PESTICIDE REGISTRATION STANDARD
ISOPROPALIN
Andrea Blaschka
William Audia
Gary Ballard
William Boodee
Edward Bcittin
Jacolyn Dziuban
Uranas Edwards
Robert Hoist
Raymond Kent
Lionel Richardson
Bernard Schneider
Arthur Schlossec
Richard Stevens
Rroject Manager (SPRD)
Plant Sciences Specialist (BFSD)
Economist (BFSD)
Residue Chemist (HED)
Residue Chemist, Leader (HED)
Product Manager (RD)
Ttoxicologist, (HED)
Plant Physiologist (HED)
Residue Cheroist (HED)
Environmental Chemist (HED)
Plant Sciences Specialist (BFSD)
Environmental Chemist (HED)
Wildlife Ecologist (HED)
-------
TABLE OF COOTENTS
Chapter I
How to Register Undo: a Registration Standard 1
Chapter II
Agency Position cn isopropalin B
Regulatory Rationale 9
Special Isopropalin Issues 9
Manufacturing Use Rtroduct(s) 11
Fcrmulation(s) 11
Data Requirements and Data Gaps 15
Chapter III
Product Chemistry
Introduction 33
Disciplinary Review 33
ftroduct Chemistry ftrofile 33
Physical Hazard Precautionary Labeling 34
Topical Discussions 35
Chaptar IV
Environmental Fate
Use Brofile 41
Disciplinary Review 44
Environmental Fate Profile 44
Exposure Profile 44
labeling Requirements 45
Topical Discussions 46
Chapter V
Residue Chemistry
Disciplinary Review 65
Residue Chemistry Profile 65
Tolerance Reassessment 65
Required labeling 65
Topical Discussions 66
-------
Chapter VI
Ecological Effects
Disciplinary Review 68
Ecological Effects Rrofile ; 68
Ecological Effects Hazard Assessment 63
Required Labeling 69
Topical Discussions 70
Chapter VII
Toxicology
Disciplinary Iteview (Technical Material) 78
Toxicology Profile 78
Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment 79
Required Labeling 79
Topical Discussions (Technical Material) 80
Emergency Treatment 82
Disciplinary Review (Bnulsifiable Concentrate) 83
Toxicology Profile 83
Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment 84
Required Labeling 84
Topical Discussions (frnulsifiable Concentrate) 85
-------
Chapter 1
HOW TO REGISTER
UNDER A REGISTRATION STANDARD
Organization of the Standard
Purpose of the Standard
Requirement to Re-register Under the Standard
"ftroduct Specific" Data and "Generic" Data
Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(1)(D)
Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps"; FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)
Amendments to the Standard
Organization of the Standard
This first chapter explains the purpose of a Registration Standard and
summarizes the legal principles involved in registering cr reregistering
under a Standard. The second chapter sets forth the requirements that must
be met to obtain cr retain registration fcr 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.
Purpose of the Standard
Section 3 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) provides that "no perscn in any State may distribute, sell, offer
for sale, hold for sale, ship, deliver far shipment, cr receive (and having
so received) deliver cr offer to delivar, to any person any pesticide which
is not registered with the Administrator [of EPA]." lb approve the
registration of a pesticide, the Mministratcr 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 ccmply
with the requirements of this Act;
(C) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable
adverse effects cr the environment; and
(D) when used in accordance with widespread and canmonly recognized
practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects
cn 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. But 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 (LISDA), 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 far 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 cr incomplete regulatory judgments.
Second, over the years, as a result of inevitable and continuing
advance 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 far hazard testing in 1978 (43 FR
29686, July 10, 1978 and 43 FR 37336, August 22, 1978), many products that
had already been registered fcr years were being sold and used without the
same assurances of human and environmental safety as was being required far
new products. Because of this inconsistency, Congress directed EPA to re-
register all previously registered products, so as to tring 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 far the
approximately 35,000 current registrations, and realizing the
inefficiencies of the product by product approach, the Agency decided
that a new, mere 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 ori a particular active
ingredient and its current uses, and sets forth the Agency's comprehensive
position cn the oonditions and requirements far registration of all
existing and future products which contain that active ingredient. These
conditions and requirements, all of which must be met to obtain cr retain
full registration cr 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 fcr product classification. As pert
of the registration of a pesticide product, EPA may classify each product
for "general use" cr "restricted use" [FIFRA Section 3(d)1. A pesticide is
classified fa: "restricted use" when some special regulatory restriction is
needed to ensure against treasonable adverse effects to man ar the
environment. Many such risks of unreasonable adverse effects, can be
lessened 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, cr under the supervision
of, an applicator who has been certified by the State cr Federal government
as being ocmpetent to use pesticides 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, cr in addition
2
-------
to, the certified applicator requirement. These other regulatory
restrictions may include such actions as seasonal cr regional limitations
on use, cr a requirement far the monitoring of residue ievels after use. A
pesticide classified for "general use," cr not classified at all, is
available fcr use by any individual who is in ccmpliance with State or
local regulations. Hie Registration Standard review compares 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 fcr "restricted use." If the Standard dD i
classify a pesticide for "restricted use," this determination is stated in
the second chapter.
