. P. (1985). Comparative Acute Sensitivities of Early Life
Stages of Atherinid Fishes to Chlorpyrifos and Thiobencarb. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 14: 465-
473.
EcoReference No.: 11868
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBC; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
100. Bossard, R. L., Dryden, M. W., and Broce, A. B. (2002). Insecticide Susceptibilities of Cat Fleas
(Siphonaptera: Pulicidae) from Several Regions of the United States. JMed.Entomol. 39: 742-746.
EcoReference No.: 68605
Chemical of Concern: PYT,PMR,CBL,MLN,PPB,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED (CBL,MLN),OK(PYT,PMR,CPY),NO
MIXTURE(PPB),TARGET(CPY).
101. Bostanian, N. J., Binns, M., Kovach, J., Racette, G., and Mailloux, G. (1999). Predictive Model for
Strawberry Bud Weevil (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) Adults in Strawberry Fields. Environ.Entomol.
28: 398-406.
EcoReference No.: 88068
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
102. Bowman, J. S. (1987). Control of European Corn Borer on Early Sweet Corn, 1986.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 113 (No. 122).
EcoReference No.: 88724
Chemical of Concern: EFV,PMR,CPY,MP,FNV,CBL,MOM,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(CPY,FNV),OK TARGET(EFV,PMR,MP,CBL,MOM,TDC),TARGET(CPY).
Bowman, J. S. and Barry, D. W. (1988). Control of European Corn Borer on Early Sweet Corn, 1987.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 113 (No. 36E).
EcoReference No.: 88842
-------
Chemical of Concern: PMR,MP,CYF,CBF,CYP,FNV,CPY,EFV,MOM,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(CBF,FNV,CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
104. Bowman, J. S. and Barry, D. W. (1992). Control on Late Season Sweet Corn with Foliar Sprays, 1990.
Insectic.Acaric. Tests 17: 101 (33E).
EcoReference No.: 79278
Chemical of Concern: CYH,FNV,PMR,CPY,MOM,EFV,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,POP;
Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(EFV),OK(CYH,PMR),TARGET(CBL,MOM),EFFICACY(FNV,CPY).
105. Brandenburg, R. L. (1985). The Effect of Field Applications of Insecticides for Variegated Cutworm,
Peridroma saucia (Hubner) (Noctuidae: Lepidoptera) Control on Non-target Arthropods in Alfalfa.
J.Kans.Entomol.Soc. 58: 437-441 .
EcoReference No.: 63402
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK,TARGET(CBL),TARGET(MOM,CPY).
106. Brazner, J. C., Lozano, S. J., Knuth, M. L., Bertelsen, S. L., Heinis, L. J., Jensen, D. A., Kline, E. R.,
O'Halloran, S. L., Sargent, K. W., Tanner, D. K., and Siefert, R. E. (1988). The Effects of Chlorpyrifos
on a Natural Aquatic System: A Research Design for Littoral Enclosure Studies and Final Research
Report. Final Research Report, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, U.S.EPA, Duluth, MN
194 p.
EcoReference No.: 16806
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR,POP,SYS; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
107. Breslin, W. J., Liberacki, A. B., Dittenber, D. A., and Quast, J. F. (1996). Evaluation of the
Developmental and Reproductive Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos in the Rat. Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 29: 119-
130.
EcoReference No.: 93040
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,GRO,BCM,PHY,REP,POP,CEL;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
108. Brewer, S. K. and Atchison, G. J. (1999). The Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Cholinesterase Activity and
Foraging Behavior in the Dragonfly, Anax junius (Odonata). Hydrobiologia 394: 201-208.
EcoReference No.: 68927
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
109. Broadbent, A. B. and Free, D. J. (1997). Resistance to Insecticides in Populations of Frankliniella
occidentalis (Pergande) (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) from Greenhouses in the Niagara Region of
Ontario. Can.Entomol. 129: 907-913.
EcoReference No.: 63606
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,BDC,DM,ACP,PPB,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM,MLN),NO MIXTURE(PPB),TARGET(ACP,CPY).
110. Broadley, R. H. (1983). Toxicity of Insecticides to Coccinella repanda Thunberg and Harmonia
octomaculata (Fabricius) (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). Qld.J.Agric.Anim.Sci. 40: 125-127.
EcoReference No.: 70342
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MOM,PFF,MDT,CYP,DM,PMR,SPS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(CYP,CPY).
111. Brock, T. C. M, Bos, A. R., Crum, S. J. H., and Gylstra, R. (1995). The Model Ecosystem Approach
in Ecotoxicology as Illustrated with a Study on the Fate and Effects of an Insecticide in Stagnant
Freshwater Microcosms. In: B.Hock and R.Niessner (Eds.), Immunochemical Detection of Pesticides
and Their Metabolites in the Water Cycle, Chapter 10, Wiley-VCH, Germany 167-1017.
EcoReference No.: 68345
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
112. Brock, T. C. M., Crum, S. J. H., Van Wijngaarden, R., Budde, B. J., Tijink, J., Zuppelli, A., and
Leeuwangh, P. (1992). Fate and Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E in Indoor Elodea-Dominated
and Macrophyte-Free Freshwater Model Ecosystems: I. Fate and Primary.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 23: 69-84.
EcoReference No.: 6106
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.ACC; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
113. Brown, T. M., Bryson, P. K., and Payne, G. T. (1996). Synergism by Propynyl Aryl Ethers in
Permethrin-Resistant Tobacco Budworm Larvae, Heliothis virescens. Pestic.Sci. 43: 323-331.
EcoReference No.: 63595
Chemical of Concern: PPB,DDT,ES,PFF,AMZ,SPS,FYT,FNV,FPP,MP,CPY,PMR,CYP; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: OK(PMR),NO
MIXTURE(PPB,AMZ),TARGET(MP,FNV,CPY).
114. Brust, R. A., Miyazaki, S., and Hodgson, G. C. (1971). Effect of Dursban in the Drinking Water of
Chicks. J.Econ.Entomol. 64: 1179-1183.
EcoReference No.: 35986
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
115. Bruwer, I. J. and Schoeman, A. S. (1988). Residual Toxicity of Four Citrus Insecticides in South
Africa to the Scale Predator Chilocorus nigritus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 81:
1178-1180.
EcoReference No.: 71168
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ALSV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(ALSV,CPY).
116. Bues, R., Boudinhon, L., Toubon, J. F., and Faivre D'Arcier, F. (1999). Geographic and Seasonal
Variability of Resistance to Insecticides in Cacopsylla pyri L. (Horn., Psyllidae). J.Appl.Entomol. 123:
289-297.
EcoReference No.: 72767
Chemical of Concern:
AZ,CPY,CYP,PSM,MLN,MP,MOM,AMZ,PRN,PIM,CPYM,FNV,MVP,DM,PSM; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MLN,CYP,AZ),TARGET(MOM,MP,FNV)TARGETCPYM.
117. Buntin, G. D. (1992). Aphid Control in Winter Canola Using Foliar Insecticides, 1991.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 186 (19F).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 89372
Chemical of Concern: MLN,ES,DS,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK TARGET,NO CROP(MLN,DMT).
118. Buntin, G. D. (1998). Comparison of Foliar-Applied Insecticides for Aphid Control in Rosette and
Flowering Canola. In: G.D.Buntin (Ed.), Res.Bull.No.435, Assessment of Crop Protectants for Use in
Canola, Univ.of Ga., Athens, GA 18-24.
EcoReference No.: 73094
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,ES,DMT,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DMT,PMR),TARGET(MLN).
119. Burbank, S. E. and Snell, T. W. (1994). Rapid Toxicity Assessment Using Esterase Biomarkers in
Brachionus calyciflorus (Rotifera). Environ.Toxicol.Water Qual. 9: 171-178 (OECDG Data File).
EcoReferenceNo.: 16059
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,CuCl,HgC12,Cd,NaPCP,PL,AMSV; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BCM,MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,CuCl,NaPCP,AMSV),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
120. Burridge, M. J., Peter, T. F., Allan, S. A., and Mahan, S. M. (2002). Evaluation of Safety and Efficacy
of Acaricides for Control of the African Tortoise Tick (Amblyomma marmoreum) on Leopard
Tortoises (Geochelone pardalis). J.Zoo Wildl.Med. 33: 52-57.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71543
Chemical of Concern: AMZ,CBL,CPY,CYF,FPN,HCCH,PMR,PTR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(AMZ,CBL,FPN,HCCH,PMR,PTR),OKTARGET(CYF).
121. Bushnell, P. J., Moser, V. C., and Samsam, T. E. (2001). Comparing Cognitive and Screening Tests for
Neurotoxicity: Effects of Acute Chlorpyrifos on Visual Signal Detection and a Neurobehavioral Test
Battery in Rats. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 23: 33-44.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92571
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
122. Bustillo P, A. E., Villalba G., D., Orozco H., J., Benavides M., P., Reyes A., I. C., and Chaves C., B.
(1995). Integrated Pest Management to Control the Coffee Berry Borer, Hypothenemus hampei, in
Colombia. Colloq.Sci.Int.CafefC.R.] Kyoto, Japan, April 9-14, 1995.SOOp.(Vol. 1); 426p.(Vol.2)
Association Scientifique Internationale Du Cafe Asic): Paris, France.Isbn 2-900212-15-4.; 0 (0 2:
671-680.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
123. Byrne, F. J. and Toscano, N. C. (2001). An Insensitive Acetylcholinesterase Confers Resistance to
Methomyl in the Beet Armyworm Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 94:
524-528.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58604
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(MOM),TARGET(CPY).
124. Byrne, F. J. and Toscano, N. C. (2000). Levels of Organophosphorus and Carbamate Insecticide
Resistance Conferred by Insensitive Acetylcholinesterase in the Beet Armyworm, Spodoptera exigua
-------
(Hubner). Proc.Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2: 1006-1008.
EcoReference No.: 76827
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY.MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(MOM,CPY).
125. Cabrera, A. R., Cloyd, R. A., and Zaborski, E. R. (2004). Effects of Greenhouse Pesticides on the Soil-
Dwelling Predatory Mite Stratiolaelaps scimitus (Acari: Mesostigmata: Laelapidae) Under
Laboratory Conditions. J.Econ.Entomol. 97: 793-799.
EcoReference No.: 86444
Chemical of Concern: MFX,FSTAI,CPY,DCF,PYX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
126. Cairns, M. A., Maguire, C. C., Williams, B. A., and Bennett, J. K. (1991). Brain Cholinesterase
Activity of Bobwhite Acutely Exposed to Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 10: 657-664.
EcoReference No.: 35076
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
127. Campbell, B. C. and Denno, R. F. (1976). The Effect of Temephos and Chlorpyrifos on the Aquatic
Insect Community of a New Jersey Salt Marsh. Environ.Entomol. 5: 477-483.
EcoReference No.: 6310
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(ABT).
128. Carlson, R. W., Bradbury, S. P., Drummond, R. A., and Hammermeister, D. E. (1998). Neurological
Effects on Startle Response and Escape from Predation by Medaka Exposed to Organic Chemicals.
Aquat.Toxicol. 43: 51-68.
EcoReference No.: 20097
Chemical of Concern: NP,ES,CBL,24DXY,STCH,PL,C80H,CPY,FNV; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBL,C80H),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO
CONTROL(FNV).
129. Carr, R. L., Straus, D. L., and Chambers, J. E. (1995). Inhibition and Aging of Channel Catfish Brain
Acetylcholinesterase Following Exposure to Two Phosphorothionate Insecticides and Their Active
Metabolites. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health 45: 325-336.
EcoReference No.: 67666
Chemical of Concern: PRN,CPY,CPYO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO).
130. Carter, F. L. (1971). 'In Vivo' Studies of Brain Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition by Organophosphate
and Carbamate Insecticides in Fish. Ph.D.Thesis, Louisiana State Univ.and Agric.and Mechanical
College, LA 202 p. (Publ in Part As 942).
EcoReference No.: 14034
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MOM,CBF,AZ,ADC,DCTP,MP,MLN,CBL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BCM.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(AZ,CBL,CBF,MOM,ADC,MLN,MP,CPY).
131. Carvajal, F., Sanchez-Amate, M. C., Sanchez-Santed, F., and Cubero, I. (2005). Neuroanatomical
Targets of the Organophosphate Chlorpyrifos by c-fos Immunolabeling. Toxicol.Sci. 84: 360-367.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 80515
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL.GRO.PHY.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
132. Castle, S. J., Toscano, N. C., Prabhaker, N, Henneberry, T. J., and Palumbo, J. C. (2002). Field
Evaluation of Different Insecticide Use Strategies as Resistance Management and Control Tactics for
Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae). Bull.Entomol.Res. 92:449-460.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81336
Chemical of Concern: BFT,AMZ,CPY,ES; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(BFT),OK(AMZ,ES),OK TARGET(CPY).
133. Castro, B. A., Riley, T. J., Torrey, K. D., and Leonard, B. R. (1999). Chinch Bug Management in
Grain Sorghum Using Foliar Insecticides, 1998. ArthropodManag.Tests 24: 281 (F100).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88061
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,CYH,CPY,DM,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(CBF,CYH,IMC,DM),OK TARGET(CYF,CPY).
134. Cetin, H., Yanikoglu, A., Kocak, 0., and Cilek, J. E. (2006). Evaluation of Temephos and
Chlorpyrifos-Methyl Against Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) Larvae in Septic Tanks in Antalya,
Turkey. J.Med.Entomol. 43: 1195-1199.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88072
Chemical of Concern: TMP,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: TARGET
(CPYM).
135. Cetin, N., Cetin, E., Eraslan, G., and Bilgili, A. (2007). Chlorpyrifos Induces Cardiac Dysfunction in
Rabbits. Res.Vet.Sci. 82: 405-408.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92599
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
136. Chalfant, R. B. (1997). Control of Lepidopterous Pests, 1991. Arthropod Manag.Tests 22: 88 (9E).
EcoReferenceNo.: 83124
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EFV,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(EFV,PMR,CPY).
137. Chalfant, R. B. (1997). Laboratory Bioassays of Insecticides Against the Cabbage Looper. In:
C.R.Saxena, Arthropod Management Tests, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 22: 413.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82480
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,CYH,ACP,MOM,CPY,DKGNa,MTM,EFV,ES,PMR; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(ACP,DKGNa,CYH,MOM,CPY,DKGNa,MTM,EFV,ES,PMR),OK(ALLCHEMS).
138. Chalfant, R. B., Hall, M. R., Johnson, A. W., Seal, D. R., and Bondari, L. C. (1992). Effects of
Application Methods, Timing, and Rates of Insecticides and Nematicides on Yield and Control of
Wireworms (Coleoptera: Elateridae) and Nematodes (Tylenchida: Heteroderidae) that Affect Sweet
Potato. J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 878-887.
EcoReferenceNo.: 85644
Chemical of Concern: DZ,PRN,FNF,EP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,CONTROL(DZ),TARGET(CPY).
-------
139. Chamberlin, J. R. and All, J. N. (1991). Grain Sorghum Response to Fall Armyworm and Corn
Earworm Infestation. J.Econ.Entomol. 84: 619-624.
EcoReference No.: 73708
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(MOM),EFFICACY(CPY).
140. Chambers, H., Brown, B., and Chambers, J. E. (1990). Noncatalytic Detoxication of Six
Organophosphorus Compounds by Rat Liver Homogenates. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 36: 308-315.
EcoReference No.: 91395
Chemical of Concern: MP,PRN,CPY,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MP,CPY,CPYM).
141. Chambers, J. E. and Carr, R. L. (1993). Inhibition Patterns of Brain Acetylcholinesterase and Hepatic
and Plasma Aliesterases Following Exposures to Three Phosphorothionate Insecticides and Their
Oxons in Rats. Fundam.Appl. Toxicol. 21: 111-119.
EcoReference No.: 91393
Chemical of Concern: PRN,MP,MPO,CPY,CYPO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MP,MPO,CPY,CYPO).
142. Chan, V., Stapleton, A., Soto, A., Yu, K., and Del Raso, N. (2007). Identification of Gene Expression
Changes in Whole Blood Indicative of Exposure to Chemicals with Different Target Organ Toxicity.
Rep., Alion Sci.Techonol.Corp., Dayton, OH 9: 16 p. (NTIS 00510035).
EcoReference No.: 92566
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
143. Chandler, K. J. and Erbacher, J. P. (1997). Susceptibility of Canegrubs to the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos.
Proc.Conf.Aust.Soc.Sugar Cane Technol. 19: 118-126.
EcoReference No.: 72321
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO; Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
144. Chandler, L. D. and Ruberson, J. R. (1994). Comparative Toxicity of Four Commonly-used
Insecticides to Field-collected Beet Armyworm Larvae from the Southeastern United States. Proc.-
Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2: 860-864.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
145. Chandrakar, H. K., Dubey, A. K., and Kaushik, U. K. (1993). Performance of Some Common
Insecticides Against Dactynotus compositae (Theobold) on Safflower. J.Insect Sci. 6: 156-157.
EcoReference No.: 89147
Chemical of Concern: CYP,PPHD,DEM,DMT,MLN,ES,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(DMT,MLN,CPY,CYP).
146. Chandrasekara, L. W. H. U. and Pathiratne, A. (2007). Body Size-Related Differences in the Inhibition
of Brain Acetylcholinesterase Activity in Juvenile Nile Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) by
Chlorpyrifos and Carbosulfan. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 67: 109-119.
EcoReference No.: 92620
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
-------
CODED(CPY).
147. Chang, V. C. S. and Lange, W. H. (1967). Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Selected Pesticides for
Control of the Red Crayfish in California Rice Fields. J.Econ.Entomol. 60: 473-477.
EcoReference No.: 4678
Chemical of Concern: FNTH,MP,CPY,PRN,DLD,CBL,Captan,THM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBL,MP),OK(FNTH,PRN,DLD,THM),NO
ENDPOINT(Captan).
148. Chaudhry, A. and Anand, P. K. (2005). Evaluation of the Mutagenic Potential of Chlorpyrifos (CPF)
Using Polytene Chromosomes of Anopheles Mosquito. J.Environ.Biol. 26: 145-150.
EcoReference No.: 86588
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
149. Childers, C. C. (1990). Combination Studies of Selected Acaricides with Zineb, Mancozeb, or
Carbamate for Mite Control on Citrus. Int.J.Acarol. 16: 27-36.
EcoReference No.: 90814
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Zineb,MZB,DCF,ETN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MZB),OK(TARGET-CPY).
150. Childers, C. C., Aguilar, H., Villanueva, R., and Abou-Setta, M. M. (2001). Comparative Residual
Toxicities of Pesticides to the Predator Euseius mesembrinus (Acari: Phytoseiidae) on Citrus in
Florida. Fla.Entomol. 84: 391-401 .
EcoReference No.: 78987
Chemical of Concern:
DFZ,ALSV,ETN,PRB,CBL,FTT,FO,CPY,DCF,CuOH,DMT,AZD,CuS,FMB,BMY,MLN,PPG,FNB,C
FP,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(CuOH,CuS,FNB,BMY,FBM,CPY,PRB,CBL,FTT,FO,DCF,AZD),TARGET(DMT,MLN,AZ,CBL
),NO MIXTURE(ETN),TARGET(CPY).
151. Childers, C. C., Villanueva, R., Aguilar, H., Chewning, R., and Michaud, J. P. (2001). Comparative
Residual Toxicities of Pesticides to the Predator Agistemus industani (Acari: Stigmaeidae) on Citrus
in Florida. Exp.Appl.Acarol. 25: 461-474.
EcoReference No.: 78988
Chemical of Concern:
DFZ,ALSV,ETN,PRB,CBL,FTT,FO,CPY,DCF,CuOH,AZD,CuS,FBM,BMY,MLN,PPG,FNB,CFP;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(DFZ,PRB,FTT,FO,CPY,DCF,AZD,CuS,FBM,BMY,PPG,FNB,CFP),NO
MIXTURE(ALSV,ETN,CuOH),OKTARGET(CBL,MLN),TARGET(CPY).
152. Chindah, A. C., Sikoki, F. D., and Vincent-Akpu, I. (2004). Toxicity of an Organophosphate Pesticide
(Chloropyrifos) on a Common Niger Delta Wetland Fish-Tilapia guineensis (Blecker 1862).
J.Appl.Sci.Environ.Manag. 8: 11-17.
EcoReference No.: 86905
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
Choo, H. Y., Kim, H. H., and Kaya, H. K. (1998). Effects of Selected Chemical Pesticides on
Agamermis unka (Nematoda: Mermithidae), a Parasite of the Brown Plant Hopper, Nilaparvata lugens.
-------
BiocontrolSci.Technol. 8: 413-427.
EcoReference No.: 63774
Chemical of Concern: DZ,FNT,CPY,BPZ,CBF,FNTH,IMC,EFX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ),OK TARGET(CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS)JARGET(CPY).
154. Cisneros, J., Goulson, D., Derwent, L. C., Penagos, D. I., Hernandez, 0., and Williams, T. (2002).
Toxic Effects of Spinosad on Predatory Insects. Biol.Contr. 23: 156-163.
EcoReference No.: 93079
Chemical of Concern: CPY,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.REP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY).
155. Given, M, Brown, C. B., and Morin, R. J. (1977). Effects of Organophosphate Insecticides on Adrenal
Cholesteryl Ester and Steroid Metabolism. Biochem.Pharmacol. 26: 1901-1907.
EcoReference No.: 36173
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO.BEH.BCM; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
156. Clark, J. R., Patrick, J. M. Jr., Middaugh, D. P., and Moore, J. C. (1985). Relative Sensitivity of Six
Estuarine Fishes to Carbophenothion, Chlorpyrifos,and Fenvalerate. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 10: 382-
390.
EcoReference No.: 11427
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
157. Clarke, S. R., DeBarr, G. L., and Berisford, C. W. (1988). Differential Susceptibility of Toumeyella
pini (King) (Homoptera: Coccidae) to Pyrethroid and Organophosphate Insecticides: A Factor in
Outbreaks in Southern Pine Seed Orchards. J.Econ.Entomol. 81: 1443-1445.
EcoReference No.: 93001
Chemical of Concern: ACP,MLN,AZ,CPY,FNV,PMR,FVL,BFT,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ACP,MLN,AZ,CPY,FNV,PMR,FVL,BFT,EFV).
158. Clemens, C. G., Fitzpatrick, B. J., Boyd, M. L., Mascarenhas, R. N, Boethel, D. J., Cook, D., and
Burris, G. (1997). Bean Leaf Beetle and Soybean Looper Control on Soybean, 1996. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 22: 310 (123F).
EcoReference No.: 91336
Chemical of Concern: TDC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(TDC,CPY).
159. Clements, R. 0., Asteraki, E., and Jackson, C. A. (1988). A Method to Study the Effects of
Chlorpyrifos on Predatory Ground Beetles in Grassland. In: M.P. Greaves, B.D.Smith, and P. W.Greig-
Smith (Eds.), Field Methods for the Study of Environmental Effects of Pesticides, Proc.Symp., British
Crop Protection Council, Churchill College, March 28-30, 1988, Cambridge, UK, Field Methods for
the Study of 167-174.
EcoReference No.: 48294
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
160. Clements, R. 0., Bentley, B. R., and Jackson, C. A. (1986). The Impact of Granular Formulations of
Phorate, Terbufos, Carbofuran, Carbosulfan and Thiofanox on Newly Sown Italian Ryegrass (Lolium
multiflorum). Crop Prot. 5: 389-394.
-------
EcoReference No.: 79049
Chemical of Concern: PRT,CBF,CPY,TBO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(PRT,CPY),OK(CBF).
161. Clements, R. 0., Bentley, B. R., and Murray, P. J. (1992). Differential Reaction of Newly-Sown
Ryegrass (Lolium spp.) Cultivars to Insecticide Treatments. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 13: 78-79.
EcoReference No.: 74580
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CBF,CPY,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(ADC,CBF,CPY),NO ENDPOINT(PRT).
162. Clifford, M. A., Eder, K. J., Werner, I., and Hedrick, R. P. (2005). Synergistic Effects of Esfenvalerate
and Infectious Hematopoietic Necrosis Virus on Juvenile Chinook Salmon Mortality.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 24: 1766-1772.
EcoReference No.: 81331
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EF V; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(EFV,CPY).
163. Cockfield, S. D. and Potter, D. A. (1983). Short-Term Effects of Insecticidal Applications on
Predaceous Arthropods and Oribatid Mites in Kentucky Bluegrass Turf. Environ.Entomol. 12: 1260-
1264.
EcoReference No.: 36204
Chemical of Concern: CPY,BDC,TCF,IFP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
164. Cohen, H., Horowitz, A. R., Nestel, D., and Rosen, D. (1996). Susceptibility of the Woolly Apple
Aphid Parasitoid, Aphelinus mali (Hym.: Aphelinidae), to Common Pesticides Used in Apple
Orchards in Israel. Entomophaga 41: 225-233 .
EcoReference No.: 72045
Chemical of Concern: CPY,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO: Rejection Code:
TARGET(AZ,CPY).
165. Collins, P. J. (1990). A New Resistance to Pyrethroids in Tribolium castaneum (Herbst). Pestic.Sci.
28: 101-115.
EcoReference No.: 93114
Chemical of Concern:
SMT,MTPN,MLN,CPYM,BRSM,CBL,CYF,PPB,TBF,CYP,FNV,FVL,CYH,DM,FNT,CYT,PIRM;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.REP: Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(TBF,PPB),OK
TARGET(SMT,MTPN,CPYM,BRSM,CBL,CYF,CYP,FNV,FVL).
166. Colombo, A., Orsi, F., and Bonfanti, P. (2005). Exposure to the Organophosphorus Pesticide
Chlorpyrifos Inhibits Acetylcholinesterase Activity and Affects Muscular Integrity in Xenopus laevis
Larvae. Chemosphere 61: 1665-1671.
EcoReference No.: 93533
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
167. Cometa, M. F., Buratti, F. M., Fortuna, S., Lorenzini, P., Volpe, M. T., Parisi, L., Testai, E., and
Meneguz, A. (2007). Cholinesterase Inhibition and Alterations of Hepatic Metabolism by Oral Acute
and Repeated Chlorpyrifos Administration to Mice. Toxicology 234: 90-102.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 93364
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.GRO.PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
168. Cooney, J. C. and Pickard, E. (1974). Field Tests with Abate and Dursban Insecticides for Control of
Floodwater Mosquitoes in the Tennessee Valley Region. Mosq.News 34: 12-22.
EcoReference No.: 4224
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: POP .MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
169. Cooper, L. P. (1992). Control of Black Field Earwig, Nala lividipes (Dufour), in Beetroot Seedlings.
PlantProt.Q. 7: 112-113.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89240
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(TDC,CPY),OK(CYP).
170. Cooper, N. L. and Bidwell, J. R. (2006). Cholinesterase Inhibition and Impacts on Behavior of the
Asian Clam, Corbicula fluminea, After Exposure to an Organophosphate Insecticide. Aquat.Toxicol.
76: 258-267.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89740
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
171. Cripe, G. M, Hansen, D. J., MaCauley, S. F., and Forester, J. (1986). Effects of Diet Quantity on
Sheepshead Minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus) During Early Life-Stage Exposures to Chlorpyrifos.
In: T.M.Poston andR.Purdy (Eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Environmental Fate, 9th Volume, ASTM
STP 921, Philadelphia, PA 450-460.
EcoReference No.: 7769
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
172. Crommentuijn, T., Connie, J. A. M., Doodeman, A. D., and van, Gestel (1997). Life-table Study with
the Springtail Folsomia Candida (Willem) Exposed to Cadmium, Chlorpyrifos and Triphenyltin
Hydroxide. In: N.M. Van Straalen andH.Lokke (Eds.), Ecological Risk Assessment of Contaminants in
Soil, Chapman and Hall, London 275-291.
EcoReference No.: 48438
Chemical of Concern: Cd,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP. MOR; Rejection Code: No
Media:Flt, Om, Ph,TARGET(CPY).
173. Crommentuijn, T., Staab, J. A., Doornekamp, A., Estoppey, 0., and Van Gestel, C. A. M. (1995).
Comparative Ecotoxicity of Cadmium, Chlorpyrifos and Triphenyltin Hydroxide for Four Clones of
the Parthenogenetic Collembolan Folsomia Candida in an Artificial Soil. Funct.Ecol. 9: 734-742.
EcoReference No.: 40227
Chemical of Concern: Cd,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR. GRO.REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
174. Cross, J. V. (1997). Susceptibility of the Summer Fruit Tortrix Moth, Adoxophyes orana (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae), to Chlorpyrifos and Strategies for Insecticidal Control in Orchards. Ann.Appl.Biol. 131:
197-212.
-------
EcoReference No.: 63259
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
175. Cross, J. V. and Berrie, A. M. (1994). Effects of Repeated Foliar Sprays of Insecticides or Fungicides
on Organophosphate-Resistant Strains of the Orchard Predatory Mite Typhlodromus pyri on Apple.
CropProt. 13: 39-44.
EcoReference No.: 90375
Chemical of Concern: Captan,CYP,PIRM,CPY,CBL,BMY,TPM,Zn,Maneb,MZB,DINO; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(Captan,MZB),OK(DINO,TPM,BMY),OK
TARGET(CYP,PIRM,CPY,CBL),NOMLXTURE(Maneb,Zn).
176. Cross, J. V. and Berrie, A. M. (1996). Further Field Evaluation of the Effects of Repeated Foliar
Sprays of Insecticides or Fungicides Alone and in Admixture on an Organophosphate-Resistant Strain
of the Orchard Predatory Mite Typhlodromus pyri on Apple. Crop Prot. 15: 637-639.
EcoReference No.: 93279
Chemical of Concern: PIRM,MZB,TPM,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(MZB),TARGET(CBL,CPY).
177. Csinos, A. S. (1989). Targeting Fungicides for Control of Southern Stem Rot on Peanut. Plant Dis.
73: 723-726.
EcoReference No.: 70314
Chemical of Concern: EP,DCZ,FTL,PNB,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
178. Curtis, J. E. and Home, P. A. (1995). Effect of Chlorpyrifos and Cypermethrin Applications on Non-
Target Invertebrates in a Conservation-Tillage Crop. J.Aust.Entomol.Soc. 34: 229-231.
EcoReference No.: 77054
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CYP),OK TARGET(CPY),NO COC(PMR).
179. Daglish, G. J. (1998). Efficacy of Six Grain Protectants Applied Alone or in Combination Against
Three Species of Coleoptera. J.StoredProd.Res. 34: 263-268.
EcoReference No.: 63788
Chemical of Concern: PRIM,CPYM,FNT,DM,PPB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection Code:
NOMIXTURE(PPB),ENDPOINT(PRIM,FNT,DM),OKTARGET(CPYM),TARGET(CPY).
180. Daglish, G. J., Hall, E. A., Zorzetto, M. J., Lambkin, T. M., and Erbacher, J. M. (1993). Evaluation of
Protectants for Control of Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae) in Navybeans
(Phaseolus vulgaris (L.)). J.Stored Prod.Res. 29: 215-219.
EcoReference No.: 70523
Chemical of Concern: MLN,FNT,PIRM,PMR,DM,CPYM,BRSM,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(BRSM),OK(ALL
CHEMS),TARGET(CBL,MLN,CPYM).
181. Dahiya, K. K., Lakra, R. K., Dahiya, A. S., and Singh, S. P. (1994). Bioefficacy of Some Insecticides
Against Citrus psylla, Diaphorina cirri Kuw. (Psyllidae: Homoptera). Crop Res. 8: 137-140.
EcoReference No.: 89880
Chemical of Concern: OXD,DMT,C YP,CP Y,DDT,HCCH,DDVP,DCM,ES,FNV,MLN,PPHD;
-------
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR: Rejection Code: OK(CPY,DDT,DDVP,DCM,PPHD),OK
TARGET(OXD,DMT,CYP,MLN,ES),NOMIXTURE(HCCH),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
182. Darwazeh, H. A. and Mulla, M. S. (1974). Toxicity of Herbicides and Mosquitoe Larvicides to the
Mosquito Fish Gambusia affinis. Mosq.News 34: 214-219 (Also Used ECOREF 2131, 2894) (Author
Communication Used).
EcoReference No.: 6210
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,PMT,SZ,PPZ.PRO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO CONTROL(SZ,ATZ),ENDPOINT(PRO,PPZ).
183. Davidson, M. M., Cilgi, T., Petersen, M. K., Wratten, S. D., and Frampton, C. (1997). Resilience of
Springtail (Collembola) Populations in Farmland Following Exposure to Insecticides.
Aust.J.Ecotoxicol. 3: 99-108.
EcoReference No.: 63803
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
184. Day, K. E. and Scott, I. M. (1990). Use of Acetylcholinesterase Activity to Detect Sublethal Toxicity
in Stream Invertebrates Exposed to Low Concentrations of Organophosphate Insecticides.
Aquat.Toxicol. 18: 101-113.
EcoReference No.: 3549
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CPY,FNT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,AZ),OK(FNT).
185. De Maeyer, L., Peeters, D., Wijsmuller, J. M., Cantoni, A., Brueck, E., and Heibges, S. (2002).
Spirodiclofen: A Broad-Spectrum Acaricide with Insecticidal Properties: Efficacy on Psylla pyri and
Scales Lepidosaphes ulmi and Quadraspidiotus perniciosus. In: BCPC Conf.- Pests & Diseases, Bayer
Crop Science, Brussels Belguim 1: 65-72.
EcoReference No.: 76036
Chemical of Concern: SDF,IMC,CPY,PHSL,AMZ,TAP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(SDF),OK(AMZ,TAP),NO
CONTROL(PHSL),MIXTURE(CPY,IMC),TARGET(CPY).
186. De Mel, G. W. J. L. M. V. T. M. and Pathiratne, A. (2005). Toxicity Assessment of Insecticides
Commonly Used in Rice Pest Management to the Fry of Common Carp, Cyprinus carpio, a Food Fish
Culturable in Rice Fields. J.Appl.Ichthyol. 21: 146-150.
EcoReference No.: 87858
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,CPY,DMT).
187. De Silva, P. M. C. S. and Samayawardhena, L. A. (2005). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Reproductive
Performances of Guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Chemosphere 58: 1293-1299.
EcoReference No.: 80955
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,REP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
188. De Silva, P. M. C. S. and Samayawardhena, L. A. (2002). Low Concentrations of Lorsban in Water
Result in Far Reaching Behavioral and Histological Effects in Early Life Stages in Guppy.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 53: 248-254.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 72831
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.PHY.CEL; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
189. Deacon, M. M, Murray, J. S., Pilny, M. K., Rao, K. S., Dittenber, D. A., Hanley, T. R. Jr., and John, J.
A. (1980). Embryotoxicity and Fetotoxicity of Orally Administered Chlorpyrifos in Mice.
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 54: 31-40.
EcoReference No.: 93131
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
190. DeLorenzo, M. E. and Serrano, L. (2003). Individual and Mixture Toxicity of Three Pesticides;
Atrazine, Chlorpyrifos, and Chlorothalonil to the Marine Phytoplankton Species Dunaliella tertiolecta.
J.Environ.Sci.HealthPartB38: 529-538.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81619
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,CTN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CTN,ATZ,CPY).
191. Delpuech, J. M., Froment, B., Fouillet, P., Pompanon, F., Janillon, S., and Bouletreau, M. (1998).
Inhibition of Sex Pheromone Communications of Trichogramma brassicae (Hymenoptera) by the
Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 17: 1107-1113.
EcoReference No.: 48629
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
192. Delpuech, J. M., Gareau, E., Terrier, 0., and Fouillet, P. (1998). Sublethal Effects of the Insecticide
Chlorpyrifos on the Sex Pheromonal Communication of Trichogramma brassicae. Chemosphere 36:
1775-1785.
EcoReference No.: 48628
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
193. Delpuech, J. M. and Meyet, J. (2003). Reduction in the Sex Ratio of the Progeny of a Parasitoid Wasp
(Trichogramma brassicae) Surviving the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45:
203-208.
EcoReferenceNo.: 70213
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
194. Dembele, K., Haubruge, E., and Gaspar, C. (2000). Concentration Effects of Selected Insecticides on
Brain Acetylcholinesterase in the Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio L.). Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 45: 49-
54.
EcoReference No.: 48634
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CBF,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DZ,CBF,CPY).
195. Dennehy, T. J., Taft, T. N, and Crowe, H. J. (1987). Performance of Insecticides for Grape Berry
Moth, (GBM) 1985. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 79 (075).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88518
Chemical of Concern: MP,FPP,BFT,PRN,CYF,CPY,CYT,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,REP,POP; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYF,BFT,MP,CBL).
-------
196. Depew, L. J. (1988). Suppression of Sunflower Moth (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) on Sunflower with
Selected Insecticides. J.Kam.Entomol.Soc. 61: 235-237 .
EcoReference No.: 91616
Chemical of Concern: MP,CYH,CYF,CBF,CPY,FNV,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MP,CYF,CPY,FNV,EFV).
197. Desneux, N., Rafalimanana, H., and Kaiser, L. (2004). Dose-Response Relationship in Lethal and
Behavioural Effects of Different Insecticides on the Parasitic Wasp Aphidius ervi. Chemosphere 54:
619-627.
EcoReference No.: 72495
Chemical of Concern: PIM,CPY,TZM,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PIM,TZM,LCYT).
198. Di Martino, E. and Romeo, M. (1987). Effects of the Distribution of Chlorpyrifos on the Lemon. In:
R.Cavalloro and E.Di Martino (Eds.), Integrated Pest Control in Citrus Groves, Experts' Meeting,
March 26-29, 1985, Ariceale, Italy 455-458.
EcoReference No.: 64642
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
199. Diamantino, T. C., Ribeiro, R., Goncalves, F., and Scares, A. M. V. M. (1998). METIER (Modular
Ecotoxicity Tests Incorporating Ecological Relevance) for Difficult Substances. 5. Chlorpyrifos
Toxicity to Daphnia magna in Static, Semi-static, and Flow-Through Conditions.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 61: 433-439 .
EcoReference No.: 19813
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
200. Dimitrov, B. and Gadeva, P. (1998). Genotoxic Effects of Five Pesticides in Crepis capillaris Root
Meristem Cells . Prog.Bot.Res.Proc.Balk.Bot.Congr., 1st Meeting Date 1997, Editor(s): Tsekos,
loannes; Moustakas, Michael.Publisher: Kluwer, Dordrecht, Neth.CODEN: 67UVAG 477-480.
EcoRef erence No.: 93362
Chemical of Concern: CPY,LNR,DQTBr; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
201. Dimitrov, B. and Gadeva, P. (1997). Genotoxicity Studies on the Insecticide Dursban in Root
Meristem Cells of Crepis capillaris L. Environ.Exp.Bot. 37: 199-209.
EcoReference No.: 64643
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
202. Dixon, R. D. and Brust, R. A. (1971). Field Testing of Insecticides Used in Mosquito Control, and a
Description of the Bioassay Technique Used in Temporary Pools. J.Econ.Entomol. 64: 11-14.
EcoReference No.: 2813
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,MXC,FNTH,PPX,DDT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MLN),OK(ALL CHEMS).
Djam, J. C. andFocks, D. A. (1983). Susceptibility of Toxorhynchites amboinensis and Aedes aegypti
to Several Adulticides Currently Used for Mosquito Control. Mosq.News 43: 471-473.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 61580
Chemical of Concern: MLN,Naled,FNTH,CPY,RSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: TARGET(MLN,Naled,CPY,RSM).
204. Doerr, M. D., Brunner, J. F., and Schrader, L. E. (2004). Integrated Pest Management Approach for a
New Pest, Lacanobia subjuncta (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), in Washington Apple Orchards. Pest
Manag.Sci. 60: 1025-1034.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82540
Chemical of Concern:
EMMB,MFZ,TUZ,CBL,TDC,MOM,ES,TMX,ACT,TAP,SS,AZD,AZ,CPY,PSM,MLN,IDC,EFV,KL
N; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ALL
CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
205. Doran, W. J., Cope, W. G., Rada, R. G., and Sandheinrich, M. B. (2001). Acetylcholinesterase
Inhibition in the Threeridge Mussel (Amblema plicata) by Chlorpyrifos: Implications for
Biomonitoring. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 49: 91-98.
EcoReferenceNo.: 61845
Availability: UR
Number of Volumes: WATER,AQUA
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
206. Doss, M. and Berberet, R. (1992). Early Season Insect Control in Alfalfa, 1991. Imectic.Acaric.Tests
17: 173 (IF).
EcoReference No.: 79777
Chemical of Concern: BFT,CYF,CPY,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVALCODED(CYF,BFT),EFFICACY(CPY),OK(CBF).
207. Dow Chemical Co. (2000). The Clinical Toxicity of Dursban in the Dog After Multiple Applications
of an Aerosol Formulation (Final Report) with Cover Sheet Dated 121668. EPA/OTS Doc.#86-
890001108s 21 p. (NTIS/OTS 0520248).
EcoReferenceNo.: 93326
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.CEL.MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
208. Dowd, P. F., Pingel, R. L., Ruhl, D., Shasha, B. S., Behle, R. W., Penland, D. R., McGuire, M. R., and
Faron II, E. J. (2000). Multiacreage Evaluation of Aerially Applied Adherent Malathion Granules for
Selective Insect Control and Indirect Reduction of Mycotoxigenic Fungi in Specialty Corn.
J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 1424-1428.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58558
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(MLN,CPY).
209. Dregseth, R. J., Boetel, M. A., Schroeder, A. J., Carlson, R. B., and Armstrong, J. S. (2003). Oat Cover
Cropping and Soil Insecticides in an Integrated Sugarbeet Root Maggot (Diptera: Otitidae)
Management Program. J.Econ.Entomol. 96: 1426-1432.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86449
Chemical of Concern: TBO,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
COC(CTN),EFFICACY(CPY).
-------
210. Durairaj, C., Babu, P. C. S., and Venugopal, M. S. (1989). Toxicity of Insecticides on Rice Gall-Midge
(Orseolia oryzae) and Its Parasitoid (Platygaster oryzae). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 59: 683-684.
EcoReference No.: 73023
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
211. Duso, C., Camporese, P., and VanderGeest, L. P. S. (1992). Toxicity of a Number of Pesticides to
Strains of Typhlodromus pyri and Amblyseius andersoni (Acari: Phytoseiidae). Entomophaga 37:
363-372.
EcoReference No.: 73088
Chemical of Concern: PRN,CBL,ACP,AZ,CPY,MDT,MOM,DM,CPYM,FNT,TCF,CBL; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR,REP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ACP,AZ,CBL),TARGET(MOM, CPYM).
212. Dynamac Corporation (1988). Results of the Locust Pesticide Testing Trials in Sudan. Technical
Report. USAID Contract No.AFR-0517-C-00-7035-00,Dynamac Corp., Rockville, MD 50 p.
EcoReference No.: 81907
Chemical of Concern: LCYT,TLM,CBL,BDC,CPY,DZ,FNT,MLN,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,ACC,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ADC,CBL,MLN,CPY),NO
ENDPOINT(DZ),OK(FNT).
213. Eason, C. T., Svendsen, C., O'Halloran, K., and Weeks, J. M. (1999). An Assessment of the Lysosomal
Neutral Red Retention Test and Immune Function Assay in Earthworms (Eisenia andrei) Following
Exposure to Chlorpyrifos, Benzo-a-Pyrene (BaP), and Contaminated Soil. Pedobiologia 43: 641-645.
EcoReference No.: 71160
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PAH,BAP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.PHY: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
214. Easterbrook, M. A. (1984). Effects of Pesticides on the Apple Rust Mite Aculus schlechtendali (Nal.)
(Eriophyidae). J.Hortic.Sci. 59: 51-55.
EcoReference No.: 71031
Chemical of Concern: EN,CBL,CPY,DFZ,PIRM,MZB,PHSL,DCF,FPP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: OK(MZB),TARGET(CBL,CPY).
215. Easterbrook, M. A. (1997). The Phenology of Lygus rugulipennis, the European Tarnished Plant Bug,
on Late-Season Strawberries, and Control with Insecticides. Ann.Appl.Biol. 131: 1-10.
EcoReference No.: 89190
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,CYP,BFT,TCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(TCF),OKTARGET(MLN,CPY,CYP,BFT).
216. Eaton, J., Arthur, J., Hermanutz, R., Kiefer, R., Mueller, L., Anderson, R., Erickson, R., and Nordling,
B. (1985). Biological Effects of Continuous and Intermittent Dosing of Outdoor Experimental Streams
with Chlorpyrifos. In: R.C.Banner and D.J.Hansen (Eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard
Assessment, 8th Symposium, ASTMSTP 891, Philadelphia, PA 85-118.
EcoReference No.: 7658
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,POP,GRO,BCM,ACC,REP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
217. Edelson, J. V. and Peters, M. (1997). Control of Lepidopterous Pests on Collards, 1996. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 22: 119 (39E).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 92317
Chemical of Concern: FPN,LCYT,CPY,DZ,MXC,CBL,IMC,TDC,DMT,ES,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(FPN,CPY,DZ,CBL,TDC,DMT,PMR).
218. Eder, K. J., Kohler, H. R., and Werner, I. (2007). Pesticide and Pathogen: Heat Shock Protein
Expression and Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition in Juvenile Chinook Salmon in Response to Multiple
Stressors. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 26: 1233-1242.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91827
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EF V; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,EFV).
219. Eder, K. J., Leutenegger, C. M, Wilson, B. W., and Werner, I. (2004). Molecular and Cellular
Biomarker Responses to Pesticide Exposure in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha). Mar.Environ.Res. 58: 809-813.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81815
Chemical of Concern: EFV,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM,PHY; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(EFV,CPY).
220. Edge, V. E. and Casimir, M. (1976). Toxicity of Insecticides to Adult Australian Plague Locust,
Chortoicetes terminifera (Orthoptera: Acrididae). J.Aust.Entomol.Soc. 14: 321-326.
EcoReference No.: 70906
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY,CBL,RSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,DZ,CBL,CPY).
221. Ehrich, M., Hancock, S., Ward, D., Holladay, S., Pung, T., Flory, L., Hinckley, J., and Jortner, B. S.
(2004). Neurologic and Immunologic Effects of Exposure to Corticosterone, Chlorpyrifos, and
Multiple Doses of Tri-Ortho-Tolyl Phosphate over a 28-Day Period in Rats. J. Toxicol.Environ.Health
Part A 61: 431-457 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 86773
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL.BEH.BCM.PHY: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
222. El-Elaimy, I. A., El-Dib, M. A., and Elowa, S. E. (1991). The In Vivo Senitivity of ATPase Enzymes
in Tissues of Fresh Water Teleost Exposed to Chorpyrifos or Lannate. J.Environ.Sci. 2: 17-31.
EcoReference No.: 75203
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(MOM,CPY).
223. El-Gazzar, L. M., Koehler, P. G., and Patterson, R. S. (1988). Factors Affecting the Susceptibility of
the Cat Flea, Ctenocephalides felis Bouche to Chlorpyrifos. J.Agric.Entomol. 5: 127-130.
EcoReference No.: 63842
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
224. El-Refai, A., Fahmy, F. A., Abdel-Lateef, M. F. A., and Imam, A. K. E. (1976). Toxicity of Three
Insecticides to Two Species of Fish. Int.Pest Control 18: 4-8.
EcoReference No.: 6090
Chemical of Concern: EN,MOM,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,ACC; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MOM).
-------
225. El-Sayed, G. N. and Knowles, C. 0. (1984). Synergism of Insecticide Activity to Heliothis zea
(Boddie) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) by Formanilides and Formamidines. J.Econ.Entomol. 77: 872-
875.
EcoReference No.: 78950
Chemical of Concern: CYP,FNL,MP,CPY,CBL,MOM,EN,PFF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),NO COC(Br2),TARGET(CBL,MOM,MP,CPY).
226. Eliason, E. A. and Potter, D. A. (2000). Impact of Whole-Canopy and Systemic Insecticidal
Treatments on Callirhytis cornigera (Hymenoptera: Cynipidae) and Associated Parasitoids on Pin Oak.
J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 165-171.
EcoReference No.: 87491
Chemical of Concern: ACP,DCTP,IMC,DMT,ABM,CPY,BFT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,POP,PHY; Rejection Code: TARGET (DMT),TARGET(CPY).
227. Elliott, R. H. (1988). Evaluation of Insecticides for Protection of Wheat Against Damage by the Wheat
Midge, Sitodiplosis mosellana (Gehin) (Diptera: Cecidomyiidae). Can.Entomol. 120:615-626.
EcoReference No.: 92751
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR,DMT,DM,CYP,MXC,CBF,MLN,ES; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP,GRO; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CPY,PMR,DMT,CYP,CBF,MLN).
228. Elzen, G. W. (1992). Cotton Aphid Control, 1990. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 221-222 (58F).
EcoReference No.: 79272
Chemical of Concern: MP,ES,CPY,DS,CYF,MTM,BFT,ACP,EFV,OXD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MTM,OXD),TARGET(MP,CPY).
229. Elzen, G. W. (1996). Evaluation of beet Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Tolerance to
Insecticides and Response to IGR's. Southwest.Entomol. 21: 127-133.
EcoReference No.: 68418
Chemical of Concern: AMZ,TLM,MOM,ACP,BFT,CPY,SPS,PFF,TDC,FYC,DFZ; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
230. Endlweber, K., Schadler, M, and Scheu, S. (2006). Effects of Foliar and Soil Insecticide Applications
on the Collembolan Community of an Early Set-Aside Arable Field. Appl.Soil Ecol. 31: 136-146.
EcoReference No.: 92146
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY,DMT).
231. Erman, M., Yardim, E. N., and Kulaz, H. (2005). Effect of Cultivars and Insecticides on Sitonid
Weevil, Sitona crinitus (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and on Yield, Yield Components and Nodulation
of Lentil (Lens culinaris). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 75: 204-206.
EcoReference No.: 90694
Chemical of Concern: OXD,MLN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(OXD,CPY),OK TARGET,NO CROP(MLN).
232. Ester, A., De Putter, H., and Van Bilsen, J. G. P. M. (2003). Filmcoating the Seed of Cabbage
(Brassica oleracea L. convar. Capitata L.) and Cauliflower (Brassica oleracea L. var. Botrytis L.) with
Imidacloprid and Spinosad to Control Insect Pests. Crop Prot. 22: 761-768.
EcoReference No.: 72837
-------
Chemical of Concern: SS,CPY,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.PHY.REP; Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(CPY).
233. Eulitz, E. G. (1986). Initial Experiments in the Control of False Wireworm (Tenebrionidae) on
Tobacco Transplants. PhytophylacticalK: 115-119.
EcoReferenceNo.: 74106
Chemical of Concern: TLF,TVP,CBL,ACP,MOM,ES,DZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,POP,BEH; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(DZ,ACP,CBL),TARGET(MOM,CPY).
234. Evans, E. S. Jr. (1976). Field Evaluation of the Extended Mosquito Larvicidal Activity of a Controlled-
Release Chlorpyrifos Polymer in a Woodland Pool Habitat. Entomological Special Study No.44-0364-
77, U.S.Army, Environ.Hyg.Agency, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 19.
EcoReference No.: 10241
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
235. Fabacher, D. L., Kulkarni, A. P., and Hodgson, E. (1980). Pesticides as Inducers of Hepatic Drug-
Metabolizing Enzymes -1. Mixed Function Oxidase Activity. Gen.Pharmacol. 11: 429-435.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92612
Chemical of Concern: CHD,CPY,ES,MLN,PMR,24D,PPB,TFN,FNV,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: GRO.BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,24D,TBF,FNV),OK(MLN,PMR,PPB).
236. Farag, A. T., El Okazy, A. M., and El-Aswed, A. F. (2003). Developmental Toxicity Study of
Chlorpyrifos in Rats. Reproduct.Toxicol. 17:203-208.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92585
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.REP.MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
237. Federle, P. F. and Collins, W. J. (1976). Insecticide Toxicity to Three Insects from Ohio Ponds. Ohio
J.Sci. 76: 19-24.
EcoReference No.: 7775
Chemical of Concern: DDT,PRN,CBL,DDVP,PPX,MLN,DZ,AND,CPY,ATN,HCCH,DLD; Habitat:
A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MLN,CBL,DZ,ATN),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
238. Fenemore, P. G. (1969). Field Trial Results with Fensulfothion and Trichloronate for Control of Grass
Grub (Costelytra zealandica (White)). N.Z.J.Agric.Res. 12: 137-145.
EcoReferenceNo.: 49142
Chemical of Concern: CPY,HCCH,DZ,DDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: Not
Ecossl Chem,TARGET(CPY).
239. Fernando, C., Cardona, D., Davila, E., and Sanchez-Santed, F. (2005). Long-Term Neurotoxicity of
Chlorpyrifos: Spatial Learning Impairment on Repeated Acquisition in a Water Maze. Toxicol.Sci.
