Sulprofos (O-Ethyl O-(4-(methylthio)phenyl) S-propyl phosphorodithioate): Pesticide Registration Standard


*EPA
O-Ethyl 0-(4-(methylthio)
phenyl) S-propyl
phosphorodithioate
Sulprofos
Pesticide Registration
Standard

-------
*
Sulprofos
Pesticide Registration Standard
Ralph Wright
Project Manager (SPRD)
Beverly Comfort
Jay Ellenberger
Linda Garczynski
Bruce Kapner
Ingrid Sunzenauer
Assistant Product Manager (RD)
Product Manager (RD)
Writer/Editor (SPRD)
Project Manager (SPRD)
Project Manager (SPRD)
August 7, 1981
Office of Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460

-------
- TABLE OF CONTENTS -
page
Chapter I Hew to Register under a Registration Standard	 1
Chapter II Regulatory Position and Rationale	 10
Chapter III Summary of Data Requirements and Data Gaps	 19
Chapter IV Product Chemistry	 36
Chapter V Environmental Fate-.			 40
Chapter VI Toxicology		 50
Chapter VII Residue Chemistry		 58
Chapter VIII Ecological Effects	 62
Bibliography	 65

-------
CHAPTER I: HOW TO REGISTER UNDER A REGISTRATION STANDARD
A.	Organization of tile Standard
B.	Purpose of the Standard
C.	Requirement to Reregister Under the Standard
D.	"Product Specific" Data and "Generic" Data
E.	Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(1)(D)
F.	Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)
G.	Amendments to the Standard
A.	Organization of the Standard
This first chapter explains the purpose of a Registration Standard and
summarizes the legal principles involved in registering or reregistering under
a Standard. The second chapter sets forth the requirements that must be met to
obtain or retain registration for products covered by this particular
Registration Standard, in the remaining chapters, the Agency reviews the
available data by scientific discipline, discusses the Agency's concerns with
the identified potential hazards, and logically develops the conditions and
requirements that would reduce those hazards to acceptable levels.
B.	Purpose of the Standard
Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
provides that "no person in any State may distribute, sell, offer for sale,
hold for sale, ship, deliver for shipment, or receive (and having so received)
deliver or offer to deliver, to any person any pesticide which is not
registered with the Administrator [of EPA]." To approve the registration of a
pesticide, the Administrator must find, pursuant to Section 3(c)(5) that:
"(A) its composition is such as to warrant the proposed claims for it;
(B)	its labeling and other material required to be submitted comply
with the requirements of this Act;
(C)	it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse
effects on the environment; and
(D)	when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects
on the environment."
In making these findings, the Agency reviews a wide range of data which
registrants are required to submit, and assesses the risks and benefits
associated with the use of the proposed pesticide. However, the established
approach to making these findings has been found to be defective on two counts.
1

-------
First, EPA and its predecessor agency, the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA), routinely reviewed registration applications on a "product
by product" basis, evaluating each product-specific application somewhat
independently. In the review of products containing similar components, there
was little opportunity for a retrospective review of the full range of
pertinent data available in Agency files and in the public literature. Thus
the "product by product" approach was often inefficient and sometimes resulted
in inconsistent or incomplete regulatory judgments.
Second, over the years, as a result of inevitable and continuing advances in
scientific knowledge, methodology, and policy, the data base for many
pesticides came to be considered inadequate by current scientific and
regulatory standards. Given the long history of pesticide regulation in
several agencies, it is even likely that materials may have been lost from
the data files. When EPA issued new requirements for registration in 1975 (40
CFR 162) and proposed new guidelines for hazard testing in 1978 (43 FR 29686,
July 10, 1978 and 43 FR 37336, August 22, 1978), many products that had already
been registered for years were being sold and used without the same assurances
of human and environmental safety as was being required for new products.
Because of this inconsistency, Congress directed EPA to reregister all
previously registered products, so as to bring their registrations and their
data bases into compliance with current requirements [See FIFRA Section 3(g)].
Facing the enormous job of re-reviewing and calling-in new data for the
approximately 35,000 current registrations, and realizing the inefficiencies of
the "product by product" approach, the Agency decided that a new, more
effective method of review was needed.
A new review procedure has been developed. Under it, EPA publishes documents
called Registration Standards, each of which discusses a particular pesticide
active ingredient. Each Registration Standard summarizes all the data
available to the Agency on a particular active ingredient and its current uses,
and sets forth the Agency's comprehensive position on the conditions and
requirements for registration of all existing and future products which contain
that active ingredient. These conditions and requirements, all of which must
be met to obtain or retain full registration or reregistration under Section
3(c)(5) of FIFRA, include the submission of needed scientific data which the
Agency does not now have, compliance with standards of toxicity, composition,
labeling, and packaging, and satisfaction of the data compensation provisions
of FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D).
The Standard will also serve as a tool for product classification. As part of
the registration of a pesticide product, EPA may classify each product for
"general use" or "restricted use" [FIFRA Section 3(d)], A pesticide is
classified for "restricted use" when some special regulatory restriction is
needed to ensure against unreasonable adverse effects to man or the
environment. Many such risks of unreasonable adverse effects can be lessened
2

-------
if expressly-designed label precautions are strictly followed. Thus the special
regulatory restriction for a "restricted use" pesticide is usually a
requirement that it be applied only by, or under the supervision of, an
applicator who has been certified by the State or Federal government as being
coirpetent to use the pesticide safely, responsibly, and in accordance with
label directions. A restricted-use pesticide can have other regulatory
restrictions [40 CFR 162.11(c)(5)] instead of, or in addition to, the certified
applicator requirement. These other regulatory restrictions may include such
actions as seasonal or regional limitations on use, or a requirement for the
monitoring of residue levels after use. A pesticide classified for "general
use," or not classified at all, is available for use by any individual who is
in compliance with State or local regulations. The Registration Standard
review conpares information about potential adverse effects of specific uses of
the pesticide with risk criteria listed in 40 CFR 162.11(c), and thereby
determines whether a product needs to be classified for "restricted use." If
the Standard does classify a pesticide for "restricted use," this determination
is stated in the second chapter.
C.	Requirement to Reregister Under the Standard
FIFRA Section 3(g), as amended in 1978, directs EPA to reregister all currently
registered products as expeditiously as possible. Congress also agreed that
reregistration should be accomplished by the use of Registration Standards.
Each registrant of a currently registered product to which this Standard
applies, and who wishes to continue to sell or distribute his-product in
commerce, must apply for reregistration. His application must contain proposed
labeling that complies with this Standard.
EPA will issue a notice of intent to cancel the registration of any currently
registered product to which this Standard applies if the registrant fails to
comply with the procedures for reregistration set forth in the Guidance Package
which accompanies this Standard.
D.	"Product Specific" Data and "Generic" Data
In the course of developing this Standard, EPA has determined the types of data
needed for evaluation of the properties and effects of products to which the
Standard applies, in the disciplinary areas of Product Chemistry, Environmental
Fate, Toxicology, Residue Chemistry, and Ecological Effects. These
determinations are based primarily on the data Guidelines proposed in 43 FR
29696, July 10, 1978; 43 FR 37336, August 22, 1978; and 45 FR 72948,
November 3, 1980, as applied to the use patterns of the products to which this
Standard applies. Where it appeared that data from a normally applicable
Guidelines requirement was actually unnecessary to evaluate these products, the
Standard indicates that the requirement has been waived. On the other hand, in
sane cases studies not required by the Guidelines may be needed because of the
3

-------
particular conposition or use pattern of products the Standard covers; if so,
the Standard explains the Agency1s reasoning. Data guidelines have not yet
been proposed for the Residue Chemistry discipline, but the requirements for
such data have been in effect for sane tine and are, the Agency believes,
relatively familiar to registrants. Data which we have found are needed to
evaluate the registrability of sane products covered by the Standard may not be
needed for the evaluation of other products, depending upon the conposition,
formulation type, and intended uses of the product in question. The Standard
states which data requirements apply to which product categories. (See the
third chapter.) The various kinds of data normally required for registration
of a pesticide product can be divided into tvro basic groups:
1.	Data that are product specific , i.e. data that relate only
to the properties or effects of a product with a particular
composition (or a group of products with closely similar
conposition); and
2.	Generic data that pertains to the properties or effects of a
particular ingredient, and thus are relevant to an evaluation of
the risks and benefits of all products, containing that ingredient
(or all such products having a certain use pattern), regardless
of any such product's unique conposition.
The Agency requires certain "product specific" data for each product to
characterize the product's particular composition and physical/chemical
properties (Product Chemistry), and to characterize the product's acute
toxicity (which is a function of its total composition). Hie applicant for
registration or reregistration of any product, whether it is a manufacturing-
use or end-use product, and without regard to its intended use pattern, must
submit or cite enough of this kind of data to allow EPA to evaluate the
product. For such purposes, "product specific" data on any product other than
the applicant's is irrelevant, unless the other product is closely similar in
conposition to the applicant's. (Where it has been found practicable to group
similar products for purposes of evaluating, with a single set of tests, all
products in the group, the Standard so indicates.) "Product specific" data on
the efficacy of particular end-use products are also required where the exact
formulation may affect efficacy and where failure of efficacy could cause
public health problems.
All other data needed to evaluate pesticide products concern the properties or
effects of a particular ingredient of products (normally a pesticidally active
ingredient, but in some cases a pesticidally inactive, or "inert",
ingredient). Some data in this "generic" category are required to evaluate the
properties and effects of all products containing that ingredient [e.g., the
acute LD-50 of the active ingredient in its technical or purer grade; see
proposed guidelines, 43 FR 37355].
4

-------
Other "generic" data are required to evaluate all products which both contain a
particular ingredient and are intended for certain uses (see, e.g., proposed
guidelines,43 FR 37363, which requires subchronic oral testing of the
active ingredient with respect to certain use patterns only). Where a
particular data requirement is use-pattern dependent, it will apply to each end-
use product which is to be labeled for that use pattern (except where such end-
use product is formulated from a registered manufacturing-use product
permitting such formulations) and to each manufacturing-use product with
labeling that allows it to be used to make end-use products with that use
pattern. Thus, for example, a subchronic oral dosing study is needed to
evaluate the safety of any manufacturing-use product that legally could be used
to make an end-use, food-crop pesticide. But if an end-use product's label
specified it was for use only in ways that involved no food/feed exposure and
no repeated human exposure, the subchronic oral dosing study would not be
required to evaluate the product's safety; and if a manufacturing-use product's
label states that the product is for use only in making end-use products not
involving food/feed use or repeated human exposure, that subchronic oral Study
would not be relevant to the' evaluation of the manufacturing-use product either.
If a registrant of a currently registered manufacturing-use or end-use product
wishes to avoid the costs of data compensation [under FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D)]
or data generation [under Section 3(c)(2)(B)] for "generic" data that is
required only with respect to sane use patterns, he may elect to delete those
use patterns from his labeling at the time he reregisters his product. An
applicant for registration of a new product under this Standard may similarly
request approval for only certain use patterns.
E. "Exclusive Use" and "Data Compensation" Under FIFRA Section 3(C)(1)(D)
FIFRA section 3(C)(1)(D)(i) provides special "exclusive use" protection for
certain data concerning any pesticide product first registered after September
30, 1978, that contains an active ingredient not found in any previously
registered product. (Bolstar®, with its new active ingredient sulprofos, is
such a product.)
The statute provides that data submitted to support the original registration
of such a product may not be considered by EPA to support the registration of
another firm's product unless the original data submitter has consented in
writing. This period of "exclusive use" lasts for 15 years after the initial
registration. Mobay Chemical Corporation's registration for its Bolstar®
product was issued on February 15, 1979. The Chapter III data charts contained
within this standard indicate those data which are subject to this "exclusive
use" provision.
5

-------
Under FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D), an applicant for registration, reregistration,
or amended registration must offer to.pay compensation for certain existing
data the Agency has used in developing the Registration Standard. The data for
which condensation must be offered are all data which are described by all of
the following criteria:
1.	Hie data were first submitted to EPA (or to its predecessor
agencies,'USDA or FDA), on or after January 1, 1970;
2.	The data were submitted to EPA (or USDA or FDA) by some other
applicant or registrant in support of an application for an
experimental use permit, an amendment adding a new use to a
registration, or for registration, or to support or maintain
an existing registration;
3.	They are the kind of data which are relevant to the Agency's
decision to register or reregister the applicant's product
under the Registration Standard, taking into account the
applicant's product's composition and intended use pattern(s);
4.	The Agency has found the data to be valid and usable in reaching
regulatory conclusions; and
5.	They are not data for which the applicant has been exempted by
FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D) from the duty to offer to pay
compensation. (This exemption applies to the "generic" data
concerning the safety of an active ingredient of the applicant's
product, not to "product specific" data. The exemption is
available only to applicants whose product is labeled for end-
uses for which the active ingredient in question is present in
the applicant's product because of his use of another registered
product containing that active ingredient which he purchases from
another producer.
An applicant for reregistration of an already registered product under this
Standard, or for registration of a new product under this Standard, accordingly
must determine which of the data used by EPA in developing the Standard must be
the subject of an offer to pay compensation, and must submit with his
application the appropriate statements evidencing his compliance with FIFRA
Section 3(c)(1)(D).
An applicant would never be required to offer to pay for "product specific"
data submitted by another firm. In many, if not in most cases, data which are
specific to another firm's product will not suffice to allow EPA to evaluate
the applicant's product, that is, will not be useful to the Agency in
determining whether the applicant's product is registrable. There may be
6

-------
cases, however, where because of close similarities between the composition of
two or more products, another firm's data may suffice to allow EPA to evaluate
sane or all of the "product specific" aspects of the applicant's product. In
such a case, the applicant nay choose to cite those data instead of submitting
data fran tests on his own product, and if he chooses that option, he would
have to conply with the offer-to-pay requirements of Section 3(C)(1)(D) for
that data.
Each applicant for registration or reregistration of a manufacturing-use
product, and each applicant for registration or reregistration of an end-use
product, who is not exempted by FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D), must comply with the
Section 3(c)(1)(D) requirements with respect to each item of "generic" data
that relates to his product's intended uses.
A detailed description of the procedures an applicant must folio? in applying
for reregistration (or new registration) under this Standard is found in the
Guidance Package for this Standard.
F. Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)
Sane of the kinds of data EPA needs for its evaluation of the properties and
effects of products to which this Standard applies have never been submitted to
the Agency (or, if submitted, have been found to have deficiencies rendering
them, inadequate for making registrability decisions) and have not been located
in the published literature search that EPA conducted as part of preparing this
Standard. Such instances of missing but required data are referred to in the
Standard as "data gaps".
FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(B), added to FIFRA by the Congress in 1978, authorizes
EPA to require registrants to whan a data requirement applies to generate (or
otherwise produce) data to fill such "gaps" and submit those data to EPA. EPA
must allcw a reasonably sufficient period for this to be accomplished. If a
registrant fails to take appropriate and timely steps to fill the data gaps
identified by a section 3(c)(2)(B) order, his product's registration may be
suspended until the data are submitted. A mechanism is provided whereby two or
more registrants may agree to share in the costs of producing data for which
they are both responsible.
The Standard lists, in the third chapter, the "generic" data gaps and notes the
classes of products to which these data gaps pertain. The Standard also points
out that to be registrable under the Standard, a product must be supported by
certain required "product specific" data. In sane cases, the Agency may
possess sufficient "product specific" data on one currently registered product,
but may lack such data on another. Oily those Standards which apply to a very
small number of currently registered products will attempt to state
7

-------
definitively the "product specific" data gaps on a "product by product"
basis. (Although the Standard will in seme cases note which data that EPA does
possess would suffice to satisfy certain "product specific" data requirements
for a category of products with closely similar composition characteristics.)
As part of the process of reregistering currently registered products, EPA will
issue Section 3(c)(2)(B) directives requiring the registrants to take
appropriate steps to fill all identified data gaps — whether the data in
question are "product specific" or "generic" — in accordance with a schedule.
Persons who wish to obtain registrations for new products under this Standard
will be required to submit (or cite) sufficient "product specific" data before
their applications are approved. Upon registration, they will be required
under Section 3(c)(2)(B) to take appropriate steps to submit data needed to
fill "generic" data gaps. (Vfe expect they will respond to this requirement by
entering into cost-sharing agreements with other registrants who previously
have been told they must furnish the data.) The Guidance Package for this
Standard details the steps that must be taken by registrants to comply with
Section 3(c)(2)(B).
G. Amendments to the Standard
Applications for registration which propose uses or formulations that are not
presently covered by the Standard, or which present product compositions,
product chemistry data, hazard data, toxicity levels, or labeling that do not
meet the requirements of the Standard, will automatically be considered by the
Agency to be requests for amendments to the Standard. In response to such
applications, the Agency may request additional data to support the proposed
amendment to the Standard, or may deny the application for registration on the
grounds that the proposed product would cause unreasonable adverse effects to •'
the environment. In the former case, when additional data have been
satisfactorily supplied, and providing that the data do not indicate the
potential for unreasonable adverse effects, the Agency will then amend the
Standard to cover the new registration.
Each Registration Standard is based upon all data and information available to
the Agency's reviewers on a particular date prior to the publication date.
This "cut-off" date is stated at the beginning of the second chapter. Any
subsequent data submissions and any approved amendments will be incorporated
into the Registration Standard by means of addenda, which are available for
inspection at EPA in Washington, D.C., or copies of which may be requested from
the Agency. Hien all the present "data gaps" have been filled and the
submitted data have been reviewed, the Agency will revise the Registration
Standard. Thereafter, when the Agency determines that the internally
maintained addenda have significantly altered the conditions for registration
under the Standard, the document will be updated and re-issued.
8

-------
While the Registration Standard discusses only the uses and hazards of products
containing the designated active ingredient(s), the Agency is also concerned
with the potential hazards of some inert ingredients and iirpurities.
Independent of the development of any one Standard, the Agency has initiated
the evaluation of some inert pesticide ingredients. Where the Agency has
identified inert ingredients of concern in a specific product to which the
Standard applies, these ingredients will be pointed out in the Guidance Package.
9