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 cr 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 oomply with the procedures for reregistration set
fcrth in the Guidance Package which accompanies this Standard.
"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
1978 (43 FR 29686, July 10, 1978, and 43 FR 37336, August 22, 1978), 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 some cases studies not require^ r>y the Guidelines may be needed
because of the particular composition cr use pattern of products the
Standard covers; if so, the Standard explains the Agency's reasoning. Data
guidelines have not yet been proposed for the Residue Chemistry discipline,
but the requirements fcr such data have been in effect fcr some time and
are, the Agency believes, relatively familar to registrants. Data which ws
have found are needed to evaluate the registrability of some products
covered by the Standard may not bo needed for the evaluation of other
products, depending upon the compositier, formulation type, and intended
uses of the product in question. The Standard states which data
requirements apply to which product categories. (See the second chapter.)
3
-------
The various kinds of data ncrmally required far registration of a pesticide
product can be divided into two basic groups:
(A) data that is "product specific/" i.e., data that relates only
to the properties cr effects of a product with a particular
composition (cr a group of products with closely, similar
ccmpos i t ion); and
(B) "generic" data that pertains to the properties cr effects of
a particular ingredient, and thus is 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 composition.
The Agency requires certain "product specific" data far 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). The applicant for
registration cr reregistraticn of any product, whether it is a.
manufacturing-use cr end-use product, and without regard to its intended
use pattern, must submit cr cite enough of this kind of data to allcv EPA
to evaluate the product. For such purposes, "product specific" data on any
product other than the applicant's is irrelevant., unless the othar product
is closely similar in composition to the applicant's. (Where it has been
found practicable to group similar products far purposes of evaluating,
with a single set of tests, all products in the group, the Standard so
indicates.) "Product specific" data cn the efficacy of particular end-use
products is also required -where th° exact formulation may affect efficacy
and where failure of efficacy could cause public health problems.
All other data needed to evaluate pesticide products concerns the
properties cr effects of a particular ingredient of products (normally a
pesticidally active ingredient, but in sane 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™ of the active ingredient in its
technical cr purer grade; see proposed 40 CFR 163.Bl-l(a), 43 FR 37355).
Other "generic" data are required to evaluate all products which contain
both a particular ingredient and are intended for certain uses (see, e.g.,
proposed 40 CFR 163.82-1, 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 fran a registered
manufactur ing-use product permitting such formulations) and to each
manufacturing-usc product with labeling that allows it to be used to make
end-use products with that use pattern. Ttius, far example, a subchronic
cral dosing study is needed to evaluate the safety of any manufacturing-use
product that legally oould 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 cral 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 far use only in making end-use products not involving
food/feed use cr repeated human exposure, that subchronic cral study would
not be relevant to the evaluation of the manufacturing-use product either.
4
-------
If a registrant of a currently registered manufacturing-use cr end-use
product wishes to avoid the costs of data compensation [under FIFRA Section
3(c)(1)(D)] cr data generation [under Section 3(c)(2)(B)) fcr "generic"
data that is required cnly with respect to some use patterns, he may elect
to delete those use patterns frcm his labeling at the time he reregisters
his product. An applicant for registration of a new product under this
Standard may similarly request, approval fcr only certain use patterns.
Data Compensation Requirements under FIFRA 3(c)(1)(D)
Undo: FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D), an applicant fcr registration, re-
registration, cr amended registration must offer to pay compensation fcr
certain existing data the Agency has used in developing the Registration
Standard. Ttie data for which compensation must be offered is all data
which is described by all the following criteria: .