85: 944-951.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80582
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.BCM.GRO.MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
-------
240. Ferrando, M. D. and Andreu-Moliner, E. (1991). Acute Lethal Toxicity of Some Pesticides to
Brachionus calyciflorus and Brachionus plicatilis. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 47: 479-484
(OECDG Data File).
EcoReference No.: 5139
Chemical of Concern: CPY,HCCH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
241. Ferrando, M. D., Sancho, E., and Andreu-Moliner, E. (1991). Comparative Acute Toxicities of
Selected Pesticides to Anguilla anguilla. J.Environ.Sci.Health B26: 491-498.
EcoRef erence No.: 11055
Chemical of Concern: TCF,ES,FNT,CPY,DZ,HCCH,MDT,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,MP),OK(TCF,ES,FNT,HCCH,MDT).
242. Fish and Wildlife, Service (1967). Effects of Granular Application of Dursban on Some Estuary and
Salt Marsh Organisms. U.S.Fish. Wildl.Serv.Spec.Sci.Rep., U.S.D.I., Bur.Sport Fish. Wildl., Atlanta,
GA 34 p.
EcoRef erence No.: 13445
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
243. Fisher, G. C., Parsons, G. L., Williams, J., and Eickelberger, J. (1991 ). Control of European Crane Fly
Infesting Pasture, Tillamook, Oreg., 1989 and 1990. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 200-201 (93F).
EcoRef erence No.: 91915
Chemical of Concern: MP,CBL,ACP,CPY,DZ,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(MP,CBL,ACP,CPY,DZ,MLN).
244. Fisher, T. C., Crane, M., and Callaghan, A. (2000). An Optimized Microtiterplate Assay to Detect
Acetylcholinesterase Activity in Individual Chironomus riparius Meigen. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 19:
1749-1752.
EcoReference No.: 49204
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
245. Fitt, J. R. Jr. and Teetes, G. L. (1986). Chemical Control of Sorghum Midge on Sorghum, 1985.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 322 (406).
EcoReference No.: 87880
Chemical of Concern: CBL,DZ,PRN,CYH,CPY,ETN,DS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY;
Rejection Code: OK(DZ,DS),TARGET(CBL),EFFICACY(CPY).
246. Fitzgerald, Jean (2004). Laboratory Bioassays and Field Evaluation of Insecticides for the Control of
Anthonomus rubi, Lygus rugulipennis and Chaetosiphon fragaefolii, and Effects on Beneficial Species,
in UK Strawberry Production. Crop Prot. 23: 801-809.
EcoRef erence No.: 80219
Chemical of Concern: BPZ,PMZ,ACT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code:
OK(BPZ,PMZ,ACT),OK TARGET(CPY).
247. Floate, K. D., Elliott, R. H., Doane, J. F., and Gillott, C. (1989). Field Bioassay to Evaluate Contact
and Residual Toxicities of Insecticides to Carabid Beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae). J.Econ.Entomol.
82: 1543-1547.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 66145
Chemical of Concern: CBF,DM,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBF),TARGET (DMT,CPY).
248. Forsythe, H. Y. Jr. (1992). Apple Mite Control, 1991. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 3-4 (6A).
EcoReferenceNo.: 91002
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY).
249. Forsythe, H. Y. Jr. (1991). Insect and Mite Control, 1990. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 4 (6A).
EcoReference No.: 92311
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TDC,AZ,PSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(TDC),OK TARGET(PSM,CPY,AZ).
250. Forsythe, H. Y. Jr. and Collins, J. A. (1987). Blueberry, Flea Beetle Adult Control, 1986.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 77 (No. 071).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88737
Chemical of Concern: PSM,MLN,MXC,CBL,CPY,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(PSM,MXC,CPY),OK TARGET(EFV,MLN,CBL),TARGET(CPY).
251. Foster, D. E. and Wintersteen, W. K. (1986). Grasshopper Control in Non-Crop Vegetation, 1985.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 315 (No. 396).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88665
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CBL),OK(CPY),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
252. Foster, D. E. and Wintersteen, W. K. (1986). Potato Leafhopper Control, 1984. Imectic.Acaric.Tests
11: 206-207 (No. 269).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88662
Chemical of Concern: DMT,PMR,LCYT,CBF,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(CBL, DMT)OK(PMR,LCYT,CBF,CPY).
253. Foster, D. E. and Wintersteen, W. K. (1986). Stalk Borer Control; 1985. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 230-
231 (No. 301).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88664
Chemical of Concern: FNF,BFT,PMR,PAQT,LCYT,ATZ,CYF,CPY,CBL,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CBL),OK(FNF,BFT,PMR,PAQT,LCYT,ATZ,CYF,CPY,CYP),TARGET(CPY).
254. Foster, S., Thomas, M., and Korth, W. (1998). Laboratory-Derived Acute Toxicity of Selected
Pesticides to Ceriodaphnia dubia. Aust.J.Ecotoxicol. 4: 53-59.
EcoReference No.: 67777
Chemical of Concern: TBC,MLT,MTL,MLN,BSF,BMC,ATZ,DU,SZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,BMC,MTL,ATZ,SZ,MLN),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
255. Foster, S. P., Denholm, I., and Devonshire, A. L. (2002). Field-Simulator Studies of Insecticide
Resistance to Dimethylcarbamates and Pyrethroids Conferred by Metabolic- and Target Site-Based
-------
Mechanisms in Peach-Potato Aphids, _Myzus persicae_ (Hemiptera: Aphididae). PestManag.Sci. 58:
811-816.
EcoReference No.: 70968
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DM,PYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
256. Fragoso, D. B., Guedes, R. N. C., and Rezende, S. T. (2003). Glutathione S-Transferase Detoxification
as a Potential Pyrethroid Resistance Mechanism in the Maize Weevil, Sitophilus zeamais.
Entomol.Exp.Appl. 109: 21-29.
EcoReference No.: 81990
Chemical of Concern: CYP,DM,PMR,CPYM,MLN,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM;
Rejection Code: TARGET (MLN,CPYM).
257. Frampton, G. K. (1999). Spatial Variation in Non-Target Effects of the Insecticides Chlorpyrifos,
Cypermethrin and Pirimicarb on Collembola in Winter Wheat. Pestic.Sci. 55: 875-886.
EcoReference No.: 66153
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CYP),OK(PIRM),OK TARGET(CPY),NO COC(PMR).
258. Frampton, G. K. and Van den Brink, P. J. (2007). Collembola and Macroarthropod Community
Responses to Carbamate, Organophosphate and Synthetic Pyrethroid Insecticides: Direct and Indirect
Effects. Emiron.Pollut. 147: 14-25.
EcoReference No.: 93534
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY,CYP).
259. Franzmann, B. A. and Rossiter, P. D. (1981). Toxicity of Insecticides to Trioxys complanatus quilis
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) in Lucerne. J.Aust.Ent.Soc. 20: 313-315.
EcoReference No.: 36687
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT,ES,MDT,DEM,PPHD,P1M,TCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(CBL).
260. Fuchs, T. W. and Shelton, M. (1985). Effectiveness of New Methods of Biting Lice Control on Angora
Goats. Southwest.Entomol. 10: 15-19.
EcoReference No.: 89193
Chemical of Concern: FNTH,CPY,FNV,PMR,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(FNTH),OK TARGET(CPY,PMR,MLN,FNV).
261. Fuller, B. W. and Boetel, M. A. (1998). Grasshopper Control in Winter Wheat in Eastern South
Dakota, 1997. ArthropodManag.Tests 23: 309.
EcoReference No.: 90652
Chemical of Concern: MLN,FPN,CPY,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MLN,FPN,CPY).
262. Fuller, B. W., Boetel, M. A., Chambers, W. W., and Jenson, J. M. (1993). Insecticidal Corn Rootworm
Control Using Various Application Rates and Techniques, 1991. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 18: 198-200
(18F).
EcoReference No.: 76880
-------
Chemical of Concern: TBO,PRT,FNF,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(PRT),OK(TBO,FNF,CBF),OK TARGET(CPY).
263. Funderburk, J. E., Braxton, L. B., and Lynch, R. E. (1990). Nontarget Effects of Soil-Applied
Chlorpyrifos on Defoliating Pests and Arthropod Predates in Peanut. Peanut Sci. 17: 113-117.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71466
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
264. Furutsu, M, Koyama, Y.-L, Kusakabe, M., and Takahashi, S. (1997). Preventive Effect of the Extract
of Du-Zhong (Tochu) Leaf and Ginseng Root on Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos.
Jpn.J.Toxicol.Environ.Health. 43: 92-100.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72917
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
265. Gaffar, S. A. (1994). Management of Phyllody Through Vector Control in Mustard Crop. J.Insect Sci.
7: 14-15.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93250
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT,ES,FNV,PHSL,OXD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY,DMT,FNV).
266. Gahlhoff, J. E. Jr. and Koehler, P. G. (2001). Penetration of the Eastern Subterranean Termite into Soil
Treated at Various Thicknesses and Concentrations of Dursban TC and Premise 75. J.Econ.Entomol.
94:486-491.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58607
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
267. Gaizick, L., Gupta, G., and Bass, E. (2001). Toxicity of Chlorypyrifos to Rana pipiens Embryos.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 66: 386-391.
EcoReference No.: 62284
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.PHY: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
268. Galindo, J. G. R., Jasso, A. M., and Lizarraga, C. V. (1996). Toxic Effects of Organochlorine
Pesticides on Penaeus vannamei Shrimps in Sinaloa, Mexico. Chemosphere 33: 567-575.
EcoReferenceNo.: 16892
Chemical of Concern: CPY,HCCH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
269. Galindo-Reyes, J. G., Dalla Venezia, L., Lazcano-Alvarez, G., and Rivas-Mendoza, H. (2000).
Enzymatic and Osmoregulative Alterations in White Shrimp Litopenaeus vannamei Exposed to
Pesticides. Chemosphere 40: 233-237.
EcoReference No.: 49408
Chemical of Concern: DDT,HCCH,CHD,CPY,DZ,AZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(AZ,DZ,CPY),OK(DDT,HCCH,CHD),NO COC(MTM).
270. Galindo Reyes, J. G., Leyva, N. R., Millan, 0. A., and Lazcano, G. A. (2002). Effects of Pesticides on
DNA and Protein of Shrimp Larvae Litopenaeus stylirostris of the California Gulf.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 53: 191-195.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 73317
Chemical of Concern: DDT,AZ,PRN,CPY,MLN,ES,CBL,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BCM,CEL,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(DDT,AZ,PRN,MLN,ES,CBL,PMR).
271. Gange, A. C. and Brown, V. K. (1991). Effects of Insecticide Application on Weed and Pasture Plant
Communities. In: Brighton Crop Protection Conference on Weeds 901-910.
EcoReference No.: 7 3 212
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DMT,CPY).
272. Gange, A. C., Brown, V. K., and Farmer, L. M. (1992). Effects of Pesticides on the Germination of
Weed Seeds: Implications for Manipulative Experiments. J.Appl.Ecol. 29: 303-310.
EcoReference No.: 74876
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPYJPD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(IPD).
273. Garcia, S. J., Seidler, F. J., Qiao, D., and Slotkin, T. A. (2002). Chlorpyrifos Targets Developing Glia:
Effects on Glial Fibrillary Acidic Protein. Dev.Brain Res. 133: 151-161.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92581
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
274. Geiger, D. L., Call, D. J., and Brooke, L. T. (1988). Acute Toxicities of Organic Chemicals to Fathead
Minnows (Pimephales promelas) Volume IV. Ctr.forLake Superior Environ.Stud, Volume 4, Univ.of
Wisconsin-Superior, Superior, WI355.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12859
Chemical of Concern: MOM,ACC,BMC,BMN,CBL,CPY,DS,DZ,MLN,PMR,C80H,ACL; Habitat:
A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,BMC,CBL,DZ,C80H,MOM,ACL,MLN),OK(ALLCHEMS).
275. Gels, J. A., Held, D. W., and Potter, D. A. (2002). Hazards of Insecticides to the Bumble Bees Bombus
impatiens (Hymenoptera: Apidae) Foraging on Flowering White Clover in Turf. J.Econ.Entomol. 95:
722-728.
EcoReference No.: 69721
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CPY,IMC,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.GRO.POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(CYF,CBL).
276. Gencsoylu, I., Liu, W., Usmani, K. A., and Knowles, C. 0. (1998). Toxicity of Acaricides to the Bulb
Mite Rhizoglyphus echinopus (Acari: Acaridae). Exp.Appl.Acarol. 22: 343-351.
EcoReference No.: 64443
Chemical of Concern:
TFY,FPP,CYP,DDT,IMC,CPY,DZ,DMT,CBL,RTN,PMR,FNV,BFT,CBF,DLD,EN,AND,FPN;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF),OK
TARGET(DMT,RTN,CYP,BFT,FPN,DZ,CBL),OK(ALLCHEMS),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
277. Ghidiu, G. M. (1988). Worm Control in Fall Snap Beans, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 87 (IE).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88838
-------
Chemical of Concern: EFV,FNV,PMR,CYF,CPY,MOM,CBL,ACP,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP .PHY: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(MOM,TDC),EFFICACY(EFV,FNV,PMR,CYF,CPY,ACP),TARGET(CBL).
278. Ghorpade, S. A., Patil, N. M, Thakur, S. G., and Shinde, Y. M. (1994). Control of Aphids and
Helicoverpa armigera on Safflower. JMaharashtra Agric. Univ. 19: 206-208.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91611
Chemical of Concern: PHSL,ES,MP,FNV,DMT,CPY,DCM,CYP,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP,REP; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CPY,MLN,CYP,FNV,MP,DMT).
279. Giddings, J. M., Biever, R. C., and Racke, K. D. (1997). Fate of Chlorpyrifos in Outdoor Pond
Microcosms and Effects on Growth and Survival of Bluegill Sunfish. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16:
2353-2362.
EcoReference No.: 18134
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
280. Giga, D. P. and Zvoutete, P. (1990). The Evaluation of Different Insecticides for the Protection of
Maize Against Some Stored Product Pests. Int.Pest Control 32: 10-13.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89283
Chemical of Concern: MLN,DM,PIRM,CPYM,FNT,BDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP,MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MLN,CPYM).
281. Godfrey, L. D. and Holtzer, T. 0. (1992). Effects of Soil-Incorporated Insecticides and Foliar-Applied
Chemicals on Corn Gas-Exchange Parameters. Crop.Prot. 11: 427-432.
EcoReferenceNo.: 64451
Chemical of Concern: MDT,MP,DMT,TBO,TFT,CBF,CPY,PMR,EPH,PPG; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: PHY: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(PMR,MP,CPY,DMT),OK(MDT,TBO,TFT,CBF,EPH,PPG).
282. Goel, A., Dani, V., and Dhawan, D. K. (2006). Chlorpyrifos-Induced Alterations in the Activities of
Carbohydrate Metabolizing Enzymes in Rat Liver: The Role of Zinc. Toxicol.Lett. 163:235-241.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93536
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
283. Goel, A., Dani, V., and Dhawan, D. K. (2005). Protective Effects of Zinc on Lipid Peroxidation,
Antioxidant Enzymes and Hepatic Histoarchitecture in Chlorpyrifos-Induced Toxicity. Chem.-
Biol.Meract. 156: 131-140.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86700
Chemical of Concern: ZnS,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.PHY.BCM.CEL: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
284. Goel, A., Dani, V., and Dhawan, D. K. (2007). Zinc Mediates Normalization of Hepatic Drug
Metabolizing Enzymes in Chlorpyrifos-Induced Toxicity. Toxicol.Lett. 169: 26-33.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92619
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ZnS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
-------
285. Gollapudi, B. B., Mendrala, A. L., and Linscombe, V. A. (1995). Evaluation of the Genetic Toxicity of
the Organophosphate Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Mutat.Res. 342: 25-36.
EcoReference No.: 64453
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
286. Golow, A. A. and Mensah, E. S. (1994). Acute Toxicity of Deltamethrin and Dursban to Tilapia zillii
(Gervais). Ghana J.Chem. 1:428-430.
EcoReference No.: 71979
Chemical of Concern: DM,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
287. Gomez, L., Duran, E., Gazquez, A., Martinez, S., Masot, J., and Roncero, V. (2002). Lesions Induced
by 2,4-D and Chlorpyrifos in Tench (Tinea tinea L.): Implication in Toxicity Studies.
J.Environ.Sci.HealthPartB 37: 43-51.
EcoReference No.: 72787
Chemical of Concern: 24D,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY,24D).
288. Goodman, L. R., Hansen, D. J., Cripe, G. M, Middaugh, D. P., and Moore, J. C. (1985). A New Early
Life-Stage Toxicity Test Using the California Grunion (Leuresthes tenuis) and Results with
Chlorpyrifos. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 10: 12-21.
EcoReference No.: 12881
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.ACC; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
289. Goodman, L. R., Hansen, D. J., Middaugh, D. P., Cripe, G. M., and Moore, J. C. (1985). Method for
Early Life-Stage Toxicity Tests Using Three Atherinid Fishes and Results with Chlorpyrifos. In:
R.D.Cardwell, R.Purdy andR.C.Bahner (Eds.), Aquatic Toxicology and Hazard Assessment, 7th
Symposium, ASTMSTP 854, Philadelphia, PA 145-154.
EcoReference No.: 4225
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
290. Gordon, C. J. (1994). Thermoregulatory Effects of Chlorpyrifos in the Rat: Long-Term Changes in
Cholinergic and Noradrenergic Sensitivity. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 16: 1-9.
EcoReference No.: 93322
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
291. Gordon, C. J., Herr, D. W., Gennings, C., Graff, J. E., McMurray, M., Stork, L., Coffey, T., Hamm, A.,
and Mack, C. M. (2006). Thermoregulatory Response to an Organophosphate and Carbamate
Insecticide Mixture: Testing the Assumption of Dose-Additivity. Toxicology 217': 1-13.
EcoReference No.: 87642
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM.BEH; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,CPY).
292. Gordon, C. J. and Mack, C. M. (2001). Diurnal Variation in Thermoregulatory Response to
Chlorpyrifos and Carbaryl in the Rat. Toxicology 169: 93-105.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 86768
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BEH; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBL,CPY).
293. Gordon, C. J. and Padnos, B. K. (2002). Dietary Exposure to Chlorpyrifos Alters Core Temperature in
the Rat. Toxicology 111: 215-226.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92584
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM.GRO.BEH: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
294. Gordon, C. J. and Rowsey, P. J. (1999). Are Circulating Cytokines Interleukin-6 and Tumor Necrosis
Factor alpha Involved in Chlorpyrifos-Induced Fever? Toxicology 134: 9-17.
EcoReferenceNo.: 85448
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
295. Gordon, C. J. and Rowsey, P. J. (2000). Role of Vagal Afferents in the Mediation of Chlorpyrifos-
Induced Fever in the Rat. J.Therm.Biol. 25: 91-97.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93295
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCMGRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
296. Gordon, C. J. and Yang, Y.-L. (2001). Reduction in Open Field-Induced Hyperthermia in the Rat
Exposed to Chlorpyrifos, an Anticholinesterase Pesticide. J.Therm.Biol. 26: 313-318.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93294
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
297. Grafton-Cardwell, E. E. and Reagan, C. A. (1995). Selective Use of Insecticides for Control of
Armored Scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae) in San Joaquin Valley California Citrus. J.Econ.Entomol.
88: 1717-1725.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
298. Grafton-Cardwell, E. E., Reagan, C. A., Vehrs, S. L., Eller, A. E., and McClain, J. (1994). Citrus
Cutworm Pesticide Efficacy Trials 1993. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 19: 51-52(ABS.N0.10D).
EcoReferenceNo.: 82452
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,CPY,CYT,MVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,CPY,CYT,MVP).
299. Greene, L. E. (1983). Simulated Natural Encounters of the Insecticides, Chlorpyrifos and Carbaryl, by
Western Pine Beetle Predators Enoclerus lecontei and E. sphegeus (Coleoptera: Cleridae).
Emiron.Entomol. 12: 502-504.
EcoReference No.: 77249
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(CBL,CPY).
300. Greenlee, A. R., Ellis, T. M., and Berg, R. L. (2004). Low-Dose Agrochemicals and Lawn-Care
Pesticides Induce Developmental Toxicity in Murine Preimplantation Embryos. Environ.Health
-------
Perspect. 112:703-709.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82041
Chemical of Concern:
CP Y,DMB,DEAC,MCPP 1 ,PMR,MZB,24D,DDT,ATZ,MTL,MTL,PDM,TBO,CTN,NHN; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CTN,MZB,MTL,MCPP 1 ,ATZ,CP Y,24D),OK(ALL CHEMS).
301. Gregory, D. A., Johnson, D. L., and Thompson, B. H. (1993). The Impact of Bran Baits Treated with
the Insecticides Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate on the Survivorship and Reproductive Success
of Non-Target Mouse Populations. Agric.Ecosyst.Environ. 45: 95-103.
User 1 Abbreviation: (ScienceDirect 1995-Present)
EcoReferenceNo.: 49731
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.REP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CBL,CPY).
302. Gregory, D. A., Johnson, D. L., and Thompson, B. H. (1994). The Toxicity of Bran Baits, Formulated
with Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate, on Yellow Mealworms (Tenebrio molitor L.).
J.Agric.Entomol. 11: 85-94.
EcoReference No.: 64549
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,CBL,CPY).
303. Gregory, D. A., Johnson, D. L., Thompson, B. H., and Richards, K. W. (1992). Laboratory Evaluation
of the Effects of Carbaryl and Chlorpyrifos Bran Baits and Sprays Used in Grasshopper Control, on
Alfalfa Leafcutting Bees (Megachile rotundata [F.]). J.Agric.Entomol. 9: 109-115.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71430
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(CBL).
304. Gul, A. (2005). Investigation of Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis
niloticus L.) Larvae. Chemosphere 59: 163-166.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80952
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPYM).
305. Gupta, S. C., Siddique, H. R., Mathur, N, Mishra, R. K., Saxena, D. K., and Chowdhuri, D. K. (2007).
Adverse Effects of Organophosphate Compounds, Dichlorvos and Chlorpyrifos in the Reproductive
Tissues of Transgenic Drosophila melanogaster: 70kDa Heat Shock Protein as a Marker of Cellular
Damage. Toxicology 238: 1-14.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93407
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP,CEL,BCM,MOR; Rejection
Code: TARGET(CPY).
306. Guzzella, L., Gronda, A., and Colombo, L. (1997). Acute Toxicity of Organophosphorus Insecticides
to Marine Invertebrates. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 59: 313-320.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18363
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CPY,DMT,DZ,MLN,MP,PRT,PRN,FNF,OMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY,AZ,DZ,OMT,DMT,PRT,MLN,MP),OK(CPY,PRN,FNF).
-------
307. Gyoutoku, Y. and Kasio, T. (1990). Toxicity of Pesticides on the Oligota spp. (Coleoptera:
Staphylinidae). Kyushu Byogaichu Kenkyukaiho 36: 155-159.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
308. Haas, P. J., Buck, W. B., Hixon, J. E., Shanks, R. D., Wagner, W. C., Weston, P. G., and Whitmore, H.
L. (1983). Effect of Chlorpyrifos on Holstein Steers and Testosterone-Treated Holstein Bulls.
Am.J.Vet.Res. 44:879-881.
EcoReferenceNo.: 36944
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
309. Hagan, A. K., Weeks, J. R., and McGuire, J. A. (1988). Comparison of Soil Insecticides Alone and in
Combination with PCNB for Suppression of Southern Stem Rot of Peanut. Peanut Sci. 15: 35-38.
EcoReference No.: 70700
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EP,FNF,PNB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
310. Hagan, A. K., Weeks, J. R., and Reed, R. B. (1986). Southern Stem Rot Suppression on Peanut with
the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Peanut Sci. 13:36-37.
EcoReference No.: 70701
Chemical of Concern: PNB,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
311. Hagmann, L. E. and Porteous, D. J. (1972). Pre-Hatch Treatments with Dursban 1G Granular
Insecticide for Control of Mosquito Larvae. Down Earth 28: 21-24.
EcoReference No.: 4857
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
312. Haile, F. J., Peterson, R. K. D., and Higley, L. G. (1999). Gas-Exchange Responses of Alfalfa and
Soybean Treated with Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 92:954-959.
EcoReference No.: 64569
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,PMR,SS,CYF,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CYF,CBF,SS,CPY,PMR),TARGET(CBL).
313. Hamadain, E. I. and Chambers, H. W. (2001). Susceptibility and Mechanisms Underlying the Relative
Tolerance to Five Organophosphorus Insecticides in Tobacco Budworms and Corn Earworms.
Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 69: 35-47.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92447
Chemical of Concern: TBF,PRN,MP,CPY,CPYM,PFF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(TBF),OK TARGET(MP,CPY,CPYM).
314. Hancock, S., Ehrich, M., Hinckley, J., Pung, T., and Jortner, B. S. (2007). The Effect of Stress on the
Acute Neurotoxicity of the Organophosphate Insecticide Chlorpyrifos. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 219:
136-141.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92618
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
-------
315. Hanley, T. R. Jr., Carney, E. W., and Johnson, E. M. (2000). Developmental Toxicity Studies in Rats
and Rabbits with 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-Pyridinol, the Major Metabolite of Chlorpyrifos. Toxicol.Sci. 53:
100-108.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86984
Chemical of Concern: TCP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.REP.BEH.CEL.PHY: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(TCP).
316. Hansen, D. J., Goodman, L. R., Cripe, G. M., and MaCauley, S. F. (1986). Early Life-Stage Toxicity
Test Methods for Gulf Toadfish (Opsanus beta) and Results Using Chlorpyrifos.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 11: 15-22.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11709
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
317. Hara, A. H. and Mau, R. F. I. (1986). The Orchid Weevil, Orchidophilus aterrimus (Waterhouse):
Insecticidal Control and Effect on Vanda Orchid Production. Proc.Hawaii Entomol.Soc. 26: 71-76.
EcoReference No.: 91617
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CPY,MP,BDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.ACC.PHY; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MP,CPY),OK(ACP).
318. Hardee, D. D., O'Brien, P. J., Elzen, G. W., and Snodgrass, G. L. (1990 ). Emergence and Survival of
the Parasitoid Lysiphlebus testaceipes from Aphis gossypii Exposed to Aphicides. Southwest.Entomol.
15:211-216.
EcoReferenceNo.: 68419
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
319. Harmon, S. M., Specht, W. L., and Chandler, G. T. (2003). A Comparison of the Daphnids
Ceriodaphnia dubia and Daphnia ambigua for Their Utilization in Routine Toxicity Testing in the
Southeastern United States. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45: 79-85.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71674
Chemical of Concern: CuS,CPY,NaLS; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.REP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CuS,CPY),OK(NaLS).
320. Harris, C. R. and Svec, H. J. (1970). Laboratory Studies on the Contact Toxicity of Some Insecticides
to Honeybees. Pestic.Prog. 8: 25-28.
EcoReference No.: 70979
Chemical of Concern:
MW,HPT,MLN,MOM,CPY,CBF,Naled,AZ,DMT,PRN,CBL,DLD,AND,DZ,EN,CHD,DDT,ES,MX
C,CHD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(Naled,CPY,MLN,DMT),OK(ALLCHEMS).
321. Harris, C. R. and Svec, H. J. (1970). Toxicological Studies on Cutworms. VI. Laboratory Studies on
the Toxicity of Several Experimental Insecticides to the Dark-Sided Cutworm as Soil Treatments and
Stomach Poisons. J.Econ.Entomol. 63: 605-609.
EcoReference No.: 44408
Chemical of Concern: CHD,AND,CPY,DDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY)//No OM, pH.
322. Harris, C. R., Svec, H. J., and Sans, W. W. (1973). Toxicological Studies on Cutworms. IX.
-------
Laboratory and Microplot Field Studies on Effectiveness and Persistence of Some Experimental
Insecticides Used for Control of the Darksided Cutworm. J.Econ.Entomol. 66: 199-203.
EcoReference No.: 44405
Chemical of Concern: DDT,ABT,MXC,PIRM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,ACC;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CPY)//No OM,pH.
Harris, C. R., Svec, H. J., and Sans, W. W. (1973). Toxicological Studies on Cutworms. X. Laboratory
and Field Microplot Studies on Effectiveness and Persistence of Some Experimental Insecticides Used
to Control the Black Cutworm in Organic Soil. J.Econ.Entomol. 66: 203-208.
EcoReference No.: 44404
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EN,DDT,CHD,PIRM,ABT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(CPY)//No OM, pH.
Harris, C. R. and Turnbull, S. A. (1975). Laboratory Studies on the Toxicity of Insecticides to the
Bertha Army worm (Mamestra configurata) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Can.Entomol. 107:865-872.
EcoReference No.: 49989
Chemical of Concern:
TW,PSM,TBO,FNF,AZ,ES,MDT,CPY,DMT,MXC,CHD,PHSL,PIRM,TCF,PRN,ACP,MLN,DDT,C
BL,Naled,CBF,CPY,EN,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(MLN,Naled,CBF,CBL,AZ,TCF,DMT),OK(MDT,MOM,DDT), TARGET (DMT,CPY).
325. Harris, C. R., Turnbull, S. A., and McLeod, D. G. R. (1985). Contact Toxicity of Twenty-One
Insecticides to Adults of the Carrot Rust Fly (Diptera: Psilidae). Can.Entomol. 117: 1025-1027.
EcoReference No.: 72206
Chemical of Concern:
DZ,DDT,AND,PSM,PMR,MW,PRN,CPY,Naled,MOM,MLN,DM,CYP,CBF,AZ,FNV,FNF,ACP;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,CPY),OK
TARGET(DZ,CYP,MLN,Naled,ACP,AZ,PMR,FNV),OK(ALLCHEMS).
326. Hassan, E. (1997). Chlorpyrifos Toxicity to Aphytis lingnanensis a Parasitoid of California Red Scale,
Aonidiella aurantii in Citrus. Z.Pflanzenkrankh.Pflanzenschutz 104: 102-104.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
327. Hassan, E. (1997). Chlorpyrifos Toxicity to Aphytis lingnanensis Compere (Hymenoptera:
Aphelinidae) a Parasitoid of California Red Scale, Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.) in Citrus (Toxizitat von
Chlorpyrifos Gegenuber Aphytis lingnanensis Compere (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), Einem
Parasitoid der Roten Zitrusschildlaus, Aonidiella aurantii (Mask.) an Zitrus). J.Plant
Dis.Prot.(Z.Pflanzenkr.Pflanzenschutz) 104: 102-104.
EcoReference No.: 68691
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
328. Hassan, S. A., Bigler, F., Bogenschutz, H., Boiler, E., Brun, J., Chiverton, P., Edwards, P., Mansour,
F., Naton, E., Oomen, P. A., Overmeer, W. P. J., Polgar, L., Rieckmann, W., Samsoe-Petersen, L.,
Staubli, A., Sterk, G., Taveres, K., Tuset, J. J., Viggiani, G., and Vivas, A. G. (1988). Results of the
Fourth Joint Pesticide Testing Programme Carried Out by the lOBC/WPRS-Working Group.
Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms. J.Appl.Entomol. 105:321-329.
EcoReference No.: 70387
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(DZ,CPY).
-------
Hector, A., Wilby, A., Latsch, 0. G., and Brown, V. K. (2004). Phyto-Activity of Biocides Used to
Manipulate Herbivory: Tests of Three Pesticides on Fourteen Plant Species. Basic Appl.Ecol. 5: 313-
320.
EcoReference No.: 75347
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY,MAL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MAL,DMT,CPY).
330. Hegazi, M. A. M. (1989). Brain Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition in Juvenile Catfish (Clarias lazera)
Induced by Chronic Dursban Intoxication. Delta J.Sci. 13:455-468.
EcoReference No.: 72842
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
331. Hein, G. L., Ingemansen, J. A., and Walgenbach, D. D. (1988). First-Generation European Corn Borer
Control via Ground, Chemigation, and Aerial Applications, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13:211-212
(No. 49F).
EcoReference No.: 88852
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CEX,TBO,FNF,TFT,CBF,PRT,TLM,CPY,CBL,TDC,FNV; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(PMR,PRT,CBL,TDC),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
332. Heller, P. R. and Kellogg, S. (1988). Hairy Chinch Bug Control on a Home Lawn in Boalsburg, PA.,
1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 352-353 (No. 48G).
EcoReference No.: 88824
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL,CPY).
333. Heller, P. R. and Kellogg, S. (1988). Hairy Chinch Bug Control on a Home Lawn in Somerset, PA,
1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 351-352 (No. 46G).
EcoReference No.: 88825
Chemical of Concern: FPP,CPY,ACP,CBL,CYF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(FPP,CPY),OKTARGET(ACP,CBL,CYF,CPY).
334. Heller, P. R. and Kellogg, S. (1988). Pine Needle Scale Control on Scotch Pine in Centre County,
Pennsylvania, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 382 (No. 22H).
EcoReference No.: 88821
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FVL,ACP,CYF,CBL,DZ,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(EFV).
335. Heller, P. R. and Kellogg, S. (1988). Summer Control of Japanese Beetle Grubs on a Golf Course
Fairway in Lewistown, PA, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 333 (No. 11G).
EcoReference No.: 88828
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
336. Heller, P. R. and Kellogg, S. (1987). Summer Control of Japanese Beetle Grubs on a Golf Course
Fairway inLewston, PA, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 323 (No. 388).
EcoReference No.: 88649
-------
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL,CPY).
337. Helliwell, S. and Stevens, M. M. (2000). Efficacy and Environmental Fate of Alphacypermethrin
Applied to Rice Fields for the Control of Chironomid Midge Larvae (Diptera: Chironomidae). Field
Crops Res. 67:263-272.
EcoReference No.: 64589
Chemical of Concern: ACYP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ACYP),OK TARGET(CPY),NO COC(PMR).
338. Hellman, J. L. and Patton, T. W. (1988). Corn Earworm and Green Cloverworm Control in Soybeans,
1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 283-284 (No. 142F).
EcoReference No.: 88856
Chemical of Concern: PMR,BFT,TDC,CYF,EFV,FNV,CPY,ACP,MOM,CBL,MP; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(FNV,CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
339. Hellman, J. L. and Patton, T. W. (1988). Corn Earworm Control in Soybeans, 1987.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 286 (No. 146F).
EcoReference No.: 88858
Chemical of Concern: CYF,TDC,MOM,EFV,PMR,CPY,CBL,ACP,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
340. Hellman, J. L. and Patton, T. W. (1988). Corn Earworm Control on Soybean, 1986.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 284 (No. 143F).
EcoReference No.: 88857
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CYF,TDC,MOM,FNV,BFT,CBL,EFV,ACP,CPY,MP; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(FNV,CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
341. Hellman, J. L. and Patton, T. W. (1988). Potato Leafhopper Control on Soybean, 1986.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 283 (No. 141F).
EcoReference No.: 88855
Chemical of Concern: BFT,CYF,PMR,EFV,MP,CBL,ACP,DMT,FNV,CPY,MOM; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(FNV,CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
342. Hellman, J. L., Patton, T. W., and Hellman, E. L. (1988). Control of Green June Beetle Grubs on Golf
Course Fairways, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 329 (5G).
EcoReference No.: 88815
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CYF,FPP,TCF,ACP,DZ,FVL,CPY,PPX,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ),OK
TARGET(CPY),OK(CYF,FPP,ACP,FVL,PPX,PMR).
343. Hellman, J. L., Patton, T. W., Salvaggio, R., Vinis, L., and Grove, J. (1988). Armyworm Control in
Corn, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 213-214 (No. 51F).
EcoReference No.: 88853
Chemical of Concern: PMR,BFT,FNV,MP,CYP,CBL,FNF,CPY,CYH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(PMR,BFT,MP,CYP,CBL),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
344. Hellman, J. L., Patton, T. W., Salvaggio, R. S., and Grove, J. (1988). Control of Green June Beetle
-------
Grubs on a Golf Course, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 364 (No. 69G).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88817
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,IZF,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVALCODED(CBL,DZ),OK(CPY,IZF),TARGET(CPY).
345. Hellman, J. L., Patton, T. W., Salvaggio, R. S., Vinis, L., and Grove, J. (1988). Armyworm Control in
Wheat, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 323-324 (No. 194F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88862
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY,PMR,MOM,TLM,CYH,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(CPY,CYH,TLM),OK TARGET(MP,PMR,MOM,CBL),TARGET(CPY).
346. Helson, B. V., De Groot, P., Turgeon, J. J., and Kettela, E. G. (1989). Toxicity of Insecticides to First-
Instar Larvae of the Spruce Budmoth, Zeiraphera canadensis Mut. and Free. (Lepidoptera:
Tortricidae): Laboratory andField Studies. Can.Entomol. 121: 81-91.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73595
Chemical of Concern: MOM,ACP,AZ,CPY,FNT,PMR,SPS,TDC,TCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ACP,AZ),TARGET(TDC,MOM,CPY).
347. Helson, B. V., Surgeoner, G. A., and Ralley, W. E. (1979). Susceptibility of Culex spp. and Aedes spp.
Larvae (Diptera: Culicidae) to Temephos and Chlorpyrifos in Southern Ontario.
Proc.Entomol.Soc.Ont. 110:79-83.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3582
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
348. Hemingway, J. and Georghiou, G. P. (1983). Studies on the Acetylcholinesterase of Anopheles
albimanus Resistant and Susceptible to Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides.
Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 19: 167-171.
EcoReference No.: 11596
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FNT,CBL,PRN,FNTH,PPX,MLN,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
PHY,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MLN,CBL),OK(ALL CHEMS).
349. Henzell, R. F., Skinner, R. A., and Clements, R. 0. (1983). Insecticides for Control of Adult Grass
Grub, Costelytra zealandica (White) V. Screening and Behaviour of Insecticides in Soil Bioassays.
N.Z.J.Agric.Res. 26: 129-133 .
EcoReference No.: 79045
Chemical of Concern:
MW,PFF,TBO,DCB,MXC,CYP,DM,FNV,CBX,DZM,NCTN,FMP,MDT,IFP,IZF,FNTH,FNT,ETN,F
NF,DMT,DDW,CPYM,CPY,AZ,AZM,PPX,PIM,OML,MOM,MCB,ADC,NAPH,PMR,ES,PCB,PSM
,DS,DZ,CBF,CBL,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CBL,PRT,DZ,NAPH,DCB),TARGET(MOM,FNV, DMT)TARGET (CPYM).
350. Herbert, I. N, Svendsen, C., Hankard, P. K., and Spurgeon, D. J. (2004 ). Comparison of Instantaneous
Rate of Population Increase Critical-Effect Estimates in Folsomia Candida Exposed to Four Toxicants.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 57: 175-183.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73631
Chemical of Concern: Cd,CuCl,CPY,PYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,CuCl),OK(ALL CHEMS).
-------
351. Heungens, A. and Buysse, G. (1987). Toxicity of Several Pesticides in Water Solution on
Heterorhabditis Nematodes . Med.Fac.Landbouww.Rijksuniv.Gent52\ 631-638.
EcoReference No.: 69366
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,HCCH,PRN,MOM,OML,CBF,PPX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS)JARGET(CPY).
352. Hill, B. D., Butts, R. A., and Schaalje, G. B. (1995). Mode of Contact of Chlorpyrifos with Russian
Wheat Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae) in Wheat. J.Econ.Entomol. 88: 725-733.
EcoReference No.: 64596
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
353. Hill, E. F. and Camardese, M. B. (1986). Lethal Dietary Toxicities of Environmental Contaminants
and Pesticides to Coturnix. U.S.Fish Wildl.Serv., Fish Wildl.Tech.Rep.No.2 147 p.
EcoReference No.: 50181
Chemical of Concern:
PRT,ADC,PMR,PRN,PAQT,ACP,Naled,MLN,HCCH,HPT,FNF,EN,ES,TMP,MTAS,MTM,MOM,A
ND,ATZ,BMY,DCTP,CBL,Captan,CPY,TBO,DZ,DLD,DU,FNTH,AZ,SZ,MP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR.BEH; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(ADC,ACP,MLN,MTAS,MTM,MOM,CBL,Captan,DZ,SZ,ATZ,MP,Naled,CPY),OK(ALL
CHEMS),NO COC(BMC).
354. Hill, E. F. and Camardese, M. B. (1984). Toxicity of Anticholinesterase Insecticides to Birds:
Technical Grade Versus Granular Formulations. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 8: 551-563.
EcoReference No.: 37111
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CBF,CPY,DZ,DS,FMP,FNF,IFP,PRN,PRT,TBO,BDC; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,ADC,PRT,CPY),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
355. Hill, E. F. , Heath, R. G., Spann, J. W., and Williams, J. D. (1975). Lethal Dietary Toxicities of
Environmental Pollutants to Birds. U.S.Fish and Wildl.Serv.No. 191, Special Scientific Report-Wildlife
1-61.
EcoReference No.: 35243
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ABT,ADC,AMTL,AND,ATZ,Captan,CBF,CBL,Cd,Cr,DDT,DLD,DMT,DS,DU,DZ,ES,ETN,
FNT,HCCH,Hg,HPT,MCPB,MLN,MP,MRX,MTAS,MXC,Naled,Pb,PCB,PCL,PCP,PQT,PRN,PRT,P
YN,RSM,RTN,SZ,TFM,THM,TVP,TXP,Zn,ZnP,As,AZ,OXD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY,MP,Naled,Captan,MLN,OXD,MTAS,CBL,DZ,ATZ,CBF,ADC,MOM,DMT,SZ,ZnP,R
TN,RSM,MCPB,PCP,PRT),OK(ALL CHEMS).
356. Hodge, S., Webster, K. M., Booth, L., Hepplethwaite, V., and O'Halloran, K. (2000). Non-Avoidance
of Organophosphate Insecticides by the Earthworm Aporrectodea caliginosa (Lumbricidae). Soil
Biol.Biochem. 32: 425-428.
EcoReference No.: 64604
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.POP; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(DZ),OK TARGET(CPY).
357. Hogmire, H. W., Brown, M. W., and Crim, V. L. (1990). Toxicity of Slide Dip Application of Five
Insecticides to Apple Aphid and Spirea Aphid (Homoptera: Aphididae). J.Entomol.Sci. 25: 10-15.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.:74108
Chemical of Concern: MOM,EFV,ES,AZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(EFV,AZ,CPY).
358. Holbrook, F. R. (1983). Effects of Flotation Methods and Overnight Holding on the Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos to Larvae of Culicoides variipennis (Ceratopogonidae). Mosq.News 43: 356-358.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62147
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
359. Hooftman, R. N., Van de Guchte, K., and Roghair, C. J. (1993). Development of Ecotoxicological Test
Systems to Assess Contaminated Sediments. Project B6/8995, The Netherlands Integrated Program
on Soil Research (PCB) 41.
EcoReference No.: 13342
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
360. Horowitz, A. R., Toscano, N. C., Youngman, R. R., and Miller, T. A. (1987). Synergistic Activity of
Binary Mixtures of Insecticides on Tobacco Budworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) Eggs.
J.Econ.Entomol. 80: 333-337.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73691
Chemical of Concern: MOM,ACP,CPY,PNV,TDC,MP,AMZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK,TARGET(ACP),TARGET(TDC,MOM,MP,CPY).
361. Hossain, Z., Haldar, G. C., and Mollah, M. F. A. (2000). Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Cadusafos
and Diazinon to Three Indian Major Carps (Catla catla, Labeo rohita and Cirrhinus mrigala)
Fingerlings. Bangladesh J.Fish.Res. 4: 191-198.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86097
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DZ,CPY).
362. Houx, N. W. and Aben, W. J. M. (1993). Bioavailability of Pollutants to Soil Organisms via the Soil
Solution. Sci.TotalEnviron. Suppl: 387-395.
EcoReference No.: 40502
Chemical of Concern: NaPCP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,NaPCP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
363. Hower, A. A. and Alexander, S. (1992). Potato Leafhopper Control, 1991. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 174-
175 (3F).
EcoReference No.: 79773
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CBF,EFV,CPY,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(EFV,DMT,CPY),OK(CBF,PMR).
364. Hower, A. A. and Rebarchak, P. (1999). Corn Rootworm Larval Control, 1998. Arthropod
Manage.Tests 24: 213-214 (F27).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88063
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,TFT,PBP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS).
-------
365. Howick, C. D. and Creffield, J. W. (1981). Laboratory Bioassays to Compare the Efficacy of
Chlorpyrifos and Dieldrin in Protecting Wood from Termites. Int.Pest Control 23: 40-42.
EcoReferenceNo.: 50345
Chemical of Concern: DLD,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code: No
Media:None, Om, Ph,TARGET(CPY).
366. Howitt, A. and Biddinger, D. J. (1988). Blueberry, Cranberry Fruitworm Insecticide Test, 1987.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 63 (No. 2C).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88833
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,EFV,FPP,FVL,ACP,PSM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(CPY,FPP,PSM),OK TARGET(CBL,EFV,FVL,ACP),TARGET(CPY).
367. Hoy, J. B. and Shea, P. J. (1981). Effects of Lindane, Chlorpyrifos, and Carbaryl on a California Pine
Forest Soil Arthropod Community. Environ.Entomol. 10:732-740.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71490
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(ALL
CHEMS),OKTARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
368. Huang, X. and Mack, T. P. (2001). Artificial Carbon Dioxide Source to Attract Lesser Cornstalk Borer
(Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Larvae. J.Econ.Entomol. 94: 860-867.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92714
Chemical of Concern: NH,UREA,CPY,ADC,TFT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(CPY).
369. Hudson, R. H., Tucker, R. K., and Haegele, M. A. (1984). Handbook of Toxicity of Pesticides to
Wildlife. Resour.Publ.No.153, Fish Wildl.Serv., 2nd Edition, U.S.D.I., Washington, DC 90 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 50386
Chemical of Concern:
ACP,ACL,ACR,ADC,AND,ATN,AMTL,ANZ,ATZ,4AP,AZ,PPX,BTY,Captan,CBL,CBF,CHD,CQT
C,CPY,CMPH,CZE,24D,DDT,DDW,DEF,DEM,DZ,DBN,DLN,DCF,DCTP,DLD,DMT,DQTBr,DS,
DU,ES,EDT,EN,EP,ETN,FNT,FNTH,FMV,Folpet,FNF,HPT,PSM,HCCH,MLN,MDT,MCB,MOM,M
TPN,MXC,MP,MW,MRX,NABAM,Naled,FMP,PQT,PRN,PCP,PRT,PCL,RSM,RTN,STAR,STCH,
TCDD,TMP,TZL,TVP,TZL,THM,TXP,TCF,TFN,ZnP,ZINEB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,24D),OK(ALL CHEMS).
370. Hull, L. A. (2006). Concentrate Airblast Insect Experiment, 2005. ArthropodManag.Tests 31: 9 p.
(A15).
EcoReferenceNo.: 93202
Chemical of Concern: AZ,MFZ,PSM,ACT,ABM,CPY,HTX,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(AZ,PSM,CPY,HTX).
371. Humphrey, C. A., Klumpp, D. W., and Raethke, N. (2004). Ambon Damsel (Pomacentrus
amboinensis) as a Bioindicator Organism for the Great Barrier Reef: Responses to Chlorpyrifos.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 72: 888-895.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75183
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.PHY.POP.REP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
372. Hurlbert, S. H., Mulla, M. S., Keith, J. 0., Westlake, W. E., and Dusch, M. E. (1970). Biological
-------
Effects and Persistence of Dursban in Freshwater Ponds. J.Econ.Entomol. 63: 43-62.
EcoReference No.: 2894
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.ACC; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
373. Hurlbert, S. H., Mulla, M. S., and Willson, H. R. (1972). Effects of an Organophosphorus Insecticide
on the Phytoplankton, Zooplankton, and Insect Populations of Fresh-Water Ponds. Ecol.Monogr. 42:
269-299.
EcoReference No.: 8008
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR,GRO,REP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
374. Hussein, E. M. K., Abdel-Megeed, M. I., Gabir, I., and Abdel-Moati, M. (1980). Efficacy of Certain
Spraying Techniques on the Biological Activity of Dursban with Special Reference to Cotton Yield
and Lint Properties. Bull.Entomol.Soc.Egypt Econ.Ser. 12:99-106.
EcoReference No.: 63069
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(CPY).
375. Hutacharern, C. (1974). Action and Metabolism of Chlorpyrifos in Termites. Ph.D.Thesis,
Univ.Missouri, Columbia, MO 90 p.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: NO TARGET (CPY).
376. Hutchison, W. D., Bartels, D. W., and Rinkleff, J. H. (1994). Alfalfa Insect Control on Spring
Regrowth in Minnesota, 1991. ArthropodManag.Tests 19: 169-170 (No. 4F).
EcoReference No.: 88953
Chemical of Concern: MP,PMR,CYH,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MLN),TARGET(MP,CPY).
377. Hutchison, W. D., Bartels, D. W., Rinkleff, J. H., Gingera, G. J., and Fossey, C. R. (1994). Alfalfa
Insect Control During the Third Regrowth Cycle in Minnesota Alfalfa, 1992. Arthropod Manag. Tests
19: 171-172 (No. 5F).
EcoReference No.: 88951
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY,PMR,CYH,MLN,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MLN, DMT),TARGET(MP,CPY).
378. Hyder, A. H., Overmyer, J. P., and Noblet, R. (2005). Influence of Developmental Stage on
Susceptibilities and Sensitivities of Simulium vittatum IS-7 and Simulium vittatum IIIL-1 (Diptera:
Simuliidae) to Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 23: 2856-2862.
EcoReference No.: 80409
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
379. Ibrahim, W. L. F., Furu, P., Ibrahim, A. M., and Christensen, N. 0. (1992). Effect of the
Organophosphorous Insecticide, Chlorpyrifos (Dursban), on Growth, Fecundity and Mortality of
Biomphalaria alexandrina and on the Production of Schistosoma mansoni Cercariae in the Snail.
J.Helminthol. 66: 79-88.
EcoReference No.: 62154
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
380. Icenogle, L. M., Christopher, N. C., Blackwelder, W. P., Caldwell, D. P., Qiao, D., Seidler, F. J.,
Slotkin, T. A., and Levin, E. D. (2004). Behavioral Alterations in Adolescent and Adult Rats Caused
by a Brief Subtoxic Exposure to Chlorpyrifos During Neurulation. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 26: 95-101.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92582
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BEH.PHY.REP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
381. Immaraju, J. A., Paine, T. D., Bethke, J. A., Robb, K. L., and Newman, J. P. (1992). Western Flower
Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Resistance to Insecticides in Coastal California Greenhouses.
J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 9-14.
EcoReference No.: 73711
Chemical of Concern: MOM,AV,PMR,CPY,BFT,PPB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(MOM),NO MIXTURE,ENDPOINT(PPB),TARGET(BFT,CPY).
382. Inoue, Y. (1983). Termiticidal Activities of Synthetic Pyrethroids. In: J.Miyamoto and P.C.Kearney
(Eds.), Proc.5thInt.Congr.ofPestic.Chem., Aug.29-Sept.4, 1982, Kyoto, Japan, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, England 1:113-118.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71456
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY,DLD,CHD,PYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO: Rejection
Code: TARGET(RSM,CPY).
383. Ishaaya, I. and Klein, M. (1990). Response of Susceptible Laboratory and Resistant Field Strains of
Spodoptera littoralis (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Teflubenzuron. J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 59-62.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93235
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(TBF),OK TARGET(CYP,CPY).
384. Islam, M. N., Nessa, Z., and Karim, M. A. (1991). Management of the Potato Cutworm, Agrotis
ipsilon (HFN.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) with Insecticides Other Than Organochlorinated Hydrocarbon
Insecticides. Bangladesh J.Zool. 19: 173-177.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93059
Chemical of Concern: FPP,EP,IZF,CYF,FNV,CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: CROP(EFFICACY-FNV),EFFICACY(CYF,CPY,DZ).
385. Jackson, D. M. and Lam, J. J. Jr. (1989). Jalysus wickhami (Hemiptera: Berytidae): Toxicity of
Pesticides Applied to the Soil or in the Transplant Water of Flue-Cured Tobacco. J.Econ.Entomol. 82:
913-918.
EcoReference No.: 68596
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CBF,PRN,FNF,MLX,OML,EP,CPY,DZ,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,ADC),OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(DZ,ACP),TARGET(CPY).
386. Jacobsen, H., Ostergaard, G., Lam, H. R., Poulsen, M. E., Frandsen, H., Ladefoged, 0., and Meyer, 0.
(2004). Repeated Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Wistar Rats with a Mixture of Five Pesticides
Often Found as Residues in Food: Alphacypermethrin, Bromopropylate, Carbendazim, Chlorpyrifos
and Mancozeb. Food Chem.Toxicol. 42: 1269-1277.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 90929
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CBD,CPY,MZB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
ACC,GRO,MOR,BEH,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO
MLXTURE(MZB,CYP,CBD).