-------
Chapter II: REGULATORY POSITION AND RATIONALE
A.	Introduction
B.	Description of Chemical
C.	Regulatory Positon
D.	Regulatory Rationale
E.	Criteria for Registration under the Standard
F.	Required Labeling
G.	Tblerance Reassessment
H.	New or Amended Registrations
A.	Introduction
This chapter presents the Agency's regulatory position and rationale based
upon an evaluation of all available data related to pesticidal
products containing sulprofos (O-ethyl 0-[4-(methylthio)phenyl] S-propyl
phosphorodithioate) as their sole active ingredient. Following an abbreviated
chemical description, this chapter presents the regulatory position and
rationale, the criteria for registration/reregistration of sulprofos containing
products, labeling considerations, and tolerance reassessment. A summary of
all data requirements is contained within Chapter III. A discussion of the
data upon which the Agency's regulatory postion is based is presented within
disciplinary chapters IV through VIII.
B.	Description of Chemical
Sulprofos (O-ethyl 0-[4-(methylthio)phenyl] S-propyl phosphorodithioate) is
currently conditionally registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency as an insecticide/acaracide. At the time of publication of this
Standard, cotten is the sole site of application. Sulprofos, in the
literature, may be alternately identified as BAY NTN 9306, Helothion® and
Bolstar®, the registered trade name under which sulprofos is currently
marketed. The OPP Internal Control Number (EPA Shaughnessy Number) is 111501.
C.	Regulatory Position
Sulprofos, as described within this Standard, may be registered for sale,
distribution, reformulation and use within the United States and its
territories. The Agency in preparing this Standard, has considered the
scientific data obtained from the open literature through February 12, 1981,
and those data submitted by the registrant up through the date of publication
of this Standard. Based upon a review of these data, the Agency finds that
sulprofos has neither met nor exceeded any of the risk criteria found within
section 162.11(a) of Title 40 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. The
Agency has thus determined¦that sulprofos does not appear to cause
10

-------
unreasonable adverse effects to either man or the environment when used in
accordance with prescribed label directions and precautions. Currently
registered sulprofos products may be reregistered subject to the conditions
imposed under this chapter, and to the data requirements identified
within Chapter III. New products, complying with the terms and conditions
established for reregistration, may be registered under this standard.
D.	Regulatory Rationale
A reasonably complete data base is available for registration support in
relation to sulprofos. Those data which have yet to be developed, are
princinpally confirmatory in nature. Sulprofos, as defined by available
chronic test data, does not appear to induce oncogenicity, teratogenicity,
mutagenicity or reproductive inhibition. Sufficient acute toxicity data are
available to permit consideration for registration under those parameters
provided within paragraphs E.l.b. and E.2.b. of this chapter.
Although certain items of data remian outstanding, the Agency has concluded
to register or reregister sulprofos containing products. Hie Agency provides
as a basis for this decision the following:
1.	No adverse effects data of regulatory concern have been revealed in the
review of those studies made available to the Agency. The Agency,
therefore, has concluded that the known risks, as mitigated by product
labeling, are of such a nature as to warrant no immediate adverse
regulatory action.
2.	No confirmed pesticide poisioning or environmental effect incidents have
been reported to the Agency.
3.	The Agency's policy, in keeping with the intent of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), is to neither routinely cancel
existing product registrations nor deny new registrations for products for
which incorrplete data bases may exist. (See sections 3(c)(2)(B) and
3(c)(7) of the FIFRA.) The Agency believes that publication of this
Standard permits not only the identification of data needs, but also
allows for the upgrading of labels during the period in which the required
data are being generated. Upon receipt and review of outstanding data, the
Agency will reassess the registrability of each given chemical.
E.	Criteria for Registration Under The Standard
Tb be subject to this Standard, products must meet the following conditions:
- Contain O-Ethyl 0-[4-(methylthio)phenyl] S-propyl phosphorodithioate as the
sole active ingredient (herein defined as including products containing up
to and including 15% petroleum distillate),
11

-------
-	bear required labeling,
-	conform to the product composition standard, acute toxicity limits, and use
pattern requirements as specified in part l.a., b., and c.r and 2.a., b.,
and c., respectively.
The applicant for registration or reregistration of products subject to this
Standard must comply with all terms and conditions described within this
Standard, including a commitirvent to fill data gaps in accord with the time
schedule specified by the Agency and, when applicable, offer to pay
compensation to the extent required under section 3(c)(1)(D) of the FIFRA, as
amended, 7 u.S.C. 136(c)(1)(D). As discussed within Chapter I, applicants for
registration under this Standard should contact the Agency for specific
instructions, including updated information on data requirements and companies
whose data must be cited and to whom compensation must be offered.
1.	Manufacturing-Use Products
a.	Product Composition Standard
lb be elegible for registration/reregistration under this standard,
manufacturing-use products must contain sulprofos as their sole active
ingredient. Such formulations may contain percentages of active ingredient up
to and including 87.0%. Each formulation proposed for registration must be
fully described within an appropriate certification of limits.
b.	Acute Toxicity Limits
Due to the intended use of manufacturing-use sulprofos products, there are no
acute toxicity limits.
c.	Use Patterns
To be eligible for registration/reregistration under this standard,
manufacturing-use products must bear labeling limiting use to the formulation
of insecticide/acaracide end-use products intended for application to cotton.
2.	End-use Products
a. Product Composition Standard
Any end-use product containing 64% sulprofos in combination with 0 to 15%
petroleum distillate will be considered under this Standard. Each-proposed
formulation must be fully described within an appropriate certification of
limits.
12

-------
b. Acute Toxicity Limit
The Agency, given the single agricultural site of application, will consider
for registration end-use products of any toxicity category. This acceptance,
however, is predicated upon label incorporation of appropriate hazard warnings,
precautionary, and use restriction statements as may be required. The Agency
will, therefore, consider the registration of any emulsifiable concentrate
formulation in the following categories:
Toxicity Category

I
II
III
IV
Acute oral Toxicity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Primary Dermal Irritation
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
c. Use Pattern
To be considered under this Standard, end-use products must bear directions for
use as an insecticide/acaricide intended for either ground or aerial
application to cotton.
F. Required Labeling
All manufacturing-use and end-use sulprofos products must bear appropriate
labeling as specified in 40 CFR 162.10. The guidance package which accompanies
this Standard contains specific information regarding label requirements.
1.	Manufacturing-Use Products
All manufacturing-use sulprofos products must bear a label statement which
provides that the product may be used only in the formulation of
insecticide/acaracide products approved by the United States Envionmental
Protection Agency.
2.	End-use Products
a. Human hazard precautionary statements
The human hazard precautionary statements are to be segregated according to the
various routes of exposure, with the routes of greatest hazard being listed
first. The statements will be consistant with those provided by the Guidance
Package.
13

-------
b. Environmental hazard statements
The Agency believes that end use product application must be restricted to
trained applicators because of the apparent high toxicity of sulprofos to fish
and wildlife. It is the Agency's belief that such a restriction will minimize
the potential for over-application, and application to nontarget sites. End
use sulprofos labeling, therefore, must bear the following statement:
"RESTRICTED USE PESTICIDE"
"For retail sale and use only by Certified Applicators
or persons under their direct supervision and only for
those uses covered by the Certified Applicator's certification"
The "Restricted Use" classification of sulprofos will be reevaluated upon
submission and review of those pertinent studies identified as data gaps within
Chapter III of this Standard.
In conjunction with the "Restricted Use" classification, the following
environmental hazard statements pertinent to the potential effect of sulprofos
application on fish and wildlife must appear on end-use product labeling.
"This pesticide is toxic to fish and wildlife. Use with care when applying in
areas frequented by wildlife or adjacent to any body of water. Co not apply
directly to water. Do not apply when weather conditions favor run-off or drift
from target areas. Dd not contaminate water by cleaning of equiprment or
disposal of wastes."
The Agency has additionally noted that sulprofos can pose a threat to honey
bees. In this regard, end-use sulprofos labeling must bear the following
environmental hazard statement:
"This product is toxic to bees exposed to direct treatment or residues on crops
or weeds. Do not apply this product or allow it to drift to crops or weeds on
which bees are actively foraging."
G. Tblerance Reassessment
Sulprofos has been granted those tolerances requisite for application to
cotton. (See 43 FR 32132 of July 25, 1978). Tolerances of 0.01 ppn have been
established for the fat, meat and meat by-products of cattle, goats, hogs,
horses poultry and sheep. A 0.001 ppn tolerance level has been established for
milk and eggs, and a 0.5 ppm level for cottonseed. Since toxicological data
considered in support of those tolerances established as of July 25, 1978, are
14

-------
identical to those data reviewed under this Standard, the Agency does not
believe that there exists any reasonable cause to reassess current sulprofos
tolerances. In similar fashion, the Agency has noted no additional residue
chemistry, international tolerance, or similar considerations which might give
cause for a reassessemt of existing tolerances.
Based upon the the 10 ppm no observed effect level (NOEL) derived from the two-
year dog-feeding study discussed within Chapter VI of this Standard, the
acceptable daily intake (ADI) for man has been calculated to be 0.025 rig/kg
body weight per day. The established tolerances theoretically represent 0.32
percent of the acceptable daily intake (ADI). Hie theoretical maximal residue
contribution (TMRC) in the human diet from these tolerances is 0.0048 mg/day.
The Agency, upon consideration of all available toxicity data, has concluded
that a sulprofos TMRC of 0.0048 mg/day would pose no risk to human health.
The Agency has, however, noted in its review of rotational crop residue data
that sulprofos residues can occur in crops planted in excess of one year
following the last application (see Chapter V). In light of the proven
potential for rotational residues, the Agency has determined that sufficient
cause exists to impose, in the absence of petitions for rotational crop
tolerances, a rotational crop restriction. The following statement must appear
upon all end-use sulprofos labeling:
"Rotational crops may not be grown in fields
treated with this product."
The registrant(s) may, at their discretion, amend the above rotational crop
restriction by providing a six month rotational restriction specific to
potatoes and cucumbers and a 60 day rotational restriction specific to turnips
and peas. A complete restriction for all other crops must, however, accorrpany
any statement pertaining to potatoes, cucumbers, turnips and/or peas. The
registrant(s), further, retain options for the amendmending or removal of the
rotational crop restriction. The registrant(s) may submit environmental fate
data to support a rotation interval which does not result in a pesticide
residue in the rotated crop. Alternatively, the registrant(s) may submit a
petition for tolerance for the nontarget crop or request an exenption fran a
tolerance.
An additional Agency concern regarding tolerances involves current labeling
permitting the application of tank mixes of sulprofos and Guthion to cotton up
to 21 or 14 days before harvest. Although it is not Agency policy to
customarily address tank mixes within single active Standards, the appearance
of the tank mix instructions only upon Bolstar® 6 labeling necessitates the
current incorporation of a label restriction. As both compounds are
cholinesterase inhibitors, samples bearing residues of both compounds at their
respective tolerance levels (0.5 ppm) would be in violation of 40 CFR
180.3(e)(1). The Agency believes, in view of data indicating that Guthion
15

-------
residues applied 14 days before harvest would not be significant (<0.05 ppm),
has concluded that the tank mix, if not followed by subsequent applications of
Guthion, would not be in violation of 180.3(e)(1). Since current Guthion
labeling, however, would permit additional applications (up to one day before
harvest), it is the Agency's judgment that the tank mix recommendation must
bear a restriction prohibiting any additional application of Guthion within 14
days of harvest.
H. New and Amended Registrations Under This Standard
Principal among the goals of the Registration Standards process is not only the
reregistration of currently registered pesticide chemicals, but also the
creation of a mechanism for the registration of new and added uses of a
chemical. Although sulprofos bears current registration only for use on
cotton, it may be anticipated that new sites of application will be sought.
Being a broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide/acaracide, it would be
virtually impossible to anticipate future registration actions with any degree
of certainty. It is, however, possible to define the general applicability of
this Standard.
The Agency in its review of the current data base has determined that sulprofos
does not appear to present any human chronic toxicity hazard. The Agency can
not make a categorical statement with respect to chronic hazard until such time
as certain mutagenicity and teratogenicity studies, identified in Chapter III,
are submitted and reviewed. Assuming these studies produce negative findings,
the Agency will adopt the results and conclusions of this Standard for all
future registration actions. Additional chronic data will not be required
except under those circumstances in which major alterations in use pattern and
formulation might be sought. An example of such an alteration would be the use
of sulprofos in an aerosol or pressurized spray formulation intended for indoor
use. Should such a registration be' sought, the Agency would require the
submission of an acceptable subchronic inhalation toxicity study as described
under Guideline section 163.82-4. The Agency might also seek chronic toxicity
data should the technical synthesis process be altered to permit the
introduction of additional unintentional ingredients or should the ratio of
those unintentional ingredients currently known to the Agency be radically
altered. Similarly, the addition of inert ingredients into the manufacturing-
use product(s) might necessitate the submission of additional data.
In similar fashion, the Agency will seek to apply the acute toxicity data
presented within this Standard in as broad a fashion as may be deemed
scientifically justifiable. With regard to manufacturing-use sulprofos, the
potential range of formulations is limited. The Agency is not in a position to
ascertain whether or not increasing the percentage of parent sulprofos,
currently 87.0 percent, would alter a given toxicity category. Similarly, any
reduction from the current 87.0 percent level may or may not entail the
addition of unintentional ingredients. As a consequence, no specific range may
16

-------
be established under this standard. This does not, however, preclude agency
use of the current acute toxicity data base. The Agency will review the
discussion on formation of unintentional ingredients as well as the delaration
and certification of ingredient limits for any new manufacturing-use
product(s) and, frcm these data, make a determination as to the necessity for
additional acute studies.
In relation to end use sulprofos products, the current data base was
established as a result of tests conducted upon a 64 percent sulprofos
formulation containing 15 percent petroleum distillates. As discussed within
Chater VI of this Standard, the acute toxicity of the end-use product is equal
to or less than that of the manufacturing-use product for each criteria except
eye irritation. The Agency will, therefore, accept, without the submission of
additional acute toxicity data, the registration of any emulsifiable
concentrate end use product having 64 percent or less sulprofos as its sole
active ingredient. This acceptance is based on Agency review of the product
identity and disclosure of ingredients statement accompanying each application
for registration. In only those cases where Agency review reveals the presence
of an inert ingredient of known or suspected acute toxicological significance
will additional acute toxicity data be requested. The eye irritancy is thought
to be related to the petroleum distillate. Petroleum distillates are
additionally known to manifest other acute toxicity symptoms. Hie Agency has,
therefore, established a current data applicability limit to products
containing 15 percent or less petroleum distillates. Registrants wishing to
register an end-use formulation containing a significantly lessened percentage
of active ingredient may rely upon the current data base. It must be noted,
however, that in the absence of additional acute toxicity data, product
labeling must bear those precautionary statements indicated by the current data
base.
The current Environmental Fate data base, like that for toxicology, is
reasonably complete. There remains sans question with regard to the fate of
sulprofos when applied to muck soil, and in relation to the movement of
sulprofos and certain of its degradation products in the environment. A
sufficient data base is, however, available to support certain additonal
patterns of use. The Agency will consider, upon submission of acceptable
adsorption/desorption data and applicable crop specific residue chemistry data
(see Chapters V and VII), the registration of emulsifiable concentrate
formulations falling within the concentration range described above for all
field and vegetable crops. The general applicability of the data base is
limited, in part, as follows: (1) crops grown in muck soils will not be
registrable' until such time as the existing muck soil dissipation data may be
clarified or new data submitted, (2) as some question remains as to the
movement of sulprofos and certain of its degradation products, the Agency will
require a sandy soil use restriction, and (3) the addition of leguminous crops
will require a reinvestigation of potential breaks in the nitrogen fixation
cycle.
17

-------
In addition to field and vegetable crops, the existing data base is broadly
applicable to other potential sites of application. Only those studies unique
to the newly proposed site need be pursued. Forest use, as an example, would
require those additional items of data identified under section 163.62-10(d).
Greenhouse use, as another example, would require the generation of both
volatility and adsorption data. In all cases, the Agency will strive to apply
the existing data base, requiring only those studies which are unique to a
given use pattern. Tb ascertain the need for additonal data, the data base
presented by this standard may be compared to the site specific requirements
outlined under Guideline section 163.62-6.
Unlike the data bases for either toxicology or environmental fate, the
ecological effects data base remains somewhat incomplete. The available data
strongly suggests that sulprofos and/or its degradation products is acutely
toxic to avian and aquatic species. Ihe Agency must, therefore, exercise
caution in extending the current data base in support of additonal sites of
application. Uitil such time as the Agency may receive and evaluate the
adsorption/desorption arid avian field studies identified as data gaps in
Chapter III of this Standard, the Agency must not attempt to identify
additional registerable sites. The Agency will, however, entertain
applications for new or amended registration and on a case-by-case basis apply
the existing data base for added field and vegetable crops. The Agency does
not believe that the current data base would permit the extension of
registration beyond certain, field and vegetable crop sites of application.
Aquatic, forest, and similar sites of fish and wildlife concern are not
supportable under the current data base.
18

-------
CHAPTER III: SUMMARY OF DATA REQUIREMENTS AND DATA GAPS
A.	Introduction
B.	Tkble A - Generic Data Requirements
C.	Table B - Product Specific Manufacturing Use Products Data Requirements
D.	T&ble C - Product Specific End-Use Product Data Requirements
A. Introduction	•
Applicants for registration of manufacturing-use and end-use sulprofos
products must cite or submit the information identified as required in the
tables in this chapter. The tables applicable to end-use products indicate
whether the product to be tested is the technical grade or formulation. Data
generated on one formulation may be used to satisfy the data requirement for a
substantially similar formulation. Information on which product specific data
requirements are already met is available in the guidance package.
Listed before each requirement is the Proposed Guidelines section which
describes the type of data and when the data are required to be submitted [43
FR, 29696 of July 10, 1978; and 43 FR, 37336 of August 22, 1978}.
Justification for requiring the test is provided in the Guidelines. A
discussion of why data additional to that already submitted are necessary, or
why data normally required are not necessary for this chemical, is explained
in footnotes to the tables. The data requirements specified are the minimum
that will be required. Areas where additional data, may be required as the
result of tiered testing are indicated.
19

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Environmental Fate (Chapter V)
Guidelines Name of Test
Citation
163.62-7(b) Hydrolysis
Arc Data
Required?
yes
Composition
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Does EPA Have Data
bo Partially or
'totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
yes
Bibliographic
Citation
GS0076-034
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(D)?
If so, due when?	
no
163.62-7(c) Photodegradation
yes
'Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
yes
GS0076-025,-026,
-098
no
163.62-8(b) Aerobic Soil Metabolism yes
163.62-8(c) Anaerobic Soil
metabolism
yes
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical (jr.
yes
yes
GS0076-167
(kS007f?-034
no
no
Microbial Metabolism:
(2) Effects of Microbes reserved—'
on Pesticides
2/
(3) Effects of
Pesticides on
Microbes
Activated sludge
metabolism
reserved^
reserved^
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
GS0076-143
GS0076-108,-144,
-145,-177
1/
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981,
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end
Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements. A
of this Standard.
1/ As discussed within Chapter V, the available data indicate that sulprofos and/or its degradation products may
cause a break in the nitrogen cycle. Although the Agency does not believe it necessary to identify a data -
gap for cotton use, the Agency may require additional data should registration be sought for sulprofos use on
crops tor which nitrogen fixation is agriculturally important.
2/ The requirement for submission of these data is currently being reserved pending the review and modification
of the testing protocols. Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not constitute a data gap.
?0