(1) the data were first submitted to EPA (cr to its predecessor
agencies, USDA cr FDA), on cr after January 1, 1970;
(2) the data were submitted to EPA (cr USDA or FDA) by some other
applicant cr registrant in support of an application far an
experimental use permit, an amendment adding a new use to a
registration, cr fcr reregistration, cr to suppcrt cr maintain
an existing registration;
(3) the data are relevant to the Agency's decision to register cr re-
register the applicant's product under the Registration Standard,
taking into account the applicant's product's composition and
intended use pattern(s);
(4) the data are determined by EPA to be valid and usable in reaching
regulatory conclusions; and
(5) the data are not those for which the applicant has been exempted
by FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D) frcm the duty to offer to pay
compensation. (This exemption applies to the "generic" data
concerning the safety of active ingredient of the applicant's
product, not to "product specific" data. Ttie exemption is
available only to applicants whose product is labeled fcr end-
uses fcr 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 fircm
another producer.)
An applicant fcr reregistration of an already registered product under
this Standard, cr fcr 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 ccnpensation, and must
submit with his application the appropriate statements evidencing his
compliance with FIFRA Section 3(c)(1)(D).
An applicant wuld 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. Ttiere may
be cases, however, where because of close similarities between the
composition of two cr more products, another firm's data may suffice to
allcw EPA to evaluate some cr all of the "product specific" aspects of the
5
-------
applicant's product. In such a case, the applicant may choose to cite that
data instead of submitting data from tests on his own product, and if he
chooses that opticn, he would have to ccmpiy with the Section 3(c)(1)(D)
requirements with respect to each item of "qeneric" data that relates to
his product's intended uses.
Each applicant for registration cr reregistration of a manufacutur ing-use
product, and each applicant fcr registration cr reregistration of an end-
use product, who is not exempted by FIFRA Section 3(c)(2)(D), must ccmpiy
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 follow in
applyinq fcr reregistration (cr new registration) under this Standard is
found in the Guidance Package fcr this Standard.
Obtaining Data to Fill "Data Gaps"? FIFRA 3(c)(2)(D)
Seme of the kinds of data EPA needs far its evaluation of the properties
and effects of products to which this Standard apiplies have never been
submitted to the Agency (cr,,if submitted, have been found to have
deficiencies rendering them inadequate far 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 (cr otherwise produce) data to fill such "gaps" and submit those
data to EPA. EPA must allow a reasonably sufficient period fcr 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) crder, his
product's registration may be suspended until the data are submitted. A
mechanism is provided whereby two or mere registrants may agree to share in
the oosts of producing data for which they are both responsible.
The Standard lists, in its surrmary second chapter, the "generic" data gaps
and notes the classes of products to which these data gap>s 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. Only
those Standards which apply to a vary small number of currently registered
products will attempt to state definitively the "product specific" data
gaps on a product by product basis. - (Although the Standard will in sane
cases note which data that EPA does possess would suffice to satisfy
certain "product specific" data requirements fcr 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 that data in
question is "product specific" or "generic" — in accordance with a
schedule.
6
-------
Persons who wish to obtain registrations fcr 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. (We 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).
Amendments to the Standard
Applications far registration which propose uses cr formulations that are
not presently covered by the Standard, ar which present product
compositions, product chemistry data, hazard data, toxicity levels, cr
labeling that do not meet the requirements of the Standard, will
automatically be considered by the Agency to be requests fcr amendments to
the Standard. In response to such applications, the Agency may request
additional data to support the proposed amendment to the Standard, cr may
deny the application fcr registration on the grounds that the proposed
product would cause unreasonable adverse effects to the environment. In
the farmer case, when additional data have been satisfactorily supplied,
and providing that the data do not indicate the potential far 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 pricr to the publication
date. This "cut-off" date is stated at the beginning of the second
chaptar. Any subsequent data submissions and any approved amendments will
be incorporated into the Registration Standard by means of addenda, which
are available far insp>ecticn at EPA in Washington, D.C., or copies of which
may be requested frcm the Agency. When 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 far registration under the Standard, the document will be
updated and reissued fcr publication.
While the Registration Standard discusses enly the uses and hazards of
products containing the designated active ingredient(s), the Agency is also
concerned with the potential hazards of 9ome inert ingredients and
impurities. 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 vdiich the Standard applies, these ingredients will be pointed
out in the Guidance Package.
7
-------
Introduction
II. REGULATORY CHAPTER
This chapter presents the Agency decisions and the reasons supporting these
decisions on the standards of product composition, toxicity, use, labeling
and packaging that are required for the chemical 2,6-dinitro-N,N-
dipcopylcumidine. These decisions comply with the rules and regulations
(40 CFR 162) used to implement the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and
Rodenticide Act, as amended (FIFRA), and with the Aqency's present
regulatory policy. In this document, the Agency will refer to this
compound primarily by its common name isopropalin. Its use cr the use of
the trade name in this document does not constitute endorsement cr
recommendation of use by this /Vgency.