387. Jacobson, R. M. and Thriugnanam, M. (1990). New Selective Systemic Aphicides. In: D.R.Baker,
J.G.Fenyes, and W.K.Moberg (Eds.), ACS (Am.Chem.Soc) Symp.Ser.No.443, Chapter 26, Synthesis
and Chemistry of Agrichemicals, Washington, D.C. 322-339.
EcoReference No.: 74350
Chemical of Concern:
PIM,CPY,DMT,ACP,PPHD,FNV,PHSL,MOM,ADC,MLN,DEM,DS,OML,AZ,ES; Habitat: T;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ADC,DMT,MLN,ACP,AZ),TARGET(MOM,CPY,FNV).
388. James, D. G. (1991). An Evaluation of Chemical and Physical Treatments to Prevent Fuller's Rose
Weevil Oviposition on Citrus Fruit. Plant Prot.Q. 6: 79-81.
EcoReference No.: 70007
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,CPY).
389. James, D. G. (2003). Pesticide Susceptibility of Two Coccinellids (Stethorus punctum picipes and
Harmonia axyridis) Important in Biological Control of Mites and Aphids in Washington Hops.
BiocontrolSci.Technol. 13: 253-259.
EcoReference No.: 76934
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,PSM,DZ,DMT,CBL,PIM,MOM,ES,IMC,TMX,BFT; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(MLN,BFT,DZ,CBL,MOM, DMT,CPY).
390. James, D. G. and Rayner, M. (1995). Toxicity of Viticultural Pesticides to the Predatory Mites
Amblyseius victoriensis and Typhlodromus doreenae. Plant Prot.Q. 10: 99-102.
EcoReference No.: 67984
Chemical of Concern:
CaPS,BMY,CBD,CTN,MZB,FRM,IPD,MLX,Cu,PCZ,TDM,VCZ,Zineb,Ziram,CuOH,AZ,CBL,CPY,
DZ,DMT,ES,MLN,MDT,DCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CaPS,CTN,MZB,MLN,DMT),OK(ALLCHEMS),OK
TARGET(DZ,AZ,CBL),TARGET(CPY).
391. James, D. G., Stevens, M. M., and O'Malley, K. J. (1998). Prolonged Exclusion of Foraging Ants
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) from Citrus Trees Using Controlled-Release Chlorpyrifos Trunk Bands.
Int.J.PestManag. 44: 65-69.
EcoReference No.: 64661
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
392. Jarvi, K. J. and Howard, L. (1992). Clover Leaf Weevil Larval Control in Alfalfa, 1991. In:
A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD
176.
EcoReference No.: 79772
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
393. Jena, M. and Sahoo, K. (1995). Effect of Insecticides on the Rate of Oviposition and Larval Hatching
of Yellow Stem Borer, Scirpophaga incertulas (Walk.) In Rice. Indian J.Plant Prot. 23: 198-200.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 91433
Chemical of Concern: OXD,CBF,MP,PPHD,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(OXD,MP,CPY).
394. Jeong, S.-H., Kim, B.-Y., Kang, H.-G., Ku, H.-O., and Cho, J.-H. (2006). Effect of Chlorpyrifos-
Methyl on Steroid and Thyroid Hormones in Rat FO- and F1-Generations. Toxicology 220: 189-202.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93127
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.REP.MOR.BCM.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPYM).
395. Jett, D. A., Navoa, R. V., Beckles, R. A., and McLemore, G. L. (2001). Cognitive Function and
Cholinergic Neurochemistry in Weanling Rats Exposed to Chlorpyrifos. ToxicoLAppl.Pharmacol.
174: 89-98.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92580
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH.GRO.PHY: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
396. Jin-Clark, Y., Lydy, M. J., and Zhu, K. Y. (2002). Effects of Atrazine and Cyanazine on Chlorpyrifos
Toxicity in Chironomus tentans (Diptera: Chironomidae). Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 598-603.
EcoReference No.: 62472
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,CP YO,CZE; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(ATZ,CPY),NO INVITRO(CPYO),OK(CZE).
397. Johnson, D. T. and Mayes, R. L. (1987). Blueberry, Fruitworm Insecticide Test, 1986.
ImecticAcaric.Tests 12: 77 (No. 072).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88736
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CBL,DZ,MLN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(AZ,CBL,DZ,MLN,CPY).
398. Johnson, D. W. and Townsend, L. H. (1987). Fall Army Worm Control in Field Corn, 1985.
ImecticAcaric.Tests 12: 201 (No. 239).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88710
Chemical of Concern: TCF,MOM,CPY,PMR,FNV,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(TCF,CPY),OK TARGET(MOM,PMR,CBL,FNV),TARGET(CPY).
399. Johnson, G. and Kammerzell, K. (1991). Russian Wheat Aphid Control in Winter Wheat, 1990.
ImecticAcaric.Tests 16: 240-241 (145F).
EcoReference No.: 91914
Chemical of Concern: EFV,CPY,MP,DS,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(DS,EFV,DMT,MP,CPY).
400. Jones, G. E., Carroll, D. F., and Wills, W. (1976). Susceptibility of Pennsylvania Mosquito Larvae to
Abate, Dursban and Baytex. In: Proc.63rdAnnu.Meet.N.J.Mosq.Exterm.Assoc.: 161-1017.
EcoReference No.: 68559
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y,FNTH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
401. Journey, A. M., Ostlie, K. R., and Luedeman, L. J. (1992). Liquid Options for Corn Rootworm
-------
Control, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.of
Am., Lanham, MD 198-199.
EcoReference No.: 79770
Chemical of Concern: TBO,CPY,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
402. Juchelka, C. M. and Snell, T. W. (1995). Rapid Toxicity Assessment Using Ingestion Rate of
Cladocerans and Ciliates. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 28: 508-512.
EcoReference No.: 14918
Chemical of Concern: Cd,HgC12,PL,PCP,CuCl,CPY,CBL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBL,CuCl,OK(CPY,HgC12,Cd,PL).
403. Juchelka, C. M. and Snell, T. W. (1994). Rapid Toxicity Assessment Using Rotifer Ingestion Rate.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 26: 549-554.
EcoReference No.: 13660
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,CuCl,PCP,24DP,PL,HgC12,Cd,AMSV; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BEH,REP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,CuCl,AMSV),OK(ALL CHEMS).
404. Kacham, R., Karanth, S., Baireddy, P., Liu, J., and Pope, C. (2006). Interactive Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos and Parathion in Neonatal Rats: Role of Esterases in Exposure Sequence-Dependent
Toxicity. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 210: 142-149.
EcoReference No.: 93535
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PRN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(PRN,CPY).
405. Kain, D. P. , Straub, R. W., and Agnello, A. M. (2004). Incidence and Control of Dogwood Borer
(Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) and American Plum Borer (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) Infesting Burrknots on
Clonal Apple Rootstocks in New York. J.Econ.Entomol. 97: 545-552.
EcoReference No.: 82539
Chemical of Concern: MFZ,CPY,ES,IDC,FPP,KLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MFZ,CPY,ES,KLN,FPP),NO MIXTURE(IDC).
406. Kang, H. G., Jeong, S. H., Cho, J. H., Kim, D. G., Park, J. M., and Cho, M. H. (2004). Chlropyrifos-
Methyl Shows Anti-Androgenic Activity Without Estrogenic Activity in Rats. Toxicology 199: 219-
230.
EcoReference No.: 92617
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.CEL.BEH: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPYM).
407. Karanth, S., Liu, J., Mirajkar, N, and Pope, C. (2006). Effects of Acute Chlorpyrifos Exposure on In
Vivo Acetylcholine Accumulation in Rat Striatum. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 216: 150-156.
EcoReference No.: 93537
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.PHY.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
408. Karanth, S. and Pope, C. (2003). Age-Related Effects of Chlorpyrifos and Parathion on Acetylcholine
Synthesis in Rat Striatum. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 25: 599-6
EcoReference No.: 92578
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PRN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PRN).
409. Karaoz, E., Gultekin, F., Akdogan, M., Oncu, M., and Gokcimen, A. (2002 ). Protective Role of
Melatonin and a Combination of Vitamin C and Vitamin E on Lung Toxicity Induced by Chlorpyrifos-
EthylinRats. Exp.Toxicol.Path. 54: 97-108.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92819
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
410. Karen, D. J., Draughn, R., Fulton, M., and Ross, P. (1998). Bone Strength and Acetylcholinesterase
Inhibition as Endpoints in Chlorpyrifos Toxicity to Fundulus heteroclitus. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 60:
167-175.
EcoReference No.: 72826
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
411. Karen, D. J., Klaine, S. J., and Ross, P. E. (2001). Futher Considerations of the Skeletal System as a
Biomarker of Episodic Chlorpyrifos Exposure. Aquat.Toxicol. 52: 285-296.
EcoReference No.: 62229
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
412. Karen, D. J., Li, W., Harp, P. R., Gillette, J. S., and Bloomquist, J. R. (2001). Striatal Dopaminergic
Pathways as a Target for the Insecticides Permethrin and Chlorpyrifos. Neurotoxicology 22: 811-817.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92577
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PMR).
413. Karim, A. A. R. A., Haridi, A. A. M., and El Rayah, E. A. (1985). The Environmental Impacts of Four
Insecticides on Non-Target Organisms in the Gezira Irrigation Scheme Canals of Sudan.
J.Trop.Med.Hyg. 88: 161-168.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12022
Chemical of Concern: DCM,ES,CPY,DMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO MIXTURE(DMT),OK(ES,DCM).
414. Karnak, R. E. and Collins, W. J. (1974). The Susceptibility to Selected Insecticides and
Acetylcholinesterase Activity in a Laboratory Colony of Midge Larvae, Chironomus tentans (Diptera:
Chironomidae). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 12:62-69.
EcoReference No.: 6267
Chemical of Concern: CBL,DDT,PPX,MLN,ATN,DDVP,CPY,DLD,CBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR.BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,CBL,CBF,ATN,MLN),OK(DDT,PPX,DDVP,CPY,DLD).
415. Karner, M., Ewing, S., Kelley, M., and Goodson, J. (1992). Cotton Aphid Control, 1991.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 17: 229-230 (68F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 82244
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CYF,TDC,MOM,EFV,MTM,CYP,CPY,BFT,DCTP,CYH,ACP,ES;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO COC(DKG),OK
-------
TARGET(ACP,MTM,DMT,CPY,CYP,EFV,CYF,TDC,MOM,BFT).
416. Karner, M., Kelley, M., and Goodson, J. (1992). Two Spotted Spider Mite Control, 1991. In:
A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Eds.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD
228-229.
EcoReference No.: 79283
Chemical of Concern: BFT,DCF,PPG,CYH,PFF,CPY,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(BFT),NO COC(DKG),TARGET(CPY).
417. Karner, M. A. (1987). Alfalfa Insect Control in Oklahoma, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 170 (No.
199).
EcoReference No.: 88717
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,CBL,CPY,CYP,EFV,MP,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(CBF,CPY),OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
418. Kay, I. R. (1979). Toxicity of Insecticide to Coccinella repanda Thunberg (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).
JAust.Entomol.Soc. 18: 233-234.
EcoReference No.: 72656
Chemical of Concern: ES,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,CPY).
419. Keesing, V. F. (1990). The Toxicity of Four Insecticides to the Mite Hemisarcoptes coccophagus and
its Host Scale Hemiberlesia lataniae. Proc.N.Z.Weed Pest Control Conf. 43: 247-251.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
420. Kenaga, E. E., Fink, R. J., and Beavers, J. B. (1979). Dietary Toxicity Tests with Mallards, Simulating
Residue Decline of Chlorpyrifos and Avoidance of Treated Foods. In: E.E.Kenaga (Ed.), Avian and
Mammal Wildlife Toxicology, ASTMSTP 693, Philadelphia, PA 36-44.
EcoReference No.: 35297
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
421. Kennedy, C. W. (2002). Phytotoxicity in Pearl Millet Varies Among In-Furrow Insecticides. Crop
Prot. 21: 799-802.
EcoReference No.: 86668
Chemical of Concern: CYF,TFT,PRT,ADC,CPY,TBO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(PRT,ADC,CPY),OK(TFT,TBO),MIXTURE(CYF).
422. Kersting, K. and Van Wijngaarden, R. (1992). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on a Microecosystem.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 11: 365-372.
EcoReference No.: 16353
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP.MOR.POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
Key, P. B. (1996). The Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Malathion, Azinphosmethyl and Chlorpyrifos
Exposure on the Grass Shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio, with Emphasis on Larval Life Cycle Pulse
Exposures. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ. of South Carolina, Columbia, SC 124 p.
EcoReference No.: 72741
Chemical of Concern: AZ,MLN,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(AZ,MLN).
-------
424. Key, P. B. and Fulton, M. H. (2006). Correlation Between 96-h Mortality and 24-h
Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition in Three Grass Shrimp Larval Life Stages. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 63:
389-392.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92616
Chemical of Concern: MLN,AZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(MLN,AZ).
425. Key, P. B. and Fulton, M. H. (1993). Lethal and Sublethal Effects of Chlorpyrifos Exposure on Adult
and Larval Stages of the Grass Shrimp, Palaemonetes pugio. J.Environ.Sci.Health B28: 621-640.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14848
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,BCM,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
426. Khajuria, D. R. and Sharma, J. P. (1995). Efficacy of Insecticides in Controlling Pea Leafminer
(Chromatomyia horticola) on Seed Crop of Pea (Pisum sativum). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 65: 381-384.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89295
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CPY,MP,FNT,DMT,MLN,DDV,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MP,CPY),OK(CYP,ACP),OK TARGET,NO
CROP(MLN,DMT).
427. Khalil, Z., Shabana, E. F., Kobbia, I. A., and Zaki, F. T. (1993). Phosphatase Activities and
Phosphorus Fractions in Two Periphytic Cyanobacteria, in Response to Some Pesticides.
EgyptJMicrobiol. 26: 429-441.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93338
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CP Y,TFN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY).
428. Khayrandish, A. and Wood, R. J. (1993). Organophosphorus Insecticide Resistance in a New Strain of
Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Tanga, Tanzania. Bull.Entomol.Res. 83: 67-74 (Publ
in Part As 17296).
EcoReferenceNo.: 17297
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
429. Klein, C. D., Slaymaker, P. H., Tugwell, N. P., and Wall, M. L. (1994). Control of Bollworm, Tobacco
Budworm, and Beet Army worm in Cotton with Selected Insecticides, 1993. Arthropod Manag.Tests
19: 227 (No. 70F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 89106
Chemical of Concern: TDC,ES,MP,CPY,Naled,CFP,MVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(MVP),NO MIXTURE(ES,CPY,CFP,TARGET-
TDC,MP,Naled),TARGET(Naled,MP,CPY).
430. Kline, D. L., Wood, J. R., Roberts, R. H., and Baldwin, K. F. (1985). Laboratory Evaluation of Four
Organophosphate Compounds As Larvicides Against Field Collected Salt Marsh Culicoides spp.
(Diptera: Ceratopogonidae). J.Am.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 1:48-50.
EcoReference No.: 11965
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,MLN).
-------
431. Klingeman, W. E., Buntin, G. D., Van lersel, M. W., and Braman, S. K. (2000). Whole-Plant Gas
Exchange, not Individual-Leaf Measurements, Accurately Assesses Azalea Response to Insecticides.
CropProt. 19:407-415.
EcoReference No.: 64755
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CBL,CPY,AZD,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ACP,CPY),OK TARGET(CBL),OK(AZD,IMC).
432. Knight, A. L. and Hull, L. A. (1992). Linking Insecticide Bioassays with Residue Analyses to
Evaluate Control of Platynota idaeusalis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Neonates on Apple: Single Spray.
J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 926-931.
EcoReference No.: 73712
Chemical of Concern: MOM,AZ,CPY,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MOM),OK TARGET(MP,CPY),NO ENDPOINT(AZ).
433. Knight, A. L. and Hull, L. A. (1992). Linking Insecticide Bioassays with Residue Analyses to
Evaluate Control of Platynota idaeusalis (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) Neonates on Apple: Seasonal
Spray Program. J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 932-938 .
EcoReference No.: 74134
Chemical of Concern: MOM,AZ,CPY,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR,PHY; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(AZ,MOM),EFFICACY(CPY,MP).
434. Knight, A. L. and Hull, L. A. (1989). Response of Tufted Apple Bud Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae)
Neonates to Selected Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 82: 1027-1032.
EcoReference No.: 74117
Chemical of Concern: FNV,MOM,CPY,MP,AZ,TDC,PSM,PHSL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(AZ),TARGET(MOM,MP,CPY,TDC,FNV).
435. Kobbia, I. A., Khalil, Z., Shabana, E. F., and Zaki, F. T. (1991). Potency of Nitrogen Fixation,
Nitrogenase and Nitrate Reductase Activities in Anabaena oryzae and Nostoc muscorum, as Influenced
by Some Pesticides. Egypt.J.Physiol.Sci. 15: 9-20.
EcoReference No.: 75051
Chemical of Concern: DMT,TFN,DINO,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(TFN,DINO).
436. Kobbia, I. A., Shabana, E. F., Khalil, Z., and Zaki, F. T. (1991). Growth Criteria of Two Common
Cyanobacteria Isolated from Egyptian Flooded Soil, as Influenced by Some Pesticides. Water Air Soil
Pollut.6Q: 107-116.
EcoReference No.: 67667
Chemical of Concern: TFN,DINO,CPY,DMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,BCM,PHY; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(TFN,DINO).
437. Koenning, S. R., Bailey, J. E., Schmitt, D. P., and Barker, K. R. (1998 ). Management of Plant-
Parasitic Nematodes on Peanut with Selected Nematicides in North Carolina. J.Nematol. 30: 643-650.
EcoReference No.: 77680
Chemical of Concern: CLP,FMP,EP,ADC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(ADC),OK(CPY,FMP,EP),NO MIXTURE(CLP),TARGET(CPY).
438. Komeza, N, Fouillet, P., Bouletreau, M., and Delpuech, J. M. (2001). Modification, by the Insecticide
Chlorpyrifos, of the Behavioral Response to Kairomones of a Parasitoid Wasp, Leptopilina boulardi.
-------
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 41: 436-442.
EcoReference No.: 64770
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BEH.PHY: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
439. Konno, T. and Kajihara, 0. (1985). Synergism of Pirimicarb and Organophosphorus Insecticides
Against the Resistant Rice Stem Borer, Chilo suppressalis Walker (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae).
Appl.Entomol.2ool. 20: 403-410.
EcoReference No.: 74137
Chemical of Concern:
CPYM,FNT,MP,FNTH,DZ,CPY,PRN,MLN,PSM,MDT,DDW,TW,CBL,BDC,PIRM,PIM,MOM;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(MLN,DZ,CBL,MOM,MP,CPY)TARGETCPYM.
440. Kou, J., Gillette, J. S., and Bloomquist, J. R. (2006). Neurotoxicity in Murine Striatal Dopaminergic
Pathways Following Co-Application of Permethrin, Chlorpyrifos, and MPTP. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol.
85: 68-75.
EcoReference No.: 92615
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY,PMR).
441. Krishnaiah, N. V. and Kalode, M. B. (1988). Comparative Toxicity of Synthetic Pyrethroid,
Organophosphate and Carbamate Insecticides Against Nephotettix virescens (Distant) and Nilaparvata
lugens (Stal) in Rice. Crop Prot. 7: 66-71.
EcoReference No.: 92963
Chemical of Concern: ETN,MOM,FNV,CYP,DM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(FNV,MOM,ETN,CPY,CYP,DM).
442. Krishnamoorthy, A. (1985). Effect of Several Pesticides on Eggs, Larvae and Adults of the Green
Lace-Wing Chrysopa scelestes Banks. Entomon 10: 21-28.
EcoReference No.: 90420
Chemical of Concern: SFR,MOM,CBL,DDVP,DMT,MLN,PPHD,CPY,PHSL,DCF,ES; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR.REP: Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
443. Krishnamoorthy, A. (1984). Effect of Some Pesticides on the Predatory Mite, Amblyseius
tetranychivorus (Gupta) (Acarina: Phytoseiidae). Entomon 8: 229-234.
EcoReference No.: 90444
Chemical of Concern: ES,DCF,FNT,CPY,DMT,MLN,DEM,PHSL,MOM,CBL,MZB; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,MZB),OK
TARGET(CPY,DMT,MOM,CBL).
444. Kulkarni, A. P., Fabacher, D. L., and Hodgson, E. (1980). Pesticides as Inducers of Hepatic Drug-
Metabolizing Enzymes - II. Glutathione S-Transferases. Gen.Pharmacol. 11:437-441.
EcoReference No.: 92613
Chemical of Concern: TBF,TFN,ES,CHD,MLN,CPY,PPB,24D,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,24D),OK(MLN,PPB,PMR,TBF).
445. Kumar, T. P., Banerjee, S. K., Devasahayam, S., and Koya, K. M. A. (1986). Effect of Different
Insecticides in the Control of 'Pollu' Beetle Longitarsus nigripennis Mots. A Major Pest of Black
-------
Pepper Piper nigrum L. Entomon 11: 219-222.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91474
Chemical of Concern: ES,MP,FNV,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MP,CBL,CPY,FNV).
446. LaBrecque, G. C., Wilson, H. G., Gahan, J. B., and Weidhaas, D. E. (1971). Evaluation of Various
Insecticides as Residual Sprays in Buildings Naturally Infested with Anopheles quadrimaculatus.
Mosq.News 31: 206-208.
EcoReferenceNo.: 65414
Chemical of Concern: ABT,MLN,PPX,MXC,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: TARGET(MLN,CPYM).
447. Lahr, J., Badji, A., Marquenie, S., Schuiling, E., Ndour, K. B., Diallo, A. 0., and Everts, J. W. (2001).
Acute Toxicity of Locust Insecticides to Two Indigenous Invertebrates from Sahelian Temporary
Ponds. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 48: 66-75.
EcoReferenceNo.: 59962
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,DM,DFZ,FNT,BDC,FPN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY),OK(DM,DFZ,FNT,BDC,FPN).
448. Lai, S., Saxena, D. M, and Lai, R. (1987). Effects of DDT, Fenitrothion and Chlorpyrifos on Growth,
Photosynthesis and Nitrogen Fixation in Anabaena (Arm 310) and Aulosira fertilissima.
Agric.Ecosyst.Environ. 19: 197-209.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15095
Chemical of Concern: DDT,CPY,FNT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY.POP.GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(FNT,DDT).
449. Landrum, P. F., Fisher, S. W., Hwang, H., and Hickey, J. (1999). Hazard Evaluation of Ten
Organophosphorus Insecticides Against the Midge, Chironomus riparius via QSAR. SAR QSAR
Environ.Res. 10: 423-450.
EcoReference No.: 67687
Chemical of Concern: FNF,TBO,CMPH,DCTP,FNTH,AZ,CPY,DZ,DS; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY),OK(FNF,TBO,CMPH,DCTP,FNTH,AZ,DS).
450. Latha, N. A., Babu, T. R., Saxena, R., Sriramulu, M., and Reddy, D. D. R. (1998). Evaluation of the
Effects of Insecticides on the Egg Larval Parasitoid Chelonus blackburni Cameron (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae). Int.Pest Control 40: 202-203.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93337
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,CYP,FNV,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.REP: Rejection
Code: TARGET(CPY,CYP,FNV,CBL).
451. Laub, C. A., Kuhar, T. P., Dellinger, T. A., and Youngman, R. R. (1999). Efficacy of Foliar
Insecticides Against Alfalfa Weevil Larvae, 1998. Arthropod Manage. Tests 24: 196-197 (F4).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88109
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,LCYT,CPY,EFV,PPB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,EFV),OK(PPB,CYF,CBF,LCYT).
452. Laub, C. A., Kuhar, T. P., Dellinger, T. A., and Youngman, R. R. (1999). Efficacy of Foliar
Insecticides Against Potato Leafhopper, 1998. ArthropodManag.Tests 24: 197-198 (F5).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 88088
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,MOM,CPY,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MOM),OK(CYF,CBF),EFFICACY(CPY).
453. Lee, C. Y. and Lee, L. C. (2000). Influence of Sanitary Conditions on the Field Performance of
Chlorpyrifos-Based Baits Against American Cockroaches, Periplaneta americana (L.) (Dictyoptera:
Blattidae). J. Vector Ecol. 25: 218-221 .
EcoReference No.: 63950
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
454. Lee, C. Y., Lee, L. C., Ang, B. H., and Chong, N. L. (1999). Insecticide Resistance in Blattella
germanica (L.) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) from Hotels and Restaurants in Malaysia. In:
W.H.Robinson, R.Rettich, andG.Rambo (Eds.), Proc.3rd Int.Conf.on Urban Pests, Graficke Zavody
Hronov, Czech Republic 171-182.
EcoReference No.: 77207
Chemical of Concern:
ES,DLD,DDT,PMSM,FNT,DZ,CPY,CPYM,MLN,CBL,PPX,BFT,PMR,DM,ACT,HMN; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(MLN,BFT,DZ,CBL)TARGET (CPYM).
455. Lee, C. Y., Yap, H. H., Chong, N. L., and Lee, R. S. T. (1996). Insecticide Resistance and Synergism
in Field Collected German Cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) in Peninsular Malaysia.
Bull.Entomol.Res. 86: 675-682.
EcoReference No.: 68673
Chemical of Concern: PTR,DM,DDT,PMR,CYP,PPX,BDC,CPY,PPB,DEF; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS, EXCEPT PPB,DEP),NO
MIXTURE(PPB,DEP),OKTARGET(CYP),TARGET(CPY).
456. Lee, D. K., Shin, E. H., and Shim, J. C. (1997). Insecticide Susceptibility of Culex pipiens pallens
(Culicidae, Diptera) Larvae in Seoul. Korean J.Entomol. 27: 9-13.
EcoReference No.: 61915
Chemical of Concern:
EFX,TMT,CYP,DM,FVL,PIRM,FNT,SBA,PFF,FNV,CYH,CPY,PTM,DDW,BFT,CBF; Habitat: A;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(FNV,CYP,FVL,TMT,CPY),OK(EFX,BFT).
457. Lee, R. and Oshima, Y. (1998). Effects of Selected Pesticides, Metals and Organometallics on
Development of Blue Crab (Callinectes sapidus) Embryos. Mar.Environ.Res. 46: 479-482.
EcoReference No.: 67659
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,FNV,CPY,CYP,MTPN,ES,TBT,CuCl,Hg,Cd; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(FNV,CPY,MTPN,CYP,CuCl),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO
COC(TBT).
458. Lee, R. F., Steinert, S. A., Nakayama, K., and Oshima, Y. (1999). Use of DNA Strand Damage (Comet
Assay) and Embryo Hatching Effects to Assess Contaminant Exposure in Blue Crab (Callinectes
sapidus) Embryos. In: D.S.Henshel, M.C.Black, andM.C.Harrass (Eds.), Environmental Toxicology
and Risk Assessment: Standardization of Biomarkers for Endocrine Disruption and Environmental
Assessment, 8th Volume, ASTMSTP 1364, West Conshohocken, PA 341-349.
EcoReference No.: 67696
Chemical of Concern: ES,Cu,Hg,CPY,TBT,FNV,MTPN,PRN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
-------
MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,FNV,MTPN).
459. Lee, S. E., Choi, W. S., Lee, H. S., and Park, B. S. (2000). Cross-Resistance of a Chlorpyrifos-Methyl
Resistant Strain of Oryzaephilus surinamensis (Coleoptera: Cucujidae) to Fumigant Toxicity of
Essential Oil Extracted from Eucalyptus globulus and its Major Monoterpene, 1,8-Cineole. J.Stored
Prod.Res. 36: 383-389.
EcoReference No.: 62720
Chemical of Concern: CPY-Methyl; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET (CPYM).
460. Lee, S. E. and Lees, E. M. (2001). Biochemical Mechanisms of Resistance in Strains of Oryzaephilus
surinamensis (Coleoptera: Silvanidae) Resistant to Malathion and Chlorpyrifos-Methyl.
J.Econ.Entomol. 94: 706-713.
EcoReference No.: 63704
Chemical of Concern: CPY-Methyl,MLN; Habitat: T; Rejection Code:
TARGET(MLN)TARGET(CPYM).
461. Leeuwangh, P., Brock, T. C. M., and Kersting, K. (1994). An Evaluation of Four Types of Freshwater
Model Ecosystem for Assessing the Hazard of Pesticides. Hum.Exp.Toxicol. 13: 888-899.
EcoReference No.: 61913
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
462. Leight, A. K. and Van Dolah, R. F. (1999). Acute Toxicity of the Insecticides Endosulfan,
Chlorpyrifos, and Malathion to the Epibenthic Estuarine Amphipod Gammarus palustris (Bousfield).
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 18: 958-964.
EcoReference No.: 51439
Chemical of Concern: ES,CP Y,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,MLN),OK(ES,CPY).
463. Lein, D. H., Maylin, G. A., Hillman, R. B., Rebhun, W. C., Henion, J. D., and Ebel, J. G. Jr. (1982).
Chlorpyrifos (Dursban 44) Toxicity in Dairy Bulls. Cornell Vet. 72: 1-58.
EcoReference No.: 37678
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.BEH.BCM: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
464. Lemke, L. A. and Kissam, J. B. (1987). Evaluation of Various Insecticides and Home Remedies for
Control of Individual Red Imported Fire Ant Colonies. J.Entomol.Sci. 22: 275-281.
EcoReference No.: 78182
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,DZ,PYN,CBL,ACP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ALSV),OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(DZ,ACP,CBL),TARGET(CPY).
465. Lester, P. J., Pogoda, M. K., and Free, D. J. (1998). Insecticide Encapsulation to Maintain Predatory
Mite Populations, Reduce European Red Mite Outbreaks, and Control of the Oriental Fruit Moth
Grapholitha molesta (Busck). Proc.Entomol.Soc.Ont. 129: 137-148.
EcoReference No.: 64233
Chemical of Concern: CYP.CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
466. Levin, E. D., Addy, N, Baruah, A., Elias, A., Christopher, N. C., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A.
-------
(2002). Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure in Rats Causes Persistent Behavioral Alterations.
Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 24: 733-741.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92629
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.GRO.MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
467. Levin, E. D., Addy, N, Nakajima, A., Christopher, N. C., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2001).
Persistent Behavioral Consequences of Neonatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure in Rats. Dev.Brain Res. 130:
83-89.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92576
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.PHY: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
468. Levin, E. D., Chrysanthis, E., Yacisin, K., and Linney, E. (2003). Chlorpyrifos Exposure of
Developing Zebrafish: Effects on Survival and Long-Term Effects on Response Latency and Spatial
Discrimination. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 25: 51-57.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92575
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
469. Levin, E. D., Swain, H. A., Donerly, S., and Linney, E. (2004). Developmental Chlorpyrifos Effects on
Hatchling Zebrafish Swimming Behavior. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 26: 719-723.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92507
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
470. Liburd, 0. E., Funderburk, J. E., and Olson, S. M. (2000). Effect of Biological and Chemical
Insecticides on Spodoptera species (Lep., Noctuidae) and Marketable Yields of Tomatoes.
J.Appl.Entomol. 124: 19-25.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82478
Chemical of Concern: MOM,DKGNa,AZD,CPY,FPP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,MOM,AZD,CPY,FPP).
471. Linn, J. D. (1968). Effects of Low Volume Aerial Spraying of Dursban and Fenthion on Fish. Down
Earth 24: 28-30.
EcoReference No.: 4501
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
472. Linz, G. M., Homan, H. J., Slowik, A. A., and Penry, L. B. (2006). Evaluation of Registered Pesticides
as Repellents for Reducing Blackbird (Icteridae) Damage to Sunflower. Crop Protect. 25: 842-847.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92506
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EFV,CYF,LCYT,ES,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(EFV,CPY),OK(CYF,CYP).
Liu, H., Cupp, E. W., Micher, K. M., Guo, A., and Liu, N. (2004). Insecticide Resistance and Cross-
Resistance in Alabama and Florida Strains of Culex quinquefaciatus. J.Med.Entomol. 41: 408-413.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88223
-------
Chemical of Concern: PMR,DM,CPY,MLN,RSM,PPX,FPN,IMC,SS; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY),OK(PMR,DM,RSM,PPX,FPN,IMC,SS).
474. Liu, J. and Pope, C. N. (1998). Comparative Presynaptic Neurochemical Changes in Rat Striatum
Following Exposure to Chlorpyrifos or Parathion. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health 53: 531-544.
EcoReferenceNo.: 86316
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,PRN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PRN),NO SPECIES(CPYO).
475. Liu, N. and Yue, X. (2000). Insecticide Resistance and Cross-Resistance in the House Fly (Diptera:
Muscidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 1269-1275.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87285
Chemical of Concern: TBF,TPT,PPB,PMR,CYP,DM,CPY,PPX,FPN,IMC,SS; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(TBF,PPB),OK TARGET(PMR,CYP,CPY,FPN).
476. Lo, P. L. (2004). Toxicity of Pesticides to Halmus chalybeus (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae) and the
Effect of Three Fungicides on Their Densities in a Citrus Orchard. N.Z.J.Crop Hortic.Sci. 32: 69-76.
EcoReferenceNo.: 78126
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,BPZ,DZ,CPY,PMR,CuOH,CuS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(ALSV,DZ),TARGET(CPY).
477. Lockridge, 0., Duysen, E. G., Voelker, T., Thompson, C. M., and Schopfer, L. M. (2005). Life
Without Acetylcholinesterase: The Implications of Cholinesterase Inhibitor Toxicity in AChE-
Knockout Mice. Environ.Toxicol.Pharmacol. 19:463-469.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89554
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,DZ,DDVP,MLO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY,BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPYO),NO IN VITRO(DZ,DDVP,MLO).
478. Lourens, J. H. M. and Lyaruu, D. M. (1979). Susceptibility of Some East African Strains of
Rhipicephalus appendiculatus to Cholinesterase Inhibiting Acaricides. PANS (Pest Artie.News Summ.)
25: 135-142.
EcoReference No.: 72641
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(DZ,CBL,CPY).
479. Lowe, J. I. (1965). Results of Toxicity Tests with Fishes and Macroinvertebrates. Unpublished Data,
Data Sheets Available from U.S.EPA Res.Lab., Gulf Breeze, FL 81 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14574
Chemical of Concern:
DDT,PRN,TXP,CPY,DLD,AND,HPT,HCCH,CHD,MXT,ABT,ES,Naled,CBL,ATM,ETN,AZ,PRT,D
DVP,PSM,DZ,MLN,CTN,EN,PCB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: NOC.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,Naled),NO ENDPOINT,CONTROL(MLN).
480. Lowe, J. I., Wilson, P. D., and Davison, R. B. (1970). Laboratory Bioassays. U.S.Fish Wildl.Serv.,
Circ.335, Washington, D.C. 20-23 (Author Communication Used).
EcoReferenceNo.: 15259
Chemical of Concern: CPY,24DXY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: NOC,MOR,GRO; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
-------
481. Ludwig, P. D., Dishburger, H. J., McNeill IV, J. C., Miller, W. 0., and Rice, J. R. (1968). Biological
Effects and Persistence of Dursban Insecticide in a Salt-Marsh Habitat. J.Econ.Entomol. 61: 626-633.
EcoReference No.: 13811
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR.POP.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
482. Luff, M. L., Clements, R. 0., and Bale, J. S. (1990). An Integrated Approach to Assessing Effects of
Some Pesticides in Grassland. In: Brighton Crop.Prot.Conf.: Pests and Diseases, Volume 1, Br.Crop
Prot.Counc., Brighton, England 143-152.
EcoReference No.: 69898
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
483. Lund, S. A., Fulton, M. H., and Key, P. B. (2000). The Sensitivity of Grass Shrimp, Palaemonetes
pugio, Embryos to Organophosphate Pesticide Induced Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition.
Aquat.Toxicol. 48: 127-134.
EcoReference No.: 51679
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(MLN,CPY).
484. Lunden, J. D., Mayer, D. F., Johansen, C. A., Shanks, C. H., and Eves, J. D. (1986). Effects of
Chlorpyrifos Insecticide on Pollinators. Am.Bee J. 126:441-444.
EcoReference No.: 64812
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BEH; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(PMR,CPY).
485. Lydy, M. J. and Austin, K. R. (2005). Toxicity Assessment of Pesticide Mixtures Typical of the
Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Using Chironomus tentans. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 48: 49-55.
EcoReference No.: 79402
Chemical of Concern: HXZ,MDT,SZ,DU,DZ,DDT,CZE,AZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(AZ,DZ,SZ,HXZ,CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS).
486. Lydy, M. J., Belden, J. B., and Ternes, M. A. (1999). Effects of Temperature on the Toxicity of M-
Parathion, Chlorpyrifos, and Pentachlorobenzene to Chironomus tentans.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37(4): 542-547.
EcoReference No.: 20658
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,MP).
487. Lydy, M. J. and Linck, S. L. (2003). Assessing the Impact of Triazine Herbicides on Organophosphate
Insecticide Toxicity to the Earthworm Eisenia fetida. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45: 343-349.
EcoReference No.: 71459
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ATZ,SZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(ATZ,SZ,CPY).
488. Mack, T. P. (1992). Effects of Five Granular Insecticides on the Abundance of Selected Arthropod
Pests and Predators in Peanut Fields. J.Econ.Entomol. 85: 2459-2466.
EcoReference No.: 71483
Chemical of Concern: CEX,TBO,EP,CPY,FNF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
-------
OK TARGET(CPY).
489. Macquillan, M. J., Badley, A. R., and Hodgson, P. J. (1975). Control of Sorghum Midge with
Chlorpyrifos in Australia. J.Econ.Entomol. 68: 713-715 .
EcoReference No.: 517 81
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
490. Maguire, C. C. and Williams, B. A. (1987). Cold Stress and Acute Organophosphorus Exposure:
Interaction Effects on Juvenile Northern Bobwhite. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 16: 477-481.
EcoRef erence No.: 39749
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
491. Maguire, C. C. and Williams, B. A. (1987). Response of Thermal Stressed Bobwhite to
Organophosphorus Exposure. Environ.Pollut. 47: 25-39.
EcoRef erence No.: 39628
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.BCM.MOR.GRO; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
492. Majori, G., Sabatinelli, G., Villani, F., and Petrarca, V. (1986). Studies on Insecticide Susceptibility of
Anopheles gambiae s.l. and Culex quinquefasciatus in the Area of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (West
Africa). J.Am.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 2: 305-309.
EcoRef erence No.: 12072
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,MLN).
493. Mala, S. R., Peter, C., and David, B. V. (1992). Ovipositional Behaviour and Eclosion of Eggs of
Helicoverpa armigera as Affected by Insecticides. Entomon 17: 177-181.
EcoRef erence No.: 74154
Chemical of Concern: MOM,ES,CYP,EFX,CPY,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(TDC,CYP,CPY).
494. Malhi, C. S. (1997). Prevention of Bird Damage at the Sowing and Sprouting Stages of a Sunflower
Crop. Int.Pest Control 39: 127-128.
EcoReference No.: 75770
Chemical of Concern: DMT,Cu,CPY,THM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.REP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(Cu,THM).
495. Mani, M. (1992). Contact Toxicity of Different Pesticides to the Encyrtid Parasitoids, Aenasius advena
and Blepyrus insularis of the Striped Mealybug, Ferrisia virgata. Trap.Pest Manag. 38: 386-390.
EcoReference No.: 51860
Chemical of Concern:
DINO,CBD,CAP,MZB,Zineb,Ziram,DEM,CPY,DZ,DDW,FNTH,CBL,MLN,ES,MP,PHSL,DMT,DC
F,TDF,MLX,TFR,HCZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CAP,MZB,MLN,MP,TFR,DMT),OK(ALL CHEMS)//Not Ecossl
Species,TARGET(MP,CPY).
496. Mani, M. (1994). Relative Toxicity of Different Pesticides to Campoletis chlorideae Uchida (Hym.,
Ichneumonidae). J.Biol.Control 8: 18-22.
-------
EcoReference No.: 62600
Chemical of Concern:
Zineb,DINO,DCF,CU,ES,MOM,CBL,FNV,PHSL,CYP,DM,DMT,MLN,CPY,MP,FNTH,DDVP,PPH
D,FVL,ACP,MZB,CBD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CTN,MZB),OKTARGET(CBL,MOM,MLN,MP,DMT,CPY,FNV).
497. Mani, M. (1995). Studies on the Toxicity of Pesticides to Cotesia plutellae (Hymenoptera:
Braconidae), a Parasitoid of Diamondback Moth, Plutella Xylostella (L.). J.Insect Sci. 8: 31-33.
EcoReference No.: 90902
Chemical of Concern: AZD,MZB,F VL,CBL,DMT,MP,CTN,CuOS,ACP,PPHD,DDVP,ES,CPY;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),NO
MLXTURE(MZB),TARGET(MP, DMT,CPY).
498. Mani, M. and Krishnamoorthy, A. (1996). Response of the Encyrtid Parasitoid, Tetracnemoidea indica
of the Oriental Mealybug Planococcus lilacinus to Different Pesticides. Indian J.Plant Prot. 24: 80-85.
EcoReference No.: 67219
Chemical of Concern:
TDF,PPHD,DMT,ES,DDW,FNV,CYP,DM,MP,FNTH,MLN,PHSL,CBL,FVL,CPY,AZD,FSTAI,Cap
tan,Ziram,MZB,DINO,Cu,CTN,DCF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(MLN,CBL,MP,FNV, DMT,CPY).
499. Mani, M., Lakshmi, V. Jhansi, and Krishnamoorthy, A. (1997). Side Effects of Some Pesticides on the
Adult Longevity, Progeny Production and Prey Consumption of Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Mulsant
(Coccinellidae, Coleoptera). Indian J.Plant Prot. 25: 48-51.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
500. Mani, M. and Nagarkatti, S. (1988). Response of the Parasitoid, Eucelatoria bryani Sabrosky (Diptera:
Tachinidae) to Different Pesticides. Entomon. 13:25-28.
EcoReference No.: 75493
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,CBL,DMT,DCF,MLN,PHSL,FNT,DEM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MLN,DMT,CBL,CPY).
501. Mani, M. and Nagarkatti, S. (1983). Susceptibility of Two Braconid Parasites Apanteles angaleti
Muesebeck and Bracon kirkpatricki (Wilkinson) to Several Chemical Pesticides. Entomon 8: 87-92.
EcoReference No.: 62601
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DDVP,DCF,DMT,ES,FNT,MLN,MOM,PHSL,PPHD,MZB;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(MLN,MZB,DMT,CPY),TARGET(CBL,MOM,CPY),OK(DDVP,DCF,ES,FNT,PHSL,PPHD
).
502. Mani, M. and Thontadarya, T. S. (1988). Studies on the Safety of Different Pesticides to the Grape
Mealybug Natural Enemies, Anagyrus dactylopii (How.) and Scymnus coccivora Ayyar. Indian
J.PlantProt. 16:205-210.
EcoReference No.: 68988
Chemical of Concern: MP,DDVP,DMT,OXD,CPY,DZ,PHSL,MZB,CAP,CBD; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR.GRO: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(MP,DMT,MZB,CAP,CPY),OK(DDVP,OXD,DZ,PHSL,CBD).
503. Mansour, S. A. and Al-Jalili, M. K. (1985). Determination of Residues of Some Insecticides in Clover
-------
Flowers: A Bioassay Method Using Honeybee Adults. J.Apic.Res. 24: 195-198.
EcoReference No.: 67983
Chemical of Concern: MOM,PPX,CPY,CBL,FNT,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,ACC;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MOM,CPY,CBL),OK(PPX,FNT,PIRM).
504. Mansour, S. A. and Al-Jalili, M. K. (1985). Pesticides and Beneficial Organisms: I - The Response of
Two Honey Bee Races to Certain Insecticides. Pesticides 19: 39-40.
EcoReference No.: 69374
Chemical of Concern: MLN,DDVP,FNTH,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,DDVP,FNTH,CBL,CPY).
505. Marable, B. R., Maurissen, J. P. J., Mattsson, J. L., and Billington, R. (2007). Differential Sensitivity
of Blood, Peripheral, and Central Cholinesterases in Beagle Dogs Following Dietary Exposure to
Chlorpyrifos. Regul.Toxicol.Pharmacol. 47: 240-248.
EcoReference No.: 92504
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH.GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
506. Marietta, F., Patetta, A., and Manino, A. (2003). Laboratory Assessment of Pesticide Toxicity to
Bumblebees. Bull.Insectology 56: 155-158.
EcoReference No.: 73698
Chemical of Concern: RTN,PHSL,IMC,LCYT,CYF,DMT,ABM,ACP,CBL,CPYM,MOM; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DMT,CPYM),OK(ACP,CBL,CYF,MOM,RTN).
507. Martin, P. A. (1990). Effects of Carbofuran, Chlorpyrifos and Deltamethrin on Hatchability,
Deformity, Chick Size and Incubation Time of Japanese Quail (Coturnix japonica) Eggs.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 9: 529-534.
EcoReference No.: 62611
Chemical of Concern: DM,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.REP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,CPY),OK(DM).
508. Martin, P. A. and Forsyth, D. J. (1998). Effects of Exposure to Vegetation Sprayed with Dimethoate or
Chlorpyrifos on Mallard Ducklings (Anas platyrhynchos). Ecotoxicology 7: 81-87.
EcoReference No.: 62612
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY).
509. Martin, P. A., Johnson, D. L., and Forsyth, D. J. (1996). Effects of Grasshopper-Control Insecticides
on Survival and Brain Acetylcholinesterase of Pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) Chicks.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 518-524.
EcoReference No.: 58076
Chemical of Concern: CBF,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH.GRO.MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,DMT,CPY).
510. Martinez-Toledo, M. V., Salmeron, V., and Gonzalez-Lopez, J. (1992). Effect of the Insecticides
Methylpyrimifos and Chlorpyrifos on Soil Microflora in an Agricultural Loam. Plant Soil 147: 25-30.
EcoReference No.: 71100
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.SYS: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(PIRM).
511. Mascarenhas, V. J., Graves, J. B., Leonard, B. R., and Burris, E. (1998 ). Dosage-Mortality Responses
of Third Instars of Beet Army worm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Selected Insecticides.
J.Agric.Entomol. 15: 125-140.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62614
Chemical of Concern: CFP,SS,TUZ,MFZ,EMMB,CPY,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MFZ,CFP,SS,TUZ,EMMB,CPY,TDC),TARGET(CPY).
512. Mason, L. J., Seal, D. R., and Jansson, R. K. (1991). Response of Sweetpotato Weevil (Coleoptera:
Apionidae) to Selected Insecticides. Fla.Entomol. 74: 350-355.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62617
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CBL,ES,PRN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK,TARGET(CBL),TARGET(MOM,CPY).
513. Masoodi, M. A., Bhat, A. M., and Koul, V. K. (1989). Toxicity of Insecticide to Adults of Encarsia (=
Prospaltella) perniciosi (Hymenoptera: Aphilinidae). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 59: 50-52.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93336
Chemical of Concern: FNT,ES,FNV,MLN,PPHD,CBL,PHSL,DMT,DDVP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(FNV,MLN,CBL,DMT,CPY).
514. Mather, T. N. and DeFoliart, G. R. (1983). Repellency and Initial Toxicity of Abate and Dursban
Formulations to Aedes triseriatus in Oviposition Sites. Mosq.News 43: 474-479.
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
515. Matozzo, V., Tomei, A., and Marin, M. G. (2006). Effects of 4-Nonylphenol (Xenoestrogen) and
Chlorpyrifos (Organophosphorus Pesticide) on Acetylcholinesterase Activity in the Clam Tapes
philippinarum. Fresenius Environ.Bull. 15:710-714.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93292
Chemical of Concern: NYP,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
516. Matthewson, M. D., Wilson, R. G., and Hammant, C. A. (1976). The Development of Resistance to
Certain Organophosphorus and Carbamate Ixodicides by the Blue Tick, Boophilus decoloratus (Koch)
(Acarina, Ixodidae), in Rhodesia. Bull.Entomol.Res. 66: 553-560.
EcoReference No.: 72642
Chemical of Concern: PSM,ETN,CBL,CMPH,CPY,DZ,DCTP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO DURATION(ALL CHEMS),NO COC(MTAS),TARGET(CPY).
517. Mattsson, J. L., Wilmer, J. W., Shankar, M. R., Berdasco, N. M., Crissman, J. W., Maurissen, J. P., and
Bond, D. M. (1996). Single-Dose and 13-Week Repeated-Dose Neurotoxicity Screening Studies of
Chlorpyrifos Insecticide. Food Chem.Toxicol. 34: 393-405.
EcoReferenceNo.: 52006
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.HIS.PHY.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
518. Maurissen, J. P. J., Hoberman, A. M., Garman, R. H., and Hanley, T. R. Jr. (2000). Lack of Selective
Developmental Neurotoxicity in Rat Pups from Dams Treated by Gavage with Chlorpyrifos.
-------
Toxicol.Sci. 57: 250-263.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82431
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BEH.REP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
519. Maurissen, J. P. J., Shankar, M. R., and Mattsson, J. L. (2000). Chlorpyrifos: Lack of Cognitive
Effects in Adult Long-Evans Rats. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 27: 237-246.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87234
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
520. Mazanti, L. E. (1999). The Effects of Atrazine, Metolachlor and Chlorpyrifos on the Growth and
Survival of Larval Frogs Under Laboratory and Field Conditions. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ.of Maryland,
College Park, MD 146 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75041
Chemical of Concern: MTL,ATZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,ACC,SYS; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO MIXTURE(ATZ,MTL).
521. Mazzarri, M. B. and Georghiou, G. P. (1995). Characterization of Resistance to Organophosphate,
Carbamate, and Pyrethroid Insecticides in Field Populations of Aedes aegypti from Venezuela .
JAm.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 11: 315-322 .
EcoReference No.: 74860
Chemical of Concern: PPB,PIRM,TMP,DDT,CYH,PMR,CPY,MLN,PPX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),NO MIXTURE(PPB),TARGET(MLN,CPY).
522. McClanahan, R. J. (1982). Susceptibility of a Migratory Population of the Corn Earworm (Heliothis
zea) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) to Insecticides. Can.Entomol. 114: 1175-1177.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89573
Chemical of Concern:
DM,CYP,FNV,PMR,CPY,SPS,FPP,PFF,PRN,TVP,MOM,DDT,AZ,CBF,ACP,MTM,CBL; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CYP,PMR,CPY,MOM,AZ,ACP,MTM,CBL,FNV).
523. McCollister, S. B., Kociba, R. J., Humiston, C. G., McCollister, D. D., and Gehring, P. J. (1974).
Studies of the Acute andLong-Term Oral Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos (0,0-Diethyl-0-(3,5,6-Trichloro-
2-Pyridyl) Phosphorothioate). Food Cosmet.Toxicol. 12:45-61.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37866
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM.PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
524. McEwen, L. C., DeWeese, L. R., and Schladweiler, P. (1986). Bird Predation on Cutworms
(Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) in Wheat Fields and Chlorpyrifos Effects on Brain Cholinesterase Activity.
Environ.Entomol. 15: 147-151.
EcoReference No.: 40006
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.ACC; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
525. McKenney, C. Jr, Matthews, E., and Lawrence, D. (1981). Mysid Life-Cycle Tests. Progress Report,
FY81, Experimental Environments Branch, U.S.EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL 62-73.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 3750
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR,Ag; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
526. McKinlay, K. S. and Burrage, R. H. (1975). Laboratory and Field Experiments on the Toxicity of
Various Insecticides to Grasshoppers, Melanoplus sanguinipes and Camnula ellucida (Orthoptera:
Acrididae). Can.Entomol. 107: 543-546.
EcoReference No.: 72039
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBF,DMT,MDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBF),TARGET(DMT,CPY).
527. McLeod, M. J., Twidwell, E. K., and Gallenberg, D. J. (1994). Alfalfa Weevil Control, 1993.
ArthropodManag.Tests 19: 172-173 (No. 7F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88952
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBF,PSM,MP,MLN,CBL,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBL,MLN),OK(CBF,PSM,MP,PMR),NO CROP(MP).
528. Melton, T. A. and Powell, N. T. (1991). Effects of Nematicides and Cultivars on Rotylenchulus
reniformis and Flue-Cured Tobacco Yield. J.Nematol. 23: 712-716.
EcoReference No.: 77621
Chemical of Concern: UREA,EP,CBF,CLP,CPY,ADC,FMP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ADC,CLP),OK(EP,CBF,FMP),NO
MIXTURE(UREA),EFFICACY(CPY).