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Environmental Fate (Chapter V)
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Ccmposition
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
"ltotally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Mditional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?	
163.62-9(b) Leaching
yes
163.62-9(d) Adsorption/Desorption yes
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
yes
no
GS0076-024,-025
no
yes/8 mo.—^
163.62-10(b)
163.62-10(f)
Terrestrial Field
Dissipation:
(1) Field St Vegetable
Crops
yes
fclnulsifiable
Goncentrate
yes
Combination and
tank mix field
dissipation
reserved^/
GS-0076,016,-017,
-018,-019,-057,-058,
-059,-060,-061,-062,
-063,-064,-065,-066,
-067,-068,-075,-084,
-151,-156,-158,-167
2/
no-
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements,
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ Adsorption/desorption ooefficients must be provided for all degradation products shown to comprise 10 percent
or more of applied activity.
2/ The Agency, in reviewing available muck soil dissipation data, has noted inconsistencies in the findings. The Agency
does not, however, deem the absence of valid muck soil dissipation data to be critical to the cotton pattern of use for
which sulprofos is currently registered. Should new uses, involving crops grown in muck soil, be pursued,
additional dissipation data will be requested.
3/ Not applicable in single active ingredient Standards.
21

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Environmental Fate (Chapter V)
Guidelines Name of Test
Citation
Are Data
Required?
Composition
Does EPA Have Data	Bibliographic
to Partially or	Citation
Tbtally Satisfy
this Requirement?		
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
It so, due when?
163.62-11(b) Accumulation in
Rotational Crops
yes
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr
partial
GS0076-001,-002,
Followed by
Formulation
-003,-004,-005,-006
-007,-008,-009,-010
-011,-012,-013,-014
-015,-056,-173
163.62-11(d) Fish Accumulation
yes
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr
yes
GS0076-139
no
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package tor updated requirements. A
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ Removal of rotation crop restriction requires one of the following:
a)	Environmental fate data to support a rotation interval which does not result in a pesticide residue
- in the rotated crop;
b)	A tolerance for the nontarget crop;
c)	An exemption from a tolerance.
22

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Toxicology (Chapter VI)
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
Docs EPA Ilave Data
to Partially or
Tbtally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.01-5
163.81-6
163.81-7
163.82-1
Acute Oral Toxicity	yes
Acute Dermal Toxicity	yes
Acute Inhalation Toxicity yes
Primary Eye Irritation yes
Primary Dermal Irritation yes
Dermal Sensitization
/tute Delayed
Neurotoxicity
Subchronic oral
Ibxici ty
yes
yes
yes
Fach Product or	yes
Substantially
Similar Product
Ea. Prod, or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Fa. Prod, or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Fa. Prod, or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Ea. Prod. or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Ea. Prod, or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Ea. Prod, or Substan.	yes
Sim. Prod.
Tech. Grade of A.I. .	yes
GS0027-125,-126,
-130,-131,-132,-133,
-134,-135,-136,-137
GS0076-122
GS0076-102
CS0076-092
GS0076-092
GS0076-118
GS0076-181
GS0076-091,-109,
-110
no
no
no
no
no
no
no
1/
no-
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements. A
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end ot this Standard.
1/ As noted within Chapter VI of this Standard, the subchronic oral toxicity data submitted tor Agency review do not
fully comply with Guideline requirements. As provided under section 163.82-l(c)(6)(ii), tests conducted with
nonrodents must be of a six month duration. Hie available subchronic dog feeding study was conducted tor a period
of only 90 days and, hence, must be judged as supplementary data only. Hie availability of neqative chronic feeding
studies obviates the necessity for additional short-term testing. Hie Agency therefore, has concluded that additional
subchronic oral toxicity studies need not be submitted.
23

-------
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Ttoxicology (Chapter VI)
Are nata
Required?
Composition
Does KPA Have Data
to Partially or
Totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
tx? Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(C)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
163.82-2
163.82-4
163.82-5
Subchronic 21-Day
Dermal Toxicity
Subchronic Inhalation
Toxicity
1/
yes-
yes
Subchronic Neurotoxicity no-'
3/
no
'Itech. Grade of A.I. partial
GS0076-103
no
no-
no
2/
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requiraitents. A
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ Althouqh customarily required, the Agency is prepared to waive the data requirement for a subchronic 21-day dermal
toxicity test on the manufacturing-use product. 'Ihis waiver is basc;d upon the absence of observable chronic effects
in any of the chronic studies which have been made available for Agency review, and upon the availability of a
subchronic 21-day dermal toxicity test conducted utilizing the 64% end-use product. This latter study provides no
evidence of any chronic effect ensuing from repeated dermal exposure.
2/ As noted within Chapter VI, the available subchronic inhalation study fails to meet the duration requirement established
under section 163.82—4(c)(5). The Agency, however, is prepared to waive the submission of additional subchronic inhalation
toxicity data. Hie Agency has determined that although the pattern of chemical use will lead to sane inhalational exposure to
spray mist, such exposure will be limited. The Agency additionally finds no pattern of chronic effects have been established in
response to the review of other available chronic data.
3/ The Agency, based upon its review of available acute delayed neurotoxicity data, finds that the criteria established under
163.82-5(3)(1) and (2) have not been met. Due to the negative findings of the acute delayed neurotoxicity
study in relation to both neuropathy and delayed neurotoxicity, the Agency will not impose a subchronic neurotoxicity
data requirement.
24

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Ttoxicology (Chapter VI)
Are Data Composition Does EPA Have Data Bibliographic Must Additional Data
Required? to Partially or Citation be Submitted Under
"totally Satisfy FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
this Requirement? If so, due when?
163.83-1
Chronic Feeding
Study
yes
Technical Grade of
Active Ingredient
yes
GS0076-114
no
163.83-2
Qicogenicity
yes
Tech.
Grade of A.I.
yes
GS0076-115,-117
no
163.83-3
Teratogenicity
yes
Tech.
Grade of A.I.
partial
GS0076-141
1/
yes-
163.83-4
Reproduction
yes
Tech.
Grade of A.I.
partial
GS0076-095
no
-
Mutagenicity
yes
Tech.
Grade of A.I.
partial-^
GS-0076-140
yes/14
163.85-1
Metabolism
yes
Tech.
Grade of A.I.
yes
GS-0076-032
no
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements. A
nunerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ As provided under section 163.83-3(b)(2) teratogenicity testing "shall be performed in at least two mammalian species.
Ttie rat, mouse, hamster, or rabbit is acceptable. Other species may be used if adequate justification is supplied.
One species should be the same as the species used in the reproduction study (section 163.83-4)." The above-cited
teratogenicity study, while acceptable, must be supplemented by a confirmatory second study. As the submitted study
investigated the teratogenic potential of sulprofos in relation to rabbits, the Agency would prefer that the outstanding
study be conducted utilizing the laboratory rat.
2/ The following studies represent only the minimum requirements for data on the potential heritable effects of sulprofos:
1. A mammalian in-vitro point mutation test.
2. A sensitive sub-mammalian point mutation test. (Bacteria, fungi, insect).
3. A primary DNA damage test (i.e. sister chromatid exchange or unscheduled DNA synthesis).
4. A mammalian in-vitro cytogenetics test. If this test suggests a positive result, a dominant lethal or
heritable translocation test may be required.
After results fran these test systems and other toxicology disciplines have been considered, additional testing may
be required to further characterize or quantify the potential genetic risks.
Although the Agency's mutagenic testing requirements are not final, the standards for these tests should be based on the
principles set forth in 43 FR 37388. Protocols and choices of test systems should be acccnpanied by a scientific
rationale'. Substitutions of test systems for those listed above will be considered after discussion with the Agency.
The requirements should be considered an interim guide and not final /yjency policy. However, the Agency does consider
the above testing scheme to be a reasonable minimum requirement.
Guidelines Name of Test
Citation
As the submitted study involved a negative dominant lethal assay, the Agency will consider the requirement for a mammalian in-vitro
cytogenetics test to have been fulfilled.
25

-------
Guidelines
Citation
T^ble A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Residue - Chemistry (Chapter VII)
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
Ttitally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
Metabolism in Plants
Metabolism in Animals
Analytical Methods
Residue Data: Crop
Residue Data: Meat,
Milk and Eggs
Storage Stability
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
GS0076-034	no
GS0076,-078,-083,	no
-093,-099,-168
GS0076-022,-039,	no
-072,-074,-076,-159,
-169,-172,-174,-175
GS0076-027,-028,	no
-036,-044,-045,-046,
-047,-048,-049,-050,
-051,-052,-053,-054,
-055,-077,-096,-147,
-148,-155,-162,-170,
-171,-176,-182
GS0076-037,-038,	no
-040,-041,-043,-146,
-155
GS0076-020,-021,	no
-023,-166
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements. A
nimerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
26

