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 \ I s \ Cl 0 v IUPAC name: 0, 0-diethyl 0-3,5,6-trichloro-2-pyridyl phosphorothioate CgHnCysrOsPS 350.6 CCOP(=S)(OCC)Oclnc(Cl)c(Cl)cclCl 2921-88-2 mild mercaptan-like odor white granular crystals approximately 42-43.5 °C 1.4 4.7 2.02xlO"5 4.2xlO'6 2727 (rainbow trout, whole body) Source Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 Tomlin 2004 EPA IRED 2000 24 ------- 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; |