529. Merriam, T. L. and Axtell, R. C. (1983). Relative Toxicity of Certain Pesticides to Lagenidium
giganteum (Oomycetes: Lagenidiales), a Fungal Pathogen of Mosquito Larvae. Environ.Entomol. 12:
515-521.
EcoReference No.: 66427
Chemical of Concern:
MTPN,ACR,CPY,FNTH,MLN,TMP,DFZ,Captan,ATZ,DDT,HCCH,CBL,PPX,PMR,TXP; Habitat:
AT; Effect Codes: GRO: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(MLN,CBL,MTPN,ATZ,CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(Captan).
530. Merriam, T. L., Leidy, R. B., and Axtell, R. C. (1981). Efficacy and Longevity of Controlled-Release
Chlorpyrifos (Dursban 10CR) for Mosquito Control in Coastal Dredged Material Disposal Sites.
Mosq.News 41: 512-522.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92565
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CPY).
531. Meyer, A., Seidler, F. J., Aldridge, J. E., Tate, C. A., Cousins, M. M., and Slotkin, T. A. ( Critical
Periods for Chlorpyrifos-Induced Developmental Neurotoxicity: Alterations in Adenylyl Cyclase
Signaling in Adult Rat Brain Regions After Gestational or Neonatal Exposure. Environ.Health
Perspect. 112: 295-301.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87746
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Mn; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.PHY.BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
532. Meyer, A., Seidler, F. J., Cousins, M. M., and Slotkin, T. A. (2003). Developmental Neurotoxicity
Elicited by Gestational Exposure to Chlorpyrifos: When is Adenylyl Cyclase a Target?
-------
Environ.Health Perspect. 111: 1871 -1876.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93482
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL.GRO: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
533. Meyers, S. M, Marden, B. T., Bennett, R. S., and Bentley, R. (1992). Comparative Response of
Nestling European Starlings and Red-Winged Blackbirds to an Oral Administration of Either
Dimethoate or Chlorpyrifos. J.Wildl.Dis. 28: 400-406 .
EcoReference No.: 72659
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY).
534. Michaud, J. P. (2002). Relative Toxicity of Six Insecticides to Cycloneda sanguinea and Harmonia
axyridis (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae). J.Entomol.Sci. 37: 83-93.
EcoReference No.: 68888
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
535. Micinski, S., Kirby, M. L., and Graves, J. B. (1991). Efficacy of Selected Insecticides for Plant Bug
Control, 1990. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 197-198 (89F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 90646
Chemical of Concern: MLN,OML,ACP,DMT,CPY,MTM,DS,TDC,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
536. Milam, C. D., Farris, J. L., and Wilhide, J. D. (2000). Evaluating Mosquito Control Pesticides for
Effect on Target and Nontarget Organisms. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 39: 324-328.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56989
Chemical of Concern: PMR,RSM,CPY,MLN,TMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,RSM,MLN),OK(PMR,TMP).
537. Miller, B. E., Forcum, D. L., Weeks, K. W., Wheeler, J. R., and Rail, C. D. (1970). An Evaluation of
Insecticides for Flea Control on Wild Mammals. J.Med.Entomol. 7: 697-702.
EcoReference No.: 69363
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CBL,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CBL,DZ),OK(ALL CHEMS),TARGET (MLN,CPY).
538. Miller, T. A., Nelson, L. L., Young, W. W., Roberts, L. W., Roberts, D. R., and Wilkinson, R. N.
(1973). Polymer Formulations of Mosquito Larvicides. I. Effectiveness of Polyethylene and Polyvinyl
Chloride Formulations of Chlorpyrifos Applied to. Mosq.News 33: 148-155.
EcoReferenceNo.: 13954
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
539. Miyazaki, S. and Hodgson, G. C. (1972). Chronic Toxicity of Dursban and Its Metabolite, 3,5,6-
Trichloro-2-Pyridinol in Chickens. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 23: 391-398.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37995
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
-------
540. Mizell III, R. F. and Schiffhauer, D. E. (1990). Effects of Pesticides on Pecan Aphid Predators
Chrysoperla rufilabris (Neuroptera: Chrysopidae), Hippodamia convergens, Cycloneda sanguinea (L.),
Olla v-nigrum (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae), and Aphelinus perpallidus (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae).
J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 1806-1812.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93318
Chemical of Concern:
CBL,MOM,AZ,MLN,DMT,CPY,DZ,PRN,BMY,FNV,CYP,PHSL,ES,HCCH,DCF; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(CBL,AZ,MLN,DMT,CPY,DZ,FNV,CYP).
541. Mohamed, H. A., Bashir, N. H. H., and El-Tayeb, Y. M. (1993). Susceptibilities of Three Insect Pests
of Cotton to Insecticides and Mixtures. Insect Sci.Appl. 14: 193-197.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82824
Chemical of Concern: AMZ,CPY,DMT,ES,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(AMZ,CPY,DMT,ES),NO COC(DKGNa), TARGET (DMT),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
542. Mohamed, 0. S. A., Eldirdiri, N. L, Karrar, M. A., and Adam, S. E. I. (1990). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos
in Nubian Goats. Rev.Elev.Med.Vet.Pays Trap. 43: 431-434.
EcoReference No.: 62886
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY.CEL; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
543. Mohsen, Z. H. and Mulla, M. S. (1981). Toxicity of Blackfly Larvicidal Formulations to Some Aquatic
Insects in the Laboratory. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 26: 696-703.
EcoReference No.: 4529
Chemical of Concern: CYP,TMP,DCM,CPYM,DM,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CYP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
544. Montanes, J. F. C., Van Hattum, B., and Deneer, J. (1995). Bioconcentration of Chlorpyrifos by the
Freshwater Isopod Asellus aquaticus (L.) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches. Environ.Pollut. 88: 137-
146.
EcoReference No.: 15133
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
545. Moore, M. T., Huggett, D. B., Gillespie, W. B. Jr., Rodgers, J. H. Jr., and Cooper, C. M. (1998).
Comparative Toxicity of Chlordane, Chlorpyrifos, and Aldicarb to Four Aquatic Testing Organisms .
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 34: 152-157 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 18996
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CPY,CHD; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,ADC).
546. Morishita, M. (2001). Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Larvae of Flankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)
(Thysanoptera: Thripidae) Evaluated by the Petri Dish-Spraying Tower Method. Appl.Entomol.Zool.
36: 137-141.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82021
Chemical of Concern:
PRB,EMMB,THO,ACT,EFX,TDL,PIM,PHSL,PIRM,DMT,FNTH,MLN,DDW,ACT,LUF,TCF,CYP,
ES,SS,IMC,FVL,PMR,CBL,MOM,ALP,FNT,MDT,CPY,FF,DZ,BFT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(,MLN,DZ,CBL,MOM,CPY).
-------
547. Morse, J. G. and Bellows, T. S. Jr. (1986). Toxicity of Major Citrus Pesticides to Aphytis melinus
(Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae) and Cryptolaemus montrouzieri (Coleoptera: Coccinellidae).
J.Econ.Entomol. 79: 311-314.
EcoReference No.: 69300
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PRN; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
548. Morton, C. A., Harvey, R. G., Wedberg, J. L., Kells, J. J., Landis, D. A., and Lueschen, W. E. (1994).
Influence of Corn Rootworm Insecticides on the Response of Field Corn (Zea mays) to Nicosulfuron.
WeedTechnol. 8:289-295.
EcoReference No.: 62641
Chemical of Concern: MTL,CPY,FNF,PRT,NSF,TBO,TFT,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBF,PRT),OK(TBO,TFT,NSF,FNF),NO
MIXTURE(MTL).
549. Moser, V. C. and Padilla, S. (1998). Age- and Gender-Related Differences in the Time Course of
Behavioral and Biochemical Effects Produced by Oral Chlorpyrifos in Rats. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol.
149: 107-119.
EcoReference No.: 93278
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.BCM.GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
550. Mostert, M. A., Schoeman, A. S., and Van der Merwe, M. (2002). The Relative Toxicities of
Insecticides to Earthworms of the Pheretima Group (Oligochaeta). Pest Manag.Sci. 58: 446-450.
EcoReference No.: 66555
Chemical of Concern: IMC,CPY,CYF,CBL,FPN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,CYF,CPY),OK(IMC),NO ENDPOINT(FPN).
551. Mote, U. N. and Kadam, J. R. (1984). Chemical Control of Sorghum Earhead Hairy Caterpillar
Euproctis subnotata WLK. Indian J.Plant Prot. 12: 147-148.
EcoReference No.: 92543
Chemical of Concern: CBL,MLN,ES,CPY,EFV,HCCH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(CBL,MLN,CPY,EFV).
552. Mount, G. A., Hirst, J. M., Mcwilliams, J. G., Lofgren, C. S., and White, S. A. (1968). Insecticides for
Control of the Lone Star Tick Tested in the Laboratory and as High Volume and Ultra Low Volume
Sprays in Wooded Areas. J.Econ.Entomol. 61: 1005-1007.
EcoReference No.: 52433
Chemical of Concern: FNT,CPY,ABT,MLN,DMT,FNTH,DZ,DDT,CBL,Naled,DDVP; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(DZ,Naled,DMT,MLN,CPY,CBL)//No
Media:Flt, OM,pH.
553. Mount, G. A., Lowe, R. E., Baldwin, K. F., Pierce, N. W., and Savage, K. E. (1970). Ultra-Low
Volume Aerial Sprays of Promising Insecticides for Mosquito Control. Mosq.News 30: 342-346.
EcoReference No.: 2875
Chemical of Concern: MLN,FNT,FNTH,CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO ENDPOINT(MLN,FNT,FNTH).
554. Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1978). Lethal and Behavioral Impact of Chlorpyrifos Methyl and
Temephos on Select Stream Macroinvertebrates: Experimental Studies on Downstream Drift.
-------
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 7: 139-147.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5156
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP YM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPYM).
555. Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1978). Relative Susceptibility of Stream Macroinvertebrate to Temephos
and Chlorpyrifos, Determined in Laboratory Continuous-Flow Systems.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 7: 129-137.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5155
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP YM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPYM).
556. Mulder, P. G. Jr., Collins, J. K., and Smith, M. W. (1997). Control of Pecan Nut Casebearer and Fall
Webworm in Pecans, 1996. ArthropodManag.Tests 22: 78 (22D).
EcoReferenceNo.: 91493
Chemical of Concern: BFT,TUZ,CYP,PSM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
NO COC(MP),OK TARGET(BFT,CYP,CPY,PSM).
557. Mulla, M. S. and Darwazeh, H. A. (1969). Field and Laboratory Investigations on the Control of
Susceptible and Resistant Pasture Mosquitoes. Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq.Control Assoc. 37:
76-81.
EcoReference No.: 91812
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,TMT,CBF,EPRN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(CPY,MP,TMT).
558. Mulla, M. S., Darwazeh, H. A., and Dhillon, M. S. (1977). Cemetery Mosquitoes and Their Control
with Organophosphorus Larvicides and the Insect Growth Regulator Methoprene. In:
Proc.Pap.Annu.Calif.Conf.Mosq. Vector Control Assoc. 162-165.
EcoRef erence No.: 16201
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MTPN,FNTH,TMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR,REP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO ENDPOINT(MTPN),OK(FNTH,TMP).
559. Mulla, M. S. and Khasawinah, A. M. (1969). Laboratory and Field Evaluation of Larvicides Against
Chironomid Midges. J.Econ.Entomol. 62: 37-41.
EcoReferenceNo.: 2899
Chemical of Concern: CBF,MLN,MP,FNTH,PRN,TMT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(MP),LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,MLN),OK(CBF,FNTH,PRN).
560. Murthy, K. S. R. K., Sharma, V. K., Manohar, V., and Rao, M. S. (1993). Bioefficacy and Dissipation
of Fenvalerate Formulations on Chilli. Indian J.PlantProt. 21: 208-210.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91430
Chemical of Concern: FNV,DM,MP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.ACC; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(FNV,MP,CPY).
561. Muscarella, D. E., Keown, J. F., and Bloom, S. E. (1984). Evaluation of the Genotoxic and
Embryotoxic Potential of Chlorpyrifos and Its Metabolites In Vivo and In Vitro. Environ.Mutagen. 6:
13-23.
-------
EcoReference No.: 67859
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TCP,CPYO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.CEL; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO,TCP).
562. Naddy, R. B. (1996). Assessing the Toxicity of the Organophosphorus Insecticide Chlorpyrifos to a
Freshwater Invertebrate, Daphnia magna (Crustacea: Cladocera). Ph.D.Thesis, Clemson Univ.,
Clemson, SC 101 p.
EcoReference No.: 72740
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.REP.GRO.ACC; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
563. Naddy, R. B., Johnson, K. A., and Klaine, S. J. (2000). Response of Daphnia magna to Pulsed
Exposures of Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 19:423-431.
EcoReference No.: 52531
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
564. Naddy, R. B. and Klaine, S. J. (2001). Effect of Pulse Frequency and Interval on the Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos to Daphnia magna. Chemosphere 45: 497-506 .
EcoReference No.: 61962
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
565. Nagayama, M, Akahori, F., Chiwata, H., Shirai, M, Motoya, M, Masaoka, T., and Sakaguchi, K.
(1996). Effects of Selected Organophosphate Insecticides on Serum Cholinesterase Isoenzyme Patterns
in the Rat. Vet.Hum.Toxicol. 38: 196-199.
EcoReference No.: 85636
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY,FNTH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY).
566. Nair, G. A., Mohamed, A. I., and Haeba, M. H. (2002). Notes and Records: Laboratory Studies on the
LD(50) of the Woodlouse, Porcellio scaber Latreille (Isopoda, Oniscidea) Exposed to Chlorpyrifos
(Dursban). Afr.J.Ecol. 40: 393-395 .
EcoReference No.: 70221
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
567. Narladkar, B. W., Shastri, U. V., Vadlamudi, V. P., and Shivpuje, P. R. (1993). Relative Toxicity of
Some Modern Insecticides Against Larvae of Culicoides schultzei. Indian Vet.J. 70: 766-768.
EcoReference No.: 15517
Chemical of Concern: CPY,C YP, FNV,C YH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(FNV,CPY,CYP),OK(CYH).
568. Nault, B. A., Straub, R. W., and Taylor, A. G. (2006). Performance of Novel Insecticide Seed
Treatments for Managing Onion Maggot (Diptera: Anthomyiidae) in Onion Fields. Crop Protect. 25:
58-65.
EcoReference No.: 92503
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FPN,SS,CTD,TMX,CYR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(CPY,FPN,CYR).
-------
569. Nault, B. A., Zhao, J. Z., Straub, R. W., Nyrop, J. P., and Hessney, M. L. (2006). Onion Maggot
(Diptera: Anthomyiidae) Resistance to Chlorpyrifos in New York Onion Fields. J.Econ.Entomol. 99:
1375-1380.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88026
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
570. Navarro, H. A., Basta, P. V., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2001). Neonatal Chlorpyrifos
Administration Elicits Deficits in Immune Function in Adulthood: A Neural Effect? Dev.Brain Res.
130: 249-252.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92574
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
571. Nelson, J. H. and Evans, E. S. (1973). Field Evaluation of the Larvicidal Effectiveness, Effects on
Nontarget Species and Environmental Residues of a Slow-Release Polymer Formulation. Rep.No.44-
022-73/75, U.SArmy Health Services Command, Fort Sam Houston, 7T188p. (NTIS/AD-A002054)
(Author Communication Used).
EcoReference No.: 6035
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.ACC; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
572. Ng, Y. S. and Ahmad, S. (1979). Resistance to Dieldrin and Tolerance to Chlorpyrifos and Bendiocarb
in a Northern New Jersey Population of Japanese Beetle Popillia japonica. J.Econ.Entomol. 72: 698-
700.
EcoReferenceNo.: 52668
Chemical of Concern: BDC,DLD,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: No
Media:None, Om, Ph,TARGET(CPY).
573. Nielsen, D. G. and Balderston, C. P. (1975). Evaluation of Insecticides for Preventing Reproduction of
Pales and Northern Pine Weevils in Pine Stumps. J.Econ.Entomol. 68: 205-206.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73554
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,CBF,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CBF),TARGET(CBL,CPY).
574. Nielsen, D. G. and Dunlap, M. J. (1988). Control of Pine Needle Scale on Scotch Pine, Wayne County,
Ohio, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 384-385 (No. 27H).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88867
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CPY,EFV,FNV,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
OK(CPY,FNV),OKTARGET(ACP,CBL).TARGET(EFV),TARGET(CPY).
575. Nielsen, D. G. and Dunlap, M. J. (1988). Evaluating Foliar Sprays for Controlling Birch Leafminers on
Birch, Wayne County, Ohio, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 372 (No. 3H).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88865
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
576. Nielsen, S. A., Jensen, K. M. V., Kristensen, M., and Westh, P. (2006). Energetic Cost of Subacute
Chlorpyrifos Intoxication in the German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 35:
-------
837-842.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87928
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO; Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
577. Nigam, P. C. (1972). Toxicity of Dursban, Gardona and Seven Other Insecticides Towhite-Pine Weevil
Pissodes Strobi (Peck) and Other Componen Ts of the Forest Ecosystem. Proc.Entomol.Soc.Ont. 103:
55-59.
EcoReferenceNo.: 38137
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
578. Noetzel, D., Ricard, M, and Ford, H. (1992). Control of Banded Sunflower Moth, 1990.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 289.
EcoReferenceNo.: 79761
Chemical of Concern: TLM,FNF,MP,PMR,EFV,ES,CPY,CBF,CYH,CYF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(EFV,CYF,CPY,MP),OK(PMR,CBF).
579. Noetzel, D., Ricard, M., and Heuser, L. (1992). Grasshopper Control in Barley, 1991. In:
A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD
184-185.
EcoReference No.: 79760
Chemical of Concern: EFV,CBF,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(EFV),TARGET(CBL,CPY).
580. Noetzel, D., Ricard, M., and Heuser, L. (1992). Grasshopper Control in Conservation Reserve Program
Land, 1991 . In: A.K.Burditt,Jr. (Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.of
Am., Lanham, MD 185-186.
EcoReference No.: 79759
Chemical of Concern: MLN,ACP,EFV,CBL,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(EFV),OK(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(MLN,ACP,CBL,CPY).
581. Noetzel, D., Ricard, M., Heuser, L., and Rustad, D. (1992). Grasshopper Control in Conservation
Reserve Program Land; Insecticide Comparisons, 1990. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide and
Acaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 178.
EcoReference No.: 79758
Chemical of Concern: CYH,MP,EFV,DMT,CYF,CBL,ACP,CBF,CPY,BFT,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(MLN,EFV,CYF,BFT,ACP,CBL,MP, DMT,CPY).
582. Noetzel, D., Ricard, M., and Sheets, B. (1992). Seedcorn Maggot Control in Navy Bean, 1990.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 78 (3E).
EcoReferenceNo.: 92309
Chemical of Concern: DZ,PRT,CPY,Captan; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),NO COC(TDC),NO MIXTURE(Captan),OK(PRT,DZ).
583. Noetzel, D. and Sheets, B. (1992). Foliar Insect Control in Dry Navy Bean, 1991. In:
A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD
185.
EcoReference No.: 79806
-------
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CBL,MP,CPY,DMT,CYF,MLN,MXC,CYH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(MLN,CYF,CBL,MP, DMT,CPY).
584. Noetzel, D. and Sheets, B. (1992). Foliar Insect Control in Lupine, 1989. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed),
Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 347-348.
EcoReference No.: 79804
Chemical of Concern: ES,EFV,MLN,DMT,CYH,CPY,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(MLN,EFV, DMT,CPY).
585. Noetzel, D. and Sheets, B. (1992). Seedcorn Maggot Control in Edible Dry Bean, 1989.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 78-79 (No. 4E).
EcoReference No.: 92307
Chemical of Concern: DZ,FNF,MXC,PRT,CPY,HCCH,Captan; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO COC(TDC),NO MIXTURE(Captan),OK(DZ).
586. Noetzel, D. M. (1986). Armyworm Control in Wheat, 1984. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 367 (No. 459).
EcoReference No.: 88672
Chemical of Concern: MP,PMR,LCYT,FNV,CYP,CYF,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CBL),OK(MP,PMR,LCYT,CYP,CPY,CYF),TARGET(MP,CPY,FNV).
587. Noetzel, D. M. (1986). Control of Armyworm in Barley, 1984. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 223 (No.
289).
EcoReference No.: 88661
Chemical of Concern: LCYT,PMR,CPY,CYF,CYP,CBL,FNF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CBL),OK(LCYT,PMR,CPY,CYF,CYP,FNF),TARGET(CPY).
588. Noetzel, D. M. (1986). Foliar Sprays for Larval Sunflower Beetle Control, 1984. Insectic.Acaric.Tests
11: 353 (No. 442).
EcoReference No.: 88659
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY,CBL,ES,PMR,FNV,CYF,CBF,LCYT,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CBL),OK(MP,CPY,ES,PMR,CYF,LCYT,CYP),TARGET(MP,CPY,FNV).
589. Noetzel, D. M. (1986). Sandhill Cutworm Control, 1984. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 237 (No. 309).
EcoReference No.: 88660
Chemical of Concern: FNF,CPY,CYF,LCYT,CYP,PMR,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK(FNF,CPY,CYF,LCYT,CYP,PMR),OK TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
590. Noetzel, D. M. and Holder, B. (1994). Aphid Control in Headed Spring Wheat, Crookston, MN, 1993.
ArthropodManag.Tests 19: 291-292 (156F).
EcoReference No.: 89094
Chemical of Concern: DMT,MP,MLN,DS,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(MLN,MP,CPY),OK TARGET (DMT).
591. Noetzel, D. M. and Holder, B. (1993). New Aphicides for Use in Spring Wheat, 1993. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 19: 291-292 (F155).
EcoReference No.: 91045
-------
Chemical of Concern: DMT,MP,MLN,DS,CPY,IMC,PMZ,TZM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DMT,MP,MLN).
592. Noetzel, D. M, Ricard, M, and Bromenshenkel, E. (1988). Armyworm Control, 1987.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 268-269 (No. 119F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88854
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CYP,CYF,EFV,CPY,BFT,CYH,MP,MOM,CBL,TLM,FNV,FVL;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(CPY,CYH,TLM,FNV),OK TARGET(ALL
CHEMS).
593. Noetzel, D. M., Ricard, M., Holen, C., and Stanislawski, H. (1987). Sunflower Beetle Larval Control,
1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 285 (No. 338).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88705
Chemical of Concern: MP,FNV,FVL,CYP,CPY,MOM,CYH,BFT,CBL,TLM,PMR; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY,CYH,TLM),OK
TARGET(MP,FVL,CYP,MOM,BFT,CBL,PMR),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
594. Norberg-King, T. J. (1987). An Evaluation of the Fathead Minnow Seven-Day Subchronic Test for
Estimating Chronic Toxicity. M.S. Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, WY&Op.
EcoReference No.: 17878
Chemical of Concern: AgN,ZnS,CBL,Se,DZ,K2Cr207,CPH,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBL,DZ),OK(ALL CHEMS).
595. Nord, J. C. (1990). Toxicities of Insecticide Residues on Loblolly Pine Foliage to Leaffooted Pine
Seed Bug Adults (Heteroptera: Coreidae). J.Entomol.Sci.25:3-9.
EcoReference No.: 64390
Chemical of Concern: MOM,FNV,DM,AZ,PRM,PSM,FNT,PPX,TCF,MLN,CPYM,CPY,DMT;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(DMT,MLN,AZ),TARGET(MOM,FNV),TARGET(CPYM).
596. Nord, J. C. and DeBarr, G. L. (1992). Persistence of Insecticides in a Loblolly Pine Seed Orchard for
Control of the Leaffooted Pine Seed Bug, Leptoglossus corculus (Say) (Hemiptera: Coreidae).
Can.Entomol. 124: 617-629.
EcoReference No.: 93111
Chemical of Concern: PSM,AZ,CPY,FNV,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.ACC: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(PSM,AZ,CPY,FNV,PMR).
597. Ogg, C. L. and Gold, R. E. (1993). Inclusion of Insecticidal Bait Stations in a German Cockroach
(Orthoptera: Blattellidae) Control Program. J.Econ.Entomol. 86: 61-65.
EcoReferenceNo.: 83235
Chemical of Concern: HMN,ABM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK(ALL
CHEMS),NOCOC(MCPP1),TARGET(CPY).
598. Oleson, J. D., Nowatzki, T. M., and Tollefson, J. J. (1999). Corn Rootworm Larval Control, 1998.
Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 215-217 (F29).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88115
Chemical of Concern: PBP,TBO,TFT,CBF,CPY,PRT,CEX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CPY),OK(PBP,TBO,TFT,CBF,PRT,CEX).
-------
599. Oleson, J. D., Nowatzki, T. M., and Tollefson, J. J. (1999). Field Corn, Wireworm Larval Control,
1998. Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 217-218 (F30).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88098
Chemical of Concern: PBP,TBO,TFT,CEX,CPY,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: TARGET(CPY).
600. Oleson, J. D., Nowatzki, T. M., and Tollefson, J. J. (1999). Seedcorn Maggot Control, 1998.
Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 214-215 (F28).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88118
Chemical of Concern: PBP,TBO,TFT,CEX,CPY,MCB,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CPY,PRT).
601. Olima, C., Pablo, F., andLim, R. P. (1997). Comparative Tolerance of Three Populations of the
Freshwater Shrimp (Paratya australiensis) to the Organophosphate Pesticide, Chlorpyrifos.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 59: 321-328 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 18468
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
602. Oloumi-Sadeghi, H., Gray, M. E., and Steffey, K. L. (1992). Reduced Rates of Soil Insecticides for
CornRootworm Control, 1987-1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr. (Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume
17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 213-214.
EcoReference No.: 79802
Chemical of Concern: TBO,FNF,TFT,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
603. Osborne, L. S. and Chase, A. R. (1987). Effects of Chlorpyrifos and Pythium splendens on Growth of
Rex Begonia . Plant Dis. 71: 525-527.
EcoReference No.: 64397
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.POP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
604. Ostlie, K. R. (1992). Insecticide Performance Against First-Generation European Corn Borer-Liquids
vs Granules, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr. (Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17,
Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 215-216.
EcoReference No.: 79800
Chemical of Concern: BFT,MP,CBF,CYF,FNF,CPY,EFV,DZ,CBL,PMR,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(BFT,CYF,EFV),OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(DZ,PMR,CBL),TARGET(MP,CPY).
605. Overmyer, J. P., Armbrust, K. L., and Noblet, R. (2003). Susceptibility of Black Fly Larvae (Diptera:
Simuliidae) to Lawn-Care Insecticides Individually and as Mixtures. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 22:
1582-1588.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71060
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(MLN,CBL,CPY).
606. Overmyer, J. P. and Noblet, R. (2003). Influences of a Laboratory Diet and Natural Seston on the
Bioavailability of Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos, and Malathion to Black Fly Larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae) in
-------
an Acute Toxicity Test. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45: 209-215.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71063
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(MLN,CBL,CPY).
607. Owczarek, M., De Marco, A., De Simone, C., and D'Ambrosio, C. (1999). Evaluation of Toxic and
Genotoxic Activity of Some Pesticides in a Soil-Plant System. Hum.Environ.Exposure
Xenobiot.Proc.Symp.Pestic. 755-762.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93335
Chemical of Concern: DM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
608. Owen, R., Buxton, L., Sarkis, S., Toaspern, M., Knap, A., and Depledge, M. (2002). An Evaluation of
Hemolymph Cholinesterase Activities in the Tropical Scallop, Euvola (Pecten) ziczac, for the Rapid
Assessment of Pesticide Exposure. Mar.Pollut.Bull. 44: 1010-1017.
EcoReference No.: 66311
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
609. Pachamuthu, P. and Kamble, S. T. (2000). In Vivo Study on Combined Toxicity of Metarhizium
anisopliae (Deuteromycotina: Hyphomycetes) Strain ESC-1 with Sublethal Doses of Chlorpyrifos,
Propetamphos, and Cyfluthrin Against German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae).
J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 60-70.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58589
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CPY,PTP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO; Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(CYF),TARGET(CPY).
610. Padilla, S., Marshall, R. S., Hunter, D. L., Oxendine, S., Moser, V. C., Southerland, S. B., and
Mailman, R. B. (2005). Neurochemical Effects of Chronic Dietary and Repeated High-Level Acute
Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in Rats. Toxicol.Sci. 88: 161-171.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80972
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
611. Pal, B., Mohapatra, D. K.,Das, R., andMohanty, R. C. (1999). Effect of Chlorpyrifos on Scenedesmus
bijugatus. Pollut.Res. 18:479-482.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72751
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
612. Pape-Lindstrom, P. A. and Lydy, M. J. (1997). Synergistic Toxicity of Atrazine and Organophosphate
Insecticides Contravenes the Response Addition Mixture Model. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16: 2415-
2420.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18128
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,MLN,MP,MXC,MVP,TCF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,BEH,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,ATZ,MLN,MP),OK(CPY,MXC,MVP,TCF).
613. Pareek, B. L. and Kavadia, V. S. (1987). Field Evaluation of Insecticides Against Hadda Beetle,
-------
Henosepilachana vigintioctopunctata Fabr. Infesting Musk Melon. Indian J.Plant Prot. 15: 105-107.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89595
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ETN,PHSL,DCF,CBL,TXP,MLN,ES,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(CPY,CBL,MLN,DMT).
614. Park, N. J. and Kamble, S. T. (2001). Decapitation Impacting Effect of Topically Applied
Chlorpyrifos on Acetylcholinesterase and General Esterases in Susceptible and Resistant German
Cockroaches (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 94: 499-505.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58605
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
615. Parr, J. C. andPass,B. C. (1992). Alfalfa Weevil Control, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide
andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 179-180.
EcoReference No.: 79799
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,PMR,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
616. Parr, J. C. andPass,B. C. (1992). Potato Leafhopper Control, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.),
Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 180.
EcoReference No.: 79798
Chemical of Concern: PMR,LCYT,CBF,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: TARGET (DMT,CPY).
617. Pasini, A. and Foerster, L. A. (1994). Effect of Insecticides on Calosoma granulatum P. (Coleoptera:
Carabidae). An.Soc.Entomol.Bras. 23: 455-460 .
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
618. Pasquier, D. and Charmillot, P. J. (2003). Effectiveness of Twelve Insecticides Applied Topically to
Diapausing Larvae of the Codling Moth, Cydia pomonella L. Pest Manag.Sci. 60: 305-308.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82551
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,IDC,PHSL,TUZ,FYC,DM,MFZ,IMC,TAP,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ALL CHEMS)TARGET (CPYM).
619. Patel, H. M., Patel, P. U., Dodia, J. F., Patel, M. C., Korat, D. M., and Mehta, K. G. (1997). Effect of
Insecticides on Natural Enemies of Major Insect Pests of Paddy. Gujarat Agric. Univ.Res.J. 22: 147-
151.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93334
Chemical of Concern: CBF,PRT,CPY,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
TARGET(PRT,CPY,ACP),OK(CBF).
620. Patel, M. G., Patel, J. R., and Borad, P. K. (1995). Comparative Efficacy and Economics of Various
Insecticides Against Aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kalt) on Mustard in Gujarat. Indian J.Plant Prot. 23:
217-218.
EcoReference No.: 75046
Chemical of Concern: DMT,PPHD,PHSL,ES,CPY,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ACP,DMT,CPY).
621. Patel, M. M., Naik, M. M., Bapodara, J. G., Fatteh, U. G., and Vyas, H. N. (1987). Bioefficacy of
-------
Certain Insecticides Against the Castor Capsule Borer (Dichocrocis punctiferalis) Guenea. Indian
J.PlantProt. 15: 27-30.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91434
Chemical of Concern: DDVP,PHSL,CBL,MP,ES,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MP,CPY),OK(CBL).
622. Pathak, K. A. and Jha, A. N. (1999). Toxicity of Some Insecticides Against Adults of Sitophilus
oryzae, Sitophilus sp. and Sitotroga cerealella. Indian J.Entomol. 61: 320-325.
EcoReference No.: 69725
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
623. Pathiratne, A. and Athauda, P. (1998). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate to Fingerlings of the
Nile Tilapia, Oreochromis niloticus: Cholinesterase Inhibition. Sri Lanka J.Aquat.Sci. 3: 77-84.
EcoReference No.: 69824
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY).
624. Patil, R. S., Bhole, S. D., and Patil, S. P. (1989). Laboratory Evaluation of Some Chemicals for Control
of Swarming Caterpillar (Spodoptera litura) Infesting Rice (Oryza sativa) in Konkan Region of
Maharashtra. Indian J.Agric.Sci. 59: 381-383.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91602
Chemical of Concern: MP,CBL,CPY,ES,CYP,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(MP,CBL,CPY,CYP).
625. Patra, R. W., Chapman, J. C., Lim, R. P., and Gehrke, P. C. (2007). The Effects of Three Organic
Chemicals on the Upper Thermal Tolerances of Four Freshwater Fishes. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 26:
1454-1459.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93501
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,PL; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
626. Patton, T. W. and Dively, G. P. (1999). Control of Alfalfa Weevil, 1998. ArthropodManag.Tests 24:
202 (F11).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88130
Chemical of Concern: LCYT,PSM,CPY,CYF,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(LCYT,PMR),OKTARGET(PSM,CPY,CYF).
627. Perez, C. J., Alvarado, P., Narvaez, C., Miranda, F., Hernandez, L., Vanegas, H., Hruska, A., and
Shelton, A. M. (2000). Assessment of Insecticide Resistance in Five Insect Pests Attacking Field and
Vegetable Crops in Nicaragua. J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 1779-1787.
EcoReferenceNo.: 59602
Chemical of Concern: MOM,DM,MTM,CPY,ES,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(CYP,MTM,CPY).
628. Perfecto, I. (1990). Indirect and Direct Effects in a Tropical Agroecosystem: The Maize-Pest-Ant
System in Nicaragua. Ecology 71: 2125-2134.
EcoReference No.: 63962
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
-------
CONC(CBF),TARGET(CPY).
629. Peter, C. and David, B. V. (1988). Comparative Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Apanteles taragamae
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Trop.PestManag. 34: 402-403 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 93426
Chemical of Concern: MOM,MP,ES,CPY,PHSL,FNV,CYP,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM,MP,CPY,CYP,FNV,CBL).
630. Peter, C. and Sundararajan, R. (1990). Evaluation of Toxicity of Insecticides to the Larvae of Heliothis
armigera (Hub.) by Topical Application Method. J.Insect Sci. 3: 202-203.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75188
Chemical of Concern: CYP,DM,FPP,FNV,FVL,EFX,ES,CPY,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
631. Peters, L. L. (1986). Greenbug and Corn Leaf Aphid Control, 1983. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 329-331
(416).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88750
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNF,TBO,CBF,ADC,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(ADC).
632. Phillips, T. A., Summerfelt, R. C., Wu, J., and Laird, D. A. (2003). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos Adsorbed
on Humic Colloids to Larval Walleye (Stizostedion vitreum). Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45 : 258-
263.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71884
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
633. Phillips, T. A., Wu, J., Summerfelt, R. C., and Atchison, G. J. (2002). Acute Toxicity and
Cholinesterase Inhibition in Larval and Early Juvenile Walleye Exposed to Chlorpyrifos.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 1469-1474.
EcoReference No.: 64958
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
634. Phipps, G. L., Mattson, V. R., and Ankley, G. T. (1995). Relative Sensitivity of Three Freshwater
Benthic Macroinvertebrates to Ten Contaminants. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 28: 281-286.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14907
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDT,Cd,Zn,Pb,Ni,Cu; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,Cu),OK(ALL CHEMS).
635. Pinese, B. (1987). Chlorpyrifos-Impregnated Bunch Covers and Insecticides Control Banana Rust
Thrips. Qld.J.Agric.Anim.Sci. 44: 113-116.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56021
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,DDT,DLD,CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY),OK(DLD),NO MIXTURE(DDT,HCCH).
636. Pitre, H. N. (1988). Relationship of Fall Armyworm (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) from Florida,
Honduras, Jamaica, and Mississippi: Susceptibility to Insecticides with Reference to Migration.
Fla.Entomol. 71: 56-61.
-------
EcoReference No.: 73699
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CBL,PMR,CPY,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK,TARGET(CBL),TARGET(MOM,MP,CPY).
637. Potter, D. A., Buxton, M. C., Redmond, C. T., Patterson, C. G., and Powell, A. J. (1990). Toxicity of
Pesticides to Earthworms (Oligochaeta: Lumbricidae) and Effect on Thatch Degradation in Kentucky
Bluegrass Turf. J.Econ.Entomol. 83:2362-2369.
EcoReference No.: 71484
Chemical of Concern:
BMY,IZF,PCZ,CTN,TCF,PDM,IFP,FRM,EP,CPY,DZ,CBL,BDC,24DXY,TPR,DMB; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ,CTN,CPY),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
638. Powell, J. E., King, E. G. Jr., and Jany, C. S. (1986). Toxicity of Insecticides to Adult Microplitis
croceipes (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 79: 1343-1346.
EcoReference No.: 91911
Chemical of Concern: FNV,MP,CPY,AZ,MLN,PMR,TXP,DCTP,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(FNV,MP,CPY,AZ,MLN,PMR).
639. Pozo, C., Martinez-Toledo, M. V., Salmeron, V., Rodelas, B., and Gonzalez-Lopez, J. (1995). Effect of
Chlorpyrifos on Soil Microbial Activity. Eniron.Toxicol.Chem. 14: 187-192.
EcoReference No.: 53284
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
640. Prabhaker, N, Castle, S. J., and Toscano, N. C. (2006). Susceptibility of Immature Stages of
Homalodisca coagulata (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) to Selected Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 99:
1805-1812.
EcoReference No.: 88144
Chemical of Concern: IMC,CPY,DMT,ES,BFT,CYF,EFV,FPP,ACT,TMX; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET (DMT)TARGET(EFV),TARGET(CPY).
641. Prasad, G. R., Joshi, B. G., and Rao, S. N. (1986). Relative Efficacy of Some Insecticides and Neem
Seed Kernel Suspension Against Tobacco Caterpillar, Spodoptera litura Fabricius on Tobacco. Indian
J.PlantProt. 14:69-74.
EcoReference No.: 92886
Chemical of Concern: DM,FNV,CPY,AZD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(FNV,AZD,CPY).
642. Free, D. J., Whitty, K. J., Bittner, L. A., and Pogoda, M. K. (2002). Mechanisms of Resistance to
Organophosphorus Insecticides in Populations of the Obliquebanded Leafroller Choristoneura
rosaceana (Harris) (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) from Southern Ontario. PestManag.Sci. 59:79-84.
EcoReference No.: 74170
Chemical of Concern: MOM,Naled,CPY,CBL,CYPl; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM,ACC;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),TARGET(CYP,CBL,Naled,CPY).
643. Free, D. J., Whitty, K. J., Van Driel, L., and Walker, G. M. (1998). Resistance to Insecticides in
Oriental Fruit Moth Populations (Grapholita molesta) from the Niagara Peninsula of Ontario.
Can.Entomol. 130: 245-256.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 63915
Chemical of Concern:
MOM,PFF,CBF,AZ,PSM,EPRN,MLN,Naled,FNT,CPY,ACP,MTM,MDT,CBL,CYP; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP.MOR.GRO: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(MOM,MLN,MTM,CBL,ACP,AZ,Naled,CPY),NO
CONTROL(CBF,CYP),OK(PFF,PSM,EPRN,FNT,MDT).
644. Presley, S. M. and Wright, R. E. (1986). Field Test of Pyrethroid Ear Tags, Sprays, and a Pour-on
Formulation for Control of Horse Flies on Cattle. J.Agric.Entomol. 3: 369-373.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92549
Chemical of Concern: FNV,PMR,CYP,CPY,CMPH,DDVP,FYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(FNV,PMR,CYP,CPY).
645. Preston, B. L., Snell, T. W., Robertson, T. L., and Dingmann, B. J. (2000). Use of Freshwater Rotifer
Brachionus calyciflorus in Screening Assay for Potential Endocrine Disrupters.
Emiron.Toxicol.Chem. 19: 2923-2928.
EcoReference No.: 60076
Chemical of Concern: NYP,NaPCP,CPY,Cd,PAH,MTPN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MTPN,NaPCP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
646. Pretorius, M. W., Van Ark, H., and Mohr, J. D. (1991). Preliminary Mound-Fumigation Trials for the
Control of Trinervitermes trinervoides Colonies (Isoptera: Termitidae). Phytophylactica23\ 89-90.
EcoReference No.: 74747
Chemical of Concern: ALP,CST,CPY,CTC,HCCH,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK,TARGET(CPY).
647. Prickett, A. J. and Ratcliffe, C. A. (1977). The Behaviour of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) and
Sitophilus granarius (L.) in the Presence of Insecticide-Treated Surfaces. J.StoredProd.Res. 13: 145-
148.
EcoReferenceNo.: 53317
Chemical of Concern: PIRM,BRSM,PYN,HCCH,DDT,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN),OK TARGET(CPY),OK(BRSM).
648. Prijono, D., Robinson, M., Rauf, A., Bjorksten, T., and Hoffmann, A. A. (2004). Toxicity of
Chemicals Commonly Used in Indonesian Vegetable Crops to Liriomyza huidobrensis Populations and
the Indonesian Parasitoids Hemiptarsenus varicornis, Opius sp., and Gronotoma micromorpha, as well
as the Australian Parasitoids Hemiptarsenus varicornis and Diglyphus isaea. J.Econ.Entomol. 97:
1191-1197.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90299
Chemical of Concern: ABM,MZB,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(MZB,CPY),OK(ABM),NO COC(Maneb).
649. Prischmann, D. A., James, D. G., Wright, L. C., Teneyck, R. D., and Snyder, W. E. (2005). Effects of
Chlorpyrifos and Sulfur on Spider Mites (Acari: Tetranychidae) and Their Natural Enemies.
Biol.Control 33: 324-334.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92880
Chemical of Concern: CPY,SFR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY).
-------
650. Pusey, B. J., Arthington, A. H., and McLean, J. (1994). The Effects of a Pulsed Application of
Chlorpyrifos on Macroinvertebrate Communities in an Outdoor Artificial Stream System.
Ecotoxicol.Emiron.Saf. 27(3): 221-250.
EcoReferenceNo.: 4186
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
651. Qiao, D., Seidler, F. J., Abreu-Villaca, Y., Tate, C. A., Cousins, M. M, and Slotkin, T. A. (2004).
Chlorpyrifos Exposure During Neurulation: Cholinergic Synaptic Dysfunction and Cellular Alterations
in Brain Regions at Adolescence and Adulthood. Dev.Brain Res. 148: 43-52.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92627
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.REP.BCM.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
652. Quisenberry, S., Whitford, F., and Lee, J. W. (1988). Fall Armyworm Control in Louisiana, 1987.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 13: 195 (No. 28F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88849
Chemical of Concern: TDC,CPY,MP,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(TDC,MP,CBL),TARGET(CPY).
653. Quistad, G. B., Klintenberg, R., Caboni, P., Liang, S. N, and Casida, J. E. (2006). Monoacylglycerol
Lipase Inhibition by Organophosphorus Compounds Leads to Elevation of Brain 2-
Arachidonoylglycerol and the Associated Hypomotility in Mice. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 211: 78-83.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93529
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBF,CPYO,PRN,DDVP,DZ,PFF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,BCM;
Rejection Code: ,LITE EVAL CODED(CPYO),OK(TBF,DZ)NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
654. Quistad, G. B., Sparks, S. E., and Casida, J. E. (2001). Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase Inhibition by
Neurotoxic Organophosphorus Pesticides. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 173: 48-55.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87216
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PFF,TBF,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,PHY,MOR,BEH;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,TBF).
655. Quistad, G. B., Sparks, S. E., Segall, Y., Nomura, D. K., and Casida, J. E. (2002). Selective Inhibitors
of Fatty Acid Amide Hydrolase Relative to Neuropathy Target Esterase and Acetylcholinesterase:
Toxicological Implications. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 179:57-63.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87217
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY,DZ,MP,FNTH,PFF,FNT,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,PHY,BCM,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DMT,CPY),OK(DZ,FNTH,PFF,FNT),NOENDPOINT(MP,TBF).
656. Radhakrishnaiah, K., Sivaramakrishna, B., Suresh, A., and Chamundeswari, P. (1995). Pesticidal
Impact on the Protein Metabolism of Freshwater Field Crab, Oziotelphusa senex senex (Fabricius).
Biomed.Environ.Sci. 8: 137-148.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18025
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,ES; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM.CEL; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBF).
657. Rafalimanana, H., Kaiser, L., and Delpuech, J. M. (2002). Stimulating Effects of the Insecticide
-------
Chlorpyrifos on Host Searching and Infestation Efficacy of a Parasitoid Wasp. PestManag.Sci. 58:
321-328.
EcoReference No.: 66558
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
658. Rahman, M. F., Mahboob, M., Danadevi, K., Banu, B. S., and Grover, P. (2002). Assessment of
Genotoxic Effects of Chloropyriphos and Acephate by the Comet Assay in Mice Leucocytes.
Mutat.Res. 516: 139-147.
EcoReference No.: 87473
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(ACP,CPY).
659. Rai, K. M., Joshi, R., and Gupta, B. P. (1986). Evergestis forficalis (L) (Lepidoptera: Pyralidae) a
New Pest of Crucifers with Its Biology and Control. Prog.Hortic. 18: 157-162.
EcoReference No.: 89400
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,MLN,HCCH,ES,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MLN),TARGET(MP,CPY).
660. Raines, K. W., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2001). Alterations in Serotonin Transporter
Expression in Brain Regions of Rats Exposed Neonatally to Chlorpyrifos. Dev.Brain Res. 130: 65-72.
EcoReference No.: 92622
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
661. Rajamani, S., Pasalu, I. C., Dani, R. C., and Kulshreshtha, J. P. (1987 ). Evaluation of Insecticides and
Plant Products for the Control of Insect Pests of Rainfed Upland Rice. Indian J.Plant Prot. 15: 43-50.
EcoReference No.: 74590
Chemical of Concern: PRT,ES,IFP,CPY,CBF,HCCH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,POP,MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,PRT,CPY),OK(ES,IFP,HCCH).
662. Rajapakse, R. and Jayasena, K. W. (1989). Investigations on the Vectors of the Leaf Curl of Chilli
Pepper (Capsicum annum L.) and Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). InternJ.Trop.Agric. 7:
274-280.
EcoReference No.: 89391
Chemical of Concern: PIRM,OXD,TDC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.PHY: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(OXD,TDC),EFFICACY(CPY).
663. Rakotondravelo, M. L., Anderson, T. D., Charlton, R. E., and Zhu, K. Y. (2006). Sublethal Effects of
Three Pesticides on Larval Survivorship, Growth, and Macromolecule Production in the Aquatic
Midge, Chironomus tentans (Diptera: Chironomidae). Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 352-359.
EcoReference No.: 89548
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DDT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,CEL,BCM,POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ATZ,CPY),OK(DDT).
664. Ramaprasad, G., Joshi, B. G., Sitaramaiah, S., and Chari, M. S. (1989). Efficacy of Insecticides in Bait
Formulations for Control of Fourth Instar Larvae of Spodoptera litura Fabricius in Tobacco Nurseries.
Indian J.Plant Prot. 17:53-57.
EcoReference No.: 92884
-------
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY,FNV).
665. Rao, J. V., Pavan, Y. S., and Madhavendra, S. S. (2003). Toxic Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Morphology
and Acetylcholinesterase Activity in the Earthworm, Eisenia foetida. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 54: 296-
301.
EcoReference No.: 69664
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH.CEL.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
666. Rao, J. V., Rani, C. H. S., Kavitha, P., Rao, R. N, and Madhavendra, S. S. (2003). Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos to the Fish Oreochromis mossambicus. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 70: 985-992.
EcoReference No.: 71907
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM.ACC.CEL: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
667. Ratchford, K. (1986). Insect Control on Soybeans, 1985. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 347-348 (No. 434).
EcoReference No.: 88667
Chemical of Concern: PDM,TDC,CBL,CYF,PMR,FNV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(FNV),TARGET(CBL),OK(CYF,PDM),EFFICACY(CBL,TDC,PMR,CPY).
668. Ratchford, K., Graves, J. B., Pavloff, A. M., and Burris, G. (1987). Efficacy of Foliar Insecticides on
Early Season Thrips and Aphids and Mid-Season Aphids in Cotton, 1986. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12:
237-238 (No. 276).
EcoReference No.: 88773
Chemical of Concern: SPS,ACP,FVL,DMT,ADC,MTM,CYH,MLN,CYP,DCTP,TLM,CPY,BFT;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(MTM,MLN),EFFICACY(DMT,ADC,CYH,CYP,CPY,BFT).
669. Rathburn, C. B. Jr. and Boike, A. H. Jr. (1975). Ultra Low Volume Tests for Several Insecticides
Applied by Ground Equipment for the Control of Adult Mosquitoes. Mosq.News 35: 26-29.
EcoReference No.: 87276
Chemical of Concern: RSM,MLN,PYN,PPB,NALED,FNTH,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: TARGET (MLN,Naled,CPY).
670. Rawlings, N. C., Cook, S. J., and Waldbillig, D. (1998). Effects of the Pesticides Carbofuran,
Chlorpyrifos, Dimethoate, Lindane, Triallate, Trifluralin, 2,4-D, and Pentachlorophenol on the
Metabolic Endocrine and Reproductive Endocrine System in Ewes. J.Toxicol.Environ.Health Part A
54:21-36.
EcoReference No.: 61494
Chemical of Concern: TFN,CBF,DMT,24DXY,CPY,PCP,HCCH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(24DXY,CPY,CBF,DMT),OK(HCCH,TFN).
671. Rawlins, S. C. and Mansingh, A. (1978). Patterns of Resistance to Various Acaricides in Some
Jamaican Populations of Boophilus microplus. J.Econ.Entomol. 71: 956-960.
EcoReference No.: 72313
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DZ,HCCH,DDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(DZ,CBL,CPY).
-------
672. Razig, A. A. and Osman, 0. M. (1987). Resistance and Susceptibility of Rhipicephalus sanguineus
(Latreille, 1806) to Ixodicide Chemicals in the Sudan. Int.Pest Control 29: 70-72.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72319
Chemical of Concern: DLD,HCCH,CMPH,CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(DMT),NO COC(MTAS,DZ),TARGET(CPY).
673. Redmond, C., Buxton, M., and Potter, D. A. (1988). Control of Bagworms on Eastern Red Cedar,
1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 372-373 (No. 5H).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88866
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
674. Redmond, C., Buxton, M., and Potter, D. A. (1988). Prevention of Japanese Beetle Defoliation with
Foliar Insecticides, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 362 (No. 66G).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88864
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK(CPY),OK
TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
675. Reed, J. T. and Grant, R. R. (1987). Evaluation of Insecticides for Early Season Thrips Control in
Mississippi, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 244-245 (No. 285).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88776
Chemical of Concern: PRT,ACP,TLM,ADC,TBO,CYP,CYH,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,PRT),OK(ACP,TLM,ADC,TBO,CYP,CYH).
676. Reinecke, S. A. and Reinecke, A. J. (2007). Biomarker Response and Biomass Change of Earthworms
Exposed to Chlorpyrifos in Microcosms. Ecotoxicol.Environ. Saf. 66: 92-101.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92502
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.POP.MOR.BEH.BCM: Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(CPY).
677. Reinecke, S. A. and Reinecke, A. J. (2007). The Impact of Organophosphate Pesticides in Orchards on
Earthworms in the Western Cape, South Africa. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 66: 244-251.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92818
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),NO FATE(AZ).
678. Reisen, W. K., Yoshimura, G., Reeves, W. C., Milby, M. M., and Meyer, R. P. (1984). The Impact of
Aerial Applications of Ultra-Low Volume Adulticides on Culex tarsalis Populations (Diptera:
Culicidae) in Kern County, California, USA, 1982. J.Med.Entomol. 21: 573-585.
EcoReference No.: 70041
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP.PHY: Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,CPY).
679. Reissig, H. , Dunham, D., and Smith, C. (1995). Apple Tests of New Compounds Against Oblr 1994.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 20: 31-32.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82548
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,AZD,CPY,ABM,TUZ,MFZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,AZD,CPY),NO MIXTURE(ABM,TUZ,MFZ).
-------
680. Reissig, H., Dunham, M., and Smith, C. (1999). Comparison of Insecticides Against OBLR, 1998.
Arthropod Manage.Tests 24: 37-40 (A27).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88134
Chemical of Concern: TUZ,MFZ,EMMB,EFV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: TARGET(EFV),TARGET(CPY).
681. Rendon-von Osten, J., Ortiz-Arana, A., Guilhermino, L., and Scares, A. M. V. M. (2005). In Vivo
Evaluation of Three Biomarkers in the Mosquitofish (Gambusia yucatana) Exposed to Pesticides.