-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Ecological Kffects (Chapter VIII)
Guidelines Name of Test	Are Data	Composition	Does i;PA Have Data	Bibliographic Must Additional Data
Citation	Required?	to Partially or	Citation	be Submitted Under
Totally Satisfy FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
					this Requirement?		II so, due when?
163.71-1
Avian Single-Dose Oral LD5q
yes
Tech.
yes
GS0076-081,-119
no
163.71-2
Avian Dietary LC^q
yes
Tech.
yes
GS0076-120
no
163.71-3
Mammalian Acute Toxicity
no^
-
-
-
no
163.71-4
Avian Reproduction.
yes
Tech.
yes
GS0076-082,-185
no
163.71-5
Simulated and Actual Field
Testing for Mammals & Birds
yes
Tech.
no
-
yes/16 mo.—^
163.72-1
Fish Acute LC^g Reserved^/
'l
-------
Table A: Sulprofos
Generic Data Requirements: Ecological Fffects (Chapter VTII)
Guidelines
Citation
Nome of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
Does KPA Have Data
to Partially or
Totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic Must Additional Data
Citation	be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(C)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
163.72-2	fr:ute Toxicity to Aquatic
Invertebrates
163.72-4	Fhibryolarvae Si Life-
cycle Studies of Fish J.
Aquatic Invertebrates
163.72-6	Simulated or Actual
Field Testing for
Aquatic Organisms
yes
Reserved^
Reserved^
Tech.
yes
GS0076-160,-164
no
reserved^
reserved^
163.122-1
163.122-1
163.122-2
Vegetative vigor
Seed Germination
Pquatic Macrophyte
yes
yes
yes
Tech.
Tech.
Tech.
no
no
no
yes/16 mo.
yes/16 mo.
yes/16 mo.
163.122-2	Algae
yes	Tech.	no	-	yes/16 mo.
All data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements. A
numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ The Agency will reserve a determination as to the necessity of these studies pending receipt and evaluation of the
adsorption/desorption data requested elsewhere within this chapter.
28
-------
Table B: Sulprofos
Product Specific Manufacturing Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
'Ibtally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
163.61-3	Product Identity
& Disclosure of
Ingredients
163.61-4	Description of
Manufacturing
Process
163.61-5	Discussion on
Formation of
Unintentional
Ingredients
163.61-6	Declaration &
Certification of
Ingredients Limits
163.61-7	Product Analytical
Methods & Data
163.61-8(c)(l) Color
163.61-8(c)(2) Odor
163.61-8(c)(3) Melting Point
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Technical Grade of
Active Ingredient
Tech. Grade of A.I.
Tech. Grade of A.I.
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
GS0076-149
1/
yes-
1/
yes—
yes^
1/
yes-
no
1/
yes
yesi/
yes1/
These data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ These requirements must be fulfilled by each applicant. Data fran other applicants may not be cited. Therefore, even if
the requirements have been partially or completely fulfiled for some products, no references are given. Except for
163.61-7, these requirements must be filled at the time of registration or reregistration.
29
-------
Tabic B: Sulprofos
Product Specific Manufacturing Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
163.61-8(c)(4) Solubility
163.61-8(c)(5) Stability
yes
yes
163.61-8(c)(6) Octanol/Water Partition yes
Coefficient
163.61-8(c)(7)	Physical State
163.61-8(c)(8)	Specific Gravity
163.61-8(c)(9)	Boiling Point
163.61-8(c)(10)	Vapor Pressure
163.61-8(c)(11)	pH
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
Itotally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Tech. Grade of
Active Ingredient
Tech.	Grade of A.I
Tfcch.	Grade of A.I
'tech.	Grade of A.I
Tech.	Grade of A.I
Ttech.	Grade of A.I
Tech.	Grade of A.I
Tech.	Grade ot A.I
yes
yes
no
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
ye
1/
1/
yes—
yesV
yes^
yes^Z
1/
yes
yes
yes
1/
1/
These data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package tor updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
V These requirements must be"fulfilled by each applicant. Data from other applicants may not be cited. 'Iherefore, even if the
requirement has lieen partially or completely fulfilled for some prcxiucts. No references are given. Except for 163.61-7,
these requirements must be filled at the time of registration or reregistration.
30
-------
Table D: Sulprofos
Product Specific Manufacturing Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guide1ines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
163.61-8(c)(12)	Storage Stability	yes
163.61-8(c) (13)	Flantmability	yes
163.61-8(c)(14)	Oxidizing/Reducing	yes
Action
163.61-8(c)(15)	Explociveness	yes
163.61-8(c)(16)	Miscibility	yes
163.61-8(c)(17)	Viscosity Coefficient	yes
163.61-B(c)(18)	Gorrosiveness	yes
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
Ttotally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
yes
no
no
no
yes
yes
no
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(D)?
If so, due when?
ye:
.1/
yes/6 no.—^
1/
mo.—
yes/6 mo.—'^
1/
yes-
1/
yes—
yes/6 mo.
1/
These data requirements arc current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography (MRU)) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ These requirements must be fulfilled by each applicant. Data from other applicants may not be cited. Therefore, even if the
requirement has been partially or completely fulfilled for some products, no references are given. Except for 163.61-7,
these requirements must be filled at the time of registration or reregistration.
-V
31
-------
Table C: Sulprofos
Product Specific End-Use Products Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
Name ol Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
163.61-3	Product Identity
& Disclosure of
Ingredients
163.61-4	Description of
Manufacturing
Process
163.61-5	Discussion on
Formation of
Unintentional
Ingredients
163.61-6	Declaration S.
Certification of
Ingredients Limits
163.61-7	Product Analytical
Methods & Data
yes
yes
ye*
yes
yes
Each Product
Each Product
Each Product
Flach Product
Each Product
Hoes EPA Have Data
to Partially or
Ibtally Satisfy
this Requirement?
yes
yes
no
no
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional Data
be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(C)(2)(B)?
If so, due when?
yesi/
yes—^
1/
yes
GS0076-150
yes
ye^
no
These data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package tor updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
1/ These requirements must be fulfilled by each applicant. Data from other applicants may not be cited. Therefore, even if the
requirement has been partially or completely fulfilled for some products, no references are given. Except for 163.61-7,
these requirements must be filled at the time of registration or reregistration.
32
-------
Table C: Sulprofos
Product Specific End-Use Product Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines Name of Test	Are nata	Composition	Does EPA Have nata	Hibliographic Must Additional Data
Citation	Required?	to Partially or	Citation	be Submitted Under
Totally Satisfy FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
	tiiis Requirement?	If so, due when?
163.61-8(c)(1)
Color
yes
Each
Product
yes
-
i/
yes—
163.61-8(c)(2)
Odor
yes
Each
Product
yes
-
yesi/
163.61-8(c)(7)
Physical State
yes
Each
Product
yes
-
yesi/
163.61—8(c)(8)
Specific Gravity
yes
Each
Product
yes
-
1/
yes—
163.61-8(c)(11)
pH
yes
Each
Product
no
-
1/
yes—
These data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package for updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography (MRID) is provided at the end of this Standard.
J./ These requirements must be fulfilled by each applicant. Data from other applicants may not te cited. Therefore, even if the
requirement has been partially or completely fulfilled for some products. No references are given. Except for 163.61-7,
these requirements must be filled at the time of registration or reregistration.
33
-------
Tabic C: Suiprofos
Product Specific End-Use Product Data Requirements: Product Chemistry (See Chapter IV)
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data
Required?
Composition
163.61-8(c)(12)	Storage Stability	yes
163.61-8(c)(13)	Flammability	yes
163.61-8(c)(14)	Oxidizing/Reducing	yes
/*:tion
163.61-8(c)(15)	Explosivencss	yes
163.61-8 (c) (.16)	Miscibility	yes
163.61-8(c)(17)	Viscosity Coefficient yes
163.61-8(c)(18)	Corrosiveness	yes
Each Product
Each Pr
-------
Table C: Sulprofos
Product. Specific End-Use Product Data Requirements: Toxicology (See Chapter VI)
Guidelines
Citation
163.81-1
163.81-2
163.81-3
163.81-4
163.81-5
163.81-6
Name of Test
Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicitv
Arc Data
Required?
yes
Composition
yes
/cute Inhalation Toxicity yes
Primary Eye Irritation	yes
Primary Dermal Irritation yes
Dermal Sensitization
yes
Each Product
or Substantially
Similar Product
Does EPA Have Data
to Partially or
Totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
1/
yes-
Ea. Prod, or	ye:
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ea. Prod. or	ye:
Substan. Sim. Prod.
to. Pr od. or
Substan. Sim. Prod.
1/
.1/
1/
yes—
Ea. Prod, or	ye:
Substan. Sim. Prod.
Ea. Prod, or	no
Substan. Sin. Prtxl.
.1/
Bibliographic Must Additional Data
Citation be Submitted Under
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
	 If so, due when?
C5-J0076-127
GS0076-123
(iS0076-124
GS0076-129
GS0076-128
Ml data requirements are current as of August, 1981. Refer to the guidance package tor updated requirements.
A numerical bibliography is provided at the end of this .Standard.
]_/ The available data are adequate in support of end-use products, having a composition range of 64* or less
sulprofos in combination with 0 to 15% petroleum distillates as the sole active ingredients.
no
no
no
no
no
yes/y mo.
35
-------
IV. PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
A.	Product Chemistry - Manufacturing-Use Products
B.	Product Chemistry - End Use Products
A. Product Chemistry ^ Manufacturing-Use Sulprofos
1.	Manufacturing Process
Sulprofos, 0-ethyl 0-[4-(methylthio)phenyl] S-propyl phosphorodithioate, is an
insecticidal compound originated by the parent company Bayer AG, Leverkusen,
West Germany with development by Chemagro Agricultural Division of Mobay
Chemical Corporation. At the time of development of this Standard, only a
single manufacturing use (technical) product has been registered with the
Agency. A complete description of the process by which technical sulprofos is
manufactured has been provided to the Agency (Mobay Chemical Corporation 1975,
MRID GS0076-149). Details of this process, however, are considered by the
Agency to be of trade secret information and, hence, will not be provided
within this standard. Related synthesis descriptions (for 0-ethy1-S-propyl-
dithiophosphoric acid phenyl or naphthyl esters) may be found under United
States Patent 3,947,529 (Kishino et al., 1974, MRID GS0076-104).
2.	Unintentional Ingredients
Technical sulprofos is approximately 90% pure. Twenty-one impurities have been
isolated and are known to the Agency. Like the manufacturing process, however,
the characterization of these impurities is considered trade secret. It may be
stated that the majority of these impurities are related to organophosphate
conpourris. Three components remain unidentified, but, in aggregate, account
for only 0.2% of the technical formulation. No single corrpound comprises more
than 1.5% of the total formulation and only seven comprise more than 0.5% of
the technical material (Patel, 1976, MRID GS0076-165). The Agency, in
considering the known impurities, does not believe that they singly or in
aggregate represent any potential hazard or are they of significance in
establishing residue levels.
3.	Fhysical and Chemical Properties
A nearly complete range of data is available on the physical and chemical
properties of sulprofos. Data which are not available, but which are required,
are listed within the Chapter III data charts. Those data which are available
are as follows:
36
-------
Appearance
Boiling point
Odor
Melting Point
Hydrolysis rate
Specific Gravity
Solubility
Viscosity
Vapor Pressure
Wt. per Gallon
Tan colored liquid
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
155 - 158° C @ 0.1 mm Hg
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-152)
Typical phosphorous odor
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
<-50° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
@ 25° C and pH 7 - Half-life 6 months
@ 25° C and pH 11 - Half-life 6 days
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-152)+
1.2 @ 20° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
Low solubility in water - 0.3 ppm @ 20° C
High solubility in organic solvents
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
22.5 cps 0 20° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
<0.05 mm Hg @ 20° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-152)
10 lbs
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
4. Storage Stability
Technical sulprofos has been evaluated for its physical and chemical
stability. Accelerated storage studies have been conducted for eight week
periods at 50° C and twenty-four week periods at 40 C. Hie test results
have provided sufficient information to permit an extrapolated shelf-life in
excess of two years (Synek and Gonzalez, 1975, MRID GS0076-178).
B. Product Chemistry ^ End Use Sulprofos
Bolstar® 6, at the time of publication of this Standard, is the only sulprofos
containing end use product registered with the Agency. Bolstar® 6 is an
37
-------
emulsifiable concentrate formulation containing 64 percent manufacturing-use
sulprofos, 15.0 percent petroleum distillate and 21 percent inert ingredients.
Complete details of the formulating process and inert constituents have been
made available to the agency (Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-149;
.Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150). These items of data, like the
technical synthesis process, are trade secret and will not be described within
this Standard.
1. Physical and Chemical Properties
Data are available describing the following physical and chemical properties of
Bolstar® 6:
Appearanee	Amber
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150)
Explosiveness
Flash Point
Cdor
Specific Gravity
Solubility
Vapor pressure
Viscosity
No explosive characteristics
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
105° F (TCC)
125° F (TOC)
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
Typical phosphorus odor
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
1.11 e 20° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
Miscible with HAN solvents -
kerosenes or diesel oils
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
<5 mm Hg @ 20° C
(Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975,
45 cps 
-------
2, Storage Stability
Like technical sulprofos, Bolstar® 6 has been evaluated as to its storage
stability. No change in emulsification characteristics, physical or chemical
properties were observed following eight weeks at 50 C and 24 weeks at
40 C (McGreavy et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-142 and Synek and Gonzalez, 1975,
MRID GS0076-178). It was noted that some decoating and corrosion occured when
the test material was placed in double clear phenolic-coated steel pails. No
corrosion was observed in pails having pigmented vinyl phenolic coatings.
39
-------
V. ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
A.	Use Profile
B.	Environmental Fate Profile
A. Use Profile
Sulprofos is a broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide/acaracide
conditionally registered on February 14, 1979, for control of tobacco budworm,
cotton bollworm, lygus nyitphs, fall armyworm, beet armyworm, pink bollworm
and fleahoppers on cotton. In addition, the labeling for Bolstar® 6, the only
registered end use product, bears claims for suppression of lygus adults,
whiteflies, and spider mites (Carmine and two-spotted).
Bolstar® 6 is formulated as a 64 percent sulprofos emulsifiable ooncentrate
containing 15 percent aromatic petroleum distillate and 21 percent inert
ingredients. Application may be made, at the specified dosage, by either air
or ground equipment. The concentrate is to be diluted with that anount of
water required to ensure complete foliar coverage. Aerial applications may
not, however, be made at dilutions of less than 1 gallon per acre. Application
rates for all states other than California and Arizona vary by target pest and
infestation level; falling within a range of 2/3 to 2 pints of undiluted
formulation per acre (equivalent to 0.5 to 1.5 lbs. active sulprofos). Use
directions specific to Arizona and California prescribe a minimum application
rate of 1-1/3 pint .(1 lb. active ingredient) per acre and a maximum rate of
2 pints. Applications, without regard to geographical region, may be made at
three to seven day intervals. Tbtal application is restricted to 20 pints per
acre/season with the last application no closer to harvest than 21 days in
California and Arizona, or 14 days in all other states.
Use and usage data relating to sulprofos are limited due to its recent
appearance in the marketplace. Although there are no formal survey data
available regarding predominate application rates, preliminary information
provided by Mississippi State University (Preliminary Benefits Analysis:
EPN/Cotton 1981, MRID GS0076-184) indicates that sulprofos is commonly
applied at the rate of 1.0 lbs. a.i. per acre for control of the Heliothis
complex. Based upon an assumed average application of 1.0 lb. per acre, the
Agency estimates that a 1980 usage of 813,800 pounds a.i. (Weiler, E., 1981,
MRID GS0076-183).
40
-------
B. Environmental Fate Profile
1.	Hydrolysis
Sulprofos is considered to be relatively stable in acidic and neutral aqueous
buffer solutions. In an aqueous buffer solution at pH 3 and at 40° C,
sulprofos hydrolyzed to phenol sulfoxide (0.5 percent) and sulprofos
sulfoxide (4.8 percent) in 16 days. At pH-7 and at 40 C, only 8 percent of
the test sulprofos had hydrolyzed and/or oxidized within 16 days; the
products being phenol sulfoxide (0.8 percent) and sulprofos sulfoxide (7.2
percent) (Bull, D.L. et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-034).
Sulprofos may be considered unstable when subjected to basic buffer solutions.
In an aqueous buffer solution at pH-11 and at 40° C, sulprofos was more than
50 percent hydrolyzed in four to eight days. The hydrolysis products were
phenol sulfoxide (35.8 percent), phenol sulfide (32.0 percent) and sulprofos
sulfoxide (3.2 percent) (Bull, D.L. et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-034).
In a simulated pond study, sulprofos was half degraded in approximately two
hours and completly degraded in four days. At the fourth day, the degradation
products were: phenol sulfoxide (54.7 percent), sulprofos sulfoxide (14.4
percent), phenol sulfone (0.6 percent), and 9.4 percent unidentified. Further
conversion of degradation products occurred. At day 16, the degradation
products were, phenol sulfoxide, 66.9 percent, sulprofos sulfoxide, 1.4
percent, and unidentified products comprised 12.1 percent (Bull, D.L., et al.
1975, MRID GS0076-034).
Frcni these data, the Agency may conclude that sulprofos, upon finding its way
into aquatic environments through either leaching, runoff or inadvertent
application, may degrade fairly rapidly. Cne of the principal
products, however, is noted as being a cholinesterase (ChE) inhibitor. The
significance of these findings, shall be addressed in relation to the potential
for sulprofos to enter aquatic environments,
2.	Photodegrada t ion
(a) Aqueous
In an aqueous phosphate buffer solution (pH-r7), sulprofos was 1/2-
photolyzed in seven hours at 20° C. Photolysis slowed at 5° C, with
36 hours being required before reaching 1/2. The principal photo
product was the P=S sulfoxide (PSSO) which accounted for approximately
41
-------
22 and 18 percent of the activity at day-3 at 20 C and 5 C
respectively. At day-3, approximately 1 percent of the activity
was P=S sulfone (PSSO„) and about 2 percent of the activity was
parent phenol at both temperatures. The remaining activity, which
amounted to approximately 13 percent at 20 C and 7 percent at
5 Cr was unidentified (Atwell and Gronberg 1975, MRID GS0076-026).
(b)	Soil
The photodecomposition half-life of sulprofos at 20° C has been
extrapolated to be approximately 12 days on gilty loam soil.
Photodecomposition proceeds more slowly at 5 C, with the
extrapolated half-life not occurring for approximately 32 days. In
silty loam at 20 C, the major photo product and or metabolite (PSSO),
accounted for approximately 68 percent of the activity at 28 days. At
5 C, approximately 63 percent of the activity was PSSO.
The photodegradative half-life of sulprofos on sandy loam at 20° C has
been extrapolated to be 12 days. At 5 C, the half-life has been
extrapolated to be 15 days. At 20° the major oxidative product, PSSO,
accounted for 62 percent of the noted activity at 28 days and was
slightly decreasing at this time. When observed at 5° C, PSSO,
accounted for approximately 78 percent of the noted activity at 28 days.
In silty loam, at 20 and 5° C and in the absence of light, sulprofos
under went oxidation to PSSO at approximately 22 percent and 18 percent
respectively within 28 days. In sandy loam, oxidation to PSSO was
approximately 28% for both temperatures (Atwell and Gronberg, 1975, MRID
GS0076-026).
(c)	Glass Surface
On glass surfaces, at 20°C, sulprofos photodecomposed with a half-life
of approximately 19 hours. P=S sulfoxide, the major photolysis product
was about 25 percent (maximal) of the activity at 2 days and declined to
approximately 5 percent of activity at 14 days. Approximately 60
percent activity was unaccounted for at 14 days (Atwell and Gronberg,
1975, MRID GS0076-026).
At 5° C, the half-life of sulprofos was approximately 63 hours. P=S
sulfoxide, the major photolysis product reached maximal, approximately
30 percent of the activity, at 5 days. The P=S sulfoxide was
approximately 5 percent of the activity in 14 days, with approximately
30 percent of the activity unaccounted for after 14 days. The loss of
applied activity throughout the 14 days suggests that the photolysis
products may be volatilized from glass surfaces.
42
-------
(d) Silica Gel Surface
Sulprofos was 1/2-photolyzed in approximately one hour on silica gel
surfaces. The primary photoproduct was the P=*3 sulfoxide (PSSO) which
reached a maxima of 77 percent of the activity in 6 hours, then
proceeded to decline to 69 percent of the activity in 24 hours. The
minor photoproducts were the P=S sulfone (PSSCL), parent phenol (PS)
and phenol sulfoxide (PSO). Sixteen percent of the activity wfis
unidentified after 24 hours.
The rate of photodegradation was slower at 5° C. The half-life was
approximately 2 hours. P=S sulfoxide (PSSO) was the major photo
product, accounting for 76 percent of the activity after 24 hours.
Minor photo products were observed. Approximately 17 percent of the
activity was unidentified.
In the absence of light, sulprofos was stable on silica gel surfaces at
both 5 and 20° C (Atwell and Gronberg, 1975, MRID GS0076-026).
Given the preceding data, the Agency concludes that sulprofos may be
anticipated to undergo fairly rapid photodegradation with the principal
photodegradate product being P=S sulfoxide.
3. Aerobic Soil Metabolism
Under aerobic soil conditions, sulprofos degrades fairly rapidly. Hie
extrapolated half-life in loam, saridy soil or construction sand ranges from one
to four weeks. Hie half-life appears greatest (near four weeks) in loam.
Three major metabolites have been identified. These metabolites are sulprofos
sulfoxide, sulprofos sulfone, and phenol sulfoxide (unique to construction
sand). Itiese major metabolites are reasonably long lived with a _> 128 day
half-life. Trace amounts (1-2 percent of applied activity) of O-analog
sulfoxide, O-analog sulfone, phenol sulfoxide are also present without regard
to soil type. Unextractable residues account for 10-25 percnt of applied
activity at approximately 170 days. Loan soils produce more sulprofos
sulfoxide than sandy soils. The presence of organic matter, the oxygen content
of the soil and pH are major factors in the degradation of sulprofos.
Degradation appears, however, to be via physicochemical pathways with
biological degradation not a major contributor (Pither, 1978, MRID GS0076-167)
From the review of available data, the Agency has concluded that sulprofos may
be anticipated to degrade fairly rapidly under most aerobic soil conditions.
In light of the pattern of use under consideration, aerial or ground
application not to include soil incorporation, it may be anticipated that the
majority of the applied sulprofos parent reaching the soil will be degraded via
physicochemical pathways in the manner described above.
43
-------
4. Anaerobic Soil Metabolism
Under anaerobic conditions, degradation proceeds in a manner similar to that .
observed under aerobic conditions with the exception that the degradative
process occurs much more slowly. The extrapolated half-life for sulprofos
under anaerobic soil conditions is approxinnately 20-30 weeks (Bull et al. 1975,
MRID GS0076-034).
5.	Microbial Degradation
Few groups of microbes appear to possess the ability to degrade sulprofos. Of
those that have demonstrated the ability to affect degradation, it appears that
they may do so only in small amounts. Bacteria and Streptomyces have a
potential to degrade sulprofos, while fungi have demonstrated no degradative
activity (although incorporation into the mycelia is reported) (McNamara, F.T.,
1978, MRID GS0076-143).
6.	Metabolism - Effect of Sulprofos on Microbes
Representative species of bacteria, fungi, and streptomyces (Bacillis ,
Cellulomonas , Pscudomonas , Streptomyces , Aspergillus , Penicill^um ,
Tricoderma , and Phycomyces spp. have been evaluated against 2-10 ppm
concentrations of sulprofos (LaBlanc, B., et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-108). No
inhibition of any organism has been demonstrated at concentrations of less than
10 ppm. Fungi, when exposed at 10 ppm exhibit slight inhibition, with marked
inhibition occuring at 100 ppm. Bacteria, Streptontyces and Tricoderma were
not inhibited at the highest concentration tested.
Nitrification and denitrification potentials in loamy sand soil do not show
any effect at either IX or 10X labeled rates of application (Strankcwski, K.J.,
1978, MRID GS0076-177).
Nitrogen fixation, as measured by studies involving the symbiotic relationship
between Rhyobium and soybeans, appears markedly reduced at four weeks (67%).
This reduction indicates a potential break in the nitrogen,cycle and/or
increased persistence. Ttie limits of the test method appear to preclude
distinguishing whether the observed effect is related to an effect upon the
plant or the microbe (Strankcwski, K.J., 1978, MRID GS0076-177).
Hie Agency may conclude from reviewed studies that application of sulprofos
at rates of 0.5 to 1.5 lb. a.i./A would not be anticipated to affect
disccrnable alterations in soil microbe populations. Given, however, an
indication of a significant reduction in nitrogen fixation, sane measure of
concern must remain. In this latter regard, the Agency believes that observed
effects may have resulted frcm an effect not directly related to Rhyobiun
inhibition. The Agency would,, therefore, propose a reinvestigation with
provision made for an observation of effects to both symbiots. A reevaluation
44
-------
of sulprofos's impact upon nitrogen fixation shall not be imposed as a
condition of its registration for cotton application. Should, however, future
registration!s) be sought for crops for which nitrogen fixation is an inportant
factor (primarily legumes), the Agency may require a reinvestigation.
7.	Plant Metabolism (Dislodgable Residues)
14	32
Approximately 50% of C or P labeled sulprofos, when applied to cotton
leaves is absorbed within 24 hours. While residues can be recovered from
treated leaves throughout either 16 or 32 day studies, all compounds are
essentially depleted in 8 days. Compounds recovered from leaf surfaces and
their percent of applied dose at 8 days are as follows: (1) sulprofos parent
(0.0%), (2) sulprofos sulfoxide (0.2 percent), (3) sulprofos sulfone (0.2
percent) (4) O-Analogue sulfone (0.0 percent), (5) Phenol sulfoxide (0.0
percent) Phenol sulfone (0.1 percent), (7) unknown (0.7 percent). Studies
have provided that at day one these residues were 2.2, 13.7, 4.1, 0.2, 0.8,
0.7, and 3.9 percent respectively. Internal extracts of treated leaves have
been found to include the same radioactive compounds as in the external rinses
plus water solubles, unextractables, and lost activity (Bull and Whitten, 1975,
MRID GS0076-034).
8.	Leaching
Sulprofos, when evaluated with respect to its leaching ability, (Atwell and
Gronberg, 1975, MRID GS0076-025), (Atwell and Gronberg, 1975 MRID GS0076-024)
was found to be largely retained within the upper two inches
(about 95%) in muck, loam and silty loan soil. It was found mobile in sandy
loam. As organic matter content of soil decreases and pH increases, leaching
of sulprofos may be expected to increase. In thin layer mobility studies,
sulprofos was found to leach very little in agricultural sand, sandy loam,
sandy clay loam, silt loam and two silty clay soils. In an aged soil study,
approximately 90 percent of aged soil degradates were distributed in the upper
four inches of a loam soil column, with about 8.8 percent occurring in the
leachate as sulprofos phenol sulfone. This indicates that in basic soils,
leaching of the phenol sulfone may be significant in sandy loam or soil with
low organic matter.
From the evaluated data, the Agency may conclude that sulprofos parent and
certain of its degradates may leach in sandy soils. There is additionally
evidence that sane movement of degradation products can occur in other soil
types. The reasonably insoluble nature of the parent cotrpound (0.03
ppm) (Mobay Chemical Corp., 1975, MRID GS0076-150), and an Agency calculated
soil/water partition coefficient of 69 leads the Agency not to believe that
movement of sulprofos per se is of immediate concern. Due to the single
pattern of use under consideration within this standard being application to
cotton, the Agency, further, does not believe that the indicated potential for
leaching in sandy soil is of significance, because cotton is not customarily
45
-------
cultivated in sandy soil types. A full understanding of the potential for
movement from treated areas into aquatic systems, however, can not bo developed
until such time as the Agency may obtain and evaluate adsorption/desorption
data for both parent sulprofos and its principal degradation products. A
reconsideration of the significance of sulprofos's leaching potential will be
conducted upon receipt of these data. The Agency will additionally reconsider
the significance of sulprofos's leaching potential should sandy soil cultivated
crops such as citrus, peanuts, etc. be proposed for future lableing
consideration.
9.	Runoff
Data available for Agency review have indicated that residue in runoff water
was, under the conditions of the test, generally less than 10 percent
(0.3 ppm) of the applied active on sandy loam, loam and clay loam for 8 and 12
ft. lanes. Approximately 25 percent (0.75 ppm) runoff occurred for loam soil
in 6 ft. lanes (Kurtz and Gronbcrg, 1975, MRID GS0076-106).
The principal oxidative product found in the runoff water was sulprofos
sulfoxide (amounting to 67-70 percent of the residue). Sulprofos sulfone and
sulprofos oxygen analog sulfoxide residues ranged from 8-23 percent. Small
amounts (2 percent or less) of sulprofos parent and sulprofos oxygen analog
sulfone were detected in runoff water.
As with leaching, the Agency considers soil runoff to be one of the principal
mechanisms by which pesticides may move frcm treated crop areas into aquatic
environments. Those data reviewed by the Agency have indicated that sulprofos
and its degradates possess a limited potential for movement by means of
runoff. The Agency, hewever, again believes that a full understanding of
sulprofos's runoff potential cannot be obtained until such time as the
Agency may review adsorption/desorption data. With these data, the Agency will
be in a position to provide a calculated estimated environmental concentration
(EEC).
10.	Field Dissipation
In test data reviewed by the Agency, combined residues of 2.45 ppm and 1.92 ppm
persisted for 242 days in clay loam and loam respectively from 3 sucessive
applications (2.5 ppm) at 30-day intervals. Combined residues in sand were
approximately 2.5 times the application rate at 72 days. In muck, combined
residues were more than 14 times the theoretical value (2.5 ppm) at 72 days.
The data show, however, that the photodegradative half-life of sulprofos on
soil surfaces of four different soil types was 12 to 32 days (Chemonics
Industries, 1978, MRID GS0076-056, -057, -058, -059). Fran these data, the
Agency may deduce that soil incorporation of sulprofos would provide for
greater field persistence. As some portion of the applied sulprofos vrould be
intercepted by the cotton plants and crop uptake studies under actual use
46
-------
conditions show that combined soil residues at harvest range from 0.03 to
0.35 ppm for 15 to 18 applications at 2.5 to 3.25 lb/A, the Agency believes
that soil residues resulting from sulprofos application to cotton would be
within acceptable limits.
Although the Agency has determined that those data derived from muck soil
testing are inadequate, the Agency will not, for the current use pattern,
require additional data. Should future registration actions involve crops
customarily grown in muck soil, the Agency will require acceptable muck soil
persistence data as a condition of registration.
11.	Bioaccumulation
The bioaccumulation potential of sulprofos has been investigated in a study
involving channel catfish (Lamb and Roney, 1975, MRID GS0076-139). The
fish, exposed at 10 ppb through a 28 day period, were sacrificed and analyzed
for residue content and physical location of residues within the body.
Accumulation factors for whole fish were^|rom 704 to 1006 (2816 to 4025 ppb).
Approximately 88 percent of extractable C residues were contained in the
nonedible portion and 12 percent in the edible portion oi^day 28 of exposure
(3287 ppb in non-edible and 448 ppb in edible). Of the C residue in non-
edible polar extract, 21 percent was identified as sulprofos parent. The
remaining residue was identifed as Sulfoxide (PSS) (44 percent), Sulfone
(PSSO^) (2 percent), and Oxygen Analog Sulfoxide (POSO) (1.0 percent). An
additional 17 percent of the identifiable activity was accounted for as
Sulfoxide and Sulfone phenols. Approximately 17 percent of the total activity
was unidentified.
14
During withdrawal, approximately half of the accumulated C residue in the
catfish was eliminated within 5 hours. This rapid elimination tends to
indicate that most of the residues were on the scales or in viscera and not in
edible tissue. Following 28 days of withdrawal, 112 ppb of residue was
detected in whole body analysis.
The preceding study, although not conducted in strict accord with the Agency
Guidelines protocol, has been deemed acceptable. Given the rapid degradation
of sulprofos (refer to the above noted simulated pond study), the rate of
elimination of residues from catfish when placed in pesticide free water, and
the dilution of residue in water, the Agency does not expect that residues of
sulprofos would persist for a sufficient period of time to result in
accumulation in fish.
12.	Accumulation: Rotational Crop Uptake
Although no petitions for tolerance for rotational crops are pending with the
Agency, some data are available. These data provide that for sugar beets 164
days after last application (285 days planting to harvest) residues were
47
-------
0.016 ppm in the roots, 0.008 ppm in the tops and 0.36ppn in (0-6") soil layer.
A second study conducted on sugar beets provided results indicating the
presence of residues 365 days following the last application (174 days planting
to harvest). These residues were identified at levels of 0.009 ppm in the
roots, 0.005 ppn in the tops and 0.29 ppn in the soil (Sandi, F.E., 1978, MRID
GS0076-173).
Studies conducted on rotational wheat similarly reveal the presence of
residues. Wheat planted 164 days following last application (170 days planting
to harvest) yielded residue levels of 0.017 ppm in the,grain, 0.044 ppm in the
chaff, 0.047 ppn in the stalk and 0.121 ppm sulprofos C-equivalent in the
forage. Wheat planted 365 days following the last application (174 days
planting to harvest) contained residue levels of 0.036 ppm in the forage. At
125 and 66 days planting to harvest residues were 0.088 and 0.126 respectively
(Sandi, F.E. 1978, MRID GS0076-173).
Residues in potato tubers planted 131, 203, 197, and 173 days after last
application (as ppm sulprofos equivalents) in Georgia, Texas (1), Mississippi,
Florida, were all <0.01 ppm. Texas (2) had a residue value of 0.01 ppm at 203
days. Soil residues (0-6" depth) at planting and harvest were 0.72, 0.15;
0.36, 0.14; 0.03, 0.35; 0.28, 0.15; 0.01, 0.03 ppm respectively (Analytical Bio
Chemistry Laboratories, 1978, MRID GS0076-008, -009, -010, -011).
Residues in cucumbers (fruit) planted at 88 days post application in Texas
(both studies) were <0.01 ppm (Analytical Bio Chemistry laboratories 1978, MRID
GS0076-001).
Residues in soybeans (as threshed beans) planted 239, 261, and 287 days
following last application in Mississippi, Georgia, and Texas (tvo studies)
were <0.01, <0.01, 0.02, and 0.25 ppm respectively. Soil residues (0-6" depth)
at planting and harvest were 0.11, 0.14; 0.04, 0.32; 0.02, 0.02; 0.26, 0.28 ppm
respectively (Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories, 1978, MRID GS0076-008,
-013, -014, -015).
Residues in soybeans (as dry vines) planted 239, 261, 287, and 300 days after
last application in Mississippi, Georgia, Texas (two studies) and Florida were
0.03, 0.17, 0.15, 2.05, and <0.01 ppm respectively. Soil samples (0-6") were
0.11, 0.14; 0.04, 0.32; 0.02, 0.02; 0.26, 0.28; not available, and 0.07 ppm
respectively (Analytical Bio Chemistry laboratories, 1978, MRID GS0076-008,
-012, -013, -014, -015).
48
-------
On the basis of the available data, the Agency believes that a six month crop
rotational restriction is sufficient for potato tubers and cucumbers for all
areas tested. Similarly, the Agency believes that a 60 day rotational crop
restriction would be sufficient for turnips and peas. Significant residue
levels do, however, occur in soybeans at 12 months. As insufficient data are
available, and no petition for a rotational crop tolerance has been proposed,
the Agency will impose a rotational crop restriction upon all crops other than
potatoes, cuicumbers, turnips and peas. Ihese latter crops, at the option of
the registrant, may be identified upon labeling as being crops which may be
rotated following a six month interval.
49
-------
VI. TOXICOLOGY
A.	Toxicology Profile - Manufacturing-Use Sulprofos
B.	Tbxicology Profile - End Use Product(s)
C.	Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment
Toxicology - Manufacturing-Use Sulprofos
Toxicology Profile
Data meeting nearly all Agency requirements with regard to a toxicological
characterization of manufacturing-use sulprofos have been submitted and
evaluated. For the purpose of this Standard, manufacturing-use and the
technical chemical shall be viewed as synonymous terminology. The results and
conclusions pertinent to these investigations are noted below in order of their
appearance as Guideline requirements.
2. Acute Oral
The acute oral toxicities of sulprofos technical, sulprofos analytical
standard, the sulfone, sulfoxide, and the oxygen analogues of sulprofos and
sulprofos sulfoxide have been adequately delineated through laboratory
evaluations utilizing male and female test rats. These oral toxicities have
been defined as follows:
a.	Technical Sulprofos (Lamb and Matzkanin,	1975, MRID GS0076-125)
(Lamb and Matzkanin,	1975, MRID GS0076-126)
(Lainb and Matzkanin >	1978, MRID GS0076-130)
(Lamb and Matzkanin,	1978, MRID GS0076-131)
LD™ male 262 (211-326) mg/kg
LD^q female 275 (201-376) mgAg
b.	Sulfone (Lainb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-132)
LDj-n male 283 (222-361) mgAg
LDj-0 female 404 (329-496 mg/kg
c.	Oxygen analogue of sulfone (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-133)
LD_n male 74 (47-115) mgAg
LD^jj female 133 (114-155) mgAg
50
-------
d.	Sulfoxide (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-134)
ID^n male 263 mgAg
LD^ female 283 (243-330) mgAg
e.	Sulprofos analytical standard (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-
135)
LD™ male 208 (172-251) wq/kg
LD^ female 356 (306-416) mgAg
f.	Ckygen analogue of Sulprofos (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-136)
LD^ male 73 (53-98) mgAg
LD^q female 206 (142-299) mgAg
g.	Oxygen analogue of sulfoxide (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1978, MRID GS0076-137)
LD,-n male 62 (47-80) mg/kg
LD^q female 84 (67-104) mg/kg
From these data, the Agency may conclude that sulprofos technical and its
metabolites may, when ingested, present a moderate acute hazard to humans. The
range of LD^ values fall within those parameters provided under Toxicity
Category II.
3. Acute Dermal Toxicity
Data fulfilling all. Agency requirments with regard to testing in relation to
the acute dermal toxicity of manufacturing-use (technical) sulprofos have been
submitted and reviewed (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS076-122). The results
of these studies are as follows:
a)	Rat dermal LD,-n - male - >1,000 mg/kg
female - >1,000 mgAg
b)	Rabbit Dermal IA-n - male -. 820 (599-1123) mgAg
female - 994 (492-2009) ngAg
The preceding acute dermal toxicity data are adequate to permit an evaluation
of the dermal hazard presented by sulprofos technical to mammalian species.
These data indicate that manufacturing-use sulprofos may be considered
moderately toxic through dermal absorption. The range of LD^q values fall
within those parameters provided under Toxicity Category II.
51
-------
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Data fulfilling Agency testing requirements with regard to the acute inhalation
toxicity of manufacturing-use sulprofos have been obtained and reviewed by the
Agency. Ihese test data were developed through the exposure of rats, mice,
and hamsters at multiple exposure levels and durations. The aggregate test
data indicate that, for all species tested, the acute inhalation DC™ values
are all greater than 0.5 mg/L (Kimmerle, G. 1975, MRID GS0076-102). The Agency
may, therefore, conclude that manufacturing-use sulprofos may be considered
moderately toxic by means of inhalation. Ihe	values place sulprofos
within Toxicity Category II.
Primary Eye Irritation
Data fulfilling Agency requirements regarding the primary eye irritation
potential of manufacturing-use sulprofos have been received and reviewed by the
Agency. Ihese data provide that upon placement of 100 microliters of sulprofos
technical within the conjunctival sack of rabbits for exposure periods of 5
minutes and 25 hours, no irritation was observable through the seven day
observation period (Groning and Kimmerly 1975, MRID GS0076-092). The Agency
may, therefore, conclude that manufacturing-use sulprofos can be considered non-
irritating to the eyes. The failure of sulprofos to produce observable eye
irritation places it within Toxicity Category IV for this criteria.
5.	Primary Dermal Irritation
All data requirements with respect to the characterization of manufacturing-use
sulprofos's potential for causing dermal irritation have been fulfilled. The
Agency, upon review of these data has determined that sulprofos induces no
erythema or edema when applied to either intact or abraded skin (Gronig and
Kimmerle 1975, MRID GS0076-092). The failure of sulprofos to produce
observable skin irritation at 72 hours post administration places it within
Toxicity Category IV for this criteria.
6.	Dermal Sensitization
The Agency has received and reviewed a dermal sensitization study conducted
with manufacturing-use sulprofos. From these data, the Agency has determined
that the irritation produced by the challenge injections was not substantially
higher for any reaction evaluation parameter (erythema, edema, diameter) than
for the sensitizing injections (Lamb and Anderson 1976, MRID GS0076-118). Ihe
Agency has, therefore, concluded that manufacturing-use sulprofos is not a
sensitizing agent by dermal application.
52
-------
7. Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity
Data relative to the delayed neurotoxic potential of manufacturing-use
sulprofos have been made available by the registrant. These data provide the
results of studies involving the dosing of hens at rates ranging from
25 to 250 mg/kg. Surviving birds were observed for 28 days prior to
sacrifice. Although normal signs of organophosphate poisoning persisted for
up to eleven days, clinical as well as histological examination produced no
indication of delayed neurotoxicity (Thyssen and Siegmund 1975, MRID
GS0076-181). On the basis of these data, the Agency has concluded that
manufacturing-use sulprofos possesses no inherent potential for delayed
neurotoxicity.
8.	Subchronic Oral Toxicity
Agency review of submitted subchronic oral toxicity data have provided that, in
the rat, dose levels of 30, 100, and 300 ppm resulted in depression of plasm
cholinesterase. Erythrocyte cholinesterase depression occurred at levels of
100 ppm and above as did brain cholinesterase; the latter occurring only in the
female at the 100 ppm level. There were no observable effects related to
hematology, blood chemistry, urine analysis and macroscopic or microscopic
pathology. Ihe no observed effect level (NOEL) established as a result of
these data was 10 ppm (Groning and Dieckman, 1975, GS0076-091).
A second subchronic oral toxicity study involving 90-day administration of
sulprofos to dogs has been reviewed by the Agency. Although this study has
been ruled supplemental due to the failure of the study to provide for a full
six month test duration, no additonal data shall be required due to the
adequacy of the chronic studies which shall be noted later in this chapter.
Ihe results of this study, are, however, of interest to the Agency. The data
provide that both male and female animals, dosed at the 200 ppn level, showed a
significant decrease in body weight change; males also demonstrated
significantly lower feed consumption. At 200 ppm, both sexes showed signs of
intoxication, diarrhea and regurgitation with some rear leg involvement
occuring in the females. Ihere were additionally shifts in blood chemistry,
histologic lesions and cholinesterase depression at the 200 ppn level. At the
20 ppm level, plasma cholinesterase depression was the only dose related
effect. No observable effects were apparent at the 10 ppn level (Lamb, 1975,
MRID GS0076-110).
9.	Subchronic Inhalation
Limited data are available to the Agency concerning the subchronic inhalation
toxicity of manufacturing-use sulprofos. The single available study must be
judged supplemental due to the duration of the test, 21 days, falling short of
the prescribed 90-day exposure period. The Agency does not, however, consider
the lace of these data to be critical. Due to both the pattern of chemical
53
-------
use, and the outcome of the available chronic studies, the Agency believes the
potential effects resulting from anticipated subchronic inhalation exposure to
warrant little concern. Although only supplemental, the results from available
testing indicate that up to concentration levels of 14 mg/m , no physical
appearance, growth rate, or behavioral changes occur. It may be additonally
noted that an evaluation of the clinical chemistry, hematology, urinalyses,
macroscopic pathology and histopathology indicated no variation from normal
(Kimmerle 1975, MRID GS0076-103).
10. Oncogenicity
The Agency has received and reviewed a two-year feeding study on Fisher 344
rats. Dietary dosages of 0, 6, 60 and 250 ppm sulprofos were administered in
accordance with accepted test protocol. Body weights, organ weights and food
consumption were not affected at any level, except for high dose female groups
which consumed relatively more food, but maintained weight. Blood chemistry,
hematology and urinalysis were normal for all groups with the exception of
cholinesterase (ChE). Plasma and red blood cell (RBC) ChE were depressed at 60
and 250 ppm for males and females, with Brain ChE inhibited only at 250 ppn for
both sexes. At 6 ppn no significant inhibition was noted. Gross
histopathology showed no compound related effects, or tumor formation. The ChE
no effect level (NOEL) for the rat has been established at 6 ppm (Lamb, 1978,
MRID GS0076-114).
In a similar study", Swiss mice were fed at levels of 2.5, 25, 200 and 400 ppn
for 22 months. The only significant findings of this study were related to ChE
inhibition. Plasma and RBC ChE were significantly inhibited at 25 ppm and
above, with brain ChE inhibition becoming apparent at 400 ppn. All other
parameters evaluated by the study showed no compound related effect. Gross and
histopathology showed no somatic or oncogenic effect. The ChE NOEL,established
for the mouse is 2.5 ppm (Lamb, 1978, GS0076-115).
An additional two year feeding study involving the dosing of beagle dogs
at levels of 10, 100 and 150 ppm has been evaluated by the Agency. In this
study, the only affected parameter was ChE. At 100 and 150 ppm plasma, RBC and
brain ChE were inhibited. The established ChE NOEL for the dog is 10 ppn with
no somatic effects at 150 ppm (Lamb, 1978, MRID GS0076-117)
Given the results of the available data, the Agency has concluded that
sulprofos poses no significant oncogenic risk. In addition, conversion of the
ChE NOEL into mg/kg/day for each of the three species noted above, provides an
adequate basis for acceptable daily intake calculation (ADI). The lowest
value, that calculated for the dog (0.25 mgAg/day), shall be used by the
Agency for all ADI calculations.
54
-------
11. Teratogenicity
Sulprofos has been evaluated for teratogenic potential in a single study
involving the dosing of rabbits from the time of implantation through the
period of major organogenesis (days 6 through 18). The rabbits were orally
dosed at rates of 3, 10 and 30 mgAg/day. Fetuses derived by ceasarean section
showed neither skeletal nor visceral abnormalities (Machemer 1975, MRID
GS0076-141).
While the Agency believes that the preceding teratogenicity study, coupled
with the three generation reproduction study to be detailed belcw, are a
reasonable indication of sulprofos' nonteratatogenicity, the Agency shall
require a confirmatory test as proposed under Guideline section 163.83-3. For
additional information with regard to the rational underpinning this
requirement, refer to Chapter III.
12.	Reproduction
The potential reproductive effects of sulprofos have been evaluated in a three
generation study. Male and female rats were subjected to exposure levels of
30, 60, and 120 ppm under conditions of established protocol. Following
evaluation of two litters per generation through three generations, it was
found that reproductive performance and reproductive indexes were not affected
at any level (Hazelton Laboratories America, Inc. 1978, MRID GS0076-095). The
reproductive effect NOEL established as a result of these data is 120 ppm. Qi
the basis of these data, the Agency believes that sulprofos posesses no
potential for mammalian reproductive impairment.
13.	Mutagenicity
The mutagenic potential of sulprofos has been assessed in a single dominant
lethal assay. Male mice were dosed at 200 mg/kg, and mated weekly for eight
weeks to virgin females. Implantation losses and fetal survival were not
affected throughout the observation period (Machemer, 1975, MRID GS0076-140)
Although the available dominant lethal assay does serve as partial evidence
that sulprofos is nonmutagenic, it can not be ruled as conclusive. The Agency
requires four studies relating to potential heritable effects. These studies
involve a mamalian in-vitro point mutation test, a sensitive sub-mammalian
point mutation test, a primary DMA damage test and a mammalian in-vitro
cytogenetics test. The available dominant lethal assay will be considered as
acceptable in fulfilling the requirment for a mammalian in-vitro
cytogenetics test. For additional information related to additional
mutagenicity test requirments, see Chapter III.
55
-------
14. General Metabolism
Consistent with the findings of those studies discussed within the
Environmental Fate chapter of this standard, a general metabolism study
conducted with female white rats has demonstrated that sulprofos metabolizes
rapidly and is excreted principally in the urine (approximately 92 percent in
24 hr.). The metabolites present in the urine were water-soluble compounds
which underwent conversion to free phenolic derivatives through hydrolysis with
glucoronidase-aryl sulfatase or acid. Tissue analysis provided that the
remaining sulprofos existed as parent compond, five phosphorus containing
oxidative metabolites and three substituted phenols (Bull ard Ivie, 1975, MRID
GS0076-032).
B. Ibxicology Profile - End Use Sulprofos
Toxicology Profile
The data provided below relate singularly to Bolstar® 6, the only registered
product containing sulprofos as its sole active ingredient. Given the
appearance of inert related acute effects, principally in relation to eye
irritation, the Agency does not believe it sound to attempt to expand the
inferences provided by these data beyond the present 64% formulation. The
available data are, however, adequate to characterize the acute toxicity of
Bolstar® 6.
Data have been reviewed which provide that Bolstar® 6, like manufacturing-use
sulprofos, is a Category II oral toxicant with rat acute oral LD__s in the
range of 90 to 150 wg/kg (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS0076-IZ7).
Similarly, Bolstar43' 6 falls within toxicity category II in relation to its
acute dermal effects (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS0076-123). The
established rabbit acute dermal LD^q values fall within the range of 750 to
850 mg/kg. The acute inhalation toxicity of Bolstar® 6 is scmewhat reduced
frcm that of the technical with the calculated LC5Q values all being greater
than 2.0 mg/L for the rat (Lamb and Matzkanin, 19/5, MRID GS0076-124). Bolstar®
6, therefore, falls within toxicity category III with regard to inhalation.
While Bolstar4® has been demonstrated not to pose any risk with regard to either
skin irritation (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS0076-128), it has been shown
to be irritating to the eyes (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS0076-129).
Product labeling, therefore, shall bear those statements consistent with a
category II eye irritant.
In addition to those acute data customarily required for end-use products, the
registrant has submitted an unsolicited subacute dermal study conducted on
rabbits (Lamb and Matzkanin, 1975, MRID GS0076-121). Male and female animals
were exposed to 100 mg applications of Bolstar® 6 for daily eight, hour periods,
five days a week through three weeks. All applications were made to the shaved
backs of the animals. There were no observable changes in blood chemistry,
56
-------
hematology, urinalysis, organ weights and gross or microscopic pathologies. As
would be anticipated, erythrocyte, plasma and brain cholinesterase were
significantly depressed. Oily slight erythema and edema were noted following
the second week. Although a less severe test than that afforded by a subacute
trial involving the technical product, the absence of chronic effects, coupled
with that information provided by other chronic studies, permits the Agency to
waive the requirement for a 21-day subacute dermal toxicity test conducted with
the manufacturing-use product.
C. Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment
The sulprofos exposure profile {refer to Chapter V) provides that maximum
exposure will occur to those involved in direct mixing, loading, and
application. The principal routes of exposure may be anticipated to be dermal
and inhalation; the latter coming from applicator exposure to spray mist.
As noted above, the acute toxicity of Bolstar® 6 falls within Categories II and
III depending upon route of exposure. These toxicity ranges are consistent
with the majority of those organophosphate compounds commonly applied to field
crops. The Agency believes that the acute hazards, as mitigated by those
precautionary measures prescribed by product labeling, would be within
acceptable limits. Although the Agency does not possess the full complement of
chronic toxicity data, those data available for Agency review do not indicate
any potential for oncogenic, teratogenic, neurotoxic or reproductive effects.
The Agency,, therefore, believes that Bolstar®, when used in accord with label
directions, presents no chronic hazard.
The full range of sulprofos toxicity data has been reviewed against the
requirements of the draft Subpart K Registration Guidelines (Exposure Data
Requirements: Reentry Protection). Sulprofos neither meets nor exceeds any of
the requirement criteria established under section 163.130-3(a)(1). The Agency
will not, therefore, require data in support of reentry intervals.
57
-------
VII. Residue Chemistry
A.	Residue Chemistry Profile
B.	Analytical MethcxJs
Residue Chemistry Profile
Both the residues of parent sulprofos as well as its major metabolites are of
concern. Enzyme inhibition studies have been conducted which demonstrate that
the sulfoxide and sulfone derivatives of sulprofos, as well as its oxygen
analog and its sulfoxide and sulfone derivatives are cholinesterase inhibiting
compounds. These studies additionally indicate that inhibition activity
increases with the degree of oxidation (Groning 1975, MRID GS0076-080).
The fate of sulprofos, when applied to cotton, ha^been characterised through
radiotracer studies using uniformly ring labeled C sulprofos or P
labeled sulprofos. It has been demonstrated that approximately 73 percent of
the applied sulprofos may be found upon the surface of the treated leaves.
Less than 1.0 percent of the applied activity is detectable on all other plant
parts, thus demonstrating that there is essentially no translocation of
sulprofos residues (Bull et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-034).
Radiolabeled field studies have demonstrated that- residues are principally lost
through volatilization. These studies additionally demonstrate that sulprofos
undergoes oxidation and/or hydrolysis to the various phenolic metabolites
which are subsequently conjugated to natural plant constituents. In
field studies, approximately 15-20 percent of the activity recovered at 32 days
was cholinesterase inhibiting coirpounds. Nd parent compound was detectable
following eight days. At 32 days the sulfoxide was the principal component of
the toxic residues (66percent%), with the sulfone and the oxygen analogue of
the sulfone comprising the remaining 29 and 5 percent respectively (Bull
et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-034).
Field residue studies reflecting 5-15 applications of 1 and 1.5 times the
maximum labeled rate have been undertaken with cotton plants at various stages
of plant development. The highest value reported was 0.36 ppm which resulted
after 13 applications at the high rate and a 30 day preharvest interval. The
data indicate little, if any, correlation between residue levels and preharvest
intervals. Data reflecting both aerial applications and treatment of furrcw
irrigated cotton similarly indicate that residues would not be expected to
exceed 0,5 fpi (Blocker, M., 1975, MRID GS0076-027, -028), (Huddleston, E.E.,
1975, MRID GS0076-096), (Mobay Chemical Corporation, 1975, MRID GS0076-147,
-148), (Nash, R.F. 1975, MRID GS0076-162), (Rowehl, E., 1975, MRID GS0076-170,
-171), (Scott, A., 1975, MRID GS0076-176).
58
-------
Storage stability studies determining the stability of sulprofos residues in or
on cottonseed, gin trash (Atwell, S.H., 1978, MRID GS0076-021), bovine tissues
and milk (Atwell, S.H., 1975, MRID GS0076-020) during frozen storage have been
submitted to and evaluated by the Agency. In these studies, cottonseed, gin
trash, bovine liver, muscle and fat tissues, and milk were fortified with
labeled sulprofos and stored at -10°C for five months. With the exception
of the liver sample, 74-96 percent of the activity was recovered as sulprfos
per se and essentially all the remaining activity in these samples was present
as the sulfoxide metabolite. Only 3 percent of the activity detected in the
liver was parent compound. The sulfoxide and sulfone metabolites accounted for
8 percent and 13 percent respectively. Although the studies show that
oxidation of the parent compound does occur in the liver, they also show that
essentially all of the fortified activity would be detected as sulprofos by the
enforcement method.
A cottonseed processing fraction study has also been submitted to and
reviewed by the Agency. In this study, cottonseeds were treated at
1.5 times the maximum rate and were harvested one day following treatment for
processing into hulls, meal, crude and refined oils and soapstock fractions.
The raw cottonseed bore residue of 1.7 ppm and the hulls, meal, crude oil,
refined oil and soapstock contained levels of 3.28, 0.22, 3.22, 2.29 and 1.25
respectively. The data indicate that residues do concentrate in the hulls
(approximately 1.9X) and refined oil (approximately 1.3X). The Agency
has, therefore, determined that the 1.0 ppm food additive tolerance for
residues in cottonseed hulls and oil is appropriate. No food additive
tolerances are needed for the remaining fractions (cottonseed meal and
soapstock) which the Agency would expect to contain levels of approximately
0.07 and 0.35 ppm respectively (Chemagro Agricultural Division, 1975, MRID
GS0076-036).
In addition to those investigations involving cotton, radiotracer studies
using uniformly ring labeled C sulprofos have been conducted to determine
the fate of the parent compound and its metabolites in rats, cattle, swine and
chickens. In tests involving lactating dairy cattle, it has been demonstrated
that sulprofos is rapidly oxidized and/or conjugated and excreted via the urine
or feces almost quantitatively. The low levels of activity found in the
tissues and milk were principally (about 80%) present as phenolic metabolites
J^ie, et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-099). In association with the
C labeled studies, the Agency has reviewed a cold study in which cows we re
fed a total of 5, 25 and 250 ppm sulprofos, the sulfoxide metabolite and the
sulfone metabolite in a ratio of 1:2.5:1.5 respectively (the 5 ppm feeding
level representing approximately a 40X and a 15X exaggeration factor for
dairy and beef cattle diets respectively). By methods sensitive to 0.01 ppn,
59
-------
residue levels in the liver samples were reported as <0.01, 0.01, and 0.03 for
three cows fed at the 5 ppm level. With the exception of one fat sample with a
level of 0.01 ppm, all other tissue sample residues were reported as <0.001 to
0.003 (Chemagro Agricultural Division 1975, MRID GS0076-038). Trace residues
of sulprofos or its cholinesterase inhibiting metabolites may be found in
bovine tissues. The Agency believes, however, that these data indicate that
there is no significant tendency for residues to store in the tissue.
Metabolism of sulprofos by swine has been found to be similar to that of the
cow. Essentially all activity is eliminated within 24 hours. Again,
elimination is principally via the urine (93 percent and 3 percent via the
urine and feces respectively). At two and four hours post treatment, only
phenolic metabolites are detectable (Pither and Gronberg, 1976, MRID GS0076
-168).
In a study in which labeled sulprofos was administered orally to laying hens at
1 mg/kg (approximately equal to 18 ppm in the diet), excretion was essentially
complete after 24 hours with an average total of 92.3 percent excreted. Except
for 24 hour kidney samples, only the 6 hour tissue samples contained detectable
residues, and of these only the liver contained sufficient activity (0.1 ppm)
for analysis. No detectable activity was found in any of the egg samples
collected (Flint, D.R. 1975, MRID GS0076-083). In a series of poultry studies,
sulprofos residue levels were determined for meat organs and eggs (Chemagro
Agricultural Divsion 1978, MRID GS0076-040, -041, -042, -043) (Mobay Chemical
Corporation 1978, MRID GS0076-155). Ikying hens were fed a ration containing
sulprofos, sulprofos sulfoxide and sulprofos sulfone at 5, 15, 50 and 150 ppm
of their diet for 28 days (the 50 ppm level reflecting an exaggeration factor
of approximately 2,000). No cholinesterase inhibiting residues were detected
in any of the poultry tissues or eggs of birds treated at the 50 ppm level or
less by a method sensitive to 0.05 ppm. At the 150 ppm dose level, the only
detectable residues were 0.22 ppm in fat and 0.05 ppm in skin.
Based upon its assessment of all those data relating to residues of sulprofos
and its metabolites, the Agency finds that those tolerances previously
established (43 FR 32132 July 25, 1978) are adequate. Ihese tolerances,
however, may be subject to reassessment with the receipt by the Agency of
additional pertinent information.
B. Analytical Methods
The Agency requires the submission of, or reference to, validated analytical
methods suitable for obtaining data on the nature and amount of pesticide
residues resulting from proposed uses. Che method must be suitable for
tolerance enforcement. The regulatory method for. determination of a pesticide
in raw agricultural commodities must be capable of measuring the total toxic
residue derived frati the pesticide.
60
-------
The analytical method developed for the acquisition of sulprofos related
residue data for cotton seed and cottonseed fractions has been reviewed and has
undergone a successful Agency method tryout. The procedure involves an initial
extraction of the cottonseed (or hulls or meal) with acetone and chloroform in
the presence of Super-Cel®. Following the stripping off of the solvents, the
residues are partitioned between hexane and acetonitrile. The concentrated
acetonitrile layer is chromatographed on a Florisil column. The eluate is then
partitioned against benzene, oxidized with meta'-chloroperbenzoic acid to form
the oxygen analog of the sulfone metabolite of sulprofos which is measured
using a gas-liquid chromatograph (GLC) equiped with a thermionic detector
(Sandi, F.E.,1975, MRID GFS0076-172) (Sandi and Gronberg, 1975, MRID GS0076-
175). The procedure for the analysis of cottonseed oil is essentially
identical with the exception that the initial step is the partitioning between
hexane and acetonitrile.
Modifications to the above procedure to permit the determination of sulprofos
residues in animal tissues, milk and eggs have been developed. These
modifications involve alterations in the initial extraction procedures - using
acetonitrile and.or hexane instead of acetone and chloroform (Sandie and
Gronberg, 1975, MRID GS0076-174).
In addition to the above-noted analytical methods, an interference study has
been submitted and reviewed by the Agency. In this study, cottonseed samples
were fortified with various pesticides at the tolerance level established for
sulprofos. Compounds with zero tolerances were spiked at 0.1 ppm. With the
exception of Guthion and its oxygen analogue, interference from these compounds
was negligible. The 0.5 ppm Guthion and Guthion oxygen analog spikes produced
GLC peaks with the same retention time as the sulprofos (actually, the oxygen
analog of the sulfone) and equivalent to 0.07 and 0.11 ppn respectively. These
levels are equal to only 14 and 22 percent of the established tolerance and
would not interfere with the determination of sulprofos only if the sulprofos
was present at levels below its tolerance (Close, C.L., 1975, MRID GS0076-
074).
A confirmatory procedure, eliminating any interference from Guthion residues,
has been developed. This procedure involves utilizing a GLC column with a
different polarity (Close, C.L., 1975, MRID GS0076-076).
In view of those facts presented by the preceeding discussion of analytical
methodology, the Agency has determined that the analytical methods are suitable
for enforcement of all established tolerances.
61
-------
VIII. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
A.	Avian Toxicity
B.	Manmalian Toxicity
C.	Aquatic Organism Toxicity
D.	Nontarget Insect Toxicity
Sulprofos, as noted earlier within the Use Profile section of Chapter V., is a
field use insecticide/acaricide applied by either ground or aerial equipment.
As a function of both the site and method of application, it may be readily
anticipated that seme potential for exposure to nontarget terrestrial and
aquatic organisms does exist.
A. A/ian Toxicity
Sulprofos has been determined to be highly toxic to upland game birds. Hie
LD , as determined for bobwhite quail, has been calculated to be 47 mg/kg.
These same data, subjected to Finney Probit Analysis, have provided an LD1Q
of 24 mg/kg (Fink R., 1979, MRID GS0076-081). In a similar study conducted on
mallard ducks, Agency analysis of the data has provided values of 72.1
(43.9-118.4) and 112.2 (87.9-143.2) mg/kg for males and females respectively
(Lamb arri Jones, 1975, MRID GS0076-119). This latter study, although
determined to be only supplemental due to the appearance of several anomalies
within the'experimental procedure and the data reporting, is being considered
as sufficient for an interim determination.
Eight day subacute feeding studies on bobwhite quail and mallard ducks
have similarly provided that sulprofos is highly toxic to avian species. The
dietary IjC^q for bobwhite quail, as provided by the data, is 99 ppm. These
same data, when subjected to probit artlaysis, have provided an LC^q
63 ppm. The acute dietary toxicity of sulprofos to waterfowl appears somewhat
less. The eight day dietary LCcq for mallard ducks has been calculated to be
on the order of 983 ppm (Lanfc and Jones 1975, MRID GS0076-120).
Although acutely toxic, sulprofos does not appear to pose a significant
reproductive risk in relation to upland game birds. Sulprofos technical has
been found to have no statisticallly significant effect on reproduction when
fed to bobwhite quail at dietary levels up to 19 ppm actual (20 ppm nominal)
(Fink, R., 1979, MRID GS0076-082). The one-generation reproductive impairment
study available for waterfowl has indicated that the no effect level is
significantly less than that noted for upland game birds (Wildlife
International, Ltd., 1978 MRID GS0076-185). The reproductive impairment NOEL
62
-------
for the mallard duck is <3 ppm. This latter study, however, has been
designated as supplemental data, not fully fulfilling Agency requirements. Ihe
Agency shall not, however, identify this study as a data gap within the current
standard. These data may, however, be requested should expanded use patterns
involve sites of application presenting an increased exposure potential to
waterfowl species.
The preceding avian data do indicate that there may be an acute or subacute
hazard to certain avian species. The Agency, however, in the absence of field
study data, does not have sufficient information with which to assess potential
adverse effects which might ensue actual use. Dietary levels resulting frcm
differing treatment methods and regimes must be identified before the Agency
iray fully delineate sulprofos' potential effects in relation to avian species.
See Chapter III for identification of additional study requirements.
B.	Mammalian Toxicity
In relation to mammals, the Agency has utilized that data submitted in response
to human health effectd data requirements. For a discussion of these data,
please refer to Chapter VI.
C.	Aquatic Organism Toxicity
With respect to aquatic organisms, sulprofos appears reasonably toxic to both
invertebrate and vertebrate species. In two seperate studies, Caphnia
magna exhibited pronounced sensitivity with 48 hour EC™ values of 0.75
(0.52 - 1.09) and 0.83 (0.69 - 0.99) ppn (Morrlssey, A.E., 1979, MRID GS0076-
160 and Nelson, D. 1979, MRID GS0076-164). Only data classified as
supplemental are available for vertebrate species. These data do, however,
point to sulprofos being acutely toxic to fish with 96 hour LC values of
1.0 (0.7 - 1.5), 2.9 (1.9 - 4.4), and 29.7 (25.4 - 34.6) ppm for the bluegill
sunfish, channel catfish and rainbow trout respectively (Lamb and Roney, ?,
MRID GS0076-138). The supplemental, rather than valid, classification applied
to these data stems, in large part, from the inability of the researchers to
render sufficient sulprofos soluble in water. Although these data tend to
indicate that sulprofos may present an acute hazard to both vertebrate and
invertebrate aquatic species, there remains seme question as to the potential
mobility of sulprofos and/or its degradation products from sites of application
into aquatic environments. As noted within Chapters III and V, the Agency has
identified adsorption/desorption data as a data gap. Ljpon receipt of
acceptable adsorption/desorption data, the Agency will be in a position to
calculate an estimated environmental concentration (EEC). Should the EEC
demonstrate a theoretical potential for the movement of harmful concentrations
of either sulprofos and/or its degradation products, the Agency will require
both embryolarvae and aquatic field test studies.
63
-------
D. ttontaixjet Insect Toxicity
Very limited data are available with respect to sulprofos' acute toxicity to
beneficial insects. Those data that are available, however, provide that
sulprofos, like most organophosphate pesticides, is toxic to the honey bee
(Johansen et al., 1975, MRID GS0076-101). Although these data are limited,
they appear adequate in relaton to current hazard labeling needs, additional
study requirements may, however, be necessitated by the addition of critical
sites of application to the labeling and upon the promulgation of Subpart L of
the Guidelines.
64
-------
IX. CASE BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guide to Use of This Bibliography
1.Content	of Bibliography. This bibliography contains citations of all the
studies reviewed by EPA in arriving at the positions and conclusions stated
elsewhere in this standard. Primary sources for studies in this bibliography
have been the body of data submitted to EPA and its predecessor agencies in
support of past regulatory decisions, and the published technical
literature. The bibliography is divided into two sections: (1) citations
in numerical order that contributed information useful to the review of the
chemical and are considered to be part of the data base supporting
registrations under the standard, (2) citations in numerical order that have
been examined and judged be inappropriate for use in developing the
standard.
2.	Units of Entry. Hie unit of entry in this bibliography is called a
"study". In the case of published materials, this corresponds closely to
an article. In the case of unpublished materials submitted to the Agency,
the Agency has sought to identify documents at a level parallel to a
published article from within the typically larger volumes in which they
were submitted. The resulting "studies" generally have a distinct title
(or at least a single subject), can stand alone for purposes of review, and
can be described with a conventional bibliographic citation. The Agency
has attempted also to unite basic documents and commentaries upon them,
treating than as a single study.
3.	Identification of Entries. Hie entries in this bibliography are sorted
by author, date of the document, and title. Each entry boars, to the left
of the citation proper, a nine-digit numeric identifier. This number is
unique to the citations and should be used at any time specific reference
is required. This number is called the "Master Record Identifier" or
"MRID". It is not related to the six-digit "Accession Number", which has
been used to identify volumes of submitted data; see paragraph 4(d)(4)
belcw for.a further explanation. In a few cases, entries added to the
bibliography late in the review may be preceded by a nine-character
temporary identifier. This is also to be used whenever a specific
reference is needed.
4.	Form of the Entry. In addition to the Master Record Identifier (MRID),
each entry consists of a bibliographic citation containing standard
65
-------
elements followed, in the case of materials submitted to EPA, by a
description of the earliest known submission. The bibliographic
conventions used reflect the standards of the American National Standards
Institute (ANSI), expanded to provide for certain special needs. Some
explanatory notes of specific elements follow:
a.	Author. Whenever the Agency could confidently identify one, the
Agency has chosen to shew a personal author. When no individual was
identified, the Agency has shown an identifiable laboratory or testing
facility as author. As a last resort, the Agency has shown the first
known submitter as author.
b.	Document Date. When the date appears as four digits with no
question marks, the Agency took it directly frcm the document. When a
four-digit date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer
deduced the date from evidence in the document. When the date appears
as (19??), the Agency was unable to determine or estimate the date of
the document.
c.	Title. This is the third element in the citation. In sane cases it
has been necessary for Agency bibliographers to create or enhance a
document title. Any such editorial insertions are contained between
square brackets.
d.	Trailing Parentheses. For studies submitted to us in the past, the
trailing parentheses include (in addition to any self-explanatory
text) the following elements describing the earliest known
submissions:
(1)	Submission Date. Immediately following the word 'received'
appears the date of the earliest known submission, at the time
that particular document was processed into the Pesticide
Document Management System.
(2)	Administrative Number. Ihe next element, immediately following
the word 'under', is the registration number, experimental permit
number, petition number, or other administrative number
associated with the earliest known submission, at the time that
particular document was processed into the Pesticide Document
Management System.
66
-------
(3) Submitter. The third element is the submitter, following the
phrase 'submitted by'. When authorship is defaulted to the
submitter, this element is omitted.
(4) Volume Identification. The final element in the trailing
parenthesis identifies the EPA accession number of the volume in
which the original submission of the study appears. The six-
digit accession number follows the symbol 'CDL', standing for
"Company Data Library". This accession number is in turn
followed by an alphabetic suffix which shows the relative
position of the study within the volume. Ebr example, within
accession number 123456, the first study would be 123456-A; the
second, 123456-B; the 26th, 123456-Z; and the 27th,123456-AA.
67
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD ALPHABETICAL BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base Supporting
Registrations Under the Standard
CASE GS0076
MRID
GS0076-001
GS0076-002
GS0076-003
GS0076-004
GSQ076-005
GS0076-006
GS0076-007
Sulprofos
CITATION
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Recovery of
Bolstar® from Cucumbers: Report No. 54436. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Recovery of
Bolstar® in Potatoes: Report No. 54438. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Recovery of
Bolstar® from Soybeans: Report No. 54445. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: R3V-6502-76H: Report No. 54478. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: 761-6504-76H: Report No. 54479. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: RGV-6501A-76H: Report No. 54483. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: 961-6513-76H: Report No. 54484. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
6- i
-------
GS0076-008 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: RGV-6501-76H: Report No. 54485. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-009 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: VBI^6500-76H: Report No. 63005. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-010 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: RGV-6502-76H: Report No. 63006. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-011 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: 961-6506-76H: Report No. 63007. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-012 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: VBL-6507-76H: Report No. 63008. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-013 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: RGV-6508-76H: Report No. 63009. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-014 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: RGV-6509-76H: Report No. 63010. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-015 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Rotational Crop
Residue Study: 761-6511-76H: Report No. 63011. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-016 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Soil Persistence
Study: Report No. 54491. (Unpublished study received Mar
13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:096915)
8- X
-------
GS0076-017 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Soil Persistence
Study: Report No. 54492. (Unpublished study received Mar
13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-018 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Soil Persistence
Study: Report No. 54493. (Unpublished study received Mar
13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:096915)
«
GS0076-019 Analytical Bio Chemistry Laboratories (1978) Soil Persistence
Study: Report No. 54494. (Unpublished study received Mar
13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-020 Atwell, S.H. (1975) The Stability of Bay NTK 9306 in Bovine
Tissues and Milk during Frozen Storage: Report No. 45375.
(Unpublished study received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-021 Atwell, S.H. (1975) The Stability of Bay NITC 9306 in Cottonseed
and Gin Trash During Frozen Storage: Report No. 45383.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094773)
GS0066-022 Atwell, S.H. (1978) A Gas Chromatographic Method for the Deter-
mination of Bolstar® Residues in Poultry Tissues and Bggs:
Report No. 53094. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-023 Atwell, S.H. (1978) The Stability of Bay NTN 9306 in Cottonseed
and Gin Trash During Frozen Storage: Report No. 49076.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under ,
8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
Mo; CDL:096915)
GS0076-024 Atwell, S.H.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) Leaching Characteristics of
Bay NTN 9306 on Aged Soil: Report No. 45286. (Unpublished
study received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)