Chemosphere 58: 627-636.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80447
Chemical of Concern: GYP,CPY,CBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.ACC: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(GYP,CBF).
682. Rethwisch, M. D., Tellez, D., and McDaniel, C. W. (1992). Control of Early Season Alfalfa Insects,
1991. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 180-182.
EcoReference No.: 79797
Chemical of Concern: PYN,DMT,CPY,LCYT,CYP,PMR,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(DMT,CPY,CYP,PMR).
683. Rettich, F. (1979). Laboratory and Field Investigations in Czechoslovakia with Fenitrothion,
Pirimiphos-Methyl, Temephos and Other Organophosphorous Larvicides. Mosq.News 39: 320-328
(Author Communication Used).
EcoReferenceNo.: 5162
Chemical of Concern:
ABT,CPY,DZ,MLN,CMPH,DMT,Naled,DDT,FNT,PIRM,TMP,TCF,DDW,TVP; Habitat: A;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,DMT,MLN),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
684. Reuveny, H. and Cohen, E. (2004). Resistance of the Codling Moth Cydia pomonella (L.) (Lep.,
Tortricidae) to Pesticides in Israel. JAppl.Entomol. 128:645-651.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82561
Chemical of Concern: CPY,NVL,MP,MFZ,DFZ,FYC,PYX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(CPY,NVL,MP,DFZ,FYC,PYX),NO ENDPOINT(MFZ),TARGET(MP,CPY).
685. Ribeiro, B. M., Guedes, R. N. C., Oliveira, E. E., and Santos, J. P. (2003). Insecticide Resistance and
Synergism in Brazilian Populations of Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). J.Stored
Prod.Res. 39:21-31.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71409
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP,DM,PMR,MLN,PPB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: NO CONC(PPB),OK(PMR,MLN),OK TARGET(CYP),TARGET (MLN,CPY).
686. Ricceri, L., Markina, N., Valanzano, A., Fortuna, S., Cometa, M. F., Meneguz, A., and Calamandrei,
G. (2003). Developmental Exposure to Chlorpyrifos Alters Reactivity to Environmental and Social
Cues in Adolescent Mice. ToxicoLAppl.Pharmacol. 191: 189-201.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92626
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.BEH.GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
687. Rice, P. J. and Coats, J. R. (1994). Insecticidal Properties of Several Monoterpenoids to the House Fly
-------
(Diptera: Muscidae), Red Flour Beetle (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), and Southern Corn Rootworm
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 87: 1172-1179.
EcoReference No.: 66925
Chemical of Concern: PYN,DDW,CPY,CIN,GER,LIN,MEN,TML,UBN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
688. Rice, P. J., Drewes, C. D., Klubertanz, T. M., Bradbury, S. P., and Coats, J. R. (1997). Acute Toxicity
and Behavioral Effects of Chlorpyrifos, Permethrin, Phenol, Strychnine, and 2,4-Dinitrophenol to 30-
Day-Old Japanese Medaka (Oryzias. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16: 696-704.
EcoReference No.: 17866
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PL,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,CEL,GRO,ACC;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
689. Richards, S. M. (2000). Chlorpyrifos: Exposure and Effects in Passerines and Anurans. Ph.D.Thesis,
Texas Tech.Univ., Lubbock, TX 147 p.
EcoReference No.: 86343
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: BEH,CEL,BCM,PHY,MOR,GRO;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
690. Richards, S. M., Anderson, T. A., Hooper, M. J., McMurry, S. T., Wall, S. B., Awata, H., Mayes, M.
A., and Kendall, R. J. (2000). European Starling Nestling Response to Chlorpyrifos Exposure in a
Corn Agroecosystem. Toxicol.Environ.Chem. 75: 215-234.
EcoReference No.: 64826
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC.GRO.BCM.REP.MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
691. Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. (2002). Biochemical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two Developmental
Stages of Xenopus laevis. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 21: 1826-1835.
EcoReference No.: 68227
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,GRO,MOR; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
692. Richards, S. M. and Kendall, R. J. (2003). Physical Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Two Stages of Xenopus
laevis. J.Toxicol.Environ.HealthPartA 66: 75-91.
EcoReference No.: 71867
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.BEH.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
693. Richardson, J. R. and Chambers, J. E. (2005). Effects of Repeated Oral Postnatal Exposure to
Chlorpyrifos on Cholinergic Neurochemistry in Developing Rats. Toxicol.Sci. 84: 352-359.
EcoReference No.: 80616
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
694. Richardson, J. R. and Chambers, J. E. (2004). Neurochemical Effects of Repeated Gestational
Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in Developing Rats. Toxicol.Sci. 77: 83-90.
EcoReference No.: 80698
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.GRO.BCMCEL; Rejection Code: LITE
-------
EVAL CODED(CPY).
695. Richardson, R. J., Moore, T. B., Kayyali, U. S., and Randall, J. C. (1993). Chlorpyrifos: Assessment
of Potential for Delayed Neurotoxicity by Repeated Dosing in Adult Hens with Monitoring of Brain
Acetylcholinesterase, Brain and Lymphocyte Neurotoxic Esterase, and Plasma Butyrylcholinesterase
Activities. Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 21: 89-96.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90874
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO.BEH.BCM: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
696. Riedl, H., Weires, R. W., Seaman, A., and Hoying, S. A. (1985). Seasonal Biology and Control of the
Dogwood Borer Synanthedon scitula (Lepidoptera: Sesiidae) on Clonal Apple Rootstocks in New
York. Can.Entomol. 117: 1367-1377.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92914
Chemical of Concern: MP,FNV,CPY,ES; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(FNV,CPY,MP).
697. Riskallah, M. R. (1984). Influence of Different Synergists on the Toxicity of Some Insecticides to
Susceptible and Resistant Larvae of Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 54: 126-130.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92448
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBF,PPB,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(TBF,PPB),OKTARGET(CPY,FNV).
698. Riskallah, M. R. (1984). Influence of Posttreatment Temperature on the Toxicity of Pyrethroid
Insecticides to Susceptible and Resistant Larvae of the Egyptian Cotton Leafworm, Spodoptera
littoralis (Boisd.). Experiential: 188-190.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92552
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MOM,PMR,FNV,DM,CYP,FYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CPY,MOM,PMR,FNV,CYP),NO COC(TBF).
699. Roast, S. D., Thompson, R. S., Donkin, P., Widdows, J., and Jones, M. B. (1999). Toxicity of the
Organophosphate Pesticides Chlorpyrifos and Dimethoate to Neomysis integer (Crustacea:
Mysidacea). Water Res. 33: 319-326.
EcoReferenceNo.: 53635
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DMT,CPY).
700. Roast, S. D., Widdows, J., and Jones, M. B. (2000). Disruption of Swimming in the Hyperbenthic
Mysid Neomysis integer (Peracarida: Mysidacea) by the Organophosphate Pesticide Chlorpyrifos.
Aquat.Toxicol. 47: 227-241.
EcoReferenceNo.: 53636
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
701. Roast, S. D., Widdows, J., and Jones, M. B. (1999). Scope for Growth of the Estuarine Mysid
Neomysis integer (Peracarida: Mysidacea): Effects of the Organophosphate Pesticide Chlorpyrifos.
Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser. 191:233-241.
EcoReference No.: 60867
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
-------
EVAL CODED(CPY).
702. Roberts, B. L. and Dorough, H. W. (1984). Relative Toxicities of Chemicals to the Earthworm Eisenia
foetida. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 3: 67-78.
EcoReferenceNo.: 40531
Chemical of Concern:
DU,FNV,ES,FNF,FML,NCTN,CBD,MLN,PRN,Captan,TPM,PPB,DCTP,ACP,BMY,MBZ,PAQT,BN
Z,CH3I,TFN,NaN03,AZ,24DXY,NP,Cd,Pb,CuS,DDT,PAH,IDM,DMM,CYP,PMR,CBF,ADC,MOM,
CBL,PPX,CPY,NHN,CTC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(FNV,CPY,Captan,MLN,ADC,CBL,NCTN,CBF,MOM,PPB,CuS,CYP),OK(ALL
CHEMS)//NO MEDIA:FLT, OM, pH(EcoSSL)//.
703. Roberts, D. and Miller, T. A. (1970). The Effects of Diatoms on the Larvicidal Activity of Dursban
November 1969-March 1970. Entomological Special Study No.31-002-71, U.S.Army
Environ.Hyg.Agency, United States Dep.of the Army 14 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5163
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
704. Robinson, J. R. C. and Teetes, G. L. (1987). Chemical Control of Sorghum Midge on Grain Sorghum,
1986. ImecticAcaric.Tests 12: 270 (No. 320).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88707
Chemical of Concern: TLM,CPY,ETN,DS,DZ,PRN,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(DS,CPY,DZ,CBL).
705. Rodrigues, C. S., Molloy, D., and Kaushik, N. K. (1983). Laboratory Evaluation of Microencapsulated
Formulations of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl Against Black Fly Larvae (Diptera: Simuliidae) and Selected.
Can.Entomol. 115: 1189-1201.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11650
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPYM).
706. Rodrigues, G. S., Pimentel, D., and Weinstein, L. H. (1998). In Situ Assessment of Pesticide
Genotoxicity in an Integrated Pest Management Program I - Tradescantia Micronucleus Assay.
Mutat.Res. 412: 235-244.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73531
Chemical of Concern: CZE,CPY,MTL,Captan; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MTL,CPY),OK(Captan).
707. Rodriguez, E., Campos, M., Raya, A. J. S., and Pena, A. (2003). Effect of the Combined Treatment of
Insecticides and an Attractant for the Control of _Phloeotribus scarabaeoides_, a Pest of _01ea
europea_. PestManag.Sci. 59: 339-346 .
EcoReference No.: 69897
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT,MDT,DM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,REP; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT,CONTROL(DMT),TARGET(CYP, DMT,CPY).
708. Romani, R., Isani, G., De Santis, A., Giovannini, E., and Rosi, G. (2005). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on
the Catalytic Efficiency and Expression Level of Acetylcholinesterases in the Bivalve Mollusk
Scapharca inaequivalvis. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 24: 2879-2886.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 93251
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
709. Rose, R. M., Warne, M. S. J., and Lim, R. P. (2001). The Presence of Chemicals Exuded by Fish
Affects the Life-History Response of Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia to Chemicals with Different Mechanisms
of Action. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 20: 2892-2898.
EcoReference No.: 60979
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FYC; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP.MOR.GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(FYC).
710. Rose, R. M., Warne, M. St. J., and Lim, R. P. (2002). Food Concentration Affects the Life History
Response of Ceriodaphnia cf. dubia to Chemicals with Different Mechanisms of Action.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 51: 106-114.
EcoReference No.: 65825
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FYC; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP.MOR.POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,FYC).
711. Rosenheim, J. A. and Hoy, M. A. (1986). Intraspecific Variation in Levels of Pesticide Resistance in
Field Populations of a Parasitoid, Aphytis melinus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae): The Role of Past
Selection Pressures. J.Econ.Entomol. 79: 1161-1173.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91027
Chemical of Concern: MDT,MLN,DMT,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
712. Rosenheim, J. A. and Hoy, M. A. (1988). Sublethal Effects of Pesticides on the Parasitoid Aphytis
melinus (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 81: 476-483.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93319
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT,MLN,MDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,POP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CBL,CPY,DMT,MLN).
713. Ross, D. C. and Brown, T. M. (1982). Inhibition of Larval Growth in Spodoptera frugiperda by
Sublethal Dietary Concentrations of Insecticides. J.Agric.Food Chem. 30: 193-196.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90474
Chemical of Concern:
FNV,PMR,DDT,ES,TXP,ADC,CBL,MCB,MOM,TDC,CPY,MP,PFF,SPS,TCF,AMZ,DFZ,MTPN,PP
B; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MTPN,MOM,MP,CPY,FNV).
714. Ross, D. C., Crim, J. W., Brown, M. R., Herzog, G. A., and Lea, A. 0. (1987). Toxic and Antifeeding
Actions of Melittin in the Corn Earworm, Heliothis zea (Boddie): Comparisons to Bee Venom and the
Insecticides Chlorpyrifos and Cyromazine. Toxicon 25: 307-313.
EcoReference No.: 68739
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CPR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.BEH.PHY: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
715. Rowsey, P. J., Metzger, B. L., Carlson, J., and Gordon, C. J. (2003). Effects of Exercise Conditioning
on Thermoregulatory Responses to Repeated Administration of Chlorpyrifos. Environ.Res. 92 : 27-34.
EcoReference No.: 81519
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
716. Roy, T. S., Andrews, J. E., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (1998). Chlorpyrifos Elicits Mitotic
Abnormalities and Apoptosis in Neuroepithelium of Cultured Rat Embryos. Teratology 58: 62-68.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93418
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
717. Roy, T. S., Sharma, V., Seidler, F. J., and Slotkin, T. A. (2005). Quantitative Morphological
Assessment Reveals Neuronal and Glial Deficits in Hippocampus after a Brief Subtoxic Exposure to
Chlorpyrifos in Neonatal Rats. Dev.Brain Res. 155:71-80.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92501
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
718. Royer, T. A., Edelson, J. V., and Cartwright, B. (1986). Onion Thrips Control, 1985.
ImecticAcaric.Tests 11: 149-150 (No. 206).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88799
Chemical of Concern: BFT,DZ,MLN,AZ,MP,MOM,CPY,PMR,ACP,CYF,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(DZ,MOM,MLN),OK(ALL
CHEMS),TARGET(MP,CPY).
719. Royer, T. A., Edelson, J. V., and Cartwright, B. (1987). Worm Control on Cabbage, 1985.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 12: 103 (No. 109).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88726
Chemical of Concern:
EFV,CYF,PMR,MTM,CPY,MOM,ES,CBL,MLN,DZ,MP,AZ,FVL,MW,DMT,MXC,OXD,Naled;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ALL
CHEMS),TARGET(Naled,MP,CPY).
720. Ruber, E. and Kocor, R. (1976). The Measurement of Upstream Migration in a Laboratory Stream as
an Index of Potential Side-Effects of Temephos and Chlorpyrifos on Gammarus fasciatus (Amphipoda,
Crustacea). Mosq.News 36: 424-429.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5164
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
721. Ruppel, R. F. and Laughlin, C. W. (1977). Toxicity of Some Soil Pesticides to Earthworms.
J.Kans.Entomol.Soc. 50: 113-118.
EcoReferenceNo.: 38599
Chemical of Concern: PHSL,DZ,CHD,DS,FMP,PRT,FNF,PPX,OML,MOM,EP,CPY,CBF,ADC;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(ADC,CBF,PRT,DZ).
722. Rushton, S. P. and Luff, M. L. (1988). The Use of Multivariate Ordination Techniques to Assess the
Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Ground Beetle and Spider Communities in Grassland. Monogr.- Br.Crop
Prot.Counc. 40: 175-181.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
-------
723. Rust, M. K. and Smith, J. L. (1993). Toxicity and Repellency of Components in Formulated
Termiticides Against Western Subterranean Termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J.Econ.Entomol.
86: 1131-1135.
EcoReference No.: 68420
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
724. Saad, A. S. A., Elewa, M. A., Zaghloul, 0. A., Awad, H. A., and Masoud, M. A. (1985). Toxicological
and Histopathological Studies on Spiny Bollworm (Earias insulana). In: 37th Int.Symp.,On Crop
Protection, Ghent, Belgium.Mededfac landbouwwet rijksuniv gent 50: 735-750.
EcoReference No.: 92602
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNV,TDC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.CEL: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY,FNV,TDC).
725. Sachan, G. C. and Sharma, S. (1987). Effect of Some Insecticides on Germination and Seedling Vigor
ofToriaSeed. Indian J.Plant Prot. 15:65-67.
EcoReference No.: 53779
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,CBF,AND,DDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(ES,CBF,AND,DDT).
726. Sames IV, W. J., Bueno, R. Jr., Hayes, J., and Olson, J. K. (1996). Insecticide Susceptibility of Aedes
aegypti and Aedes albopictus in the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas and Mexico.
J.Am.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 12: 487-490.
EcoReference No.: 70039
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(RSM,CPY).
727. Samsam, T. E., Hunter, D. L., and Bushnell, P. J. (2005). Effects of Chronic Dietary and Repeated
Acute Exposure to Chlorpyrifos on Learning and Sustained Attention in Rats. Toxicol.Sci. 87: 460-
468.
EcoReference No.: 80739
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR. BEH. GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
728. Sanchez-Fortun, S., Sanz, F., and Barahona, M. V. (1996). Acute Toxicity of Several
Organophosphorous Insecticides and Protection by Cholinergic Antagonists and 2-PAM on Artemia
salina Larvae. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 31: 391-398 .
EcoReference No.: 18249
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,MP).
729. Sanchez-Ramos, I. and Castanera, P. (2003). Laboratory Evaluation of Selective Pesticides Against the
Storage Mite Tyrophagus Putrescentiae (Acari: Acaridae). J.Med.Entomol. 40: 475-481.
EcoReference No.: 82058
Chemical of Concern: CPY,HFR,HFZ,PYX,AZD,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
730. Sandahl, J. (2004). Biochemical and Physiological Indicators of Behavioral Impairment in Salmonids
Exposed to Chlorpyrifos and Copper. Ph.D.Thesis, Oregon State University,OR 140 p.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 82495
Chemical of Concern: Cu,CP Y,EF V; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,EFV),OK(Cu).
731. Sandahl, J. F., Baldwin, D. H., Jenkins, J. J., and Scholz, N. L. (2005 ). Comparative Thresholds for
Acetylcholinesterase Inhibition and Behavioral Impairment in Coho Salmon Exposed to Chlorpyrifos.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 24: 136-145 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 80431
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,BCM,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
732. Sandahl, J. F., Baldwin, D. H., Jenkins, J. J., and Scholz, N. L. (2004 ). Odor-Evoked Field Potentials
as Indicators of Sublethal Neurotoxicity in Juvenile Coho Salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch) Exposed to
Copper, Chlorpyrifos, or Esfenvalerate. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 61: 404-413.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75184
Chemical of Concern: Cu,CP Y,EF V; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(EFV,CPY),OK(Cu).
733. Sanders, H. 0. (1972). Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Four Species of Malacostracan Crustaceans.
Tech.Pap.No.66, Bur.Sports Fish.Wildl, Fish Wildl.Serv., U.S.D.I., Washington, D.C. 19 p. (Publ in
Part As 6797).
EcoReferenceNo.: 887
Chemical of Concern: AZ,MLN,CBL,CMPH,CPY,DS,HCCH,MLN,Naled,PRT,PSM,ATN,DZ,OXD;
Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,OXD,CBL,DZ,PRT,ATN,MLN),OK(ALLCHEMS).
734. Sarao, P. S. and Singh, G. (1998). Sublethal Influence of Insecticides on Reproduction of Mustard
Aphid, Lipaphis erysimi (Kaltenbach). J.Insect Sci. 11: 5-8.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89411
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY,TARGET-MLN),TARGET(CPY).
735. Scharf, M. E., Kaakeh, W., and Bennett, G. W. (1997). Changes in an Insecticide-Resistant Field
Population of German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) After Exposure to an Insecticide Mixture.
J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 38-48.
EcoReference No.: 64280
Chemical of Concern: LCYT,CYP,CPY,PYX,PPB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(PPB,PYX),OK(LCYT,CPY),OK TARGET(CYP),TARGET(CPY).
736. Scharf, M. E., Neal, J. J., and Bennett, G. W. (1998). Changes of Insecticide Resistance Levels and
Detoxication Enzymes Following Insecticide Selection in the German Cockroach, Blattella germanica
(L.). Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 59: 67-79.
EcoReference No.: 68972
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
737. Schimmel, S. C., Garnas, R. L., Patrick, J. M. Jr., and Moore, J. C. (1983). Acute Toxicity,
Bioconcentration, and Persistence of AC 222,705, Benthiocarb, Chlorpyrifos, and Fenvalerate, Methyl
Parathion, and Permethrin in the Estuarine Environment. J.Agric.Food Chem. 31: 104-113.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15639
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,TBC,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO CONTROL(MP),OK(TBC,PMR).
738. Schuler, L. J., Trimble, A. J., Belden, J. B., and Lydy, M. J. (2005). Joint Toxicity of Triazine
Herbicides and Organophosphate Insecticides to the Midge Chironomus tentans.
Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 49: 173-177.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81665
Chemical of Concern: SZ,CZE,HXZ,DIATZ,DEATZ,DZ,CPY,ATZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,CPY),NO
MLXTURE(SZ,CZE,HXZ,DIATZ,DEATZ,ATZ).
739. Schulz, R. (2001). Rainfall-Induced Sediment and Pesticide Input from Orchards into the Lourens
River, Western Cape, South Africa: Importance of a Single Event. Water Res. 35: 1869-1876.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87478
Chemical of Concern: BCY,DM,FNV,PMR,CPY,ES,AZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(AZ,ES,CPY),NO SPECIES(BCY,DM,FNV,PMR).
740. Schuster, D. J. (1994). Armyworm and Tomato Pinworm Control on Fresh Market Tomatoes in West-
Central Florida, Fall 1992. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 19: 154 (ABS.No.118E).
EcoReferenceNo.: 82733
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,AZD,MOM,EFV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,MOM,CPY),NO MIXTURE(AZD,EFV).
741. Schuster, D. J. (1994). Control of Armyworms on Bell Pepper in West-Central Florida, Fall 1992.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 19: 107-108 (ABS.No.65E) .
EcoReferenceNo.: 82730
Chemical of Concern: DKGNa,MOM,CFP,CPY,EMMB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DKGNa,MOM,CFP,CPY,EMMB).
742. Schuster, D. J. (1992). Insecticides for Management of the Sweetpotato Whitefly on Fresh Market
Tomatoes in West-Central Florida, Spring, 1990. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide
Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 163.
EcoReference No.: 79260
Chemical of Concern: PMR,BFT,CYH,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(BFT).TARGET(CPY).
743. Schwartz, A. (1991). Laboratory Evaluation of Toxicity of Registered Pesticides to Adult Amblyseius
addoensis (Van derMerwe & Ryke) (Acari: Phytoseiidae). S.Afr.J.Enol.Vitic. 12: 87-89.
EcoReference No.: 64288
Chemical of Concern: IPP,HCZ,MYC,TDM,PPG,MDT,PMR,DDVP,CPY,DMT,FNTH,
CBL,ES,PPX,SFR,MZB,Cu; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY,DMT,PMR,CBL).
744. Scott, J. and Redmond, M. S. (1986). Acute Toxicity Tests with Chloropyrifos. June 13, 1986
Memorandum to D.J.Hansen, U.S.EPA, Narragansett, R.I. 3p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56539
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
-------
745. Scott, J. and Redmond, M. S. (1986). Acute Toxicity Tests with Chloropyrifos. SAIC, Narragansett,
RI3.
EcoReference No.: 4061
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
746. Scott, J. and Redmond, M. S. (1986). Acute Toxicity Tests with Chloropyrifos and the Amphipod,
Rhepoxynius abronius. August 5,1986, Memorandum to D.J.Hansen, U.S.EPA, Narragansett, R.I. 1 p.
EcoReference No.: 56538
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
747. Scott, J. G., Cochran, D. G., and Siegfried, B. D. (1990). Insecticide Toxicity, Synergism, and
Resistance in the German Cockroach (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 1698-1703.
EcoReference No.: 64293
Chemical of Concern: PPX,PMR,MLN,DM,CYP,CPY,BDC,PYN,PPB,DEF; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),NO
MIXTURE(PPB,DEF),TARGET(MLN,CYP,CPY).
748. Seagraves, M. P. and McPherson, R. M. (2003). Residual Susceptibility of the Red Imported Fire Ant
(Hymenoptera: Formicidae) to Four Agricultural Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 96: 645-648.
EcoReference No.: 87959
Chemical of Concern: MOM,LCYT,ACP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(LCYT,ACP,CPY),TARGET(MOM,CPY).
749. Sehgal, V. K. and Ujagir, R. (1990). Effect of Synthetic Pyrethroids, Neem Extracts and Other
Insecticides for the Control of Pod Damage by Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner) on Chickpea and Pod
Damage-Yield Relationship at Pantnagar in Northern India. Crop Prot. 9: 29-32.
EcoReference No.: 92940
Chemical of Concern: CYP,DM,MP,ES,CPY,FNV,AZD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: EFFICACY(FNV,CPY,CYP,MP,AZD).
750. Sekita, N. (1986). Toxicity of Pesticides Commonly used in Japanese Apple Orchards to the Predatory
Mite Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) from New Zealand. Appl.Entomol.Zool. 21:
173-175.
EcoReference No.: 68421
Chemical of Concern:
PPG,FO,CHX,DX,CBL,FNT,FNV.MDT,CPY,BMY,IPD,CTN,TPM,THM,CoOX,DINO,Ziram,Capta
n; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: No CROP(Captan),TARGET(CPY).
751. Selvi, M., Sarikaya, R., Erkoc, F., andKocak, 0. (2005). Investigation of Acute Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos-Methyl on Guppy Poecilia reticulata. Chemosphere 60: 93-96.
EcoReference No.: 80964
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPYM).
752. Semtner, P. J. (1988). Soil Insecticides for Control of Insects Feeding on Flue-Cured Tobacco Foliage,
1987. ImecticAcaric.Tests 13: 313-314 (No. 182F).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.:
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,EP,FMP,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(ADC),TARGET(CPY).
753. Semtner, P. J. (1988). Systemic Insecticides for the Control of Insect Pests on Dark-Fired Tobacco,
1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 311-312 (No. 181F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88878
Chemical of Concern: DS,CBF,CPY,EP,FMP,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(ADC),TARGET(CPY).
754. Semtner, P. J. (1987). Systemic Insecticides for the Control of Insects on Flue-Cured Tobacco, 1986.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 298-299 (353).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88779
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,FMP,PMR,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,PMR),OK(CBF,ADC).
755. Semtner, P. J. and Reed, T. D. (1987). Chemicals Applied to the Soil for the Control of Insects on
Flue-Cured Tobacco, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 306(359).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88787
Chemical of Concern: DS,CBF,CPY,EP,FMP,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DS,CPY),OK(CBF,ADC).
756. Serrano, R., Hernandez, F., Lopez, F. J., and Pena, J. B. (1997). Bioconcentration and Depuration of
Chlorpyrifos in the Marine Mollusc Mytilus edulis. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 33: 47-52.
EcoReference No.: 18413
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
757. Serrano, R., Hernandez, F., Pena, J. B., Dosda, V., and Canales, J. (1995). Toxicity of
Bioconcentration of Selected Organophosphorus Pesticides in Mytilus galloprovincialis and Venus
gallina. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 29: 284-290.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14927
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT,MDT,PSM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DMT),OK(ALL CHEMS).
758. Shabana, E. F., Khalil, Z., Kobbia, I. A., and Zaki, F. T. (1991). Amino Acid Content and
Transaminases Activities in Anabaena oryzae and Nostoc muscorum as Affected by Some Pesticides.
Egypt.J.Physiol.Sci. 15:21-30.
EcoReference No.: 75043
Chemical of Concern: DMT,TFN,DINO,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,GRO; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT,CPY).
759. Shamiyeh, N. B., Burgess, E. E., Folium, R. A., and Thompson, R. (1999). Control of Alfalfa Weevil
Larvae, 1998. ArthropodManag.Tests 24: 202 (F12).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88257
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CBF,LCYT,FPP,EFV,CPY,CYF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: NO CROP(EFFICACY-EFV),EFFICACY(CPY,CYF,PMR,CBF).
760. Sharma, D. R. and Singh, D. P. (1995). Ovicidal Effect of some Insecticides against Rice Stem Borer,
-------
ScirpophagaIncertulas Walker. J.InsectSci. 8: 114-115.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: NO TARGET (CPY).
761. Sharma, H. C. and Leuschner, K. (1987). Chemical Control of Sorghum Head Bugs (Hemiptera:
Miridae). Crop Prot. 6: 334-340.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92941
Chemical of Concern: CBL,FNV,CPY,MLN,AZD,ES,FNT,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(FNV,CPY),OK(CBL,MLN,AZD,ES,FNT,DDVP).
762. Sharma, S. S., Dahiya, A. S., and Verma, A. N. (1993). Comparative Efficacy of Various Insecticides
Against Helicoverpa armigera on Tomato in Haryana. Indian J.Plant Prot. 21:198-200.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90795
Chemical of Concern: FNV,DCM,CYP,PHSL,MLN,FNTH,FNT,DDVP,CPY,ES,HCCH; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: EFFICACY(CYP,CPY),CROP(EFFICACY-MLN,FNV).
763. Shaw, R. D., Cook, M, and Carson, R. E. Jr. (1968). Developments in the Resistance Status of the
Southern Cattle Tick to Organophosphorus and Carbamate Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 61: 1590-
1594.
EcoReference No.: 72637
Chemical of Concern: PRN,DZ,CBL,HCCH,TXP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: TARGET(DZ,CBL,CPY).
764. Shereif, M. M. (1989). Acute and Chronic Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Tilapia zillii. Ph.D.Thesis,
Univ.Michigan, East Lansing, MI 114 p.
EcoReference No.: 72744
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.REP.ACC.MOR.BCM: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
765. Sherman, M. and Herrick, R. B. (1973). Fly Control and Chronic Toxicity from Feeding Dursban
(0,0-Diethyl 0-3,5,6-Trichloro-2-Pyridyl Phosphorothioate) to Laying Hens. Poult.Sci. 52: 741-747.
EcoReferenceNo.: 38746
Availability: UR
Number of Volumes: ENV,ORAL
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ENV.MOR.REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
766. Shields, E. J., Sher, R. B., and Taylor, P. S. (1991). Alfalfa Weevil Control in Alfalfa, 1990.
Insect.Acaric.Tests 16: 138 (22F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 90677
Chemical of Concern: PMR,EFV,CYF,CPY,MP,CBF,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM,MP,EFV),NO COC(MLN),TARGET(CPY).
767. Shields, E. J., Sher, R. B., and Taylor, P. S. (1991). Insecticide Efficacy in Alfalfa, 1989.
Imectic.Acaric.Tests 16: 138-139 (23F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 90653
Chemical of Concern: CYF,MXC,PMR,EFV,DMT,CBF,PSM,CPY,MLN,MP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ALL CHEMS).
-------
768. Shields, E. J. and Taylor, P. S. (1992). Alfalfa Weevil Control in Alfalfa, 1991. In:
A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume 17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD
182-183.
EcoReference No.: 79795
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,2CYT,CPY,MP,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(CYF),TARGET(MP,CPY).
769. Shields, E. J. and Testa, A. M. (1999). Corn Rootworm Control in Field Corn, 1993. Arthropod
Manage.Tests 24: 223-224 (F38).
EcoReference No.: 88145
Chemical of Concern: CEX,PBP,FNF,TBO,TFT,CBF,CPY,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(PRT,CPY,CBF).
770. Shields, E. J. and Testa, A. M. (1999). Corn Rootworm Control in Field Corn, 1994. Arthropod
Manage.Tests 24: 224-226 (F39).
EcoReference No.: 88222
Chemical of Concern: PBP,TBO,FNF,TFT,CEX,CBF,CPY,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,POP; Rejection Code: OK(PBP,TBO,FNF,TFT,CEX,CBF,PRT),EFFICACY(CPY).
771. Shirazi, M. A., Bennett, R. S., and Ringer, R. K. (1994). An Interpretation of Toxicity Response of
Bobwhite Quail with Respect to Duration of Exposure. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 26: 417-424.
EcoReference No.: 39583
Chemical of Concern: WFN,DPC,DLD,BDF,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CBF,DPC,WFN,BDF).
772. Shirke, M. S. and Salunkhe, G. N. (1996). Relative Residual Toxicity of Some Insecticides to
Cryptolaemus montrouzieri Muls. A Predator of Mealy Bugs. J.Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 21: 370-371.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
773. Shufran, R. A., Wilde, G. E., and Sloderbeck, P. E. (1997). Response of Three Greenbug (Homoptera:
Aphididae) Strains to Five Organophosphorous and Two Carbamate Insecticides. J.Econ.Entomol. 90:
283-286.
EcoReference No.: 63055
Chemical of Concern: MOM,DS,DMT,CPY,MLN,PRN,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK TARGET(DMT,MLN),TARGET(MOM,CPY).
774. Siddappaji, C., Kumar, A. R. V., and Gangadharaiah (1986). Evaluation of Different Insecticidal
Sprays Against the Chickpea Heliothis armigera (Hubner). Pesticides 20: 13-16.
EcoReference No.: 89154
Chemical of Concern: DM,AZD,ES,CBL,FNT,PHSL,MLN,MP,FNV,PMR,CYP,DCM,CPY; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(DM,MP,FNV,PMR,CPY,CYP),OK(AZD),TARGET(CBL),NOCROP,TARGET(MLN).
775. Siedentop, S. (1995). A Litterbag-Test for the Assessment of Side Effects of Pesticides on Soil
Mesofauna. Acta Zool.Fenn. 196: 357-360.
EcoReference No.: 54199
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: SYS.POP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(CPY).
-------
776. Siefert, R. E. (1987). Effects of Dursban (Chlorpyrifos) on Aquatic Organisms in Enclosures in a
Natural Pond - Final Report. U.S.EPA, Duluth, MN: 214 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12821
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.NOC.MOR.GRO.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
777. Siefert, R. E., Kleiner, G. F., Nordling, B. R., Mueller, L. H., Tanner, D. K., Jarvinen, A. W., and
Zischke, J. A. (1984). Effects of Dursban (Chlorpyrifos) on Non-Target Aquatic Organisms in a
Natural Pond Undergoing Mosquito Control Treatment. Progress Report, U.S.EPA, Duluth, MN: 197
P-
EcoReferenceNo.: 3653
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.POP.REP.BCM.MOR: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
778. Siefert, R. E., Lozano, S. J., Brazner, J. C., and Knuth, M. L. (1989). Littoral Enclosures for Aquatic
Field Testing of Pesticides: Effects of Chlorpyrifos on a Natural System. In: J.R. Voshell,Jr. (Ed.),
Using Mesocosms to Assess the Aquatic Ecological Risk of Pesticides: Theory and
Practice.Entomological Society ofAmerica.Misc.Publ.No. 75 57-73.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3124
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,POP,MOR,GRO; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
779. Sinclair, P. J., Neeson, R. J., and Williams, P. A. (1992). Phytotoxicity of Some Organophosphate
Insecticides to Onions and Carrots During Germination and Emergence. Plant Prot.Q. 7: 23-25.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93323
Chemical of Concern: TBO,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(CBF).
780. Singh, D. S. and Singh, J. P. (2000). Status of Pyrethroid and Non-pyrethroid Insecticides to the
Larvae of Bihar Hairy Caterpillar, Spilarctia obliqua. Indian J.Entomol. 62: 141-145.
EcoReference No.: 69680
Chemical of Concern: ES,CYP,FNV,CPY,HCCH,MLN,DCM,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(FNV,CPY).
781. Singh, D. S., Sircar, P., and Dhingra, S. (1985). Status of Bihar Hairy Caterpillar, Diacrisia obliqua
Walker (Arctiidae: Lepidoptera) in the Context of Susceptibility to Pyrethroid and Non-Pyrethroid
Insecticides Evaluated During the Last Two Decades. J.Entomol.Res.(New Delhi) 9: 15-18.
EcoReferenceNo.: 64412
Chemical of Concern:
NCTN,DMT,DDT,DCM,DYP,EPRN,ES,PMR,FNV,MP,FNT,HCCH,PPHD,DDVP,CPY,DZ,CBL,M
LN,Naled; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,FNV,CPY).
782. Singh, K., Upadhyay, K. D., Srivastava, A. S., and Singh, S. V. (1987). Persistence and Residual
Toxicity of Field Weathered Deposits of Some Modern Insecticides on Okra. Pesticides 21: 40-42.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75329
Chemical of Concern: FNV,CYP,CPY,ES,DMT,PPHD,PHSL,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
ACC.MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CYP),TARGET(CPY,PMR,FNV),OK(ES,DMT,PPHD,PHSL).
-------
783. Sinha, P. K., Pal, S., and Triar, S. B. (1986). An Effective Molluscicide for Grazer Snails of Blue
Green Algae. Pesticides 20: 44-45.
EcoReferenceNo.: 74591
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,DZ,CBL,ES,TDC,PRT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ,CBF,PRT,CPY),OK(ES),OK TARGET(TDC).
784. Sitaramaiah, S., Prasad, G. R., and Sreedhar, U. (1999). Management of Tobacco Ground Beetle,
Mesomorphus villiger with Insecticide Baits on Flue Cured Virginia Tobacco. Indian J.Agricult.Sci.
69: 660-663.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93062
Chemical of Concern: AZD,CBL,PRT,ES,CPY,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,MOR;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(AZD,CBL,PRT,CPY,FNV).
785. Slotkin, T. A. and Seidler, F. J. (2005). The Alterations in CNS Serotonergic Mechanisms Caused by
Neonatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure are Permanent. Dev.Brain Res. 158: 115-119.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92500
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
786. Slotkin, T. A. and Seidler, F. J. (2007). Prenatal Chlorpyrifos Exposure Elicits Presynaptic
Serotonergic and Dopaminergic Hyperactivity at Adolescence: Critical Periods for Regional and Sex-
Selective Effects. Reprod.Toxicol. 23: 421-427.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92499
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
787. Slotkin, T. A., Seidler, F. J., and Fumagalli, F. (2007). Exposure to Organophosphates Reduces the
Expression of Neurotrophic Factors in Neonatal Rat Brain Regions: Similarities and Differences in the
Effects of Chlorpyrifos and Diazinon on the Fibroblast Growth Factor Superfamily. Environ.Health
Perspect. 115: 909-916.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92241
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(DZ).
788. Smith, D. and Papacek, D. F. (1991). Studies of the Predatory Mite Amblyseius victoriensis (Acarina:
Phytoseiidae) in Citrus Orchards in Southeast Queensland: Control of Tegolophus australis and
Phyllocoptruta oleivora (Acarina: Eriophyidae), Effect of Pesticides, Alternative Host Plants and
Augmentative Release. Exp.AppLAcarol. 12: 195-217.
Chemical of Concern: MOM,CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MOM),OK
TARGET(CPY).
789. Smith II, L. M. and Appel, A. G. (1996). Toxicity, Repellence, and Effects of Starvation Compared
Among Insecticidal Baits in the Laboratory for Control of American and Smokybrown Cockroaches
(Dictyoptera: Blattidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 89: 402-410.
EcoReference No.: 75460
Chemical of Concern: CPY,HMN,SFA,BRA; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
790. Smith, J. L. and Rust, M. K. (1991). Vapor Activity of Insecticides Used for Subterranean Termite
-------
(Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae) Control. J.Econ.Entomol. 84: 181-184.
EcoReference No.: 67117
Chemical of Concern: CHD,CPY,CYP,DDVP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
791. Snell, T. W. (1991). New Rotifer Bioassays for Aquatic Toxicology. Final Rep., U.S.Army
Med.Res.andDev.Command, Ft.Detrick, Frederick, MD 29 p. (U.S.NTIS AD-A258002).
EcoReference No.: 17689
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,CPY,DZ,Cu,AMSV,Se,Ag,Cd,Zn,NH,Pb,Ni,CF,NaPCP; Habitat: A;
Effect Codes: REP,POP,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,),OK(ALL CHEMS).
792. Snell, T. W. and Carmona, M. J. (1995). Comparative Toxicant Sensitivity of Sexual and Asexual
Reproduction in the Rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 14: 415-420.
EcoReference No.: 14212
Chemical of Concern: CPY,NaPCP,Cd; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY,NaPCP).
793. Snell, T. W. and Moffat, B. D. (1992). A 2-d Life Cycle Test with the Rotifer Brachionus calyciflorus.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 11: 1249-1257.
EcoReference No.: 3963
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,CPY,DZ,Cu,AMSV,NaPCP,PL,Cr,Cd; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,DZ,Cu,NaPCP,AMSV,Cr),OK(ALL
CHEMS).
794. Sohi, A. S., Mann, H. S., Singh, J., Brar, K. S., and Shenbmar, M. (1997). Effect of Insecticides on the
Emergence of Trichogramma chilonis Ishii (Hymenoptera: Trichogramatidae), an Egg Parasitoid of
CottonBollworms. J.Res.(PunjabAgric.Univ.) 34: 153-155.
EcoReference No.: 93333
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CBL,CPY,CYP,DM,ES,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP: Rejection
Code: TARGET(ACP,CBL,CPY,CYP,FNV).
795. Solomon, J. D. (1987). Control of Sawfly Defoliators on Green Ash, 1986. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12:
348 (No. 436).
EcoReference No.: 88771
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,DZ,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(CBL,DZ,ACP),TARGET(CPY).
796. Sparling, D. W. and Fellers, G. (2007). Comparative Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Diazinon, Malathion
and Their Oxon Derivatives to Larval Rana boylii. Environ.?ollut. 147: 535-539.
EcoReference No.: 92498
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,CPY,DZ,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYO),OK(DZ,MLN).
797. Spomer, S. M., Haile, F. J., and Higley, L. G. (1999). Alfalfa Insect Control, 1998. Arthropod
Manage.Tests 24: 203-206 (F13).
EcoReference No.: 88271
Chemical of Concern: CYF,CBF,PMR,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY),OK(CYF,CBF,PMR).
-------
798. Srihari, B. and Patnaik, N. C. (2006). Use of New Insecticides Against Maruca vitrata (Geyer) in
Blackgram. Ann.Biol. 22: 169-172.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92342
Chemical of Concern: PFF,IDC,TDC,SS,NVL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(TDC).
799. Srivastava, S. K., Jaiswal, R., and Srivastav, A. K. (1995). Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to a
Freshwater Catfish Heteropneustes fossilis. JAdv.Zool. 16:92-95.
EcoReference No.: 72755
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
800. Stark, J. D. (1992). Comparison of the Impact of a neem Seed-kernel Extract Formulation, 'Margosan-
0' and Chlorpyrifos on Non-target Invertebrates Inhabiting turf Grass. Pestic.Sci. 36: 293-299.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71751
Chemical of Concern: CPY,AZD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(AZD),OK TARGET(CPY).
801. Steevens, J. A. (1999). Chemical Mixture Interactions: Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Dieldrin, and Methyl
Mercury to the Amphipod Hyalella azteca. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ.of Mississippi, Mississippi State, MS
183 p.
EcoReference No.: 72746
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DLD,Hg; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
802. Steevens, J. A. and Benson, W. H. (2000). Interactions of Chlorpyrifos and Methyl Mercury: A
Mechanistic Approach to Assess Chemical Mixtures. Mar.Environ.Res. 50: 113-117.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56639
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Hg; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
803. Steevens, J. A. and Benson, W. H. (1999). Toxicological Interactions of Chlorpyrifos and Methyl
Mercury in the Amphipod, Hyalella azteca. Toxicol.Sci. 52: 168-177.
EcoReference No.: 72763
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Hg,CPYO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),NO IN VITRO(CPYO).
804. Stewart, K. M. and Ferguson, C. M. (1989). Chemical Control of Porina in South Otago Sheep
Pastures. N.Z.JAgric.Res. 32: 395-400.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91626
Chemical of Concern: DZ,FNT,CPY,MP,DFZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MP),OK(DZ).
805. Stoltz, R. L. (1987). Sugarbeet Root Maggot Control, 1986. Imectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 283-284 (No.
335).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88778
Chemical of Concern: ADC,TBO,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(ADC,TBO).
-------
806. Stoltz, R. L. and Matteson, N. A. (1995). Wheat Aphid Control in Spring Wheat, 1994. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 20: 269 (147F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 91354
Chemical of Concern: MP,LCYT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MP,CPY).
807. Stone, J. D. (1986). White Grub Control in Turf with Insecticides, 1984. IwecticAcaric.Tests 11: 393
(No. 506).
EcoReferenceNo.: 87897
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(DZ,CPY),OKTARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
808. Straus, D. L. (1994). Chlorpyrifos and Parathion Effects on Enzyme Activities in Fingerling Channel
Catfish, Ictalurus punctatus: Interactions with DBF (S,S,S-Tributyl Phosphorotrithiolate) and Aroclor
1254. Ph.D.Thesis, Mississippi State Univ., State College, MS 74 p.
EcoReference No.: 72743
Chemical of Concern: PPB,PCB,PRN,TBF,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(PPB,CPY,TBF).
809. Straw, N. A., Fielding, N. J., and Waters, A. (1996). Phytotoxicity of Insecticides Used to Control
Aphids on Sitka Spruce, Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr. Crop Prot. 15: 451-459.
EcoReference No.: 67965
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY,DZ,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO. MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(DMT,RSM,DZ,CPY).
810. Stumpf, N., Zebitz, C. P. W., Kraus, W., Moores, G. D., and Nauen, R. (2001). Resistance to
Organophosphates and Biochemical Genotyping of Acetylcholinesterases in Tetranychus urticae
(Acari: Tetranychidae). Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 69: 131-142.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92624
Chemical of Concern: OXD,CPY,EPRN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code:
OK TARGET(CPY,OXD).
811. Sturm, A., Radau, T. S., Hahn, T., and Schulz, R. (2007). Inhibition of Rainbow Trout
Acetylcholinesterase by Aqueous and Suspended Particle-Associated Organophosphorous Insecticides.
Chemosphere 68: 605-612.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92497
Chemical of Concern: CPY,AZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(AZ).
812. Su, N. Y., Ban, P. M, and Scheffrahn, R. H. (1999). Longevity and Efficacy of Pyrethroid and
Organophosphate Termiticides in Field Degradation Studies Using Miniature Slabs. J.Econ.Entomol.
92: 890-898.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88277
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNT,IFP,BFT,CYP,LCYT,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
813. Su, N. Y., Chew, V., Wheeler, G. S., and Scheffrahn, R. H. (1997). Comparison of Tunneling
Responses into Insecticide-Treated Soil by Field Populations and Laboratory Groups of Subterranean
Termites (Isoptera: Rhinotermitidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 503-509.
-------
EcoReference No.: 64501
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
814. Sudoi, V. (1991). Effects of Insecticides on Mortality of Fried Egg Scale (Aspidiotus sp. Homoptera:
Diaspidae) on Tea. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 12:26-27.
EcoReference No.: 78129
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,DZ,CYP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(ALSV,DZ),TARGET(CPY).
815. Sultatos, L. G., Costa, L. G., and Murphy, S. D. (1982). Factors Involved in the Differential Acute
Toxicity of the Insecticides Chlorpyrifos and Methyl Chlorpyrifos in Mice. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol.
65: 144-152.
EcoReference No.: 93130
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CMPH,CPYM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.ACC: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,CPYM),NO ENDPOINT(AZ).
816. Sutler, G. R., Fisher, J. R., Elliott, N. C., and Branson, T. F. (1990). Effect of Insecticide Treatments
on Root Lodging and Yields of Maize in Controlled Infestations of Western Corn Rootworms
(Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 2414-2420.
EcoReference No.: 74698
Chemical of Concern: CBF,TBO,FNF,PRT,IFP,EP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,PHY;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,PRT,CPY),OK(TBO,FNF,IFP,EP).
817. Swier, S. R. and Weaver III, J. S. (1994). Control of Balsam Twig Aphid with Penncap M, 1992.
ArthropodManag.Tests 19: 345-346 (3H).
EcoReference No.: 91356
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MP,CPY).
818. Swier, S. R. and Weaver III, J. S. (1994). Efficacy of Penncap M in the Control of Eastern Spruce Gall
Adelgid, 1992. Arthropod Manag.Tests 19: 349 (9H).
EcoReference No.: 91355
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MP,CPY).
819. Syrett, P. and Penman, D. R. (1980). Studies of Insecticide Toxicity to Lucerne Aphids and Their
Predators. N.Z.J.Agric.Res. 23: 575-580.
EcoReference No.: 71017
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
820. Tang, J., Carr, R. L., and Chambers, J. E. (1999). Changes in Rat Brain Cholinesterase Activity and
Muscarinic Receptor Density During and After Repeated Oral Exposure to Chlorpyrifos in Early
Postnatal Development. Toxicol.Sci. 51: 265-272.
EcoReference No.: 64114
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
-------
821. Tanigoshi, L. K. and Babcock, J. M. (1989). Insecticide Efficacy for Control of Lygus Bugs
(Heteroptera: Miridae) on White Lupin, Lupinus albus L. J.Econ.Entomol. 82: 281-284.
EcoReference No.: 74116
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNV,ACP,MOM,DMT,CBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: OK,TARGET(DMT,ACP),TARGET(MOM,CPY,FNV).
822. Tanigoshi, L. K. and Fargerlund, J. (1984). Implications of Parathion Resistance and Toxicity of
Citricultural Pesticides to a Strain of Euseius hibisci (Chant) (Acarina:Phytoseiidae) from the San
Joaquin Valley of California. J.Econ.Entomol. 77: 789-793.
Chemical of Concern: MOM,DMT,CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(DMT,MOM,CPY).
823. Tasistro, A. and Mihm, J. A. (1987). Control of Fall Armyworm in Field Corn, 1985.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 223-224 (260).
EcoReference No.: 88711
Chemical of Concern: DCM,PMR,CPY,TBO,CBL,DM,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,GRO;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(PMR),EFFICACY(DCM,CPY,TBO,CBL,DM,CYP).
824. Tejada, A. W., Bajet, C. M., Magbauna, M. G., Gambalan, N. B., Araez, L. C., and Magallona, E. D.
(1994). Toxicity of Pesticides to Target and Non-Target Fauna of the Lowland Rice Ecosystem. In:
B. Widianarko, K. Vink, andN.M. Van Straalen (Eds.), Environmental Toxicology in South East Asia,
VU Univ.Press, Amsterdam, Netherlands 89-103.
EcoReference No.: 20421
Chemical of Concern:
MP,ES,CBF,CPY,CYP,EFX,TDC,MTM,MLN,FNV,CYF,FNT,CBL,24DXY,MCPA,BTC,FZFB,TBC
,ODZ,MZB,DZ; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(FNV,MP,CPY,MZB,CBL,CYP,MTM,DZ,TDC,CYF,MLN),OK(24DXY,ES,CBF,EFX,MCP
A,BTC,FZFB,TBC,ODZ,FNT).
825. Teli, V S. and Salunkhe, G. N. (1993). Relative Efficacy and Economics of Some Insecticides for the
Control of Sweet Potato Weevil. Indian J.Plant Prot. 21: 59-61.
EcoReference No.: 89011
Chemical of Concern: CYP,FNV,FNTH,PHSL,CPY,DZ,MP,CBL,ES,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(MLN,FNV,CPY,CYP,DZ),OK TARGET,NO
CROP(MP).
826. Teran, A. L., Alvarez, R. A., and Orlando, C. A. (1993). Effect of Currently Used Pesticides in Citrus
Orchards on Two Aphelinid Parasitoids: Laboratory Tests. J.Appl.Entomol. 116:20-24.
EcoReference No.: 90421
Chemical of Concern: GYP,BMC,PAQT,DU,BMY,MZB,Zineb,DCF,MDT,EPRN,CPY; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(DCF),NO
ENDPOINT(GYP,BMC,MZB),OK(CPY),TARGET(CPY).
827. Teran-Vargas, A. P., Garza-Urbina, E., Blanco-Montero, C. A., Perez-Carmona, G., and Pellegaud-
Rabago, J. M. (1997). Efficacy of New Insecticides to Control Beet Armyworm in Northeastern
Mexico. In:Proc.Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2: 1030-1031.
EcoReference No.: 82470
Chemical of Concern: MFZ,DFZ,SS,TUZ,CPY,HFR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MFZ,DFZ,SS,TUZ,CPY,HFR).
-------
828. Tetreault, G. E. (1985). Metabolism of Carbaryl, Chlorpyrifos, DDT, and Parathion in the European
Corn Borer: Effects of Microsporidiosis on Toxicity and Detoxication. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ.Illinois,
Urbana, IL 86 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87626
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CBF,CPY,DDT,DZ,FNF,MOM,PRN,PMR,TBO; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: BCM.MOR.GRO.ACC: Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK
TARGET(CBL,MOM,DZ)),TARGET(CPY).
829. Thakur, N. S. A. and Deka, T. C. (1997). Bioefficacy and Economics of Different Insecticides Against
Pieris brassicae (L.) on Cabbage in Midhills of North-East India. Indian J.Plant Prot. 25: 109-114.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89393
Chemical of Concern: MLN,FNV,CPY,CYP,ES,DDVP,DFZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: EFFICACY(MLN,FNV,CPY,CYP).
830. Thankamoni Amma, V. G. and Konar, S. K. (1996). Pollutional Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Fish, Fish
Food Organisms and Water Quality. Environ.Ecol. 14:723-730.