-------
GS0076-025 Atwell, S.H.j Gronberg, R.R. (1975) Leaching of Bay NTN 9306 in
Soil: Report No. 44817. (Unpublished study received Nov
1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-026 Atwell, S.H.; Groiiberg, RiR. (1975) Photodecomposition of Bay NTN
9306-ring-UL- C: Report No. 44844. (Unpublished
study received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-027 Blocker, M. (1975) [Cotton Residue Report: Report No- 45402.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-028 Blocker, M. (1975) [Cotton Residue Report: Report No. 45407.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705:
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-032 Bull, D.L.; Ivie, G.W. (1975) The Metabolism of Bay OTN 9306 by
White Rats: Report No. 45357. (Unpublished study received
Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; prepared by Cotton Insects
Research Laboratory, College Station, TX; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-034 Bull, D.L.; Whitten, C.J.; Ivie, G.W. (1975) The Fate of Bay NTN
9306 in Cotton Plants, Water, and Soil: Report No. 45359.
(Unpublished study received Nov 1, 1975 under
3125-EUP-132 prepared by Cotton Insects Research Laboratory,
College Station, TX; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094773')
GS0076-036 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1975) Bay NIN 9306 From
Cottonseed: Report No. 45384. (Unpublished study received Nov
21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-037 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1975) Mobay Chemical Corporation
Residue Experiment-Cattle Tissues and Milk: Report No. 45373.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-038 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1975) Recovery of Bay NIN 9306
From Cattle Tissues and Milk: Report 45355. (Unpublished
study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)'
3-1
-------
GS0076-039 ' Chemagro Agricultural Division (1975) Recovery of Bay NTN 9307
From Cottonseed-Confirmatory GLC Method: Report No. 45390.
(Unpublished studyreceived Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-040 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1978) Poultry Tissues Residue
Experiment: Report No. 53095. ( Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-041 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1978) Poultry Eggs Residue
Experiment: Report No. 53096. Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-043 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1978) Recovery of Bolstar® and
Metabolites from Poultry Eggs: Report No. 53098.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-044 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 462-6550-76D
Report No. 51354. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-045 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 462-6559-76D
Report No. 51355. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-046 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 462-6549-76D
Report No. 51356. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-047 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 462-6558-76D
Report to. 51357. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-048 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 462-6551-76D
Report No. 51358. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)

-------
GS0076-049 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 962-6589-76D
Report No. 51359. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-050 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 362-6575-76D
Report No. 51360. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-051 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 761-6555-76D
Report No. 51361. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-052 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 962-6557-76D
Report No. 51362. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-053 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 363-6585-76D
Report No. 51363. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-054 Chemonics Industries (1977) Cotton Residue Study: 962-6590-76D
Report No. 51364. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-055 Chemonics Industries (1977) Recovery of Bolstar® from Cotton:
Report No. 51177. (Unpublished study received Jun 22, 1977
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:098051)
GS0076-056 Chemonics Industries (1978) Rotational Crop Study: VBL-6584-76H:
Report No. 53284. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-057 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: KC-6514-74D:
Report No. 45380. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
3-l>
-------
GS0076-058 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: KC-6513-74D:
Report No. 45381. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-059 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: VBL-6515-74D:
Report No. 45382. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-060 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: VBL-6516-74D:
Report No. 45408. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-061 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: 363-6518-
74/76D: Report No. 53376. (Unpublished study received Mar
13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-062 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: RGV-6509-75D:
Report No. 53376. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-063 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: 363-6503-75D:
Report No. 53387. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-064 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: RGV-6501-75D:
Report No. 53388. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915).
GS0076-065 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Persistence Study: 362-6502-75D:
Report No. 53389. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-066 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Residue Study: VBL-6508-75D:
Report No. 51214. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)