EcoReferenceNo.: 54793
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP,MOR,BEH,CEL,PHY,GRO; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
831. Thomas, C. F. G. and Jepson, P. C. (1997). Field-Scale Effects of Farming Practices on Linyphiid
Spider Populations in Grass and Cereals. Entomol.Exp.Appl. 84: 59-69.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93288
Chemical of Concern: FNV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(FNV,CPY).
832. Thomas, C. N. and Mansingh, A. (2002). Bioaccumulation, Elimination, and Tissue Distribution of
Chlorpyrifos by Red Hybrid Tilapia in Fresh and Brackish Waters. Environ.Technol. 23: 1313-1323.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82258
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.PHY.BCM: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
833. Thomas, J. and Phadke, K. G. (1994). Relative Toxicity of Oxydemetonmethyl, Chlorpyriphos and
Quinalphos to Honey-Bee (Apis cerana indica). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 64: 207-209.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89618
Chemical of Concern: CPY,OXD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(OXD,CPY).
834. Thompson, A. R. and Sans, W. W. (1974). Effects of Soil Insecticides in Southwestern Ontario on
Non-Target Invertebrates: Earthworms in Pasture. Environ.Entomol. 3: 305-308.
EcoReferenceNo.: 35492
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CBL,EN,DDT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: P OP, AC C; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(DDT,CBF,CBL,EN).
835. Thompson, H. M, Walker, C. H., and Hardy, A. R. (1988). Avian Esterases as Indicators of Exposure
to Insecticides - The Factor of Diurnal Variation. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 41: 4-11.
EcoReferenceNo.: 39786
Chemical of Concern: DEM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
-------
CODED(CPY,DEM).
836. Tian, Y., Ishikawa, H., Yamaguchi, T., Yamauchi, T., and Yokoyama, K. (2005). Teratogenicity and
Developmental Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos: Maternal Exposure During Organogenesis in Mice.
Reprod.Toxicol. 20: 267-271.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92495
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
837. Tian, Y. and Yamauchi, T. (2003). Micronucleus Formation in 3-Day Mouse Embryos Associated with
Maternal Exposure to Chlorpyrifos During the Early Preimplantation Period. Reproduct.Toxicol. 17:
401-405.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92496
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.REP.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
838. Tillman, P. G. (1995). Susceptibility of Microplitis croceipes and Cardiochiles nigriceps
(Hymenoptera: Braconidae) to Field Rates of Selected Cotton Insecticides. J.Entomol.Sci. 30: 390-
396.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93416
Chemical of Concern: CYP,CYF,CYH,BFT,PFF,MP,DMT,CPY,AZ,ACP,ES,TDC,OML ; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY),OK(CYP,CYF,BFT,MP,DMT,AZ,ACP,TDC).
839. Toft, S. and Jensen, A. P. (1998). No Negative Sublethal Effects of Two Insecticides on Prey Capture
and Development of a Spider. Pestic.Sci. 52: 223-228 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 64169
Chemical of Concern: DMT,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(DMT,CPY).
840. Treacy, M. F., Parker, R. D., Anderson, R. M., Schmidt, K. M., and Benedict, J. H. (1986). Soybean
and Cottonseed Oils as Adjuvants and Diluents for Insecticides Used to Control Sorghum Midge.
SouthwestEntomol.Suppl. 11: 39-43.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92558
Chemical of Concern: FNV,CPY,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO: Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(FNV,CPY,EFV).
841. Trimble, A. J. and Lydy, M. J. (2006). Effects of Triazine Herbicides on Organophosphate Insecticide
Toxicity in Hyalella azteca. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 29-34.
EcoReference No.: 86411
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,DIATZ,SZ,CZE,PPZ,AMTR,PMT,PRO,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO
MIXTURE(ATZ,DIATZ,SZ,CZE,PPZ,AMTR,PMT,PRO).
842. Trimble, R. M., Free, D. J., Barszcz, E. S., and Carter, N. J. (2004). Comparison of a Sprayable
Pheromone Formulation and Two Hand-Applied Pheromone Dispensers Foruse in the Integrated
Control of Oriental Fruit Moth (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 97:482-489.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88284
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP,DM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
-------
TARGET(CPY).
843. Tu, C. M. (1970). Effect of Four Organophosphorus Insecticides on Microbial Activities in Soil.
AppLMicrobiol. 19: 479-484.
EcoReferenceNo.: 54971
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.SYS: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(DZ).
844. Tu, C. M. (1978). Effect of Pesticides on Acetylene Reduction and Microorganisms in a Sandy Loam.
SoilBiolBiochem 10: 451-456.
EcoReferenceNo.: 54977
Chemical of Concern:
OML,EP,HCCH,NTP,24DXY,THM,Maneb,Captan,DPDP,PMR,CBF,CPY,DZ,ETN,FNF,MLN,PRN,
PRT,CHD,DLD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.SYS: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(24DXY,Captan,CPY,MLN),OK(ALLCHEMS).
845. Tu, C. M. (1991). Effect of Some Technical and Formulated Insecticides on Microbial Activities in
Soil. J.Environ.Sci.Health Part B 26: 557-573.
EcoReference No.: 69689
Chemical of Concern: HgC12,FNF,FNV,PMR,CYP,DZ,CPY,CHD,ES,PRN,Hg; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DZ,CYP,PMR,CPY,FNV).
846. Tu, C. M. (1981). Effects of Pesticides on Activities of Enzymes and Microorganisms in a Clay Soil.
J.Environ.Sci.Health Part B 16: 179-191.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93646
Chemical of Concern:
DDMITC,13DPE,PMR,OML,CBF,HCCH,DLD,CHD,TBO,PRT,PRN,MLN,CPY,DZ,ETN,EP,FNF,C
aptan,Maneb,THM,24D,NTP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: SYS.POP: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,PMR,24D),OK
T ARGET(Maneb,Captan),OK(DDMITC, 13DPE,CBF,PRT,MLN,DZ,THM).
847. Tu, C. M. (1979). Influence of Pesticides on Acetylene Reduction and Growth of Microorganisms in
an Organic Soil. J.Environ.Sci.Health P art B 14: 617-624 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 93645
Chemical of Concern:
NTP,24D,DDMITC,13DPE,PMR,OML,CBF,HCCH,DLD,CHD,TBO,PRT,PRN,MLN,CPY,DZ,ETN,
EP,FNF,Captan,Maneb,THM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.SYS: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY,24D,PMR),OK
T ARGET(Maneb,Captan),OK(DDMITC, 13DPE,CBF,PRT,MLN,DZ,THM).
848. Tu, C. M. (1978). A Screening Technique for Assessing Effects of Pesticides on Population and
Activities of Non-Target Soil Microorganisms. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 20: 212-218.
EcoReferenceNo.: 54976
Chemical of Concern: STRP,Maneb,DPDP,MITC,CPY,DLD; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,SYS;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS).
849. Tucker, R. K. and Haegele, M. A. (1971). Comparative Acute Oral Toxicity of Pesticides to Six
Species of Birds. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 20: 57-65.
EcoReferenceNo.: 35499
-------
Chemical of Concern: OXD,CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,OXD).
850. Turner, A. S., Bale, J. S., and Clements, R. 0. (1987). The Effect of a Range of Pesticides on Non-
Target Organisms in the Grassland Environment. In: Proc.Crop Protection in Northern Britain,
British Crop Protection Council, Brighton, England 290-295.
EcoReference No.: 70976
Chemical of Concern: 24DB,EFS,ADC,FNF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(24DB,EFS,FNF),OKTARGET(ADC,CPY).
851. U.S.Bureau of Commercial Fisheries (1967). Unpublished Laboratory Data (Chlorpyrifos/Dursban 3-
30-67). U.S.EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Gulf Breeze, FL.
EcoReference No.: 56465
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
852. Upadhyay, S. and Agrawal, R. K. (1993). Efficacy of Different Insecticides on Incidence of Mustard
Aphid (Lipaphis erysimi) on Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea) and Its Economics. Indian J.Agric.Sci.
63: 522-525.
EcoReference No.: 89234
Chemical of Concern: CYP,FNV,ES,PPHD,OXD,DMT,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(FNV,OXD,MLN,DMT,CPY,CYP).
853. Upadhyay, S. and Agrawal, R. K. (1995). Persistent Toxicity of Insecticides in Controlling Mustard
Aphid (Lipaphis erysimi). Indian J.Agric.Sci. 65: 378-380.
EcoReference No.: 89293
Chemical of Concern: FNV,CYP,PPHD,DMT,ES,CPY,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(MLN, DMT),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
854. Upadhyay, S. and Agrawal, R. K. (1993). Persistent Toxicity of Some Insecticides Against Lipaphis
erysimi (Kalt.) on Mustard. Indian J.Plant Prot. 21:104-105.
EcoReference No.: 92882
Chemical of Concern: PPHD,DMT,ES,CPY,MLN,CYP,FNV,DEM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(DMT,MLN,CPY,CYP,FNV).
855. Uthamasamy, S. and Jayaraj, S. (1985). Efficacy of Certain Newer Insecticides in the Control of Major
Pests of Rice. Pesticides (Bombay) 19: 37,46.
EcoReference No.: 89409
Chemical of Concern: FNV,IFP,ACP,DDVP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALLCHEMS),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
856. Uygun, N, Sengonca, C., Ulusoy, M. R., and Kersting, U. (1994). Toxicity of Some Pesticides to
Eretmocerus debachi (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae), an Important Parasitoid of Parabemisia myricae
(Homoptera: Aleyrodidae). Bull.Entomol.Res. 84: 119-122.
EcoReference No.: 67978
Chemical of Concern: Captan,FZFB,PAQT,CPYM,MLN,MDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,REP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(Captan,MLN),TARGET (CPYM).
857. Vacante, V. and Gilioli, G. (2003). The Effects of Triflumuron Against the Western Flower Thrips
(Frankliniella occidentalis (Pergande)) on Pepper: An Evaluation Based on the Analysis of Population
-------
Dynamics. JAppl.Entomol. 127: 413-420.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82383
Chemical of Concern: MCB,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: TARGET
(CPYM).
858. Valarmathi, K. and Sundararajan, R. (1986). Biology of Chelonus blackburni Cameron and
Comparative Toxicity of Certain Pesticides to Bracon brevicornis Wesmael and Chelonus blackburni
Cameron (Hymenoptera: Braconidae). Entomol.Ser. 1:47-51.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93332
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPY,CBL,FNV,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR,REP,GRO;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY,CBL,FNV,MOM).
859. Varies, S. M. (1998). Toxicological and Biochemical Studies with Field Populations of the German
Cockroach, Blattella germanica. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 62: 190-200.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
860. Valles, S. M. and Woodson, W. D. (2002). Group Effects on Insecticide Toxicity in Workers of the
Formosan Subterranean Termite, Coptotermes formosanus Shiraki. PestManag.Sci. 58: 769-774.
EcoReference No.: 69744
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CHD; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
861. Van Breukelen, S. W. F. and Brock, T. C. M. (1993). Response of a Macro-Invertebrate Community to
Insecticide Application in Replicated Freshwater Microcosms with Emphasis on the Use of Principal
Component Analysis. Sci. Total Environ. .: 1047-1058.
EcoReference No.: 4330
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
862. Van den Brink, P. J., Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Lucassen, W. G. H., Brock, T. C. M., and
Leeuwangh, P. (1996). Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient Chlorpyrifos) in
Outdoor Experimental Ditches: II. Invertebrate Community Responses and. Environ.Toxicol.Chem.
15: 1143-1153.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17218
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
863. Van der Hoeven, N. and Gerritsen, A. A. M. (1997). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Individuals and
Populations of Daphnia pulex in the Laboratory and Field. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16: 2438-2447.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18477
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: NOC,POP,MOR,PHY; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
864. Van Erp, S., Booth, L., Gooneratne, R., and O'Halloran, K. (2002). Sublethal Responses of Wolf
spiders (Lycosidae) to Organophosphorous Insecticides. Environ.Toxicol. 17: 449-456.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82065
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR; Rejection Code:
TARGET(DZ,CPY).
-------
865. Van Wijngaarden, R. (1993). Comparison of Response of the Mayfly Cloeon dipterum to Chlorpyrifos
in a Single Species Toxicity Test, Laboratory Microcosms, Outdoor Ponds and. Sci. Total Environ.
1037-1046.
EcoReferenceNo.: 4331
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
866. Van Wijngaarden, R., Leeuwangh, P., Lucassen, W. G. H., Romijn, K., Ronday, R., and Van der
Velde, R. (1993). Acute Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Fish, a Newt, and Aquatic Invertebrates.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 716-723.
EcoReferenceNo.: 8107
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.BEH: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
867. Van Wijngaarden, R. P. A., Van den Brink, P. J., Crum, S. J. H., Oude Voshaar, J. H., Brock, T. C. M.,
and Leeuwangh, P. (1996). Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient Chlorpyrifos) in
Outdoor Experimental Ditches: I. Comparison of Short-Term Toxicity Between.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 1133-1142.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17254
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,POP,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
868. Varo, I., Amat, F., Navarro, J. C., Barreda, M., Pitarch, E., and Serrano, R. (2006). Assessment of the
Efficacy of Artemia sp (Crustacea) Cysts Chorion as Barrier to Chlorpyrifos (Organophosphorus
Pesticide) Exposure. Effect on Hatching and Survival. Sci.Total Environ. 366: 148-153.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92494
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.ACC: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
869. Varo, I., Navarro, J. C., Amat, F., and Guilhermino, L. (2002). Characterisation of Cholinesterases and
Evaluation of the Inhibitory Potential of Chlorpyrifos and Dichlorvos to Artemia salina and Artemia
parthenogenetica. Chemosphere 48: 563-569.
EcoReferenceNo.: 65812
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDVP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
870. Varo, I., Serrano, R., Navarro, J. C., Lopez, F. J., and Amat, F. (1998 ). Acute Lethal Toxicity of the
Organophosphorus Pesticide Chlorpyrifos to Different Species and Strains of Artemia.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 61: 778-785.
EcoReferenceNo.: 20148
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
871. Varo, I., Serrano, R., Pitarch, E., Amat, F., Lopez, F. J., and Navarro, J. C. (2002). Bioaccumulation of
Chlorpyrifos Through an Experimental Food Chain: Study of Protein HSP70 as Biomarker of
Sublethal Stress in Fish. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 42: 229-235.
EcoReferenceNo.: 65921
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
-------
872. Varo, I., Serrano, R., Pitarch, E., Amat, F., Lopez, F. J., and Navarro, J. C. (2000). Toxicity and
Bioconcentration of Chlorpyrifos in Aquatic Organisms: Artemia partheno genetic a (Crustacea),
Gambusia affinis, and Aphanius iberus (Pisces). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 65: 623-630.
EcoReferenceNo.: 57001
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.MOR: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
873. Venerosi, A., Calamandrei, G., and Ricceri, L. (2006). A Social Recognition Test for Female Mice
Reveals Behavioral Effects of Developmental Chlorpyrifos Exposure. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 28: 466-
471.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92493
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BEH: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
874. Verma, R. S., Mehta, A., and Srivastava, N. (2007). In Vivo Chlorpyrifos Induced Oxidative Stress:
Attenuation by Antioxidant Vitamins. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 88: 191-196.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92492
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
875. Verslycke, T., Roast, S. D., Widdows, J., Jones, M. B., and Janssen, C. R. (2004). Cellular Energy
Allocation and Scope for Growth in the Estuarine Mysid Neomysis integer (Crustacea: Mysidacea)
Following Chlorpyrifos Exposure: A Method Comparison. J.Exp.Mar.Biol.Ecol. 306: 1-16.
EcoReference No.: 77062
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,CEL,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CPY).
876. Villani, M. G. and Wright, R. J. (1987). Fall Control of White Grubs with Insecticides on a Long
Island Golf Course, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 326 (No. 392).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88693
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TCF,EP,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY,TCF,EP),OKTARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
877. Villani, M. G. and Wright, R. J. (1987). Fall Control of White Grubs with Labelled Insecticides and
Entomogenous Nematodes on a Golf Course, Syracuse, NY, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 325 (No.
391).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88695
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TCF,CBL,EP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
OK(CPY,TCF,EP),OKTARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
878. Vinogradov, G. A., Stay, F., Umorin, P. P., Mavrin, A. S., Klerman, A. K., Koreneva, E. I., Kurbatova,
S. A., Solntseva, I. 0., and Vinogradova, G. I. (1996). The Effect of Heavy Metals and Chlorpyrifos,
Separately and in Combination, on a Continuous Flow Mesocosm Aquatic System. In: EPA-600/R-
96/090, Proc. USA-Russia Symp.on the Problems of Aquatic Toxicology, Biotesting and Water Quality
Management, Jul.21-23, 1992, Borok, Jaroslavl Oblast, Ecosyst.Res.Div., Athens, GA 148-1017.
EcoReference No.: 67672
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
-------
879. Vittum, P. J. (1987). Efficacy of Several Insecticides Against Asiatic Garden Beetle, Massachusetts,
1986. ImecticAcaric.Tests 12: 327 (No. 393).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88770
Chemical of Concern: CBL,TMMC,CPY,FNT,EP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(CBL),TARGET(CPY).
880. Vodela, J. K. and Dalvi, R. R. (1997). Effect of Chlorpyrifos on Hepatic Gamma-Glutamyl
Transferase, Serum Cholinesterase and Xenobiotic Metabolizing Enzyme Activities in Rats.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 59: 796-801.
EcoReferenceNo.: 59712
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
881. Volz, D. C., Wirth, E. F., Fulton, M. H., Scott, G. I., Strozier, E., Block, D. S., Ferry, J. L., Walse, S.
S., and Chandler, G. T. (2003). Effects of Fipronil and Chlorpyrifos on Endocrine-Related Endpoints
in Female Grass Shrimp (Palaemonetes pugio). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 71: 497-503.
EcoReference No.: 72409
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FPN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP,GRO,MOR,BCM; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(FPN,CPY).
882. Vyas, S. C. and Vyas, S. (1995). Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Agrichemical Interaction. In:
llth Int.Symp., Mod.Fungic.Antifungal Compd 439-444.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93320
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,THM,CBD,MLX,MZB,CBL,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
GRO,POP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(MP,THM,MZB,CBL,PRT).
883. Wacksman, M. N, Maul, J. D., and Lydy, M. J. (2006). Impact of Atrazine on Chlorpyrifos Toxicity in
Four Aquatic Vertebrates. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 51: 681-689.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91730
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.ACC.MOR.BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(ATZ,CPY).
884. Walgenbach, J. F. and Palmer, C. R. (1999). Apple Insect Control, 1998. Arthropod Manage.Tests 24:
30-34 (A30).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88276
Chemical of Concern: DMT,IMC,EFV,TUZ,AZ,PSM,DZ,CPY,MP,LCYT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(MP, DMT,EFV),TARGET(CPY).
885. Walker, G. P., O'Connell, N., and Aitken, D. C. G. (1987). Timing Lorsban Applications for California
Red Scale Control, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 89-90 (No. 90).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88645
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CPY).
886. Walker, W. W. (1984). Development of a Fate/Toxicity Screening Test. EPA-600/s4-84-074,
U.S.EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL 30 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90259
Chemical of Concern: MP,TBC,CTN,DFZ,CPY,ES,DFPM,PRT,TFN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MP,TBC,CTN,DFZ,CPY,ES,DFPM),OK(PRT,TFN).
-------
887. Walsh, G. E. (1983). Cell Death and Inhibition of Population Growth of Marine Unicellular Algae by
Pesticides. Aquat.Toxicol. 3: 209-214.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11070
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,HCCP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.CEL: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,ATZ),OK(ALL CHEMS).
888. Walsh, G. E. (1981). Effects of Pesticides and Industrial Wastes on Unicellular Algae and Seagrass.
In: Research and Development: Experimental Environments Branch, Prog.Rep.for Fiscal Year 1981,
Unpubl.Lab.Data, U.S.EPA, ERL-Gulf Breeze, FL 3-26.
EcoReference No.: 4803
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,PCP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY.MOR.POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,ATZ,PCP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
889. Walsh, G. E., McLaughlin, L. L., Yoder, M. J., Moody, P. H., Lores, E. M., Forester, J., and
Wessinger-Duvall, P. B. (1988). Minutocellus polymorphus: A New Marine Diatom for Use in Algal
Toxicity Tests. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 7: 925-929.
EcoReference No.: 13180
Chemical of Concern: Cd,Pb,Zn,TBT,CPY,ATZ,TBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,TBF,ATZ),OK(ALL CHEMS).
890. Walton, V. M. and Pringle, K. L. (1999). Effects of Pesticides Used on Table Grapes on the Mealybug
Parasitoid Coccidoxenoides peregrinus (Timberlake) (Hymenoptera: Encyrtidae). S.Afr.J.Enol. Vitic.
20: 31-34.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93317
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ES,CYP,MZB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY,CYP),NO ENDPOINT(MZB).
891. Walton, W. E., Darwazeh, H. A., Mulla, M. S., and Schreiber, E. T. (1990). Impact of Selected
Synthetic Pyrethroids and Organophosphorous Pesticides on the Tadpole Shrimp, Triops longicaudatus
(Le Conte) (Notostraca: Triopsidae). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 45: 62-68.
EcoReferenceNo.: 60194
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CYP,CPY,PYT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.GRO: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,RSM,CYP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
892. Wan, M. T., Moul, D. J., and Watts, R. G. (1987). Acute Toxicity to Juvenile Pacific Salmonids of
Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, Triclopyr, Triclopyr Ester, and Their Transformation Products: 3,5,6-Trichloro-
2. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 39: 721-728 (OECDG Data File).
EcoReferenceNo.: 12605
Chemical of Concern: TPR,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
893. Wedberg, J. and Jensen, B. (1992). Use of Labeled and Experimental Insecticides for Control of
Alfalfa Insects in Wisconsin, 1991. In: A.K.Burditt,Jr.(Ed.), Insecticide andAcaricide Tests, Volume
17, Entomol.Soc.ofAm., Lanham, MD 184.
EcoReference No.: 79786
Chemical of Concern: PSM,CBL,DMT,CPY,MP,PMR,CYH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: TARGET(CBL,MP,CPY).
894. Welling, W. and De Vries, J. W. (1992). Bioconcentration Kinetics of the Organophosphorus
-------
Insecticide Chlorpyrifos in Guppies (Poecilia reticulata). Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 23: 64-75.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3907
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
895. Wesson, D. M. (1990). Susceptibility to Organophosphate Insecticides in Larval Aedes albopictus.
J.Am.Mosq.Control Assoc. 6: 258-264.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90110
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNT,FNTH,MLN,TMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(FNT,FNTH,MLN,TMP).
896. Whalen, J. and Vanderhoef, H. (1986). Potato Leafhopper Control on Alfalfa, 1985.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 221 (No. 285).
EcoReferenceNo.: 87884
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CBF,CPY,DMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(CBL, DMT),TARGET(CPY).
897. Wheelock, C. E., Eder, K. J., Werner, I., Huang, H., Jones, P. D., Brammell, B. F., Elskus, A. A., and
Hammock, B. D. (2005). Individual Variability in Esterase Activity and CYP1A Levels in Chinook
Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) Exposed to Esfenvalerate and Chlorpyrifos. Aquat.Toxicol. 74:
172-192.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81329
Chemical of Concern: EFV,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(EFV,CPY).
898. White, N. D. G. (1988). Residual Activity of Insecticides on Freshly Harvested and Previously Stored
Wheat, and on Various Carriers Exposed to Concrete Surfaces. Proc.Entomol.Soc.Ont. 119: 35-42.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91028
Chemical of Concern: FYC,PIRM,CPYM,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPYM),OK(FYC).
899. White, N. D. G., Jayas, D. S., and Demianyk, C. J. (1997). Degradation and Biological Impact of
Chlorpyrifos-Methyl on Stored Wheat and Pirimiphos-Methyl on Stored Maize in Western Canada.
J.StoredProd.Res. 33: 125-135.
EcoReference No.: 67959
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(CPYM).
900. White, N. D. G. and Sinha, R. N. (1990). Effect of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl on Oat Ecosystems in Farm
Granaries. J.Econ.Entomol. 83: 1128-1134.
EcoReference No.: 67969
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.REP: Rejection Code:
EFFICACY(CPYM).
901. Whitford, F., Quisenberry, S., and Bagley, C. P. (1987). Fall Armyworm, Leafhopper, and Planthopper
Control in Louisiana, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 318 (No. 379).
EcoReferenceNo.: 88696
Chemical of Concern: CBL,TDC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
-------
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(CBL,TDC),TARGET(CPY).
902. Whitten, C. J. and Bull, D. L. (1974). Comparative Toxicity, Absorption and Metabolism of
Chlorpyrifos and Its Dimethyl Homologue in Methyl Parathion-Resistant and -Susceptible Tobacco
Budworms. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 4: 266-274.
EcoReference No.: 62746
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(MP,CPY).
903. Williams, B. J. and Harvey, R. G. (1996). Nicosulfuron Tolerance in Sweet Corn (Zea mays) as
Affected by Hybrid, Rootworm Insecticide, and Nicosulfuron Treatment. Weed Technol. 10: 488-494.
EcoReference No.: 93417
Chemical of Concern: TBO,CPY,CEX,NSF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
904. Williams, R. N, Ellis, M. A., and Fickle, D. S. (1988). Bioassay Evaluation of Insecticides on
Blueberries, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13: 64-65 (No. 3C).
EcoReference No.: 88834
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PSM,CBL,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY,PSM),OKTARGET(CBL,AZ),TARGET(CPY).
905. Williams, R. N., Ellis, M. A., Fickle, D. S., and Pavuk, D. M. (1986). Larvicidal Evaluation for the
Control of Endopiza viteana, 1985. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 89(113).
EcoReference No.: 87891
Chemical of Concern: ES,CBL,CPY,CYF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
OK(CYF),TARGET(CBL),EFFICACY(CPY).
906. Williams, R. N., Fickle, D. S., and Ellis, M. A. (1987). Bioassay Evaluation of Insecticides on
Blueberries, 1986. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 12: 78 (No. 073).
EcoReference No.: 88738
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
OK(CPY),OKTARGET(CBL,AZ),TARGET(CPY).
907. Willson, H. R. and Eisley, J. B. (1996). Evaluation of Soil Insecticides on Continuous Corn in Ohio,
1995. ArthropodManag.Tests 21: 233 (5IF).
EcoReference No.: 78949
Chemical of Concern: PRT,CEX,TBO,FNF,TFT,CBF,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(PRT),EFFICACY(CPY),OK(CBF).
908. Willson, H. R. and Eisley, J. B. (1992). Evaluation of Soil Insecticides on First Year and Continuous
Corn in OH, 1991. Insect.Acaric. Tests 77219.
EcoReference No.: 79783
Chemical of Concern: FNF,CBF,CPY,TBO,TFT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),OK(FNF,CBF,TBO,TFT).
909. Wilson, J. E. H. (1997). The Grass Shrimp Embryo-Larval Toxicity Test: A Short-Term Predictive
Bioassay. Can.Tech.Rep.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 53-65.
EcoReference No.: 19763
Chemical of Concern: ACR,CPY,DFZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,GRO,MOR; Rejection Code:
-------
LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
910. Wilton, D. P., Fetzer, L. E. Jr., and Fay, R. W. (1973). Insecticide Baits for Anopheline Larvae.
Mosq.News 33: 198-203.
EcoReferenceNo.: 13956
Chemical of Concern: FNTH,FNT,CMPH,CBL,MXC,MCB,CPY,RSM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY),NO
ENDPOINT(RSM,MCB,MXC,CBL,FNTH),OK(FNT,CMPH).
911. Winner, R. A., Steelman, C. D., and Schilling, P. E. (1978). Effects of Selected Insecticides on
Romanomermis culicivorax, a Mermithid Nematode Parasite of Mosquito Larvae. Mosq.News 38:
546-552.
EcoReference No.: 67468
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Naled,PPX,TMP,FNTH,MTPN,DFZ,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR,REP; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MTPN,MLN,CPY,Naled),OK(ALL CHEMS).
912. Wolfenbarger, D. A., Riley, D. G., and Cartwright, B. (1997). Can Response Levels to any Insecticide
be Maintained be a Population of Beet Armyworm? In: Proc.Beltwide Cotton Conf. 2: 1024-1028.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71583
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(MOM),TARGET(CPY).
913. Womeldorf, D. J., Washino, R. K., White, K. E., and Gieke, P. A. (1970). Insecticide Susceptibility of
Mosquitoes in California: Response of Anopheles freeborni Aitken Larvae to Organophosphorus
Compounds. Mosq.News 30: 375-382.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3660
Chemical of Concern: MLN,MP,PRN,FNTH,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY.MOR: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY,MLN,MP),OK(PRN,FNTH).
914. Won, Y. K., Liu, J., Olivier, K. Jr., Zheng, Q., and Pope, C. N. (2001). Age-Related Effects of
Chlorpyrifos on Acetylcholine Release in Rat Brain. Neurotoxicology 22: 39-48.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92583
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
915. Woodburn, K. B., Hansen, S. C., Roth, G. A., and Strauss, K. (2003). The Bioconcentration and
Metabolism of Chlorpyrifos by the Eastern Oyster, Crassostrea virginica. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 22:
276-284.
EcoReferenceNo.: 68191
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
916. Woodrow, R. J., Grace, J. K., and Oshiro, R. J. (2006). Comparison of Localized Injections of
Spinosad and Selected Insecticides for the Control of Cryptotermes brevis (Isoptera: Kalotermitidae)
in Naturally Infested Structural Mesocosms. J.Econ.Entomol. 99: 1354-1362.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87904
Chemical of Concern: RSM,Na20T,CPY,SS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code:
TARGET(CPY).
-------
917. Woodruff, R. C., Phillips, J. P., and Irwin, D. (1983). Pesticide-Induced Complete and Partial
Chromosome Loss in Screens with Repair-Defective Females of Drosophila melanogaster.
Environ.Mutagen. 5: 835-846.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90436
Chemical of Concern: PMR,DZ,DDT,DMT,Captan,Maneb,BMC,PAQT,PCL,24DXY,CBL,CPY,CBF;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.CEL: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(Captan,Maneb,BMC),OK TARGET(DMT,CPY),OK(ALL CHEMS).
918. Wright, R. J., Scharf, M. E., Meinke, L. J., Zhou, X., Siegfried, B. D., and Chandler, L. D. (2000).
Larval Susceptibility of an Insecticide-Resistant Western Corn Rootworm (Coleoptera:
Chrysomelidae) Population to Soil Insecticides: Laboratory Bioassays, Assays of Detoxification
Enzymes, and Field Performance. J.Econ.Entomol. 93: 7-13.
EcoReferenceNo.: 58594
Chemical of Concern: CEX,FNF,PBP,TFT,MP,CBF,CPY,TBO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,BCM,POP; Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
919. Wu, T. and Jans, U. (2006). Nucleophilic Substitution Reactions of Chlorpyrifos-Methyl with Sulfur
Species. Environ.Sci.Technol. 40: 784-790.
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPYM).
920. Wu, Y.-J., Harp, P., Yan, X.-R., and Pope, C. N. (2003). Nicotinic Autoreceptor Function in Rat Brain
During Maturation and Aging: Possible Differential Sensitivity to Organophosphorus
Anticholinesterases. Chem.Biol.Interact. 142: 255-268.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92570
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
921. Xia, X. J., Huang, Y. Y., Wang, L., Huang, L. F., Yu, Y. L., Zhou, Y. H., and Yu, J. Q. (2006).
Pesticides-Induced Depression of Photosynthesis was Alleviated by 24-Epibrassinolide Pretreatment in
Cucumis sativus L. Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 86: 42-48.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93531
Chemical of Concern: ABM,CPY,PAQT,FZFPB,HFP,FUZ,CYZ,IMC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,BCM; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CPY).
922. Xuereb, B., Noury, P., Felten, V., Garric, J., and Geffard, 0. (2007). Cholinesterase Activity in
Gammarus pulex (Crustacea amphipoda): Characterization and Effects of Chlorpyrifos. Toxicology
236: 178-189.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93045
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
923. Yokoyama, V. Y., Pritchard, J., and Dowell, R. V. (1984). Laboratory Toxicity of Pesticides to
Geocoris pallens (Hemiptera: Lygaeidae), a Predator in California Cotton. J.Econ.Entomol. 77: 10-
15.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88497
Chemical of Concern: ACP,CBL,DMT,MTM,MTAS,CPY,MP,MOM,FNV,BMY; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(ACP,CBL,DMT,MTM,CPY,MP,MOM,FNV),NO
ENDPOINT(MTAS),NO COC(TBF).
-------
924. Yu, S. J. (1991). Insecticide Resistance in the Fall Army worm, Spodoptera frugiperda (J. E. Smith).
Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 39: 84-91.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73599
Chemical of Concern:
MOM,PMR,CYP,CYT,BFT,TMT,FVL,DZ,CPY,MP,CBL,TDC,DDVP,SPS,TLM,MLN,FNV;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(MLN,FVL,CYP,DZ,TDC,BFT,CBL,MOM,TMT), OK(ALL
CHEMS),TARGET(MP,FNV,CPY).
925. Yu, S. J. (1988). Selectivity of Insecticides to the Spined Soldier Bug (Heteroptera: Pentatomidae) and
Its Lepidopterous Prey. J.Econ.Entomol. 81: 119-122.
EcoReference No.: 68973
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(DZ,CPY).
926. Zacharda, M. and Hluchy, M. (1991). Long-Term Residual Efficacy of Commercial Formulations of
16 Pesticides to Typhlodromus pyri Scheuten (Acari: Phytoseiidae) Inhabiting Commercial Vineyards.
Exp.ApplAcarol. 13: 27-40.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92021
Chemical of Concern: OMT,EFV,PHSL,PSM,SFR,MZB,DCF,DZ,CPY,ES,FNT; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK(MZB),OK TARGET(OMT,EFV,PSM,DZ,CPY).
927. Zanaty, E. M., Tadros, M. S., and El-Sherbeni, A. E. (1987). The Effect of Some Pesticides on the
Biological Aspects of the Predatory Mite Amblyseius gossipi El-Badry. Delta J.Sci. 11: 1254-1268.
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: TARGET(CPY).
928. Zayed, A. B., Mostafa, A. A., Osman, M. Z., and Kotb, N. A. (1997). Susceptibility of Culex pipiens
Complex Mosquito to Some Insecticides in Egypt. Al-Azhar Bull.Sci. 8: 223-228.
EcoReference No.: 67754
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNT,TMP,PMR,FNTH,MLN,DM,PPX; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,CPY),OK(FNT,TMP,PMR,FNTH,DM,PPX).
929. Zayed, S. M. A. D., Farghaly, M., and El-Maghraby, S. (2003). Fate of 14C-Chlorpyrifos in Stored
Soybeans and Its Toxicological Potential to Mice. FoodChem.Toxicol. 41: 767-772.
EcoReferenceNo.: 81518
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.CEL: Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(CPY).
930. Zhang, L., Shono, T., Yamanaka, S., and Tanabe, H. (1994). Effects of Insecticides on the
Entomopathogenie Nematode Steinernema carpocapsae Weiser. Appl.Entomol.Zool. 29: 539-547.
EcoReferenceNo.: 84164
Chemical of Concern:
TMP,FNT,DDW,CPY,ACP,DZ,FNTH,MLN,TCF,PTP,PFF,IMC,FNV,SPS,MOM,OML,PPX,EFX,P
MR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(EFX,CPY,FNV,PMR,ACP,DZ,MLN,MOM).
931. Zidan, Z. H., Abdel-Megeed, M. I., Watson, W. M., and Sobeiha, A. K. (1987). Ovicidal Activity of
Certain Mineral Oils, Organic Insecticides and Their Mixtures Against the Cotton Leafworm,
Spodoptera littoralis (Boisd.) (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae). Appl.Entomol.Zool. 22: 241-247.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 78162
Chemical of Concern: ALSV,TDC,MOM,PFF,CPY,CYP,FPP,FNV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK(ALL CHEMS),OK TARGET(ALSV,MOM),TARGET(TDC,CPY,FNV).
932. Zrum, L., Hann, B. J., Goldsborough, L. G., and Stern, G. A. (2000). Effects of Organophosphorus
Insecticide and Inorganic Nutrients on the Planktonic Microinvertebrates and Algae in a Prairie
Wetland. Arch.Hydrobiol. 147: 373-399.
EcoReference No.: 60811
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(CPY).
Acceptable for ECOTOX but not OPP
1. Abdou, R. F. and Abdel-Wahab, M. A. (1985). Cytological and Developmental Effects of Certain Insecticides
in Vicia faba. Int.Pest Control 27: 123-125.
EcoReference No.: 44263
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,CYP,MTM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP.GRO.CEL; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(CBL,CYP,MTM),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
2. Abu-Qare, A. W. and Abou-Donia, M. B. (2001). Simultaneous Determination of Chlorpyrifos, Permethrin, and
Their Metabolites in Rat Plasma and Urine by High-Performance Liquid Chromatography.
JAnal.Toxicol. 25: 275-279.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91556
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
COC(SMT),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,PMR).
3. Acevedo, R. (1991). Preliminary Observations on Effects of Pesticides Carbaryl, Naphthol, and Chlorpyrifos
on Planulae of the Hermatypic Coral Pocillopora damicornis. Pac.Sci. 45: 287-289.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71944
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CBL,CPY).
4. Ahmad, S. and Das, Y. T. (1978). Japanese Beetle Grubs Dosage Mortality Response and Symptoms of
Poisoning Following Topical Treatments with Chlorpyrifos and Dieldrin. J.Econ.Entomol. 71: 939-
942.
EcoReference No.: 44481
Chemical of Concern: DLD,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY)//NO OM, pH.
5. Ahmed, W. (1977). A Laboratory and Field Study of the Toxicity of Mosquito Larvicides to Non-Target Insects
Found in California Rice Fields. Ph.D.Thesis, University of California, Davis, CA 4 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5127
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
6. Ahmed, W. and Washino, R. K. (1976). Toxicity of Pesticides Used in Rice Culture in California to Gambusia
affinis (Baird and Girard). Ph.D.Thesis, Univ. of California, Davis, CA 31 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17722
Chemical of Concern: PRN,CBF,CPY,MP,CuS,MCPA,EDT,DU,MLT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
-------
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBF,MP),NO CONTROL(MLT,CuS),NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
7. Akesson, N. B., Whitesell, K. G., Womeldorf, D. J., Gilllies, P. A., and Yates, W. E. (1972). Rice Field
Mosquito Control Studies with Low Volume Dursban Sprays in Colusa County, California II.
Operational Procedures and Deposition Measurement. Mosq.News 32: 368-375.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14032
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
8. Al-Khatib, Z. I. (1985). Isolation of an Organophosphate Susceptible Strain of Culex quinquefasciatus from a
Resistant Field Population by Discrimination Against Esterase-2 Phenotypes. J.Am.Mosq.Control
Assoc. 1: 105-107.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11000
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(MLN,CPY).
9. Ali, A. and Mulla, M. S. (1978). Declining Field Efficacy of Chlorpyrifos Against Chironomid Midges and
Laboratory Evaluation of Substitute Larvicides. J.Econ.Entomol. 71: 778-782.
EcoReference No.: 6268
Chemical of Concern: C YP,FNV,TMP,CP Y,MLN,FNTH,DM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
POP,MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CYP,FNV,TMP,MLN,FNTH,DM),NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
10. Ali, A. and Mulla, M. S. (1978). Effects of Chironomid Larvicides and Diflubenzuron on Nontarget
Invertebrates in Residential-Recreational Lakes. Environ.Entomol. 7: 21-27.
EcoReference No.: 5133
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DFZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
11. Ali, A. and Mulla, M. S. (1977). The IGR Diflubenzuron and Organophosphorus Insecticides Against Nuisance
Midges in Man-Made Residential-Recreational Lakes. J.Econ.Entomol. 70: 571-577.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5170
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,CPY,MP,TMP,FNTH,MLN,EPRN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
POP,MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(DFZ,MP,TMP,FNTH,MLN,EPRN),NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
12. Ali, A. and Mulla, M. S. (1976). Insecticidal Control of Chironomid Midges in the Santa Ana River Water
Spreading System, Orange County, California. J.Econ.Entomol. 69: 509-513.
EcoReferenceNo.: 181
Chemical of Concern: TMP,FNTH,MLN,MP,EPRN,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(TMP,FNTH,MLN,MP,EPRN,CPY).
13. Allen, R. L. and Snipes, C. E. (1995). Interactions of Foliar Insecticides Applied with Pyrithiobac. Weed
Technol. 9: 512-517.
EcoReference No.: 64055
Chemical of Concern: ACP,PTB,AZ,BFT,CPY,DCTP,EFV,MLN,MOM,OML,TDC; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: PHY.GRO.POP: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(ACP,AZ,BFT,CPY,DCTP,MOM,OML).
-------
14. Amalin, D. M, Pena, J. E., Yu, S. J., and McSorley, R. (2000). Selective Toxicity of some Pesticides to Hibana
Velox (Araneae: Anyphaenidae), a Predator of Citrus Leafminer. Fla.Entomol. 83: 254-262.
EcoReference No.: 68114
Chemical of Concern: ABM,DBZ,AZD,IMC,AV,DCF,ETN,AZ,ALSV,Cu,CPY,CBL; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
15. Amer, S. M., Fahmy, M. A., and Donya, S. M. (1996). Cytogenetic Effect of Some Insecticides in Mouse
Spleen. J.Appl.Toxicol. 16: 1-3.
EcoReference No.: 75291
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBL,DDT,MLN,MOM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL: Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
16. Apperson, C. S. and Georghiou, G. P. (1975). Mechanisms of Resistance to Organophosphorus Insecticides in
Culex tarsalis. J.Econ.Entomol. 68: 153-157 .
EcoReference No.: 92649
Chemical of Concern: TBF,PPB,MPO,MP,MLX,PRN,FNT,FNTH,CP YM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
BCM,MOR,ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(TARGET-MPO,MP,MLN,CPYM),NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(PPB,TBF).
17. Archer, T. E. and Gauer, W. 0. (1985). Residues of Five Pesticides in Field-Treated Alfalfa Seeds and Alfalfa
Sprouts. J.Emiron.Sci.Health Part B 20: 445-456.
EcoReference No.: 64050
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CTN,CPY,MTM,PPG; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
18. Areekul, S. (1987). Toxicity to Fishes of Insecticides Used in Paddy Fields and Water Resources. I.
Laboratory Experiment. KasetsartJ.20(2):164-178(1986)(THI)(ENGABS) /C.A.Sel.-Environ.Pollut.
12: 106-190732T.
EcoReference No.: 283
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ADC,PRT,DS,HCCH,CBL,HPT,PPX,FNT,MLN,DZ; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN,NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),NO CONTROL,NO
DURATION(CPY).
19. Arthur, F. H. (1995). Degradation and Efficacy of Deltamethrin + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl and Cyfluthrin +
Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Wheat Stored in Southeast Georgia. J.Entomol.Sci. 30: 397-
405.
EcoReference No.: 63286
Chemical of Concern: CYF,DM,PPB,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(PPB,CPYM,DM)TARGET (CPYM),OK TARGET(CYF).
20. Arthur, F. H. (1994). Efficacy of Cyfluthrin, Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl Butoxide, and Cyfluthrin + Piperonyl
Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Peanuts. Peanut Sci. 21: 44-48.
EcoReference No.: 63518
Chemical of Concern: CYF,PPB,CPY,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(PPB,CPYM),OK(CYF).
21. Arthur, F. H. (1994). Residual Efficacy of Cyfluthrin Applied Alone or in Combination with Piperonyl
Butoxide or Piperonyl Butoxide + Chlorpyrifos-Methyl as Protectants of Stored Corn. J.Entomol.Sci.
29: 276-287.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 63363
Chemical of Concern: CYF,PPB,CPY,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS,TARGET(CYF,CPYM).
22. Atkins, E. L., Greywood, E. A., and Macdonald, R. L. (1975). Toxicity of Pesticides and Other Agricultural
Chemicals to Honey Bees. Leaflet 2287, Division of Agricultural Sciences, University of California,
Davis, CA 36 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 40218
Chemical of Concern: DDT,MLN,EN,DLD,CBF,CPY,PRN,AND,MP,FNTH,ADC,MVP,ATZ;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
23. Atkins, E. L., Kellum, D., and Neuman, K. J. (1977). Repellent Additives to Reduce Pesticide Hazards to
Honey Bees. Am.BeeJ. 117:438-439,457.
EcoReferenceNo.: 35011
Chemical of Concern: MP,OML,CPY,FTTC1,DEET,DEM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR;
Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(CPY),NO ENDPOINT(MP).
24. Atwood, S. T., Sheets, T. J., Sutton, T. B., and Leidy, R. B. (1987). Stability of Selected Pesticide Formulations
and Combinations in Aqueous Media. J.Agric.FoodChem. 35: 169-172.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90321
Chemical of Concern: AZ,MZB,Captan,PSM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC,REP,GRO;
Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(AZ,CPY),TARGET(MZB,Captan).
25. Awad, 0. M. (2003). Operational Use of Neem Oil as an Alternative Anopheline Larvicide. Part B:
Environmental Impact and Toxicological Potential. East.Medit.Health J. 9: 646-658.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87316
Chemical of Concern: FNT,CPYM,TMP,AZD; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO,BCM,CEL;
Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(CPYM).
26. Awad, 0. M. and Shimaila, A. (2003). Operational Use of Neem Oil as an Alternative Anopheline Larvicide.
Part A: Laboratory and Field Efficacy. East.Mediterr.Health J. 9:637-645.
EcoReferenceNo.: 87309
Chemical of Concern: FNT,CPYM,TMP,AZD; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP.MOR: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(CPYM).
27. Axtell, R. C., Dukes, J. C., and Edwards, T. D. (1979). Field Tests of Diflubenzuron, Methoprene, Flit MLO
and Chlorpyrifos for the Control of Aedes taeniorhynchus Larvae in Diked Dredged Spoil Areas.
Mosq.News 39: 520-527.
EcoReference No.: 60725
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,CPY,MTPN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(MTPN,CPY).
28. Aysal, P., Gozek, K., Artik, N, and Tuncbilek, A. S. (1999). 14C-Chlorpyrifos Residues in Tomatoes and
Tomato Products. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 62: 377-382.
EcoReferenceNo.: 47198
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
29. Azuma, T., Niiro, M, and Motobu, H. (1994). Removal of Pesticides from Wastewater at Golf Courses Using
Plants (Removal by Mung Beans; Phaseolus radiatus L). Bio-Med.Mater.Eng. 4: 127-137.
EcoReference No.: 70770
Chemical of Concern: SZ,DZ,CPY,Captan,FNT,CTN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO,ACC;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMSJARGET-SZ).
30. Bacey, J., Spurlock, F., Starner, K., Feng, H., Hsu, J., White, J., and Iran, D. M. (2005). Residues and Toxicity
of Esfenvalerate and Permethrin in Water and Sediment, in Tributaries of the Sacramento and San
Joaquin Rivers, California, USA. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 74: 864-871.
EcoReference No.: 92740
Chemical of Concern: SZ,HXZ,BMC,ATZ,TBF,PRT,DDW,DZ,CPY,PMR,EFV,DMT,MP; Habitat:
A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONC,NO
ENDPOINT(SZ,PRT,DZ,CPY,PMR,TBF,EFV,DMT,MP).
31. Balcomb, R., Stevens, R., and Bowen II, C. (1984). Toxicity of 16 Granular Insecticides to Wild-Caught
Songbirds. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 33: 302-307.
EcoReference No.: 35027
Chemical of Concern: PRT,ADC,TBC,PRN,FMP,EP,CPY,FNF,DS,TBO,IFP,CBF,ADC,DZ,TMP;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY),LITE EVAL
CODED(DZ,CBF,ADC,PRT).
32. Bandoni, D J. (1996). The Effect of Isopropyl Alcohol Content as a Surfactant on the Volatilization of the
Pesticide Chlorpyrifos. In: Proc.4th Int.Symp.on Adjuvants for Agrochemicals, N.Z.FRI Bull.No. 193:
120-125.
EcoReference No.: 72899
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
33. Barron, M. G., Plakas, S. M., and Wilga, P. C. (1991). Chlorpyrifos Pharmacokinetics and Metabolism
Following Intravascular and Dietary Administration in Channel Catfish. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol.
108: 474-482.
EcoReference No.: 3796
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
34. Barron, M. G., Plakas, S. M., Wilga, P. C., and Ball, T. (1993). Absorption, Tissue Distribution and Metabolism
of Chlorpyrifos in Channel Catfish Following Waterborne Exposure. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 12:
1469-1476.
EcoReference No.: 9358
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
35. Barton, L. C. (1970). The Effect of Sublethal Concentrations of Dursban on Immature Culex pipiens
quinquefasciatus Say. Entomol.Spec.Study No.31-004-70/71, U.S.Army Int.Army Agency, Edgewood
Arsenal, MD 4 p. (NTIS/AD-712316).
EcoReference No.: 4157
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
36. Bejarano, A. C., Decho, A. W., and Chandler, G. T. (2005). The Role of Various Dissolved Organic Matter
Forms on Chlorpyrifos Bioavailability to the Estuarine Bivalve Mercenaria mercenaria.
Mar.Emiron.Res. 60: 111-130.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80859
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
37. Bejarano, A. C., Widenfalk, A., Decho, A. W., and Chandler, G. T. (2003). Bioavailability of the
Organophosphorus Insecticide Chlorpyrifos to the Suspension-Feeding Bivalve, Mercenaria
mercenaria, Following Exposure to Dissolved and Paniculate Matter. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 22:
2100-2105.
EcoReference No.: 71715
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
38. Belal, M., Riad, S., El-Husseiny, 0., and Awaad, M. (1982). The Toxicity of Some Insecticides to Fayoumi
Chicks. EgyptJ.Anim.Prod. 22: 127-131.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93344
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ADC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.CEL.BCM; Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ADC,CPY).
39. Bellows, T. S. Jr., Morse, J. G., and Gaston, L. K. (1993). Residual Toxicity of Pesticides Used for
Lepidopteran Insect Control on Citrus to Aphytis melinus DeBach (Hymenoptera: Aphelinidae).
Can.Entomol. 125: 995-1001.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91497
Chemical of Concern: Naled,PRN,MVP,CPY,EFV,FVL,CBL,MOM,TDC,TCF; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR,ACC; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(Naled,CPY,EFV,CBL,MOM,TDC).
40. Berteau, P. E. and Deen, W. A. (1978). A Comparison of Oral and Inhalation Toxicities of Four Insecticides to
Mice and Rats. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 19: 113-120.
EcoReferenceNo.: 35039
Chemical of Concern: RSM,MLN,CPY,Naled; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(RSM,MLN,CPY,Naled).
41. Best, D. W. (1969). Dursban Effective for Mosquito Control in Creek Bottoms and Duck Ponds.
Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 37: 133-134 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 5606
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
42. Bhatnagar, A. and Gupta, A. (1998). Chlorpyriphos, Quinalphos, and Lindane Residues in Sesame Seed and Oil
(Sesamum indicum L.). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 60: 596-600.
EcoReference No.: 47548
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
43. Blackshaw, R. P. and O'Neill, S. (1987). Chlorpyrifos Compost Treatment for Vine Weevil Control: Growth of
Ornamental Plants Compared with an Aldrin Standard. J.Hortic.Sci. 62: 67-69.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 62919
Chemical of Concern: CPY,AND; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
44. Boike, A. H. Jr., Rathburn, C. B. Jr., Lang, K. L., Masters, H. M, and Floore, T. G. (1985). Current Status on
the Florida Abate Monitoring Program - Susceptibility Levels of Three Species of Mosquitoes During
1984. J.Am.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 1:498-501.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11380
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y,MLN,Naled; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NOCONTROL(CPY,Naled,MLN),OK(ABT).
45. Boreham, S. and Birch, P. (1990). Changes in the Macro-Invertebrate Benthos of a Rural Essex Clay Stream
Following Pollution by the Pesticide Dursban. Lond.Nat. 69: 79-84.
EcoReference No.: 62006
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
46. Boreham, S. and Birch, P. (1987). The Use of Indicator Organisms to Assess Aquatic Pollution Following a
Motorway Insecticide Spill. Sci.Total Environ. 59: 477-480.
EcoReference No.: 4147
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
47. Borthwick, P. W. and Walsh, G. E. (1981). Initial Toxicological Assessment of Ambush, Bolero, Bux, Dursban,
Fentrifanil, Larvin, and Pydrin: Static Acute Toxicity Tests with Selected Estuarine . EPA 600/4-81-
076, U.S.EPA, Gulf Breeze, FL 9 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3644
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBC,TDC,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.POP: Rejection
Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,TBC,TDC,PMR).