-------
GS0076-067 Chemonics Industries (1978) Soil Residue Study: VBL-6500-75D:
Report No. 51379. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-068 Chemonics Industries (1978) The Effect of Frozen Storage at 0 to
-10 degrees F on Bolstar® Residues in Soil: Report No.
53214. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-072 Clark, D.E.; Ivie, G.W.; Devaney, J.A.; Crookshank, H.R. (1976)
A Gas Chromatographic Method for the Determination of
Bolstar® Residues in Poultry Tissues and Eggs: Report No.
49973. (Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
6G1705; prepared by Veterinary Tbxicology and Entomology
Research Laboratory, College Station, TX, submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL;095599)
GS0076-074 Close, C.L. (1975) An Interference Study for the Residue Method
for Bay NTN 9306 and Metabolites in Cottonseed: Report No.
Report No. 45378. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0067-075 Close, C.L. (1975) The Stability of Bay OTN 9306 in Various
Soils Under Frozen Storage: Report No. 45365. (Unpublished
study received ? under ?; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:?)
GS0076-076 Close, C.L.; Kurtz, S.K. (1975) A Confirmatory Procedure for the
Analytical Method for Bay OTN 9306 in Cottonseed and By-
products: Report No. 45396. (Unpublished study received
Nov 21, 1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-077 Craven Laboratories (1978) Cottonseed Residue Experiment:
RGV-6553-76D: Report No. 53243. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL.-096914)
GS0076-078 Craven Laboratories (1978) Recovery of Bolstar® from Cotton:
Report No. 53007. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:096914)
5- 2
-------
GS0076-081 Fink, R. (1979) Acute Oral LD5Q-Bobwhite Q.iail-Bolstar
Technical Final Report. (Unpublished study received Oct 15,
1979 under ?; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd.,
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:241165)
GS0076-082 Fink, R. (1979) One-generation Reproduction Study- Bobwhite Quail-
Bolstar Technical. (Unpublished study received Oct 15, 1979
under ?; prepared by Wildlife International, Ltd., submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:241165)
GS0076-083 Flint, D.R. (1975) Excretion and Metabolism.of Bay NTO 9306 in
Poultry: Report No. 45360. (Unpublished study received
Nov 21, 1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-084.
v
GS0076-089
GS0076-091
GS0076-092
GS.0076-093
Gronbepg, R.R. (1978) The Persistence and Metabolite Distribution
of Bolstar® Residues in Kansas Clay Soil Following Applica-
tion of Bolstar 6 EC: Report No. 63022. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
Groning, P. (1975) Effect on Cholinesterase- Bay NIN 9306:
Report No. 45159. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094772t
Groning, P.; Dieckinan, W. (1975) Subacute Oral Toxicity Study
on Rats: Report No. 43850. (Unpublished study received
Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical
Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
Groning, P.; Kimmerle, G. (1975) Toxicity Studies- Bay NIN 9306:
Report No. 41462. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094772)
Hanks, A.R. (1980) Report on pesticide formulations:
Organophosphorus pesticides. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem.
63(2):228-229.
GS0076-095 Hazelton Laboratories America, Incorporated (1978) A Three Gener-
ation Reproduction Study in Rats, IJTN 9306, Final Report:
Project No. 339-106; Report No. 53882. (Unpublished study
received ? under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
OpA
-------
GS0076-096 Huddleston, E.W. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No.
45399.] (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:0954773)
GS0076-098 Ivie, G.W.; Bull, D.L. (1976) Photodegradation of O-Ethyl 0-
[4-(Methylthio)phenyl]S-Propyl Phosphorodithioate (Bay NTN
9306). J. Agric. Food Chem. 24 (5): 1053-1057. (Also In
unpublished report no. 48083 received ? under ?; submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:?)
GS0076-099 Ivie, G.W.; Bull, D.L.; Witzel, D.A. (1975) The Metabolic Fate of
Bay NTN 9306-rir>g-UL- C in a Lactating Cow: Report No.
44325. (Unpublished study received Nov 1, 1975 under
6G1705; prepared by Cotton Insects Research Laboratory,
College Station, TX, submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-101 Johansen, C.; Mayer, D.; Madsen, R.; Curtis, J.; The Alfalfa
Seed Pest Management Project. (1975) Bee Research
Investigations, 1974. Unpublished Report.
GS0076-102 Kimmerle, G. (1975) Acute Inhalation toxicity Study on Rats:
Report No. 44224. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-103 Kimmerle, G. (1975) Subacute Inhalation Toxicity Study on Rats:
Report No. 44222. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-106 Kurtz, S.K.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) The Mobility of Bay NIN 9306
in Soil Runoff Water: Report No. 45341. (Unpublished
study received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-108 LaBlanc, B.; Marcullier, A.; Tranin, E.; Halman, J.; Costin, P.
(1975) Effect of Bay NTN 9306 on Soil Microbial Populations:
Report No. 45326. (Unpublished study received Nov 1,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by The Barstew School, Kansas
City, MO; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:095559)
& -iQ
-------
GS0076-109 Lamb, D.W. (1975) Bay NTN 9306 Subchronic 90-Eay Feeding Study on
Rats: Report No. 45389. (Unpublished study received Nov
21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO? CDL:094772)
GS0076-ll0 Lamb, D.W. (1975) Bay WIN 9306 Subchronic 90-Day Feeding Study on
Dogs: Report No. 45392. (Unpublished study received Nov
21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-114 Lamb, D.W. (1978) Bolstar® (Bay NTN 9306) Chronic Feeding
Study on Rats: Report No. 63058. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-115 Lamb, D.W. (1978) Bolstar® (Bay NTN 9306) Chronic Feeding
Study on Mice: Report No. 63059. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096917)
GS0076-117 Lamb, D.W. (1978) Bolstar® (Bay NHJ 9306) Two-Year Feeding
Study on Beagle Dogs: Report No. 63100. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096917)
GS0076-118 Lamb, D.W.; Anderson, R.H. (1976) Skin Sensitization of Bay NTN
9306 Technical in Guinea Pigs: Report No. 46009. (Unpublished
study received Nov 12, 1976 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095598)
GS0076-119 Lamb, D.W.; Jones, R.E. (1975) Acute Oral Toxicity of Bay WIN
9306 Technical to Adult Mallard Ducks. Report No. 44361.
(Unpublished study received ? under 6G1705; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:?)
GS0076-120 Lamb, D.W.; Jones, R.E. (1975) Dietary Tbxicity of Bay NTN
9306 Technical to Bobwhite Quail and Mallard Ducks: Report
No. 45327. (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975
under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-121 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) Bay NIN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable)
Subacute Dermal Toxicity to Rabbits: Report No. 45415.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)

-------
GS0076-122 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Acute Dermal Toxicity
of Bay NTN 9306 (Technical): Report No. 45393.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-123 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Acute Dermal Toxicity of
Bay WIN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45397.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-124 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Acute Inhalation Toxicity
of Bay NTN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45394.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-125 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) Bie Acute Oral Toxicity of
Bay NIN 9306 Technical: Report No. 45376.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705?
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-126 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Acute Oral Toxicity of
Bay WIN 9306 Technical to Rats: Report No. 45377.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-127 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Acute Oral Toxicity of
Bay NTO 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45395.
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-128 Lamb, D.W.? Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Dermal Irritancy of Bay
OTN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45416. (Unpublished
study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-129 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1975) The Eye Irritancy of Bay
NTN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45417. (Unpublished
study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-130 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of
Bay NTN 9306 Technical: Report No. 46160. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
|3 -i Jk
-------
GS0076-131 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of
Bay OTN 9306 Technical: Report No. 46161. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-132 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NIN 9306) Metabolite PSSO2 (Sulfone) to
Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52881. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-133 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NTN 9306) Metabolite POSO^ (Oxygen Analog
Sulfone) to Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52882.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-134 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NTN 9306) Metabolite PSSO (Sulfoxide) to
Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52883. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-135 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NTN 9306) Analytical Standard (PSS) to
Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52884. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted, by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-136 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NTN 9306) Metabolite PCS (Oxygen Analog) to
Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52885. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-137 Lamb, D.W.; Matzkanin, C.S. (1978) The Acute Oral of Bolstar®
(formally Bay NIN 9306) Metabolite POSO (Oxygen Analog
Sulfoxide) to Sprague-Dawley Rats: Report No. 52886.
(Unpublished study received March 13, 1978 under 8F2063;
prepared by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096916)
GS0076-138 Iamb, C.D.; Roney, D.J. (?) Acute Toxicity of Bay NTN 9306
6 lb/gal EC to Bluegill, Channel Catfish, and Rainbow Trout.
Report No. 45330. (Unpublished study received ? under ?;
submitted by Mobay Chemical, Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:?)