48. Boumaiza, M., Ktari, M. H., and Vitiello, P. (1979). Toxicity of Several Pesticides Used in Tunisia, for
Aphanius fasciatus Nardo, 1827 (Pisces, Cyprinodontidae). Arch.Inst.Pasteur Tunis 56 : 307-342
(FRE).
EcoReferenceNo.: 5365
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,BT,CPY,DMT,DZ,MLN,PSM,PHMD,OMT; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN,NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
49. Bradbury, S. P., Carlson, R. W., Niemi, G. J., and Henry, T. R. (1991). Use of Respiratory-Cardiovascular
Responses of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Identifying Acute Toxicity Syndromes in
Fish. Part 4. Central Nervous System Seizure Agents. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 10: 115-131.
EcoReferenceNo.: 329
Chemical of Concern: EN,ES,CP Y,STCH,C YP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(CPY),LITE EVAL CODED(CYP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
50. Brazner, J. C., Heinis, L. J., and Jensen, D. A. (1989). A Littoral Enclosure for Replicated Field Experiments.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 8: 1209-1216.
EcoReference No.: 7629
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH,GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
51. Brazner, J. C. and Kline, E. R. (1990). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the Diet and Growth of Larval Fathead
Minnows, Pimephales promelas, in Littoral Enclosures. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 47: 1157-1165.
EcoReferenceNo.: 9157
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,BEH,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
52. Brempong-Yeboah, C. Y., Saito, T., Miyata, T., and Tsubaki, Y. (1982). Topical Toxicity of Some Pyrethroids.
J.Pestic.Sci. 7:47-51.
EcoReference No.: 72072
Chemical of Concern: CPY,PYN,HCCH,PMR,PTR,CHT,FPP,FNV,FNT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
53. Britson, C. A. and Threlkeld, S. T. (2000). Interactive Effects of Anthropogenic, Environmental, and Biotic
Stressors on Multiple Endpoints in Hyla chrysoscelis. J.Iowa Acad.Sci. 107: 61-66.
EcoReference No.: 69857
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,Hg; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR,POP; Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
54. Brock, T. C. M., Roijackers, R. M. M., Rollon, R., Bransen, F., and Van der Heyden, L. (1995). Effects of
Nutrient Loading and Insecticide Application on the Ecology of Elodea-Dominated Freshwater
Microcosms II. Responses of Macrophytes. Arch.Hydrobiol. 134: 53-74.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17409
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,BCM,PHY; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
55. Brock, T. C. M., Van den Bogaert, M., Bos, A. R., Van Breukelen, S. W. F., Reiche, R., and Terwoert, J.
(1992). Fate and Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E in Indoor Elodea-Dominated and Macrophyte-
Free Freshwater Model Ecosystems: II. Secondary Effects on. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 23:
391-409.
EcoReferenceNo.: 6351
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
56. Brock, T. C. M., Vet, J. J. R., Kerkhofs, M. J. J., Lijzen, J., Van Zuilekom, W. J., and Gijlstra, R. (1993). Fate
and Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E in Indoor Elodea-Dominated and Macrophyte-Free
Freshwater Model Ecosystems: III. Aspects of Ecosystem. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 25: 160-
169.
EcoReference No.: 13378
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PRS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
57. Brown, J. R. and Chow, L. Y. (1975). The Effect of Dursban on Micro-Flora in Non-Saline Waters.
Environ.Qual.Saf.Suppl. 3: 774-779.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5136
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
58. Brown, J. R., Chow, L. Y., and Deng, C. B. (1976). The Effect of Dursban upon Fresh Water Phytoplankton.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 15: 437-441 (Author Communication Used) (Publ in Part As 5136).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 5137
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
59. Buchwalter, D. B., Jenkins, J. J., and Curtis, L. R. (2002). Respiratory Strategy is a Major Determinant of
[3H]Water and [14C]Chlorpyrifos Uptake in Aquatic Insects. Can.J.Fish.Aquat.Sci. 59 : 1315-1322.
EcoReference No.: 68323
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
60. Buchwalter, D. B., Jenkins, J. J., and Curtis, L. R. (2003). Temperature Influences on Water Permeability and
Chlorpyrifos Uptake in Aquatic Insects with Differing Respiratory Strategies. Environ.Toxicol.Chem.
22: 2806-2812.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71732
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
61. Buchwalter, D. B., Sandahl, J. F., Jenkins, J. J., and Curtis, L. R. (2004). Roles of Uptake, Biotransformation,
and Target Site Sensitivity in Determining the Differential Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos to Second to
Fourth Instar Chironomous riparius (Meigen). Aquat.Toxicol. 66: 149-157.
EcoReference No.: 72804
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CPYO; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,BCM,GRO,MOR; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY),NO IN VITRO(CPYO).
62. Bulinski, J. and Matthiessen, J. N. (2002). Poor Efficacy of the Insecticide Chlorpyrifos for the Control of
African Black Beetle (Heteronychus arator) in Eucalypt Plantations. Crop Protect. 21: 621-627.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92593
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.MOR.GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
63. Bulinski, J., Matthiessen, J. N., and Alexander, R. (2006). Development of a Cost-Effective, Pesticide-Free
Approach to Managing African Black Beetle (Heteronychus arator) in Australian Eucalyptus
Plantations. Crop Protect. 25: 1161-1166.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92877
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(TARGET-CPY).
64. Buss, D. S., McCaffery, A. R., and Callaghan, A. (2002). Evidence for p-Glycoprotein Modification of
Insecticide Toxicity in Mosquitoes of the Culex pipiens Complex. Med. Vet.Entomol. 16: 218-222.
EcoReference No.: 68925
Chemical of Concern: ES,DDT,CPY,CYP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY; Rejection Code:
NO IN VITRO(CPY,CYP,ES,DDT,FNTH),NO MIXTURE(CPY,CYP,ES,DDT,FNTH).
65. Butcher, J., Boyer, M., and Fowle, C. D. (1975). Impact of Dursban and Abate on Microbial Numbers and
Some Chemical Properties of Standing Ponds. Water Pollut.Res.Can. 10: 33-41.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15067
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PRS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
66. Butcher, J. E., Boyer, M. G., and Fowle, C. D. (1977). Some Changes in Pond Chemistry and Photosynthetic
Activity Following Treatment with Increasing Concentrations of Chlorpyrifos.
Bull.Emiron.Contam.Toxicol. 17: 752-758.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5134
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PRS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
67. Butt, D. J., Kirby, A. H. M., and Williamson, C. J. (1973). Fungitoxic and Phytotoxic Effects of Fungicides
Controlling Powdery Mildew on Apple. Ann.Appl.Biol. 75: 217-228.
EcoReferenceNo.: 25217
Chemical of Concern: BMY,TFR,CPY,DINO,Captan,SFR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
PHY,POP,GRO; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,Captan,TFR).
68. Buznikov, G. A., Nikitina, L. A., Bezuglov, V. V., Lauder, J. M., Padilla, S., and Slotkin, T. A. (2001). An
Invertebrate Model of the Developmental Neurotoxicity of Insecticides: Effects of Chloropyrifos and
Dieldrin in Sea Urchin Embryos and Larvae. Environ.Health Perspect. 109: 651-661.
EcoReference No.: 60948
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DLD; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
69. Calumpang, S. M. F., Medina, M. J. B., Tejada, A. W., and Medina, J. R. (1997). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos,
Fenubucarb, Monocrotophos, and Methyl Parathion to Fish and Frogs After a Simulated Overflow of
Paddy Water. Bull.Emiron.Contam.Toxicol. 58: 909-914.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17983
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY,MP).
70. Carter, F. L. and Graves, J. B. (1972). Measuring Effects of Insecticides on Aquatic Animals. La.Agric. 16: 14-
15.
EcoReferenceNo.: 942
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,AZ,DCTP,CBL,CBF,DDT,TXP,MRX,MLN,MOM,ADC; Habitat:
A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
71. Castillo, L. E., Martinez, E., Ruepert, C., Savage, C., Gilek, M., Pinnock, M., and Solis, E. (2006). Water
Quality and Macroinvertebrate Community Response Following Pesticide Applications in a Banana
Plantation, Limon, Costa Rica. Sci.Total Environ. 367: 418-432.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93203
Chemical of Concern: MZB,CTN,BTN,BMY,CPY,CBF,TBO,CDF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CBF),NO
MIXTURE(MZB,CTN,CPY),NO COC(TBF).
72. Cebrian, C., Andreu-Moliner, E. S., Fernandez-Casalderrey, A., and Ferrando, M. D. (1992). Acute Toxicity
and Oxygen Consumption in the Gills of Procambarus clarkii in Relation to Chlorpyrifos Exposure.
Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 49: 145-149.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5784
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
73. Chambers, J. E., Ma, T., Boone, J. S., and Chambers, H. W. (1994). Role of Detoxication Pathways in Acute
-------
Toxicity Levels of Phosphorothionate Insecticides in the Rat. Life Sci. 54: 1357-1364.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91594
Chemical of Concern: PRN,MP,CPY,CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,CPYM).
74. Chanda, S. M, Lassiter, T. L., Moser, V. C., Barone, S. Jr., and Padilla, S. (2002). Tissue Carboxylesterases
and Chlorpyrifos Toxicity in the Developing Rat. Human Ecol.Risk Assess. 8: 75-90.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92592
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
75. Chandre, F., Darriet, F., Doannio, J. M. C., Riviere, F., Pasteur, N., and Guillet, P. (1997). Distribution of
Organophosphate and Carbamate Resistance in Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) in
West Africa. J.Med.Entomol. 34: 664-671.
EcoReference No.: 73612
Chemical of Concern: TMP,PPX,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,PPX).
76. Chapin, J. W. and Thomas, J. S. (1993). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Pod Damage, Disease Incidence, and Yield
in Two Peanut Fungicide Programs. Peanut Sci. 20: 102-106.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90239
Chemical of Concern: CTN,CPY,TEZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CTN,CPY,TEZ).
77. Chapin, J. W. and Thomas, J. S. (1995). Soil Insecticide and Fungicide Treatment Effects on Peanut Pod
Damage, Disease Incidence, and Yield, 1994. ArthropodManag.Tests 20: 221 (94F).
EcoReferenceNo.: 89794
Chemical of Concern: CTN,PCZ,CPY,TEZ,FTL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
78. Cheikh, H. B., Ali-Haouas, Z. B., Marquine, M., and Pasteur, N. (1998). Resistance to Organophosphorus and
Pyrethroid Insecticides in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae) from Tunisia. J.Med.Entomol. 35: 251-
260.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72631
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDT,PMR,PPB,PPX,TBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,PMR),NO MIXTURE(PPB,TBF).
79. Cheng, T., Bodden, R. M., Puhl, R. J., and Bauriedel, W. R. (1989). Absorption, Distribution, and Metabolism
of [14C]Chlorpyrifos Applied Dermally to Goats. J.Agric.Food Chem. 37: 1108-1111.
EcoReference No.: 67930
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
80. Chesebro, J. W. and Porteous, D. J. (1972). Evaluation of Dursban 2e Emulsifiable Insecticide for Phytotoxicity
to Bentgrass Turf. Down Earth 28: 1-2.
EcoReference No.: 41198
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
-------
81. Chitra, S. and Filial, M. K. K. (1984). Development of Organophosphorus and Carbamate-Resistance in Indian
Strains of Anopheles Stephens! Listen. Proc.Indian Acad.Sci.Anim.Sci. 93: 159-170.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12464
Chemical of Concern: DDT,CBL,MLN,CBF,FNT,TMP,FNTH,CPY,DDVP,PPX; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR.CEL: Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,MLN)LITE EVAL
CODED(CBL,CBF),OK(ALL CHEMS).
82. Cilek, J. E. and Knapp, F. W. (1993). Influence of Insecticide Mixtures Impregnated in Cattle Ear Tags for
Management of Pyrethroid-Resistant Horn Flies (Diptera: Muscidae). J.Econ.Entomol. 86: 444-449.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92604
Chemical of Concern: PMR,CYH,PPB,TBF,CYP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: NO MLXTURE(PPB,TBF,CYP,CPY),NO CONTROL(PMR,CYH).
83. Claborn, H. V., Hoffman, R. A., Mann, H. D., and Oehler, D. D. (1968). Residues of Dursban and Its Oxygen
Analog in the Body Tissues of Treated Cattle. J.Econ.Entomol. 61: 983-986.
EcoReference No.: 36175
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
84. Claborn, H. V., Kunz, S. E., and Mann, H. D. (1970). Residues of Dursban in the Body Tissues of Turkeys
Confined in Pens Containing Treated Soil. J.Econ.Entomol. 63: 422-424.
EcoReferenceNo.: 36177
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
85. Clarke, S. R., DeBarr, G. L., and Liu, T. X. (1992). Contact Toxicities of Five Pyrethroid and Four
Organophosphorous Insecticides to Toumeyella parvicornis (Cockerell) Crawlers. Can.Entomol. 124:
563-564.
EcoReferenceNo.: 88950
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,BFT,ACP,AZ,EFV,FVL,FNV,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(TARGET-ALL CHEMS).
86. Clements, R. 0. and Bale, J. S. (1988). The Short-Term Effects on Birds and Mammals of the Use of
Chlorpyrifos to Control Leatherjackets in Grassland. Ann.Appl.Biol. 112: 41-47.
EcoReferenceNo.: 36198
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
87. Clements, R. 0., Bale, J. S., and Jackson, C. A. (1988). An Appraisal of Methods Used to Assess the Effect on
Birds and Mammals of Chlorpyrifos Applied to Grassland. In: M.P. Greaves, B.D.Smith, and
P.W.Greig-Smith (Eds.), Field Methods for the Study of Environmental Effects of Pesticides,
Proc.Symp., British Crop Protection Council, Churchill College, March 28-30, 1988, Cambridge, UK
57-64.
EcoReference No.: 48293
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
88. Clements, R. 0. and Bentley, B. R. (1983). The Effect of Three Pesticide Treatments on the Establishment of
White Clover (Trifolium repens) Sown with a Slot-Seeder. Crop.Prot. 2: 375-378.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 32269
Chemical of Concern: CBD,MLX,CPY,ADC,MCB; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.POP; Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(CPY,ADC).
89. Cocke, J. Jr., Knutson, R., Lunt, D. K., and Mitchell, F. L. (1990). Changes in Horn Fly Response to Diazinon
and Fenvalerate Following Season Long Exposure to Various Pyrethroid and Organophosphate Ear
Tags on Range Cattle in Texas. Southwest Entomol. 15: 265-271.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92536
Chemical of Concern: FNV,DZ,CYP,LCYT,PIRM,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(FNV,CPY),OK TARGET(CYP,DZ).
90. Costa, L. G. and Murphy, S. D. (1983). Unidirectional Cross-Tolerance Between the Carbamate Insecticide
Propoxur and the Organophosphate Disulfoton in Mice. Fundam.Appl.Toxicol. 3: 483-488.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90683
Chemical of Concern: DS,PPX,MLN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM,MOR,BEH,PHY;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(MLN,CPY),OK(DS).
91. Cowgill, U. M., Gowland, R. T., Ramirez, C. A., and Fernandez, V. (1991). The History of a Chlorpyrifos Spill:
Cartagena, Colombia. Environ.Int. 17:61-71.
EcoReferenceNo.: 61048
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
92. Creffield, J. W. and Chew, N. (1995). Efficacy of Chlorothalonil and Chlorothalonil plus Chlorpyrifos Against
Termite Attack. For.Prod.J. 45: 46-50.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89751
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CTN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.MOR: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(TARGET-CPY).
93. Crum, S. J. H. and Brock, T. C. M. (1994). Fate of Chlorpyrifos in Indoor Microcosms and Outdoor
Experimental Ditches. In: I.R.Hill, F.Heimbach, P.Leeuwangh, and P.Mattieson (Eds.), Freshwater
Field Tests for Hazard Assessment of Chemicals, Lewis Publ., BocaRaton, FL 315-322.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15363
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
94. Crum, S. J. H., Van Kammen-Polman, A. M. M., and Leistra, M. (1999). Sorption of Nine Pesticides to Three
Aquatic Macrophytes. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 37: 310-316.
EcoReference No.: 20580
Chemical of Concern: CPY,LNR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
95. Csinos, A. S. (1985). Nontarget Activity of Chlorpyrifos and Hydrolysis Products on Sclerotium rolfsii. Plant
Dis. 89: 254-256.
EcoReference No.: 69368
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.REP; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
-------
96. Culley, D. D. Jr. and Ferguson, D. E. (1969). Patterns of Insecticide Resistance in the Mosquitofish, Gambusia
affinis. J.Fish.Res.Board Can. 26: 2395-2401.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3664
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CMPH,CPY,MLN,MP,MXC,EN,DLD,HCCH,CHD,PRN,DDT,DZ;
Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
97. Cuppen, J. G. M., Glystra, R., Van Beusekom, S., Budde, B. J., and Brock, T. C. M. (1995). Effects of Nutrient
Loading and Insecticide Application on the Ecology of Elodea-Dominated Freshwater Microcosms III.
Responses of Macroinvertebrate. Arch.Hydrobiol. 134: 157-177.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18910
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,PRS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
98. Curtis, C. F. and Pasteur, N. (1981). Organophosphate Resistance in Vector Populations of the Complex of
CulexpipiensL. (Diptera: Culicidae). Bull.Entomol.Res. 71: 153-161.
EcoReferenceNo.: 17447
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY,MLN).
99. Daglish, G. J., Eelkema, M., and Harrison, L. M. (1996). Control of Sitophilus oryzae (L.) (Coleoptera:
Curculionidae) in Paddy Rice Using Chlorpyrifos-Methyl or Fenitrothion in Combination with Several
Other Protectants. J.StoredProd.Res. 32: 247-253.
EcoReference No.: 69970
Chemical of Concern: RSM,CPY-Methyl; Habitat: T: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE,TARGET(RSM,CPYM).
100. Dalvi, R. R. and Davis, S. W. (1998). Role of beta-Naphthoflavone in the Acute Toxicity of
Chlorpyrifos in Channel Catfish. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 60: 335-339.
EcoReferenceNo.: 18856
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BCM; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
101. Davey, R. B., Meisch, M. V., and Carter, F. L. (1976). Toxicity of Five Ricefield Pesticides to the
Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis, and Green Sunfish, Lepomis cyanellus, Under Laboratory and Field.
Environ.Entomol. 5: 1053-1056.
EcoReferenceNo.: 855
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,MLT,PPN,PRN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(CPY),LITE EVAL CODED(MLT,CBF).
102. Davis, P. M. and Coleman, S. (1997). Managing Corn Rootworms: (Coleoptera chrysomelidae) on
Dairy Farms: The Need for a Soil Insecticide. J.Econ.Entomol. 90: 205-217.
EcoReferenceNo.: 73930
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TFT,TBO,ACR,ATZ,PDM,MTL,DMB,CZE; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
POP,GRO; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(MTL,CPY,TARGET-DMB,ATZ).
DeLorenzo, M. E., Scott, G. I., and Ross, P. E. (1999). Effects of the Agricultural Pesticides Atrazine,
Deethylatrazine, Endosulfan, and Chlorpyrifos on an Estuarine Microbial Food Web.
Emiron.Toxicol.Chem. 18: 2824-2835.
-------
EcoReference No.: 48627
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY,ES,DEATZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,PHY; Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(CPY),LITE EVAL CODED(ATZ,DEATZ),OK(ES).
104. Deneer, J. W. (1994). Bioconcentration of Chlorpyrifos by the Three-Spined Stickleback Under
Laboratory and Field Conditions. Chemosphere 29: 1561-1575.
EcoReference No.: 4983
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
105. Deneer, J. W. (1993). Uptake and Elimination of Chlorpyrifos in the Guppy at Sublethal and Lethal
Aqueous Concentrations. Chemosphere 26: 1607-1616.
EcoReference No.: 8313
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
106. Deneer, J. W., Budde, B. J., and Weijers, A. (1999). Variations in the Lethal Body Burdens of
Organophosphorus Compounds in the Guppy. Chemosphere 38: 1671-1683.
EcoReference No.: 20106
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CP Y,DZ,MDT,MP,PRN,FNF,FNTH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
107. Desmarchelier, J., Bengston, M, Davies, R., Elder, B., Hart, R., Henning, R., Murray, W., Ridley, E.,
Ripp, E., Sierakowski, C., Sticka, R., Snelson, J., Wallbank, B., and Wilson, A. (1987). Assessment of
the Grain Protectants Chlorpyrifos-Methyl plus Bioresmethrin, Fenitrothion plus (IR)-Phenothrin,
Methacrifos and Pirimiphos-Methyl plus Carbaryl Under Practical Conditions in Australia. Pestic.Sci.
20: 271-288.
EcoReference No.: 70095
Chemical of Concern: CBL,PIRM,CPYM,FNT,BRSM,SMT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,REP,ACC; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(CBL,PIRM,CPYM,FNT,BRSM,SMT).
108. Dhembare, A. J. (1998). Evaluation of Safflower Entries and Insecticides Against Safflower Aphid.
J.Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 23: 190-192.
EcoReference No.: 91610
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CYP,DCM,DMT,ES,FNV,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
109. Dickson, D. W. and Hewlett, T. E. (1988). Efficacy of Fumigant and Nonfumigant Nematicides for
Control of Meloidogyne arenaria on Peanut. Ann.Appl.Nematol. 2: 95-101.
EcoReference No.: 87162
Chemical of Concern: PAQT,MB,CPY,ADC,EP,FMP,CTN,CLP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,PAQT,TARGET-CTN),LITE EVAL
CODED(ADC),OK(MB,EP,FMP,CLP).
110. Dong, K. and Scott, J. G. (1992). Synergism of Chlorpyrifos Against the German Cockroach, Blattella
germanica. Med.Vet.Entomol. 6: 241-243.
EcoReference No.: 92646
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBF,PPB,LIM,LIN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(TARGET-CPY),NO MIXTURE(PPB,TBF).
-------
111. Dow Chemical Co. (2000). The Clinical Toxicity of Dursban in the Dog After Multiple Applications
of a Formulation (Final Report) with Cover Sheet (Sanitized). EPA/OTSDoc.#86-890001110s 19 p.
(NTIS/OTS 0520250).
EcoReferenceNo.: 93328
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM.CEL.MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
112. Dutt, N. and Guha, R. S. (1988). Toxicity of Few Organophosphorus Insecticides to Fingerlings of
Bound Water Fishes, Cyprinus carpio (Linn.) and Tilapia mossambica Peters. Indian J.Entomol. 50:
403-421.
EcoReference No.: 45084
Chemical of Concern: PHSL,DMT,MLN,MP,FNT,FNTH,DZ,EPRN,CPY,DDVP,PPHD; Habitat: A;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,MLN,MP),OK(ALL CHEMS).
113. Easterbrook, M. A. (1997). A Field Assessment of the Effects of Insecticides on the Beneficial Fauna
of Strawberry. Crop Prot. 16: 147-152.
EcoReference No.: 67254
Chemical of Concern: DEM,CPY,PIRM,MLN,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(DEM,CPY,PIRM,MLN,CYP).
114. Easterbrook, M. A., Solomon, M. G., Cranham, J. E., and Souter, E. F. (1985). Trials of an Integrated
Pest Management Programme Based on Selective Pesticides in English Apple Orchards. Crop Prot. 4:
215-230.
EcoReferenceNo.: 76518
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,PIM,Captan,ES,CBL,AZ,CHX,CPY,PHSL,DOD; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,CONTROL(ALL CHEMS,TARGET-CBL).
115. El-Guindy, M. A., El-Refai, A.-R. A., and Saleh, W. S. (1982). The Role of Esterases in the Defence
Mechanism Against Intoxication by Fenitrothion in Susceptible and Field Tolerant Strains of
Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. Int.Pest Control 24: 100-108.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92701
Chemical of Concern: MTM,SPS,PFF,PMR,FNV,CYP,CPY,FNT,MOM,TBF,FNT,DCM,EN;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(TBF),NO
MIXTURE(PPB),NO
CONTROL,TARGET(MTM,sps,pff,PMR,FNV,CYP,CPY,FNT,MOM,EN,DCM),OK(FNT).
116. El-Guindy, M. A., Rahman, A., El-Refai, M., and Abdel-Sattar, M. M. (1983). The Pattern of Cross-
Resistance to Insecticides and Juvenile Hormone Analogues in a Diflubenzuron-Resistant Strain of the
Cotton Leaf Worm Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. Pestic.Sci. 14: 235-245.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93120
Chemical of Concern:
TDC,FNT,SPS,MP,PMR,FPP,FVL,DM,CYF,MTPN,DFZ,EN,CYP,DFZ,TBF,FNV,CPY,MOM,PFF;
Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(TBF),NO CONTROL(TARGET-
TDC,MP,PMR,FVL,CYF,MTPN,CYP,FNV,CPY,MOM).
117. El-Khatib, Z. I. and Georghiou, G. P. (1985). Geographic Variation of Resistance to
Organophosphates, Propoxur and DDT in the Southern House Mosquito, Culex quinquefasciatis, in
California. J.Am.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 1:279-283.
EcoReference No.: 11201
-------
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(MLN,CPY,MP).
118. El-Okda, M. M. K., Elewa, M. A. S., Youssef, K. E. H., and Ali, N. M. (1982). The Toxicity of Certain
Insecticides Against the Full Grown Larvae and Pupae of Cotton Leafworm and Its Phytotoxic Effect
on Cotton, Cowpea and Maize Germination. Agric.Res.Rev. 58: 87-95.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93343
Chemical of Concern: FNV,CPY,EN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(FNV,CPY).
119. Ellis, S. A., Clements, R. 0., and Bale, J. S. (1985). The Interaction of seed rate and Pesticide Use on
the Herbage Yield of Newly-sown Grass. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 6: 130-131.
EcoReferenceNo.: 31245
Chemical of Concern: ADC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
120. Elsebae, A. A. (1994). Comparative Susceptibility of the Alareesh Marine Culture Center Shrimp
Penaeus japonicus and the Brine Shrimp Artemia salina to Different Insecticides and Heavy Metals.
Alexandria Sci.Exch.J. 15: 425-435.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93420
Chemical of Concern: PbN,CdCl,AlCl,FNT,MLN,ES,MOM,CYP,CPY,DFZ; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(MLN,MOM,CYP,CPY).
121. EPA/OTS (2000). Summary of a Study on the Environmental Fate and Effects of the Pesticide
Chlorpyrifos. EPA/OTSDoc.#40-844215972p. (NTIS/OTS 0519192).
EcoReferenceNo.: 93500
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
122. Estevez de Jensen, C., Percich, J. A., and Graham, P. H. (2002). Integrated Management Strategies of
Bean Root Rot with Bacillus subtilis and Rhizobium in Minnesota. Field Crops Res. 74: 107-115.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92817
Chemical of Concern: Captan,CPY,MLX,STRP,THM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: NO TOX DATA(CPY),OK(Captan),NO MIXTURE(THM).
123. Farnet, A. M., Criquet, S., Cigna, M., Gil, G., and Ferre, E. (2004). Purification of a Laccase from
Marasmius quercophilus Induced with Ferulic Acid: Reactivity Towards Natural and Xenobiotic
Aromatic Compounds. Enzyme Microb.Technol. 34: 549-554.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92879
Chemical of Concern: NaN3; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: NO COC(CPY).
124. Ferguson, D. E., Gardner, D. T., and Lindley, A. L. (1966). Toxicity of Dursban to Three Species of
Fish. Mosq.News 26: 80-82.
EcoReference No.: 3513
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
125. Fish and Wildlife Service (1968). Field Appraisal of Tests to Control Salt Marsh Mosquitoes with
Dursban Applied as a Larvicide and Adulticide in Florida. U.S.Fish.Wildl.Serv.Spec.Rep., U.S.D.I.,
-------
Bur.SportFish.Wildl., Atlanta, GA 17 p.
EcoReference No.: 13411
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
126. Fitzpatrick, G. and Sutherland, D. J. (1978). Effects of the Organophosphorous Insecticides Temephos
(Abate) and Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) on Populations of the Salt-Marsh Snail Melampus bidentatus.
Mar.Biol. 46: 23-28.
EcoReference No.: 5142
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
127. Forgash, A. J. (1976). A Summary of Studies of the Impact of Temephos and Chlorpyrifos on the
Saltmarsh Environment. In: Proc.63rd Annu.Meeting of the New Jersey Mosq.Extermin.Assoc.: 94-98.
EcoReference No.: 61815
Chemical of Concern: DDT,TMP,CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: BCM.POP.MOR; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
128. Francis, B. M, Metcalf, R. L., and Hansen, L. G. (1985). Toxicity of Organophosphorus Esters to
Laying Hens After Oral and Dermal Administration. J.Environ.Sci.Health 20B: 73-95.
EcoReference No.: 36676
Chemical of Concern: EP,TCF,TBO,FNTH,CPY,DEF,DDVP,DMT,IFP,TVP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: GRO,PHY,BEH,MOR,REP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
129. Frank, A. M. and Sjogren, R. D. (1978). Effect of Temephos and Chlorpyrifos on Crustacea.
Mosq.NewsW: 138-139.
EcoReference No.: 5130
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
130. Fu, A. L., Wang, Y. X., and Sun, M. J. (2005). Naked DNA Prevents Soman Intoxication.
Biochem.Biophys.Res.Commun. 328: 901-905.
EcoReference No.: 92878; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY: Rejection Code: NO COC(CPY).
131. Fytizas, R. and Vassiliou, G. (1980). The Influence of the Herbicide Trifluralin on Flagellar
Regeneration in Chlamydomonas. Meded.Fac.Landbouwkd.Toegep.Biol. Wet. Univ.Gent 45: 923-927
(FRE).
EcoReference No.: 6472
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT,TFN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
132. Gemel, J., Waters-Earhart, B., Sanders, P. S., Lower, W. R., and Ellersieck, M. R. (1997). Effect of
Pentachlorophenate, Chlorpyrifos and Lead Chloride on Chlorophyll Fluorescence.
J.Environ.Sci.HealthPartA 32: 543-565.
EcoReference No.: 64838
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Pb,PCP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,PCP).
-------
133. Gentile, J. M, Gentile, G. J., Bultman, J., Sechriest, R., Wagner, E. D., and Plewa, M. J. (1982). An
Evaluation of the Genotoxic Properties of Insecticides Following Plant and Animal Activation.
Mutat.Res. 101: 19-29.
EcoReference No.: 79052
Chemical of Concern: PRT,CBF,EP,CPY,CHD,MT AS; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL,PHY;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(PRT,CBF,CPY),OK(CHD,EP),OK TARGET(MTAS).
134. Gentile, J. M. and Plewa, M. J. (1983). The Maize-Microbe Bioassay: A Unique Approach to
Environmental Mutagenesis. NATO Conf.Ser 5a: 151-165.
EcoReference No.: 93306
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CBF,PRT,HPT,PCH,CHD,TBO,FNF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: CEL;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,CBF,PRT).
135. Georghiou, G. P., Gillies, P. A., and Womeldorf, D. J. (1969). Culex tarsalis Coquillett: Detection of
Resistance to Parathion, Methyl Parathion, Fenthion, Dursban, and Abate in a Malathion-Resistant
Population. Calif. Vector Views 16:115-118.
EcoReference No.: 62411
Chemical of Concern: PRN,MP,CPY,MLN; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(MP,CPY,MLN).
136. Giraddi, R. S., Dasareddy, S. V., and Lingappa, S. L. (2002). Bioefficacy of New Molecules of
Insecticides Against Gram Pod-Borer (Helicoverpa armigera) in Pigeonpea (Cajanus cajan). Indian
JAgric.Sci. 72:311-312.
EcoReference No.: 82560
Chemical of Concern: MFZ,MOM,LUF,TDC,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.REP; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MFZ,MOM,LUF,TDC),NO MIXTURE(CPY).
137. Glez, C. 0., Hernandez, A. G., Rodriguez, M. P. 0., Suarez, R. M., and Vila, M. G. (1998).
Degradation Studies of Commonly Used Pesticides in Banana Plantations in the Canary Islands. Ada
Hortic. 490: 395-405.
User 1 Abbreviation: www.sciencedirect.com
EcoReference No.: 93342
Chemical of Concern: TCF,CPY,MP,DZ,DMT,PIRM,FNT,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,MP,DZ,DMT,MLN).
138. Gomez, L., Masot, J., Soler, F., Martinez, S., Duran, E., and Roncero, V. (1998). Histopathological
Lesions in Tench, Tinea tinea (L.), Kidney Following Exposure to Chlorpyrifos. Pol.Arch.Hydrobiol.
45: 371-382.
EcoReference No.: 72905
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,CEL,GRO,BEH,MOR; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
139. Gordon, C. J. and Grantham, T. A. (1999). Effect of Central and Peripheral Cholinergic Antagonists on
Chlorpyrifos-Induced Changes in Body Temperature in the Rat. Toxicology 142: 15-28.
EcoReference No.: 49651
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
140. Gordon, C. J. and Padnos, B. K. (2000). Prolonged Elevation in Blood Pressure in the Unrestrained Rat
-------
Exposed to Chlorpyrifos. Toxicology 146: 1-13.
EcoReference No.: 49652
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH.PHY: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
141. Gore, A. C. (2001). Environmental Toxicant Effects on Neuroendocrine Function. Endocrine 14:
235-246.
EcoReference No.: 69251
Chemical of Concern: PCB,CPY,MXC; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.REP: Rejection Code: NO
REVIEW.
142. Grafton-Cardwell, E. E., Morse, J. G., and Gjerde, A. (1998). Effect of Insecticide Treatments to
Reduce Infestation by Citrus Thrips (Thysanoptera: Thripidae) on Growth of Nonbearing Citrus.
J.Econ.Entomol. 91: 235-242.
EcoReference No.: 82778
Chemical of Concern: MLSS,MOM,Naled,MLN,FVL,DMT,SBDA,CBL,FO,CPY,ACP,FTT; Habitat:
T; Effect Codes: GRO,REP,POP; Rejection Code: NO MIXTURE(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CBL).
143. Grafton-Cardwell, E. E., Ouyang, Y., and Salse, J. (1998). Insecticide Resistance and Esterase Enzyme
Variation in the California Red Scale (Homoptera: Diaspididae). J.Econ.Entomol. 91: 812-819.
EcoReference No.: 92895
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(TARGET-CBL,CPY),NOMIXTURE(TBF).
144. Grant, B. F. and Mehrle, P. M. (1970). Pesticide Effects on Fish Endocrine Function. In:
Resour.Publ.No.88, Prog.SportFish.Res.1969, Div.Fish.Res., Bur.SportFish.Wildl, U.S.D.I.,
Washington, D.C.: 13-15.
EcoReference No.: 17208
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,24DXY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: REP.BCM: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(MLN,24DXY),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
145. Guilhermino, L., Diamantino, T., Silva, M. C., and Scares, A. M. V. M. (2000). Acute Toxicity Test
with Daphnia magna: An Alternative to Mammals in the Prescreening of Chemical Toxicity?
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 46: 357-362.
EcoReference No.: 49794
Chemical of Concern: CPY,CuS,NaCr,PRN,Hg,Cr,Zn,Cd,NaBr; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
146. Haga, T., Tsujii, Y., Hayashi, K., Kimura, F., Sakashita, N, and Fujikawa, K. I. (1990).
Trifluoromethylpyridines as Building Blocks for a New Agrochemicals. Discovery of a New Turf
Herbicide. In: D.R.Baker, J.G.Fenyes and W.K.Moberg (Eds.), ACS (Am.Chem.Soc.)
Symp.Ser.No.443, Chapter 9, Synthesis and Chemistry of Agrochemicals II, Meet. Am.Chem.Soc.,
Washington, D.C. 107-120.
EcoReference No.: 74373
Chemical of Concern: DFZ,FNV,PMR,DCM,CPYM,MOM,ACP,DDVP,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(MOM,TARGET-DZ,ACP,CPYM,FNV).
147. Hamed, M. S., Ramzi, A., and El Said, S. (1983). Susceptibility Status of Mosquitoes in Egypt to
Commonly Used Insectides. J.Egypt.Public Health Assoc. 58: 160-167.
-------
EcoReference No.: 17815
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,DLD,FNTH,TMP,DDT; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(TARGET-MLN),NO CONTROL,NO DURATION(CPY).
148. Hamlen, R. A. and Henley, R. W. (1976). Phytotoxicity to Tropical Foliage Plants of Repeated
Insecticide and Miticide Applications Under Fiberglass-Covered Greenhouse Conditions.
Proc.Fla.State Hortic.Soc. 89: 336-338.
EcoRef erence No.: 25150
Chemical of Concern: RSM,OML,ACP,CPY,DMT,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,GRO;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS)JARGET(CBL).
149. Han II, R., Shim, J. C., Hong, H. K., Lee, J. S., Cho, H. W., and Kim, C. L. (1981). Studies on Control
Effects of Pesticide Applications Against the Vector Mosquito Larvae in Rice Fields in Korea. Korean
J.Entomol. 11: 39-45.
EcoRef erence No.: 10440
Chemical of Concern: MLN,DZ,ABT,FNT,CPY,CBL,TMP,CPYM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR.POP: Rejection Code: LITEEVAL CODED(DZ),OK(ABT,FNT),NO
ENDPOINT(CBL,MLN,CPY,CPYM).
150. Hansen, D. J. (1969). Avoidance of Pesticides by Untrained Sheepshead Minnows.
Trans.Am.Fish.Soc. 98: 426-429.
EcoRef erence No.: 5145
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,CBL,CPY,MLN,DDT,EN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection
Code: NO CONTROL(CBL),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,MLN).
151. Hansen, D. J., Matthews, E., Nail, S. L., and Dumas, D. P. (1972). Avoidance of Pesticides by
Untrained Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 8: 46-51.
EcoRef erence No.: 5147
Chemical of Concern: DDT,CBL,EN,MLN,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(MLN),OK(DDT,CBL,EN),NO CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
152. Hansen, D. J., Schimmel, S. C., and Keltner, J. M. Jr. (1973). Avoidance of Pesticides by Grass Shrimp
(Palaemonetespugio). Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 9: 129-133.
EcoRef erence No.: 5146
Chemical of Concern: 24DXY,CBL,CPY,MLN,DDT,EN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,MLN).
153. Harris, C. R. and Gore, F. (1971). Toxicological Studies on Cutworms. VIII. Toxicity of Three
Insecticides to the Various Stages in the Development of the Darksided Cutworm. J.Econ.Entomol.
64: 1049-1050.
EcoRef erence No.: 37009
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(TARGET-CPY).
154. Harris, C. R. and Svec, H. J. (1968). Toxicological Studies on Cutworms. IV. Laboratory
Investigations on the Toxicity of Insecticides to the Variegated Cutworm with Special Reference to
Method of Application on Insecticidal Activity. J.Econ.Entomol. 61: 970-973.
EcoReference No.: 44296
-------
Chemical of Concern: DDT,MOM,AND,PRN,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
155. Harris, C. R., Svec, H. J., Sans, W. W., Hikichi, A., Phatak, S. C., Frank, R., and Braun, H. E. (1975).
Efficacy, Phytotoxicity, and Persistance of Insecticides Used As Pre- and Postplanting Treatments for
Control of Cutworms Attacking Vegetables in Ontario. P.Ent.S.Ont. 105: 65-75.
EcoReferenceNo.:41180
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
156. Hazeleur, W. C. (1971). Use of Dursban for Mosquito Control in Log Ponds in the Shasta Mosquito
Abatement District. Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosquito Control Assoc. 39: 47.
EcoReference No.: 62390
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,CONTROL(CPY).
157. Hegazi, M. A. M., El-Shourbagy, I. K., and Abdel-Ghaffar, K. M. (1989). Chronic Dursban Effects on
Carbohydrate Metabolism in Juvenile Catfish Clarias lazera. Delta J.Sci. 13: 510-523.
EcoReference No.: 72843
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
158. Hellman, J. L. and Patton, T. W. (1988). Control of Green June Beetle Grubs on a Golf Course, 1986.
InsecticAcaric.Tests 13: 363 (No. 68G).
EcoReference No.: 88823
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CBL,IZF,CYF,ACP,TCF,CPY,PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
159. Helyer, N. L. (1990). Evaluation of Phytotoxicity of Pesticides to Protected Edible Crops. Tests
Agrochem.Cultiv. 11: 82-83.
EcoReference No.: 93376
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDVP,PBT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.GRO: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
160. Hemmer, M. J., Middaugh, D. P., and Comparetta, V. (1992). Comparative Acute Sensitivity of Larval
Topsmelt, Atherinops affinis, and Inland Silverside, Menidia beryllina, to 11 Chemicals.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 11: 401-408 (OECDG Data File).
EcoReference No.: 13112
Chemical of Concern: NaLS,4NP,FNV,ES,MXC,AZ,CPY,TBO,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(AZ),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO CONTROL(FNV,CPY).
161. Herin, R. A., Suggs, E., Lores, E. M., Heiderscheit, L. T., Farmer, J. D., and Prather, D. (1978).
Correlation of Salt Gland Function with Levels of Chlorpyrifos in the Feed of Mallard Ducklings.
Pestic.Biochem.Physiol. 9: 157-164.
EcoReference No.: 35235
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
162. Herzberg, A. M. (1987). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos (Dursban) in Oreochromis aureus and 0. niloticus
and Data on its Residues in 0. aureus. Bamidgeh 39(1): 13-20.
-------
EcoReference No.: 2074
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
163. Ho, 0. K., Ming, C. L., and Lok, C. K. (1981). Current Insecticidal Susceptibility Status of Mosquitoes
in Singapore. Southeast Asian J.Trop.Med.Public Health 12: 222-227.
EcoReference No.: 72098
Chemical of Concern: DDT,DLD,HCCH,CPY,RSM,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(DDT,DLD,HCCH,CPY,RSM,MLN).
164. Hogmire, H. W. and Winfield, T. (1997). IGR Evaluation Experiment 1, 1996. Arthropod
Manag.Tests 22: 6-7 (7A).
EcoReference No.: 90427
Chemical of Concern: CPY,AZ,IMC,TUZ,MZB,Ziram; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
165. Holbrook, F. R. and Agun, S. K. (1984). Field Trials of Pesticides to Control Larval Culicoides
variipennis (Ceratopogonidae). Mosq.News 44: 233-235 .
EcoReference No.: 14748
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNTH,TMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
166. Holcombe, G. W., Phipps, G. L., and Tanner, D. K. (1982). The Acute Toxicity of Kelthane, Dursban,
Disulfoton, Pydrin, and Permethrin to Fathead Minnows Pimephales promelas and Rainbow Trout
Salmo gairdneri. Environ.Pollut.Ser.A 29: 167-178.
EcoReference No.: 10536
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DS,PMR; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
167. Holladay, S. D., Smith, S. A., El Habback, H., and Caceci, T. (1996). Influence of Chlorpyrifos, an
Organophosphate Insecticide, on the Immune System of Nile Tilapia. J.Aquat.Anim.Health 8: 104-
110.
EcoReference No.: 18772
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO.MOR.CEL.PHY: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
168. Howitt, A. and Biddinger, D. J. (1988). Apple, Insecticide Evaluation, 1987. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 13:
14 (No. 13A).
EcoReference No.: 88830
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,PSM,DMT,FVL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS,TARGET-CBL,DMT,FVL,CPY).
169. Hoy, J. B., Kauffman, E. E., and O'Berg, A. G. (1972). A Large-Scale Field Test of Gambusia affinis
and Chlorpyrifos for Mosquito Control. Mosq.News 32: 161-171.
EcoReference No.: 13959
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
170. Hudson, J. E. (1983). Susceptibility of Aedes aegypti and Culex quinquefasciatus to Insecticides in
Paramaribo, Suriname, 1979-1981, and Experimental Selection for Resistance. Cah.Orstom,
Ser.EntomolMed.Parasitol. 21: 275-279.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89136
Chemical of Concern: DDT,DLD,CPY,FNT,MLN,TMP,PPX; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
171. Hughes, D. N. (1977). The Effects of Three Organophosphorus Insecticides on Zooplankton and Other
Invertebrates in Natural and Artificial Ponds. M.S.Thesis, York University, Toronto, CanadA 100 p.
EcoReference No.: 7862
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
172. Hughes, D. N., Boyer, M. G., Papst, M. H., Fowle, C. D., Rees, G. A. V., and Baulu, P. (1980).
Persistence of Three Organophosphorus Insecticides in Artificial Ponds and Some Biological
Implications. Arch.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 9: 269-279.
EcoReference No.: 5135
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
173. Hughes, J. M., Griffiths, M. W., and Harrison, D. A. (1992). The Effects of an Organophosphate
Insecticide on Two Enzyme Loci in the Shrimp Caradina sp. Biochem.Syst.Ecol. 20: 89-97.
EcoReferenceNo.: 11165
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
174. Hunt, J. W., Anderson, B. S., Phillips, B. M., Nicely, P. N., Tjeerdema, R. S., Puckett, H. M.,
Stephenson, M., Worcester, K., and De Vlaming, V. (2003 ). Ambient Toxicity Due to Chlorpyrifos
and Diazinon in a Central California Coastal Watershed. EnvironMonit.Assess. 82: 83-112.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93422
Chemical of Concern: DDD,DDT,DDE,EN,DLD,Zn,Cu,Cr,MOM,Du,MP,CBF,DZ,CPY,CuCl;
Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: OK(CuCl),NO
MIXTURE(Cu,Cr,MOM,Du,MP,CBF,DZ,CPY).
175. Hunt, L. M., Gilbert, B. N., and Schlinke, J. C. (1969). Rapid Gas Chromatographic Method for
Analysis of 0,0-Diethyl 0-3,5-6-Trichloro-2-Pyridyl Phosphorothioate (Dursban) in Turkey and
Chicken Tissues. J.Agric.Food C'hem. 17: 1166-1167.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37212
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
176. Hurlbert, S. H. (1969). The Impact of Dursban on Pond Ecosystems.
Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq.ControlAssoc. 8: 37 (ABS).
EcoReferenceNo.: 14510
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO DURATION(CPY).
177. Hussein, S. M., Makadey, M. A., and Abd El-Alim, A. A. (1994). Susceptibility of Cotton Whitefly,
Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Aleyrodidae, Homoptera) to Selected Insecticides, Their Mixtures and Their
-------
Synergism with DBF. Shashpa 1: 69-74.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92648
Chemical of Concern: TBF,CYP,FNV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(TARGET-CYP,CPY,FNV),NOMLXTURE(TBF).
178. Ivey, M. C. and Palmer, J. S. (1981). Chlorpyrifos and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-Pyridinol: Residues in the
Body Tissues of Sheep Treated with Chlorpyrifos for Sheep Ked Control. J.Econ.Entomol. 74: 136-
137.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37267
Chemical of Concern: CPYJCP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,TCP).
179. Ivey, M. C., Palmer, J. S., and Hooten, E. C. (1978). Chlorpyrifos and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-Pyridinol:
Residues in the Body Tissues of Cattle Wearing Chlorpyrifos-Impregnated Plastic Ear Bands.
J.Econ.Entomol. 71: 697-700.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37268
Chemical of Concern: CPYJCP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,TCP).
180. Iwata, Y., O'Neal, J. R., Barkley, J. H., Dinoff, T. M., and Dusch, M. E. (1983). Chlorpyrifos Applied
to California Citrus: Residue Levels on Foliage and on and in Fruit. J.Agric.Food Chem. 31: 603-610.
EcoReference No.: 67233
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
181. Jamnback, H. and Frempong-Boadu, J. (1966). Testing Blackfly Larvicides in the Laboratory and in
Streams. Bull.W.H.O. 34: 405-421.
EcoReference No.: 2837
Chemical of Concern: Naled,CBL,CPY,DZ,MDT,DMT,ATM,ABT,PPX,PSM; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: BEH.POP: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
182. Jarvinen, A. W., Nordling, B. R., and Henry, M. E. (1983). Chronic Toxicity of Dursban
(Chlorpyrifos) to the Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) and the Resultant Acetylcholinesterase
Inhibition. Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 7: 423-434.
EcoReferenceNo.: 10473
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.GRO.REP.BCM.ACC: Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
183. Jarvinen, A. W. and Tanner, D. K. (1982). Toxicity of Selected Controlled Release and Corresponding
Unformulated Technical Grade Pesticides to the Fathead Minnow Pimephales promelas.
Environ.Pollut.Ser.A 27: 179-195.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15462
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(MP),LITE EVAL CODED(DZ),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
184. Jarvinen, A. W., Tanner, D. K., and Kline, E. R. (1988). Toxicity of Chlorpyrifos, Endrin, or
Fenvalerate to Fathead Minnows Following Episodic or Continuous Exposure.
Ecotoxicol.Environ.Saf. 15: 78-95.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 12885
Chemical of Concern: CPY,EN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,GRO; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
185. Jensen, D. A. and Brazner, J. C. (1988). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on Macroinvertebrates in Littoral
Enclosures. Can.Tech.Rep.Fish.Aquat.Sci.No. 1607: 101-107.
EcoReferenceNo.: 13249
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
186. Jimenez, E. C. and Pocsidio, G. N. (1994). Blood Glucose Levels of Oreochromis niloticus Exposed to
Chloropyriphos. Philipp.J.Sci. 123: 171-175.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93341
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
187. Jin, Q. (1997). Effect of Thiocarbamate Herbicides on Chick Embryos. Ph.D.Thesis, Univ. of Kansas,
KSl76p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89017
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,MLO,PRN,CBL,MLT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
BCM,GRO,CEL; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN),OK(MLT),NO
ENDPOINT(MLO,CBL,CPY,PRN).
188. Jirasek, J., Adamek, Z., Nguyen, X. T., and Holcman, 0. (1980). Estimation of the Acute Toxicity of
the Insecticide Dursban for Fish. (Stanoveni Akutni Toxicity Insecticidu Dursban Pro Ryby.). Acta
Univ.Agric.Fac.Agron.(1978) /Pestab 26: 51-56(CZE)(ENG ABS).
EcoReferenceNo.: 5126
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO
DURATION(CPY).
189. Johnson, C. R. (1977). The Effect of Exposure to the Organophosphorus Insecticide Chlorpyrifos on
the Feeding Rate in the Mosquitofish, Gambusia affinis. Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq. Vector
Control Assoc. 45: 69-70.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14508
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
190. Johnson, C. R. (1978). The Effect of Five Organophosphorus Insecticides on Survival and
Temperature Tolerance in the Copepod, Macrocyclops albidus (Copepoda: Cyclopidae).
Zool.J.Linn.Soc. 64: 59-62.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5172
Chemical of Concern: ABT,MLN,FNTH,MP,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,BEH; Rejection
Code: OK(FNTH),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,ABT,MLN,MP).
191. Johnson, C. R. (1977). The Effects of Field Applied Rates of Five Organophosphorus Insecticides on
Thermal Tolerance, Orientation, and Survival in Gambusia affinis affinis (Pisces: Poeciliidae).
Proc.Pap.Annu.Conf.Calif.Mosq. Vector Control Assoc. 45: 56-58.
EcoReference No.: 7504
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MLN,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
-------
EVAL CODED(MLN),NO CONTROL(MP),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
192. Johnson, C. R. (1980). The Effects of Five Organophosphorus Insecticides on Thermal Stress in
Tadpoles of the Pacific Tree Frog, Hyla regilla. 2ool.J.Linn.Soc. 69: 143-147.
EcoReferenceNo.: 50673
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP,MLN,FNTH,TMP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,PHY,MOR;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,MP,MLN).
193. Johnson, C. R. (1978). The Effects of Sublethal Concentrations of Five Organophosphorus Insecticides
on Temperature Tolerance, Reflexes, and Orientation in Gambusia affinis affinis (Pisces: Poeciliidae).
2oolJ.Linn.Soc. 64: 63-70.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5149
Chemical of Concern: MP,ABT,MLN,FNTH,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH, AC C; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(MP,ABT,MLN,FNTH,CPY).
194. Johnson, C. R. and Prine, J. E. (1976). The Effects of Sublethal Concentrations of Organophosphorus
Insecticides and an Insect Growth Regulator on Temperature Tolerance in Hydrated and Dehydrated
Juvenile Western Toads, Bufo boreas. Comp.Biochem.Physiol. 53: 147-149.
EcoReferenceNo.: 7814
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y,MTPN,MP,CPYM,FNTH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,MP,MTPN).
195. Johnson, J. C. Jr., Bowman, M. C., and Leuck, D. B. (1969). Responses from Cows fed Silages
Containing Dursban Residues. J.Dairy Sci. 52: 1253-1258.
EcoReferenceNo.: 37335
Chemical of Concern: CPYM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC.BCM.PHY: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPYM).
196. Johnston, G., Walker, C. H., and Dawson, A. (1994). Interactive Effects Between EBI Fungicides
(Prochloraz, Propiconazole and Penconazole) and OP Insecticides (Dimethoate, Chlorpyrifos,
Diazinon and Malathion) in the Hybrid Red-Legged Partridge. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 13: 615-620.
EcoReference No.: 67235
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DMT,PCZ,DZ,MLN; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code:
NO MIXTURE(PCZ),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,DZ,PCZ,DMT,MLN).
197. Johnston, G., Walker, C. H., Dawson, A., and Furnell, A. (1990). Interactive Effects of Pesticides in
the Hybrid Red-Legged Partridge. Funct.Ecol. 4: 309-314.
EcoReference No.: 69372
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,DMT,MLN,MLO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN),OK(CBL),NO CONTROL(DMT,CPY,MLO).
198. Jokanovic, M. and Maksimovic, M. (1995). A Comparison of Trimedoxime, Obidoxime, Pralidoxime
and HI-6 in the Treatment of Oral Organophosphorus Insecticide Poisoning in the Rat. Arch. Toxicol.
70: 119-123.
EcoReference No.: 74883
Chemical of Concern:
DMT,DDW,FNT,PPHD,FNTH,TCF,PRIM,DZ,PRT,DEM,AZ,CPY,PSM,PHSL,MLN; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
-------
199. Jones, K. H., Sanderson, D. M, and Noakes, D. N. (1968). Acute Toxicity Data for Pesticides (1968).
World Rev.Pest Control!: 135-143.
EcoReference No.: 70074
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,ABT,ACL,ADC,AMTL,AMTR,AND,ASM,ATN,ATZ,AZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BTY,Captan,
CBL,CCA,CHD,CMPH,CPP,CPY,CQTC,CTHM,Cu,CuFRA,DBN,DCB,DCNA,DDD,DDT,DDW,D
EM,DINO,DLD,DMB,DMT,DOD,DPPl,DQTBr,DS,DU,DZ,DZM,EDT,EN,EP,EPTC,ES,ETN,FLA
C,FMU,FNF,FNT,FNTH,Folpet,HCCH,HPT,LNR,Maneb,MCB,MCPA,MCPB,MCPPlMDT,MLH,M
LN,MLT,MRX,MTM,MW,MXC,Naled,NPM,PB,PCH,PCL,PCP,PEB,PHMD,PHSL,PMT,PPHD,PP
N,PPX,PPZ,PQT,PRN,PRO,PRT,PYN,PYZ,RTN,SFT,SID,SZ,TCF,TFN,THM,TRB,TRL,TXP,VNT,
Zineb; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO PUBL
AS(24DXY,ABT,ACL,AMTL,AMTR,ASM,ATN,AZ,BFL,BMC,BMN,BS,BTY,CCA,CMPH,CPP,C
PY,CQTC,CTHM,DBN,DCB,DCNA,DDT,DINO,DOD,DPPl,DQTBr,DU,DZM,EP,EPTC,ES,FMU,F
NF,FNT,Folpet,HCCH,HPT,LNR,MCB,MCPPl,MLT,MP,MRX,MTM,MXC,Naled,NPM,Pb,PCH,PC
L,PEB,PHSL,PPN,PPZ,PQT,PRO,PYN,PYZ,RTN,RYA,SFT,SID,TFN,THM,TRL,VNT),NO
CONTROL,DURATION(ALL CHEMS).
200. Jose, R., Galindo, G., Medina, J. A., and Villagrana, L. C. (1996). Physiological and Biochemical
Changes in Shrimp Larvae (Penaeus vannamei) intoxicated with Organochlorine Pesticides.
Mar.Pollut.Bull. 32: 872-875.
EcoReference No.: 19959
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: CEL,PHY; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
201. Joshi, P. K. and Kulkarni, J. H. (1987). Effect of Pesticides on Growth of Rhizobium spp. Pesticides
21: 10.
EcoReference No.: 93308
Chemical of Concern: THM,CBF,CPY,ADC,PRT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(CBF,CPY,THM,PRT,ADC).
202. Kale, S. P., Sherkhane, P. D., and Murthy, N. B. K. (2002). Uptake of (14)C-Chlorpyrifos by Clams.
Environ.Technol. 23: 1309-1311.
EcoReference No.: 82260
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
203. Karanth, S., Liu, J., Olivier, K. Jr., and Pope, C. (2004). Interactive Toxicity of the Organophosphorus
Insecticides Chlorpyrifos and Methyl Parathion in Adult Rats. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 196: 183-190.
EcoReference No.: 91450
Chemical of Concern: CPY,MP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR.PHY: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(CPY,MP).
204. Karen, D. J., Joab, B. M., Wallin, J. M., and Johnson, K. A. (1998). Partitioning of Chlorpyrifos
Between Water and an Aquatic Macrophyte (Elodea densa). Chemosphere 37: 1579-1586.
EcoReference No.: 2451
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
205. Kelada, N. L. and Shaker, N. (1988). Toxicity of Three Chemical Insecticides in Combination with
Bacillus spp. Against Mosquito Larvae. Insect Sci.Appl. 9:229-231.
-------
EcoReference No.: 769
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
206. Kenaga, E. E., Whitney, W. K., Hardy, J. L., and Doty, A. E. (1965). Laboratory Tests with Dursban
Insecticide. J.Econ.Entomol. 58: 1043-1050.
EcoReference No.: 13529
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
207. Kersting, K. (1991). Microecosystem State and Its Response to the Introduction of a Pesticide.
Verh.M.Ver.Limnol. 24: 2309-2312.
EcoReference No.: 63204
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: SYS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
208. Kersting, K. (1995). Problems Induced by the use of Acetone as a Solvent to Dose Chlorpyrifos in a
Microecosystem. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 14: 1061-1063.
EcoReference No.: 18050
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
209. Kersting, K. and Van den Brink, P. J. (1997). Effects of the Insecticide Dursban 4E (Active Ingredient
Chlorpyrifos) in Outdoor Experimental Ditches: Responses of Ecosystem Metabolism.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 16: 251-259.
EcoReference No.: 17661
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PRS; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
210. Khan, M. A. Q. (1977). Elimination of Pesticides by Aquatic Animals. In: M.A.Q.Khan (Ed.),
Pesticides in Aquatic Environments, Plenum Press, NY 107-125.
EcoReference No.: 4929
Chemical of Concern:
24DXY,DZ,CPY,AZ,PRN,MXC,EDT,HPT,DDT,DLD,HCCH,CHD,SZ,MLN,As; Habitat: A; Effect
Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
211. Khayrandish, A. and Wood, R. J. (1993). A Multiple Basis for Insecticide Resistance in a Strain of
Culex quinquefasciatus (Diptera: Culicidae) from Muheza, Tanzania, Studied as Resistance.
Bull.Entomol.Res. 83: 75-86.
EcoReference No.: 17296
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY),NO COC(TBF).
212. Kikuchi, M., Miyagaki, T., and Wakabayashi, M. (1996). Evaluation of Pesticides Used in Golf Links
by Acute Toxicity Test on Rainbow Trout. Bull. Jpn.Soc.Sci.Fish.(Nippon Suisan Gakkaishi) 62: 414-
419(JPN)(ENGABS).
EcoReference No.: 18916
Chemical of Concern: CPY,BFL,BS,CAPTAN,IFP,PDM,FTL,TCF,FNT,DZ,CTN,MCPP1; Habitat:
-------
A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,BS,Captan).
213. Kim, W.-S., Yoon, S. J., and Yang, D.-B. (2004). Effects of Chlorpyrifos on the Endogenous Rhythm
of the Manila Clam, Ruditapes philippinarum (Bivalvia: Veneridae). Mar.Pollut.Bull. 48: 182-187.
EcoReferenceNo.: 72617
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
214. Klaine, S. J., Richards, P., Baker, D., Naddy, R., Brown, T., Joab, B., Casey, R., Fernandez, D.,
Overmeyer, J., and Benjamin, R. (1997). Agrochemical Fate and Effects in Terrestrial, Aquatic and
Estuarine Ecosystems. In: Environ.Behav.Crop Prot.Chem., Proc.Int.Symp. Use
Nucl.Relat.Tech.Stud.Environ.Behav.Crop Prot.Chem., Meeting Date 1996, International Atomic
Energy Agency, Vienna, Austria 247-263.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93419
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ATZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection Code:
OK(ATZ),NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
215. Korn, S. and Earnest, R. (1974). Acute Toxicity of Twenty Insecticides to Striped Bass, Morone
saxatilis. Calif .Fish Game 60: 128-131.
EcoReference No.: 602
Chemical of Concern:
CBL,CPY,HCCH,MLN,MP,Naled,ABT,FNTH,EN,ES,DDT,HPT,MXC,TXP,AND,CHD,PRN,DLD;
Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,MP,Naled),LITE EVAL
CODED(MLN),OK(ALL CHEMS).
216. Kring, J. B. (1969). Mortality of the Earthworm Lumbricus terrestris L. Following Soil Applications of
Insecticides to a Tobacco Field. J.Econ.Entomol. 62: 963.
EcoReferenceNo.: 51209
Chemical of Concern: DS,CPY,CBF,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(DS,CPY,CBF,DZ).
217. Krugh, B. W. and Miles, D. (1996). Monitoring the Effects of Five "Nonherbicidal" Pesticide
Chemicals on Terrestrial Plants Using Chlorophyll Fluorescence. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 15: 495-500.
EcoReferenceNo.: 63144
Chemical of Concern: DU,PRT,TBT,CPY,FNF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
218. Kuhr, R. J. and Tashiro, H. (1978). Distribution and Persistence of Chloropyrifos and Diazinon
Applied to Turf. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 20: 652-656 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 51238
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
219. Kunz, S. E. and Radeleff, R. D. (1972). Evaluation of the Hazard of Chlorpyrifos Soil Treatments on
Turkeys. J.Econ.Entomol. 65: 1208-1209.
EcoReferenceNo.: 71482
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
-------
220. Lai, S., Lai, R., and Saxena, D. M. (1987). Bioconcentration and Metabolism of DDT, Fenitrothion and
Chlorpyrifos by the Blue-Green Algae Anabaena sp. and Aulosira fertilissima. Environ.Pollut. 46:
187-196.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12630
Chemical of Concern: DDT,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC: Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY).
221. Lai, S., Saxena, D. M., and Lai, R. (1987). Uptake, Metabolism and Effects of DDT, Fenitrothion and
Chlorpyrifos on Tetrahymena pyriformis. Pestic.Sci. 21: 181-191.
EcoReferenceNo.: 14095
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DDT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.POP.CEL: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
222. Lassiter, T. L., Padilla, S., Mortensen, S. R., Chanda, S. M., Moser, V. C., and Barone, S. Jr. (1998).
Gestational Exposure to Chlorpyrifos: Apparent Protection of the Fetus? Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol.
152: 56-65.
EcoReferenceNo.: 56800
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
223. Le, D. P., Thirugnanam, M., Lidert, Z., Carlson, G. R., and Ryan, J. B. (1996). RH-2485: A New
Selective Insecticide for Caterpillar Control. Br.Crop Prot.Conf. 2: 481-486.
EcoReferenceNo.: 82537
Chemical of Concern: MFZ,CBL,FNV,EFV,CPY,MP,AZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR,POP,PHY; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MFZ),NO ENDPOINT(FNV),PUBL
AS(EFV,MP,CPY),MIXTURE(AZ,TARGET-CBL),TARGET,NOCROP(EFV).
224. LeBerre, R., Escaffre, H., Pendriez, B., Grebaut, S., and Pengalet, P. (1976). Control of Simulium
damnosum, Vector of Human Onchocerciasis in West Africa. II. Conventional Treatment Trials of
New Insecticides and New Formulations. W.H.O.Documentary Series, WHO/VBC/76.615 21 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 4195
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CPYM,FNT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPYM).
225. LeBerre, R., Philippon, B., Grebaut, S., Sechan, Y., Lenormand, J., Etienne, J., and Garreta, P. (1976).
Control of Simulium damnosum, the Vector of Human Onchocerciasis in West Africa. I.
Supplementary Trials of New Insecticides. W.H.O.Documentary Series, WHO/VBC/76.614 18 p.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3725
Chemical of Concern: CBL,MXC,ABT,CPYM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT,CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
226. Ledieu, M. S. (1978). Candidate Insecticides for the Control of Larvae of Mamestra brassicae
(Lepidoptera) (Noctuidae). Ann.Appl.Biol. 88: 251-255 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 14081
Chemical of Concern: ES,CPYM,ACP,MTM,CPY,MOM,FNT,CBL; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: OK TARGET(CBL),NO ENDPOINT(ES,CPYM,CPY,MOM,FNT,TARGET-
ACP,MTM,CPYM).
227. Lee, J. and Upton, C. (1992). Relative Efficiency of Insecticide Treatments in Reducing Yield Loss
-------
from Sitona in Faba Beans. Tests Agrochem.Cultiv. 13: 6-7.
EcoReference No.: 78962
Chemical of Concern: PRT,CPY,CYP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: REP .POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
228. Lee, L. C. and Lee, C. Y. (2004). Insecticide Resistance Profiles and Possible Underlying Mechanisms
in German Cockroaches, Blattella germanica (Linnaeus) (Dictyoptera: Blattellidae) from Peninsular
Malaysia. Med.Entomol.2ool 55: 77-93.
EcoReference No.: 93232
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DM,PMR,PPB,PPX,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(TBF,PPB),NO CONTROL(CPY,PMR).
229. Lembright, H. W. (1968). Dosage Studies with Low Volume Applications of Dursban Insecticide.
Down Earth 24: 16-19.
EcoReference No.: 9790
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
230. Levy, R. and Miller, T. W. Jr. (1978). Tolerance of the Planarian Dugesia dorotocephala to High
Concentrations of Pesticides and Growth Regulators. Entomophaga 23: 31-34.
EcoReference No.: 5152
Chemical of Concern: MTPN,TMP,FNTH,CPY,MLN,DFZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(MTPN,TMP,FNTH,CPY,MLN,DFZ).
231. Linduska, J. J., Embrey, M., and Dively, G. (1991). Foliar Sprays to Control Corn Earworms, Dusky
Sap Beetle, Fall Armyworm and European Corn Borers in Sweet Corn, 1990. Insectic.Acaric.Tests 16:
76 (35E).
EcoReference No.: 92310
Chemical of Concern: CPY,LCYT,MP,TDC,EFV; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code:
NO MIXTURE(CPY),OK TARGET(MP,TDC,EFV,CPY).
232. Liu, J., Olivier, K., and Pope, C. N. (1999). Comparative Neurochemical Effects of Repeated Methyl
Parathion or Chlorpyrifos Exposures in Neonatal and Adult Rats. Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 158: 186-
196.
EcoReference No.: 91396
Chemical of Concern: MP,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(MP,CPY).
233. Lockridge, 0. (2002). Biochemical Markers for Exposure to Low Doses of Organophosphorus
Insecticides. Annu.Rep.l Aug.2001-31 Jul 2002, Nebraska Univ.Med.Ctr., Omaha, NE 119 p. (NTIS
00410015).
EcoReference No.: 92590
Chemical of Concern: CPYO,DDVP,MLO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY,BEH,GRO,BCM;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(CPYO,MLO).
234. Lodovici, M., Casalini, C., Briani, C., and Dolara, P. (1997). Oxidative Liver DNA Damage in rats
Treated with Pesticide Mixtures. Toxicology 117: 55-60.
EcoReference No.: 90067
-------
Chemical of Concern: BMY,MDT,CPYM,MP,CPP,PRN,VCZ,TBA,FRM,DPA,CTN; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: CEL; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CTN),NO
MIXTURE(BMY,MDT,CPYM,MP,CPP,PRN,VCZ),OK(TBA,FRM,DPA).
235. Lofgren, C. S., Scanlon, J. E., and Israngura, V. (1967). Evaluation of Insecticides Against Aedes
aegypti (L.) and Culex pipiens quinquefasciatus Say (Diptera: Culicidae) in Bangkok, Thailand.
Mosq.News27: 16-21.
EcoReference No.: 4760
Chemical of Concern: ABT,PPX,CPY,FNTH,MLN,Naled,FNT,TVP; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(MLN,Naled),OK(PPX,FNTH,FNT),NO
CONTROL(ABT,CPY,TVP).
236. Lotti, M, Caroldi, S., Capodicasa, E., and Moretto, A. (1991). Promotion of Organophosphate-Induced
Delayed Polyneuropathy by Phenylmethanesulfonyl Fluoride. ToxicoLAppl.Pharmacol. 108: 234-241.
EcoReference No.: 67237
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
237. Lucassen, W. G. H. and Leeuwangh, P. (1994). Response of Zooplankton to Dursban 4E Insecticide in
a Pond Experiment. In: R.L.Graney, J.H.Kennedy, and J.H.Rogers (Eds.), Aquatic Mesocosm Studies
in Ecological Risk Assessment, Chapter 27, Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, FL 517-533.
EcoReference No.: 16248
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
238. Ludwig, P. D. and Mcneil Iv, J. C. (1966). Results of Laboratory and Field Tests with Dursban
Insecticide for Mosquito Control. Mosq.News 26: 344-351.
EcoReference No.: 13955
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
239. Luttrell, R., Bell, M., Reed, J., and Gary, D. (1986). Early Season Insecticide Study, 1985.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 11: 287-288 (372).
EcoReference No.: 87882
Chemical of Concern: DCTP,CYP,CYH,DMT,ACP,CBL,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP,REP;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(DMT),OK(CYP,ACP,CBL),NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
240. Lytle, T. F. and Lytle, J. S. (2005). Growth Inhibition as Indicator of Stress Because of Atrazine
Following Multiple Toxicant Exposure of the Freshwater Macrophyte, Juncus effusus L.
Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 24: 1198-1203.
EcoReference No.: 81731
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: LITE EVAL
CODED(ATZ),NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
241. Ma, W. C. and Bodt, J. (1993). Difference in Toxicity of the Insecticide Chlorpyriphos to Six Species
of Earthworms (Oligochaeta, Lumbricidae) in Standardized Soil Tests. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol.
50: 864-870 (OECDG Data File).
EcoReference No.: 51735
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.REP.GRO; Rejection Code: NO
-------
CONTROL(CPY).
242. Macek, K. J., Walsh, D. F., Hogan, J. W., and Holz, D. D. (1972). Toxicity of the Insecticide Dursban
to Fish and Aquatic Invertebrates in Ponds. Tram.Am.Fish.Soc. 101: 420-427.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5153
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.POP.PHY: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
243. Magharaj, M, Venkateswarlu, K., and Rao, A. S. (1989). Interaction Effects of Insecticide
Combinations on the Growth of Scenedesmus bijugatus and Synechococcus elongatus. Plant Soil 114:
159-164.
EcoReference No.: 77487
Chemical of Concern: CYP,PMR,CPY,FNV; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
244. Magnin, M., Marboutin, E., and Pasteur, N. (1988). Insecticide Resistance in Culex quinquefasciatus
(Diptera: Culicidae) in West Africa. JMed.Entomol. 25:99-104.
EcoReferenceNo.: 810
Chemical of Concern: DDT,PRN,DDVP,PPX,ADC,MDT,CPY,TMP,DM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,ADC).
245. Maly, M. and Ruber, E. (1983). Effects of Pesticides on Pure and Mixed Species Cultures of Salt
Marsh Pool Algae. Bull.Environ.Contam.Toxicol. 30: 464-472.
EcoReferenceNo.: 15240
Chemical of Concern: PPX,TMP,CPY,CBL,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(CBL),NO ENDPOINT(MLN,PPX,TMP),NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
246. Mani, V. G. T. and Konar, S. K. (1986). Chronic Effects of the Insecticide Coroban on Behavior,
Survival, Growth and Reproduction of Fish. Aquat.Sci.Fish.Abstr.l7(5, Pt.l):182 (1987) /
Environ.Ecol. 4: 517-520.
EcoReferenceNo.: 12540
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
247. Mani, V. G. T. and Konar, S. K. (1988). Pollutional Hazards of the Pesticide Chlorpyrifos on Aquatic
Ecosystem . Environ.Ecol. 6: 460-462.
EcoReference No.: 13219
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
248. Mann, H. D., Ivey, M. C., Kunz, S. E., and Hogan, B. F. (1973). Chlorpyrifos, Its Oxygen Analogue,
and 3,5,6-Trichloro-2-Pyridinol: Residues in the Body Tissues of Turkeys Confined in Pens on
Treated Soil. J.Econ.Entomol. 66: 715-717 .
EcoReference No.: 3 7 819
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TCP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY,TCP).
249. Mansour, F. (1987). Effect of Pesticides on Spiders Occurring on Apple and Citrus in Israel.
-------
Phytoparasitica 15: 43-50.
EcoReference No.: 70244
Chemical of Concern:
ATZ,CPY,FPP,CYP,FNV,PPHD,FVL,Zineb,Maneb,SFR,Captan,TDF,BMC,GYP; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR.POP: Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL
CHEMS),OK(CPY,FPP,FVL,PPHD),TARGET(CPY),TARGET(FNV).
250. Mansour, M., Feicht, E. A., Behechti, A., Schramm, K. W., and Kettrup, A. (1999). Determination
Photostability of Selected Agrochemicals in Water and Soil. Chemosphere 39: 575-585.
EcoReference No.: 85031
Chemical of Concern: DZ,HCCH,DDT,CPY,PRN,IZP,24DXY,K2Cr207; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
PHY; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(K2Cr207),NO
SPECIES(DZ,DDT,CPY,PRN,IZP,24DXY,HCCH).
251. Mansour, S. A. (1985). Determination of Residues of Chlorpyrifos and Its Oxygen Analog in Dates.
J.Pestic.Sci. 10: 677-680.
EcoReference No.: 90936
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
252. Mansour, S. A., Ali, A. D., and Al-Jalili, M. K. (1984). The Residual Toxicity to Honeybees of Some
Insecticides on Clover Flowers: Laboratory Studies. J.Apic.Res. 23: 213-216.
EcoReference No.: 35334
Chemical of Concern: CBL,FNV,PIRM,PPX,FNT,CPY,MOM,DCF,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes:
MOR; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(CPY,DZ,MOM),OK(PPX,FNT,PIRM,DCF,FNV,CBL).
253. Marganian, V. M. and Wall, W. J. Jr. (1972). Dursban and Diazinon Residues in Biota Following
Treatment of Intertidal Plots on Cape Cod - 1967-69. Pestic.Monit.J. 6: 160-165.
EcoReference No.: 4503
Chemical of Concern: DZ,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
254. Mattsson, J. L., Maurissen, J. P. J., Nolan, R. J., and Brzak, K. A. (2000). Lack of Differential
Sensitivity to Cholinesterase Inhibition in Fetuses and Neonates Compared to dams Treated Perinatally
with Chlorpyrifos. Toxicol.Sci. 53: 438-446.
EcoReference No.: 87233
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC.GRO.MOR: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
255. Mayer, D. F., Johansen, C. A., Lunden, J. D., and Rathbone, L. (1987). Bee Hazard of Insecticides
Combined with Chemical Stickers. Am.Bee J. 127:493-495.
EcoReference No.: 88509
Chemical of Concern:
ES,HCCH,FVL,CYP,CYH,ACP,CPY,DZ,MLN,MTM,Naled,OXD,TCF,MOM,OML,TDC,BFT,CYF,
PMR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
256. Mayer, F. L. Jr. (1974). Pesticides as Pollutants. In: B.G.Liptak (Ed.), Environmental Engineer's
Handbook, Chilian Book Co., Radnor, PA 405-418 (Publ in Part As 6797).
-------
EcoReference No.: 70421
Chemical of Concern:
AND,CHD,DDT,DLD,ES,EN,HPT,TXP,DZ,CPY,PRN,CBL,ACL,ATZ,Cu,EDT,SZ,As,MLN,Captan,
Naled; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(AND,CHD,DDT,DLD,ES,EN,HPT,TXP,DZ,CPY,PRN,CBL,ACL,ATZ,Cu,EDT,SZ,As,
MLN,Captan,Naled).
257. Mayer, F. L. Jr. and Ellersieck, M. R. (1986). Manual of Acute Toxicity: Interpretation and Data Base
for 410 Chemicals and 66 Species of Freshwater Animals. Resour.Publ.No.160, U.S.Dep.Interior,
Fish Wildl.Serv., Washington, DC 505 p. (USGS Data File).
EcoReference No.: 6797
Chemical of Concern:
EDT,RSM,SZ,24DXY,ACP,ACR,ADC,ATM,ATN,ATZ,AZ,BS,CaPS,Captan,CBF,CBL,CMPH,CQT
C,CPY,CuS,DBN,DFZ,DMB,DMT,DOD,DPDP,DS,DU,DZ,FO,GYP,HCCH,HXZ,IGS,LNR,MBZ,M
CPB,MDT,MLN,MLT,MOM,MP,MTL,NaN3,Naled,OYZ,PCP,PEB,PAQT,PRT,PSM,Folpet,PYN,C
YT,DMM,EFS,NAA,NTP,PMR,PPB,TFN,WFN,RSM,RTN,ALSV,Se,DBAC,Zn,As,MTPN,DCB,MT
AS,OXD,PEPPG,TBF; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY; Rejection Code: LITEEVAL
CODED(MTAS,MTPN,DCB,DZ,IGS,ATZ,MTL,MLT,CBF,ADC,MOM,PPB,SZ,DMT,WFN,RTN,C
uS, DOD,NaN3,DMB,RSM,CaPS,MCPB,
NaPCP,PCP,AMSV,ALSV,PRT,ATM,CQTC,ATN,DBAC),OK(ALLCHEMS),NO
CONTROL(CPY,PEPPG,MP,Naled,BS,OXD,Captan,MLN,HXZ,TBF).
258. Mcneill, J. C. I. V., Miller, W. 0., and Wleczyk, C. M. (1968). Evaluation of Dursban as a Larvicide in
Septic Ditches. Mosq.News 28: 160-161.
EcoReference No.: 13957
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,NO
CONTROL(CPY).
259. Mellon, R. B. and Georghiou, G. P. (1985). Rotational Use of Insecticides in Mosquito Control
Programs. P roc.Pap.of the 52ndAnnu.Conf.ofthe Calif.Mosq.and Vector Control Assoc.Inc., Jan.29-
Feb.l, 1984, Long Beach, CA 65-67.
EcoReference No.: 66425
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(TARGET-CPY).
260. Metcalf, R. L. and Sanborn, J. R. (1975). Pesticides and Environmental Quality in Illinois.
Il.Nat.Hist.Surv.Bull. 31: 381-436.
EcoReference No.: 37948
Chemical of Concern:
ACP,PRN,CBL,PPX,EN,HCCH,MRX,PCP,MLN,FNF,FNT,TMP,DFZ,MTPN,FTT,ADC,CPYM,CP
Y,PCH,24DXY,PHMD,MXC,DMB,ACR,ATZ,TBO,GYP,OYZ,BT,MBZ,TFN,CBF,Maneb,Zineb,AN
D,DLD,DDT,HPT,TXP,CHD,PPN,Captan; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
261. Metelev, V. V. (1984). A Method of Detecting Organophosphorus Insecticides in Water and Aquatic
Organisms. Hydrobiol.J. 21: 37-40.
EcoReference No.: 66430
Chemical of Concern: TCF,FNT,DMT,MP,MLN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL,NO ENDPOINT(MLN),NO REVIEW(MP,DMT,FNT,TCP).
262. Michael, P. J. (1991). Season-Long Effects of Four Chemicals on Redlegged Earth Mite and Lucerne
-------
Flea. In: Ridsdill-Smith, J. (Ed), Proc Natl Workshop on Redlegged Earth Mite, Lucerne Flea, and
Blue Oat Mite, Perth, W.Australia, Sept.9-11, 1991II: 63-65.
EcoReference No.: 44565
Chemical of Concern: DDT,DMT,FNV,CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(DDT,DMT,FNV,CPY)//NO OM, pH, ERE.
263. Micks, D. W. and Rougeau, D. (1977). Organophosphorus Tolerance in Culex quinquefasciatus in
Texas. Mosq.News 37: 233-239.
EcoReference No.: 13776
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,FNTH,FNT,ABT,PRN; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
264. Miller, W. 0. and Cochran, L. K. (1970). Results Obtained with Dursban Insecticide Applied to a Salt
Marsh Habitat. Down Earth 26: 17-21.
EcoReference No.: 9644
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
265. Mohamed, A. K. A., Pratt, J. P., and Nelson, F. R. S. (1987). Compatibility of Metarhizium anisopliae
var. anisopliae with Chemical Pesticides. Mycopathologia 99: 99-105.
EcoReference No.: 70030
Chemical of Concern:
MTPN,CPY,Zineb,Maneb,BMY,CHD,TXP,MOM,CBF,CBL,DZ,TMP,FNTH,RSM; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: POP,REP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
266. Mohamed, 0. S. A., Adam, S. E. L, and El Dirdira, N. I. (1990). The Combined Effect of Dursban and
Reldan on Nubian Goats. Vet.Hum.Toxicol. 32: 47-48.
EcoReference No.: 93764
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.BCM.CEL: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
267. Moore, J. B. and Breeland, S. G. (1967). Field Evaluation of Two Mosquito Larvicides, Abate and
Dursban, Against Anopheles quadrimaculatus and Associated Culex Species. Mosq.News 27: 105-
111.
EcoReference No.: 4762
Chemical of Concern: ABT,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
268. Moore, M. T., Schulz, R., Cooper, C. M., Smith, S. Jr., and Rodgers, J. H. Jr. (2002). Mitigation of
Chlorpyrifos Runoff Using Constructed Wetlands. Chemosphere 46: 827-835.
EcoReference No.: 93530
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
269. Moser, V. C. (1995). Comparisons of the Acute Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors Using a
Neurobehavioral Screening Battery in Rats. Neurotoxicol.Teratol. 17: 617-625.
EcoReference No.: 83781
Chemical of Concern: ADC,DZ,CBL,PRN,CPY,FNTH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BEH,PHY;
-------
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
270. Moss, J. I. (1996). Synergism of Toxicity of N,N-Diethyl-m-Toluamide to German Cockroaches
(Orthoptera: Blattellidae) by Hydrolytic Enzyme Inhibitors. J.Econ.Entomol. 89: 1151-1155.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93301
Chemical of Concern: MLN,CPY,AMZ,PMR,LCYT,PPB,DEET,CBL,TBF; Habitat: T; Effect
Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO MLXTURE(PMR,PPB,TBF),NO CONTROL(MLN,CPY,CBL).
271. Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. (1979). Experimental Studies on Macroinvertebrate Predator-Prey Impact of
Pesticides. The Reactions of Rhyacophila and Hydropsyche (Trichoptera) Larvae to Simulium
Larvicides. Can.J.Zool. 57: 2264-2270.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5157
Chemical of Concern: PMR,TMP,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code:
OK(TMP),NO CONTROL(PMR),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
272. Muirhead-Thomson, R. C. and Merryweather, J. (1970). Ovicides in Simulium Control. Nature
221:858 (ABS) (1969)/Bull.W.H.O. 42: 174-177.
EcoReference No.: 4567
Chemical of Concern: DDVP,ABT,PYN,HCCH,DZ,MXC,DDT,FNTH,CPY,MOM; Habitat: T;
Effect Codes: GRO; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
273. Mulla, M. S. (1967). Dursban - Promising New Mosquito Control Agent. Down Earth 23: 15-17.
EcoReference No.: 60840
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
274. Mulla, M. S., Norland, R. L., Fanara, D. M., Darwazeh, H. A., and McKean, D. W. (1971). Control of
Chironomid Midges in Recreational Lakes. J.Econ.Entomol. 64: 300-307.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5158
Chemical of Concern: ABT,EPRN,HCCH,MP,CBF,FNTH,CBL,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes:
POP; Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT(ABT,EPRN,HCCH,MP,CBF,FNTH,CBL),NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
275. Mulla, M. S., Norland, R. L., Westlake, W. E., Dell, B., and St.Amant, J. (1973). Aquatic Midge
Larvicides, Their Efficacy and Residues in Water, Soil, and Fish in a Warm-Water Lake.
Environ.Entomol. 2: 58-65.
EcoReference No.: 4277
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,FNT; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC.POP.MOR: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(CBL,CPY).
276. Mullie, W. C. and Keith, J. 0. (1993). The Effects of Aerially Applied Fenitrothion and Chlorpyrifos
on Birds in the Savannah of Northern Senegal. J.Appl.Ecol. 30: 536-550.
EcoReferenceNo.: 62651
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
277. Murdoch, C. L. and Mitchell, W. C. (1972). Insect Control in 'Sunturf Bermudagrass. Hawaii Farm
Sci. 21: 1, 11-12.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 91302
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,Naled,HCCH; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
MIXTURE(Naled,HCCH),NOENDPOINT(CPY,DZ).
278. Murray, A., Rathbone, A. J., and Ray, D. E. (2005). Novel Protein Targets for Organophosphorus
Pesticides in Rat Brain. Environ.Toxicol.Pharmacol. 19:451-454.
EcoReferenceNo.: 89041
Chemical of Concern: AZM,CPY,DZ,MLN,PIRM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM: Rejection Code:
NO ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS).
279. Murthy, M. M. K., Rao, D. V. S., and Ramasubbaiah, K. (1989). Efficacy of Carbofuran and Certain
Other Granular Insecticides Against Insect Pests of Rice. Indian J.Entomol. 51: 200-204.
EcoReference No.: 75295
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBO,CBF,FNTH,FNT; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.PHY: Rejection
Code: NO MIXTURE(CPY).
280. Murugadass, S., Jaykumar, E., and Krishnan, M. (1988). Toxicity of Fenthion and Chlorpyrifos on the
Predatory Behavior of Ranatra filliformis (Hemiptera: Nepidae). Pollut.Res. 7: 71-76.
EcoReference No.: 72753
Chemical of Concern: CPY,FNTH; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
281. Muschal, M. and Warne, M. St. J. (2003). Risk Posed by Pesticides to Aquatic Organisms in Rivers of
Northern Inland New South Wales, Australia. Hum.Ecol.Risk Assess. 9: 1765-1787.
EcoReference No.: 81718
Chemical of Concern: ATZ,PRO,MTL,DV,PFF,CP Y,ES; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR,PHY;
Rejection Code: NO ENDPOINT,CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
282. Naqvi, S. M. and Ferguson, D. E. (1968). Pesticide Tolerances of Selected Freshwater Invertebrates.
J.Miss.Acad.Sci. 14: 121-127.
EcoReference No.: 2093
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CBL,CPY,HCCH,MLN,MP,DZ; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ),OK(AZ,HCCH),NO ENDPOINT(MLN,MP),NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
283. Naqvi, S. M. Z. (1973). Toxicity of Twenty-Three Insecticides to a Tubificid Worm Branchiura
sowerbyi From the Mississippi Delta. J.Econ.Entomol. 66: 70-74.
EcoReference No.: 2798
Chemical of Concern: AZ,CBL,CP Y,HCCH,MLN,MP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: NO ENDPOINT(AZ),LITE EVAL CODED(CBL),OK(HCCH),NO CONTROL(MLN,MP),NO
ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
284. Neary, D. G., Bush, P. B., McMahon, C. K., Cantrell, R. L., and Taylor, J. W. Jr. (1988). Persistence of
Nine Forest Pesticides in the Surface Horizon of a Typic Quartzipsamment Soil of the Ocala National
Forest. Proc.-Soil Crop Sci.Soc.Fla. 47: 127-134.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93486
Chemical of Concern: HCCH,FNT,CPY,24D,DMB,HXZ,PCL,TPR; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY,24D,DMP,HXZ).
-------
285. Nishiuchi, Y. (1980). Toxicity of Formulated Pesticides to Fresh Water Organisms LXXII. Suisan
Zoshoku 27: 238-244 (JPN).
EcoReference No.: 6701
Chemical of Concern:
CPYM,AMZ,PPG,TW,PIM,ES,FLAC,PHSL,NCTN,HPT,RTN,DDT,CHD,DLD,MOM,ACP,Naled,C
PY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(CPY,Naled),NO
FOREIGN(ALL CHEMS).
286. Nishiuchi, Y. (1977). Toxicity of Formulated Pesticides to Some Fresh Water Organisms. XXXXI.
The Aquiculture (Suisan Zoshoku) 24: 146-150 (JPN).
EcoReference No.: 7591
Chemical of Concern: Captan,DZ,TBC,NaPCP,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection
Code: NO FOREIGN,NO CONTROL(CPY,Captan).
287. Nishiuchi, Y. (1979). Toxicity of Pesticides to Animals in Freshwater. LXII. The Aquiculture (Suisan
Zoshoku) 27 : 119-124 (JPN).
EcoReference No.: 6956
Chemical of Concern: MLN,NaPCP,Ag,CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY,MLN).
288. Nishiuchi, Y. (1972). Toxicity of Pesticides to Some Water Organisms.
Bull.Agric.Chem.Imp.Stn.(Noyaku Kemasho Hokoku) 12: 122-128 (JPN) (ENG TRANSL).
EcoReference No.: 10258
Chemical of Concern:
3CE,AC,AMTL,AMTR,AND,As,ATZ,BMC,BS,Captan,CBL,CPA,CPY,CTN,Cu,DBN,DCPA,DDT,
DDW,DLD,DMB,DMT,DPA,DSMA,DU,DZ,EDB,EDC,EN,EPTC,ES,ETN,Fe,FLAC,FML,FNT,FN
TH,HCCH,Hg,HPT,LNR,MCAP,MCPB,MCPPl,MDT,MLN,MOM,MP,MTAS,NALED,Ni,NTCN,0
PHP,Pb,PCB,PCP,PCZ,PEB,PHMD,PHSL,PHTH,PMT,PNB,PPX,PPZ,PRN,PSM,PYN,SFL,SID,STR
EP,SZ,TBC,TFN,THM,TPE,TPH,TPM,TRN,Zn; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS)//NO RESIDUE.
289. Nishiuchi, Y. and Asano, K. (1979). Toxicity of Agricultural Chemicals to Some Freshwater
Organisms - LIX. The Aquiculture (Suisan Zoshoku) 27: 48-55 (JPN) (ENG TRANSL).
EcoReference No.: 6954
Chemical of Concern:
ACP,ACR,ATZ,BMC,BT,Captan,CPY,CTN,Cu,CuOH,CuS,DMT,DU,DZ,Folpet,HCCH,LNR,MAL,
MDT,MLN,MOM,PCP,PEB,PHMD,PMT,PNB,PPG,PQT,PSM,QOC,TBC,TFN,RTN,CuCl,PPZ,Zn,N
i,As,DCB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY,DMT,MLN,BMC,CTN,QOC,Captan,Folpet,ATZ),OK(ALL CHEMS).
290. Noetzel, D. and Roman, H. (1992). Flea Beetle Control in Canola with Granular Insecticides, 1989.
Insectic.Acaric.Tests 17: 190(26F).
EcoReference No.: 79347
Chemical of Concern: ADC,TBO,PRT,CBF,TFT,CEX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection
Code: OK(ADC,TBO,PRT,CBF,TFT,CEX),NO COC(CPY).
291. Norberg-King, T. J. (1989). An Evaluation of the Fathead Minnow Seven-Day Subchronic Test For
Estimating Chronic Toxicity. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 8: 1075-1089.
EcoReference No.: 5313
-------
Chemical of Concern: CBL,DZ,ZnS,Se,NaCr,CPY,AgN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR;
Rejection Code: LITE EVAL CODED(CBL,DZ,NaCr),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO CONTROL(CPY).
292. Norberg, T. J. and Mount, D. I. (1985). A New Fathead Minnow (Pimephales promelas) Subchronic
Toxicity Test. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 4:711-718.
EcoReference No.: 11182
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Cu,Zn; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: GRO,MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(Cu,OW-TRV-Cu),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO CONTROL(CPY).
293. Oberheu, J. C., Soule, R. D., and Wolf, M. A. (1970). The Correlation of Cholinesterase Levels in test
Animals and Exposure Levels Resulting from Thermal fog and Aerial Spray Applications of Dursban.
Down Earth 26: 12-16.
EcoReference No.: 9656
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: AT; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
294. Ohayo-Mitoko, G. J. A. and Deneer, J. W. (1993). Lethal Body Burdens of Four Organophorus
Pesticides in the Guppy (Poecilia reticulata). Sci. Total Environ. (Suppl.) 559-565.
EcoReference No.: 4349
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,PRN; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(DZ,PRN),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
295. Oldham, M. L., Lusk, E. E., and Womeldorf, D. J. (1977). Evaluation of Several Insecticides for the
Control of Larval Aedes sierrensis (Ludlow). Mosq.News 37: 218-221.
EcoReference No.: 66068
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TMP,FNTH,PPX; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP,MOR; Rejection
Code: NO CONTROL(CPY).
296. Olofinboba, M. 0. and Kozlowski, T. T. (1982). Effects of 3 Systemic Insecticides on Seed
Germination and Growth of Pinus halepensis Seedlings. Plant Soil 64: 255-258.
EcoReference No.: 41343
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ACP; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: GRO.REP; Rejection Code: OK
TARGET(ACP),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
297. Padilla, S., Sung, H.-J., and Moser, V. C. (2004). Further Assessment of an In Vitro Screen that may
Help Identify Organophosphorus Pesticides that are more Acutely Toxic to the Young.
J.Toxicol.Environ.HealthPartA 67: 1477-1489.
EcoReference No.: 88968
Chemical of Concern: MLO,DZ,CPY,MTM; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(DZ,MLO),NOREVIEW(CPY,MTM).
298. Palmer, J. S., Rowe, L. D., and Crookshank, H. R. (1980). Effect of Age on Tolerance of Calves to
Chlorpyrifos. Am.J.Vet.Res. 41: 1323-1325.
EcoReference No.: 38240
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
299. Pan, D. Y. and Liang, X. M. (1993). Safety Study of Pesticides on Bog Frog, a Predatory Natural
Enemy of Pest in Paddy Field. J.Hunan Agricult.Coll. 19: 47-54 (CHI) (ENG ABS).
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 16056
Chemical of Concern:
FNT,ANZ,DDVP,DLD,24DXY,CBF,CPY,CTN,DMT,DZ,HCCH,MLN,MLT,MP,MTM,PMT,TBC,D
M,EFV,BPZ,PPN,OMT,PCH,FPP,NaPCP,CaPS,OMT,Zn,DDT,Zineb,PPHD,FNV,CYH,BTC,TDF,Ni
; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: NO FOREIGN,NO CONTROL(ALL
CHEMS),NO ENDPOINT,NO CONTROL(CPY).
300. Pandey, S. and Singh, D. K. (2004). Total Bacterial and Fungal Population After Chlorpyrifos and
Quinalphos Treatments in Groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) Soil. Chemosphere 55: 197-205.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92569
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
301. Papst, M. H. and Boyer, M. G. (1980). Effects of Two Organophosphorus Insecticides on the
Chlorophyll A and Pheopigment Concentrations of Standing Ponds. Hydrobiologia 69: 245-250.
EcoReference No.: 6702
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: PHY,BCM,POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
302. Pasteur, N, Marquine, M., Cheikh, H. B., Bernard, C., and Bourguet, D. (1999). A New Mechanism
Conferring Unprecedented High Resistance to Chlorpyrifos in Culex pipiens (Diptera: Culicidae).
JMed.Entomol. 36: 794-802.
EcoReferenceNo.: 61955
Chemical of Concern: CPY,TBF,PPB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL(CPY),NO MIXTURE(TBF,PPB).
303. Patel, H. R. and Patel, B. N. (1998). Evaluation of Dazomet (Basamid G) Against Rove Beetles,
Damping-Off, Weeds and Nematodes in Bidi Tobacco Nursery. J.Mycol.Plant Pathol. 28: 134-139.
EcoReferenceNo.: 79935
Chemical of Concern: DZM,CPY,MLX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP .PHY: Rejection Code:
LITE EVAL CODED(DZM),NO MIXTURE(CPY,MLX).
304. Patel, J. A., Raj, M. F., Talati, J. G., and Patel, B. K. (1995). Residues of Quinalphos and
Chlorpyriphos from Bidi Tobacco. Tob.Res. 21: 76-78.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93340
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC; Rejection Code: NO
CONTROL,ENDPOINT(CPY).
305. Pauli, B. D., Perrault, J. A., and Money, S. L. (2000). RATL: A Database of Reptile and Amphibian
Toxicology Literature. Tech.Rep.Ser.No.357, National Wildlife Res.Centre 1-494.
EcoReferenceNo.: 93024
Chemical of Concern:
FMP,FNT,FTH,FNV,FRN,HPT,Hg,IFP,MLN,MDT,MCB,ACP,Ag,Al,ADC,AND,PCB,As,ATZ,AZ,B
a,Bc,BDC,HCCH,CBL,CBF,Cd,CHD,CPH,Co,CMPH,Cr,Cu,DDT,DEM,DZ,DDW,DLF,DCTP,DLD
,DMT,DXN,DS,ES,EN,ETN,EP,Fe,MOM,MXC,MTL,MW,Mg,MRX,Mn,Mo,MYC,Nalcd,Ni,PHTH,
OML,PAH,PRN,MP,Pb,PCP,PRT,PHSL,PSM,PPHD,PTP,PPX,Se,TCDD,TBO,TXP,V,An,ATN,NHN
,BDF,BTY,CPY,CTN,Cl,CuS,CYP,DM,DBN,DFZ,Nabam,PA,PAH,GYP,LNR,MLN,MZB,MLX,MB
Z,NH,NRM,RTN,Zns,ANT,PAH,TBC,BNZ,CdN,CTC,CBZ,CF,CZE,CYH,DU,EDT,EFV,EGY,Mane
b,MCPA,HgC12,MLT,NAPH,PAH,NBZ,PAQT,PPB,PCL,PCH,PPN,CET,REM,24DXY,ATP,ACL,A
-------
CY,AMTL,ANZ,AN,BRA,BPZ,TC,CdS,CaC12,CBD,CdCl,CoCl,CN,CYF,DMB,DINO,NP,ETHN,ED
B,FPP,FBM,GIB,FAME,IoDN,IMC,MLO,MTB,NCTN,NHP,SRT,OMT,PQT,PbAC,PbN,PHE,PAH,P
L,PTR,PND,K2Cr04,K2Cr207,PYPG,PYR,PAH,PYN,SBA,SAC,SCA,Sb,AgN,nABr,SFL,NaN03,S
TCH,SFT,SA,TBT,TMP,TMT,TI,TBA,TPM,THM,TOL,3CE,TEG,FRN,TPR,UREA,MTPN,VCZ,WF
N,Zineb; Habitat: AT; Rejection Code: NO REVIEW (ALL CHEMS).
306. Pedersen, W. L., Kline, J. D., Bradley, C. A., and Mueller, D. S. (2003 ). Influence of Metalaxyl
Fungicide Seed Treatment on Severity of Rootworm (Diabrotica spp.) Damage to Corn (Zea mays)
Under No-Tillage Conditions. Crop Prot. 22: 647-652.
EcoReferenceNo.: 90541
Chemical of Concern: CPY,Captan,MLX; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP.GRO.PHY; Rejection
Code: NO CONTROL,ENDPOINT(Captan),NO MIXTURE(CPY).
307. Pereira, J. L., Da Silva, A. A., Picanco, M. C., De Barros, E. C., and Jakelaitis, A. (2005). Effects of
Herbicide and Insecticide Interaction on Soil Entomofauna Under Maize Crop. J.Environ.Sci.Health
Par/5 40: 45-54.
EcoReference No.: 79698
Chemical of Concern: CPY,ATZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: POP: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(ALL CHEMS),TARGET(CPY).
308. Peterson, R. H. (1976). Temperature Selection of Juvenile Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar) as Influenced
by Various Toxic Substances. J.Fish.Res.Board Can. 33: 1722-1730.
EcoReferenceNo.: 5160
Chemical of Concern: Zn,AZ,CBL,CPY,HCCH,HPT,NaPCP,FNT,MLN,Naled,CuS; Habitat: A;
Effect Codes: MOR.BEH; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(Zn,AZ,CBL,CPY,HCCH,HPT,NaPCP,FNT,MLN,Naled,CuS).
309. Phipps, G. L. and Holcombe, G. W. (1985). A Method for Aquatic Multiple Species Toxicant Testing:
Acute Toxicity of 10 Chemicals to 5 Vertebrates and 2 Invertebrates. Environ.Pollut.Ser.A 38: 141-
157 (Author Communication Used) (OECDG Data File).
EcoReferenceNo.: 10775
Chemical of Concern: CBL,CPY,PCP,Cd; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBL,PCP),OK(Cd),NO CONTROL(CPY).
310. Poet, T. S., Kousba, A. A., Dennison, S. L., and Timchalk, C. (2004). Physiologically Based
Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model for the Organophosphorus Pesticide Diazinon.
Neurotoxicology 25: 1013-1030.
EcoReferenceNo.: 92876
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: ACC.BCM; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(DZ),NO MODELING(CPY).
311. Polls, L, Greenberg, B., and Lue-Hing, C. (1975). Control of Nuisance Midges in a Channel Receiving
Treated Municipal Sewage. Mosq.News 35: 533-537.
EcoReference No.: 67608
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: POP; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
312. Price, M. A., Radeleff, R. D., Kunz, S. E., and Everett, R. E. (1971). Toxicity of Soil Applications of
Dursban to Bobwhite Quail. Texas A andM Univ., Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Colleg
Station TX 1 -3.
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 38403
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: PHY: Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
313. Printes, L. B. and Callaghan, A. (2004). A Comparative Study on the Relationship Between
Acetylcholinesterase Activity and Acute Toxicity in Daphnia magna Exposed to Anticholinesterase
Insecticides. Environ.Toxicol.Chem. 23: 1241-1247.
EcoReferenceNo.: 75191
Chemical of Concern: PRN,PPX,CPY,MLN,ACP; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.PHY: Rejection
Code: NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
314. Quistad, G. B., Fisher, K. J., Owen, S. C., Klintenberg, R., and Casida, J. E. (2005). Platelet-Activating
Factor Acetylhydrolase: Selective Inhibition by Potent n-Alkyl Methylphosphonofluoridates.
Toxicol.Appl.Pharmacol. 205: 149-156.
EcoReferenceNo.: 80192
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,TBO; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: MOR.PHY.CEL: Rejection Code:
NO CONTROL(ALL CHEMS).
315. Quistad, G. B., Nomura, D. K., Sparks, S. E., Segall, Y., and Casida, J. E. (2002). Cannabinoid CB1
Receptor as a Target for Chlorpyrifos Oxon and Other Organophosphorus Pesticides. Toxicol.Lett.
135: 89-93.
EcoReferenceNo.: 91449
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DZ,DDVP,TBF,PFF; Habitat: T; Effect Codes: BCM.CEL: Rejection
Code: LITE EVAL CODED(TBF),NO COC(MP),NO ENDPOINT(CPY,DZ).
316. Radhakrishaiah, K. and Renukadevi, B. (1989). Effect of Pesticides on Succinate and Lactate
Dehydrogenase Activities in the Freshwater Field Crab, Oziotelphusa senex senex (Fabricius).
Proc.IndianNatl.Sci.AcadPartB 55: 339-344 .
EcoReferenceNo.: 3236
Chemical of Concern: CBF,CPY,ES; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BCM.MOR: Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBF),NO ENDPOINT(CPY).
317. Radhakrishnaiah, K. and Renukadevi, B. (1990). Size and Sex Related Tolerance to Pesticides in the
Freshwater Field Crab Oziotelphusa senex senex. Environ.Ecol. 8: 111-114.
EcoReferenceNo.: 3430
Chemical of Concern: CBF,ES,CP Y; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR; Rejection Code: LITE
EVAL CODED(CBF),OK(ALL CHEMS),NO CONTROL(CPY).
318. Ramakrishnan, M., Malliga Devi, T., Arunachalam, S., and Palanichamy, S. (1991). Effects of
Pesticides, Decis and Coroban on Food Utilization in Cyprinus carpio var. communis.
J.Ecotoxicol.Environ.Monit. 1: 59-64.
EcoReferenceNo.: 4141
Chemical of Concern: CPY,DM; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: BEH,PHY; Rejection Code: NO
ENDPOINT(CPY).
319. Ranasinghe, L. E. and Georghiou, G. P. (1979). Comparative Modification of Insecticide-Resistance
Spectrum of Culex pipiens fatigans Wied. by Selection with Temephos and Temephos/Synergist
Combinations. Pestic.Sci. 10: 502-508 .
-------
EcoReferenceNo.: 92984
Chemical of Concern: FNTH,FNT,CPYM,CPY,MLN,CBF,PPB; Habitat: A; Effect Codes: MOR;
Rejection Code: NO CONTROL(FNTH,FNT,CPYM,CPY,MLN,CBF,PPB).
320. Rao, B. N, Sultan, M. A., and Reddy, K. N. (1987). Residues of Chlorpyrifos on Paddy. Pesticides
(Bombay) 21: 31-33.
EcoReference No.: 60888
Chemical of Concern: CPY; Habitat: A; Effect Co |