-------
GS0076-139 Lamb, D.W.; Roney, D.J. (1975) Accumulation and Persistence of
Residues in Channel Catfish Exposed to Bay NTN 9306- C:
Report No. 45331. (Unpublished study received Nov 1,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-140 Machemer, L. (1975) Dominant Lethal Study on Male Mice to Ttest
for Mutagenic Effects: Report No. 45385. (Unpublished study
received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO? CDL:094772)
GS0076-141 Machemer, L. (1975) Studies for Embryotoxic and Teratogenic
Effects on Rabbits Following Oral Administration: Report No.
45386. (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under
6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:094772)
GS0076-142 McGreavy, J.P.; Swan, J.L.; Mayor, W.P. (1975) Stability of Bay
NTN 9306 6 (Emulsifiable): Report No. 45391. (Unpublished
study received Nov 21, 1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted
by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094771)
GS0076-143 McNamara, F.T. (1978) Microbial Degradation of Bolstar®.
Report No. 63032. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8H5182; submitted Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
TW
GS0076-144 Minor, R.G. (1978) Effect of Bolstar on Isolated Soil
Microorganisms: Report No. 54434. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8H5182; submitted by Mobay Chemical
Co. Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-145 Minor, R.G. (1978) Effects of Bolstac^ on Nitrogen Fixation:
Report No. 54477. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978
under 8H5182; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-146 Mobay Chemical Corporation (?) Recovery of Bay NIN 9306 From
Cattle Tissues and Milk: Report No. 45355. (Unpublished
study received ? under ?; submitted, by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:?)

-------
GS0076-147 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports:
Report No. 45405.] (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975
under 6G1705; prepared by Vero Beach Laboratories, Chemagro
Chemical Corp., submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-148 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports:
Report No. 45406.] (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975
under 6G1705; prepared by Vero Beach Laboratories, Chemagro
Chemical Corp., submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-149 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1975) General Product Chemistry Data.
(Unpublished study received Nov 13, 1975 under 3125-EUP-132;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:095052)
GS0076-150 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1975) Name, Chemical Identity and
Composition of Pesticide Petition No. 6G1705. (Unpublished
study received Nov 13, 1975 under 6G1805; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Corp., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094771)
GS0076-151 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1975) Recovery of Bay NIN 9306 From
Soil: Report No. 45353. (Unpublished study received ? under
?; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL?)
GS0076-152 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1976) Bolstar® Emulsifiable
Insecticide- Application for Extension of Experimental Use
Permit on Cotton. (Unpublished study received Nov 12,
1976 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:095597)
GS0076-154 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1976) Letter sent to W.R. Bontoyan
dated Apr 27, 1976. [Accompanying this letter were 2 grams
of primary standard and 20 grams of technical material.]
GS0076-155 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1978) Bolstar^ in or on Cottonseed
Meat (Fat and Meat By-products of Cattle, Goats, Hogs,
Horses, Poultry, and Sheep), Milk and Eggs. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8H5182; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096913)

-------
GS0076-156 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1978) Supplement No. 1 to Additional
Field Rotational Crop Data, Use on Cotton, 12.04 Environmental
Chemistry: Report No. AS78-1424. (Unpublished study received
July 19, 1978 under 8F2Q63; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:097218)
GS0076-158 Morris, R.A. (1978) Determination of Baygon®, Baytex®,
Bolstar®, Croneton®, Dasanit®, Di-Syston®, Dylox®,
Guthion®, Hinosan®, Mesurol3, Metasystox-R®, Monitor®,
Morestan®, Nemacur®, and Systox® Residues in Soil: Report No.
49675. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under
8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:096915)
GS0076-159 Morris, R.A.; Sandie, F.E.; Gronberg, R.R. (1978) A Gas Chromato-
graphic Method for the Determination of Bolstar® and Metab-
olite Residues in Corn: Report No. 53114. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-160 Morrissey, A.E. (1979) The Acute Toxicity of Bolstar Technical to
to the Water Flea Daphnia magna Strain. Report No. 68161.
(Unpublished study received Oct 15, 1979 under ?; prepared by
Union Carbide Environmental Services, submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:241165)
GS0076-162 Nash, R.F. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No. 45401.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-163 Nelson, D. (1979) Acute Toxicity of Bolstar Technical to Bluegill
and Rainbow Trout. (Unpublished study received Oct 15, 1979
under ?; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:241165)
GS0076-164 Nelson, D. (1979) Acute Toxicity of Bolstar Technical to
Daphnia magna. (Unpublished study received Oct 15, 1979
under ?; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:241165)
GS0076-165 Patel, Y. (1976) The Composition of Bay NIN 9306: Report No.
45430. (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094771)
Q-lb
-------
GS0076-166 Pither, K.M. (1976) The Stability of Bay OTN 9306 in Poultry
Tissue and Bggs During Frozen Storage: Report No. 46992.
(Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
Mo; CDL:095599)
GS0076-167 Pither, K.M. (1978) The Effect of Natural Environmental on the
Persistence and Metabolism of BOLSTAR®
Incorporated in Florida Sandy Soil: Report No. 54392.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8H5182;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO: CDL:096915)
GS0076-168 Pither, K.M.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) The Metabolism of Bay OTSI
9306 in Swine: Report No. 44626. (Unpublished study received
Nov 21, 1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-169 Pither, K.M.; Gronberg, R.R. (1976) An Interference Study for the
Analytical Residue Method for Bay MEN 9306 and Metabolites in
Bovine Tissues and Milk and in Poultry Tissues and Bggs:
Report No. 46993. (Unpublished study received Nov 12,
1976 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:095599)
GS0076-170 Rowehl, E. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No. 45403.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-171 Rowehl, E. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No. 45404.]
(Unpublished study Received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-172 Sandie, F.E. (1975) A Gas Chromatographic Method for the
Determination of Bay MTN 9306 and Metabolites in Cottonseed
and By-Products: Report No. 45372. (Unpublished study
received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-173 Sandie, F.E. (1978) Residues in Rotational Crops Following a Crop
Treated with Bolstar-Ring-UL- C 6 EC Incorporated in Sandy
Soil at Planting: Report No. 63020. (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
0"
-------
GS0076-174 Sandie, F.E.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) A Gas Chromatographic Method
for the Determination of Bay NTN 9306 Residues in Bovine
Tissue and Milk: Report No. 45367. (Unpublished study
received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-175 Sandie, F.E.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) A Gas Chromatographic Method
for the Determination of Bay NTN 9306 and Metabolites in
Cottonseed and By-Products: Report 453372 (Unpublished study
received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-176 Scott, A. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No. 45398.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-177 Strankowski, K.J. (1978) Effects of Bolstar® on Nitrification
and Denitrification in Soil: Report No. 54431. (Unpublished
study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8H5182; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Corp., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-178 Synek, J.; Gonzalez, J.A. (1975) Storage Stability of Bay NTN
9306- Technical Material and 6 Emulsifiable: Report No. 44127.
(Unpublished study received Nov 1, 1975 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:095052)
GS0076-181 Thyssen, J.; Siegmund, F. (1975) Neurotoxicity Studies on Hens-
Bay NTN 9306: Report No. 43823. (Unpublished study received
Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical
Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094772)
GS0076-182 Ward, C.R. (1975) [Cotton Residue Reports: Report No. 45400.]
(Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094773)
GS0076-183 Wciler, E. (1981) Memo sent to William Phillips dated Feb 4,
1981. [Preliminary estimates of use of Sulprofos (Bolstar®)]
GS0076-184 Weiler, E.; Lin, Y.; Bieber, J. (1981) Preliminary Benefit
Analysis of EIN Use on Cotton. (A report submitted Apr 15,
1981 by the Mississippi State University Pesticide Assessment
Team)
3-»*
-------
GS0076-185 Wildlife International, LTD. (1978) Mallard Duck Reproduction
Study. (Unpublished study received Sep 15, 1978 under
8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Corporation, Kansas City,
MO; CDL:097395)

-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
Citations Examined and Judged to be Inappropriate For Use in
Developing the Standard
GS0076-029 Boyd, W.G., Jr. (1979) Gas-liquid chromatography of Bolstar
formulations. J. Asso. Off. Anal. Chem. 62(4):742-745.
GS0076-030 Boyd, W.G., Jr. (1980) Gas-liquid chromatographic method for
determining bolstar insecticide in formulations:
Collaborativestudy. J. Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem. 62 (1):120—
127.
GS0076-031 Buck, N.A.; Estesen, B.J.; Ware, G.W. (1980) Dislodgable
insecticide residues on cotton foliage: Fenvalarate (sic),
permethrin, sulprofos, chlorpyrifos, methyl parathion, EEW,
oxamyl, and profenofos. Bulletin of Environmental
Contamination and Tbxicology 24(2):283-288.
GS0076-033 Bull, D.L.;.Ivie, G.W. (1976) Metabolism of 0-ethyl 0-(4—
(methylthio)phenyl) S-propyl phosphorodithioate (Bay NTN 9306)
by white rats. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry
24(1):143-146.
GS0076-035 Bull, D.L.; Whitten, C.J.; Ivie, G.W. (1976) Fate of 0-ethyl 0-(4-
(methylthio)phenyl) S-propyl phosphorodithioate (BAY NTN 9306)
in cotton plants and soil. J..Agric. Food Chem. 24((3):601-
605.
GS0076-042 Chemagro Agricultural Division (1978) Recovery of Bolstar® and
Metabolites from Poultry Tissues: Report No. 53097.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915]
GS0076-069 Ciarletta, J.A. (1975) The Comparative Phytotoxicities From
Bayer and Chemagro Formulations of Bay NTN 9306 6 EC Applied
Folier to Cotton: Report No. 33843. (Unpublished study
received Nov 21,1975 under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:094794)
GS0076-070 Ciarletta, J.A. (1975) The Comparative Phytotoxicities From
Bayer arri Chemagro Formulations of Bay OTW 9306 6 EC Applied
Folier to Cotton Following 24 Week Storage Stability Trials:
Report No. 33885. (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975
under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:094794)
3-5^0
-------
GS0076-071 Clark, D.E.; Crookshank, H.R.; Devaney, J.A.; Bull, D.L.; Ivie,
G.W. (1979) Effects of sulprofos and its sulfoxide and sulfone
metabolites on laying hens fed the compounds in the diet. J.
Agric. Food Chem. 27(1):103-107.
GS0076-073 Clark, D.E.; Ivie, G.W.; Devaney, J.A.; Crookshank, H.R. (1976)
Effects of Bolstar® and its Sulfoxide and Sulfone Metab-
olites on Laying Hens Fed the Compound in the Diet: Report No.
48180. (Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
6G1705; prepared by Veterinary Toxicology and Entomology
Research Laboratory, College Station, TX; submitted by
Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095599)
GS0076-079 Estesen, B.J., Buck, N.A.; Ware, G.W. (1979) Dislodgable
insecticide residues on cotton foliage: Permethrin, curacron,
fenvalarate, sulprofos, decis, and endosulfan. Bulletin of
¦ Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 22 (1-2):245—248.
GS0076-080 Estesen, B.J.; Buck, N.A.; Ware, G.W.. (1979) Dislodgable
insecticide residues on cotton foliage: Permethrin, curacron,
fenvalarate, sulprofos, decis and endosulfan. Bulletin of
Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 22 (1-2):256.
GS0076-085 Gronberg, R.R.; Sandie, F.E. (1975) Analysis of Bay NIN 9306 and
Its Stability in Alfalfa Pellets: Report No. 45368.
(Unpublished study received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-086 Gronberg, R.R.; Wilkes, L.C. (1978) The Metabolism of Bolstar®
in Corn: Report No. 54066. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-087 Gronberg, R.R.; Wilkes, L.C. (1978) The Metabolism of Bolstar®
in Tomatoes: Report No. 53669. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063? submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-088 Gronberg, R.R.; Wilkes, L.C. (1978) The Stability of Bolstar®
in Tcmatoes and Corn Forage, Husk, Cob, and Kernels under
Frozen Storage: Report No. 54064. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)

-------
GS0076-090 Groning, P. (1975) Study to Investigate Combination Toxicity:
Report No. 45161. (Unpublished study received Nov 21,
1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL;094772)
GS0076-094 Hazelton Laboratories America, Incorporated (1976) A Three-
Generation Reproduction Study in Rats-A Preliminary Report:
No. 49669. (Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
Mo; CDL:095598)
GS0076-097 Ivie, G.W.; Bull, D.L. (1976) Photodegradation of O-Ethyl O-
[4-(Methy1thio)phenyl]S-Propyl Phosphorodithioate (Bay NTN
9306) J. Agric. Food Chan. 24(5):1053-1057.
GS0076-100 Ivie, G.W.; Bull, D.L.; Witzel, D.A. (1976) Metabolic fate of 0-
ethyl 0-(4-(methylthio)-phenyl-14-C) S-propyl
phosphorodithioate (BAY NTN 9306) in a lactating ccw. J.
Agric. Food Chem 24(1):147-151.
GS0076-104 Kishino, S.; Kudamatsu, A.; Takase, I.; Shiokawa, K.; Yamaguchi,
S., inventors; Bayer Aktiengesellschaft, assignee (1974) O-
ethyl-S-propyl-dithiophosphoric acid phenyl or naphthyl
esters. U.S. patent 3,947,529. Mar 30. 20 p. Int. CI.2 C C07F
9/12.
GS0076-105 Kurtz, S.K.; Gronberg, R.R. (1975) A Gas Chromatographic Method
for the Determination of Bay NTN 9306 and Metabolites in Soil
and Water: Report No. 45311. (Unpublished study
received Nov 1, 1975 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay
Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-107 Kurtz, S.K.; Sandie, F.E. (1975) A Gas Chromatographic Method for
the Determination of Bay NTN 9306 and Metabolites in Soil:
Report No. 45356. (Unpublished study received Nov 1,
1975	under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas
City, MO; CDL:095559)
GS0076-111 Iamb, D.W. (1976) Bolstar® (Bay NIN 9306) Chronic Two-Year
Feeding Study on Beagle Dogs (One-Year Progress Report):
Report No. 49913. (Unpublished study received Nov 12,
1976	under 3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:095598)

-------
GS0076-112 Lamb, D.W. {1976) Bolstar^ (Bay OTN 9306) Chronic Two-Year
Feeding Study on Rats (One-Year Progress Report): Report No.
49914.	(Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:095598)
GS0076-113 Iamb, D.W. (1976) Bolstar® (Bay NIN 9306) Chronic Two-Year
Feeding Study on Mice (Six-Month Progress Report): Report No.
49915.	(Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO;
CDL:095598)
GS0076-116 Lamb, D.W. (1978) Bolstar® (Bay NItJ 9306) Ten-Month Feeding
Study with Mice: Report No. 49998. (Unpublished study received
Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co.,
Kansas City, MO; CDL:096917)
GS0076-153 Mobay Chemical Corporation (1976) Fish and Wildlife Safety of
Bolstar®-Progress Report. (Unpublished study received
Nov 12, 1976 under 6G1705; submitted by Mobay Chemical
Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:095600)
GS0076-157 Morris, R.A. (1978) A Confirmatory Procedure for the Analytical
Residue Method for Bolstar® in Soil: Report No. 50870.
(Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063;
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-161 Nash, R.F. (1975) Bay NIN 9306 Phytotoxicity on Cotton: Report
No. 39323. (Unpublished study received Nov 21, 1975 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
MO; CDL:094794)
GS0076-179 Thornton, J.S.; Hurley, J.B.; Obrist, J.J. (1978) Soil Thin-Layer
Mobility of Twenty Four Pesticides Chemicals: Report No.
51016. (Unpublished study received Mar 13, 1978 under 8F2063
submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City, MO; CDL:096915)
GS0076-180 Ihyssen, J. (1976) Antidotal Effect of Atropine, Fralidoxime,
and Obidoxime on NTN 9306- Poisoned Rats: Report No. 47936.
(Unpublished study received Nov 12, 1976 under
3125-EUP-132; submitted by Mobay Chemical Co., Kansas City,
Mo; CDL:095598)
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1981—34:-082/« 253
3-^3
-------