Isopropalin, a dinitroaniline compound, is used as a soil-incorporated
preplant cr pretransplant herbicide far control of grasses and hroadleaf
weeds in tobacco fields. (Fcr more information consult the Use Profile in
Chapter IV page 41). Elanco Products Company, a Division of Eli Lilly and
Company, Indianapolis, Indiana has submitted data in support of
registration of an isopropalin product. These data may be cited by other
registrants ar applicants for registration, when appropriate, to support
the registration(s) of their own product(s), provided they have offered and
agreed to pay compensation, as required by FIFRA Sections 3(c)(1)(D).
The single product registered with isopropalin as an active ingredient is
PAARLAN^ emulsifiable concentrate, ifiis product is produced by means of
an integrated formulation system as defined in 43 FR 29708, July 10,
1978. Under this system the pesticide manufacturer registers an end-use
product with an ingredient which is not registered as a manufacturing-use
product, (i.e. the technical chemical containing the active ingredient is
sold only after it is formulated into an end-use product). How? €r,
certain data are still required fcr the unregistered technical chemical (or
purer grade of the active ingredient) to support registration of the end-
use product.
REGULATORY POSITION
The Agency has evaluated the available data on the chemical 2,6-dinitro-N,N-
dipropjylcumidine and has determined that existing data indicate that
isopropalin does not cause unreasonable adverse effects as cited in 40 CFR
162.11, with proper label directions and precautions. The isopropalin
product cirrently registered may be reregistered subject to the conditions
imposed far data requirements and labeling changes. New products may be
registered under the standard and are subject to the same requirements.
In crder to maintain the registration of an isopropalin product(s), the
following are required,
1) Analytical data supporting a contamination level of less than one part
par million N-nitrosamine, cr exposure data which permit an estimation of
risk which is acceptable to the Agency.
8
-------
2) Data identified as necessary far maintaining registration far
isopropalin use cn tobacco.
3) Revision of the label.
REGULATORY RATIONALE
Special Isopropalin Issues Which Affect All Registered Products
Isopropalin is contaminated with the N-nitrosamine N-nitroso-di-n-
propylamine (NDPA). Approximately 80% of all N-nitrosamines have been
shown to be carcinogens. This finding prompted the Agency to require
analyses of certain pesticide products which were most likely to be
contaminated with N-nitrosamines (42 FR 51640). A proposed policy on N-
nitrosamines has also been issued with specific requirements, (45 FR 42854)
far products which are contaminated with N-nitroso compounds. The notice
outline, he proposed risk criteria which guide the Agency in determining
the registration status of new and previously registered pesticides.
The carcinogenicity of NDPA has been demonstrated±>y Druckcary,—^
et al., (1967 J,, Reznik,— et al., (1975), Pour,— et al., (1973)
and Dickhaus,— et al., (1977). Hie highest NDPA values recorded far
isopropalin were reported in 1978 by Cohen, S.Z., et al. (05006328) at 84
ppm to 87 ppm and in 1979 by Bontoyan (GS 0005-002) at 39 ppm to 54 ppm. A
1978 submission by Elanco (GS 0005-001) gives the highest level of
contamination as 8.4 ppm NDPA. Analytical data were supplied supporting
these values. In 1980 Elanco submitted a statement (GS 0005-003)' assertinq
that the oontaminant values of the formulated product were less than one
part per mil lien. Lot numbers and values of the NDPA contaminant were
provided. No analytical data were provided to support these low values.
2/
Some potential alternatives— to isopropalin also have N-nitrosamine
contaminants. Qiide (diphenamid), Balan (benefin), and Prowl
(pendimethalin), have N-nitrosamines at levels which range from less than 1
ppm to 135 ppm. Tillam (pebulate), and Tillam plus Devrinol (napropamide)
are exceptions and are not contaminated with N-nitrosamines. Enide, Balan,
and Prowl were found to be registrable under the proposed N-nitrosamine
policy.
Taking this information into consideration the £qency has determined that
the registration of isopropalin should he continued far the following
reasons:
Elanco has stated that the NDPA contaminant levels foe isopropalin is less
than one part per million in recent batches of the emulsifiable
concentrate. Elanco is known to possess the technology to lower the
N-nitrosamine contaminant level in similar dinitroaniline products, as they
have clearly demonstrated with the reduction of the NDPA content of
Ureflan, to a level that is less than one part per million.
W These studies are listed as reference material in section three of the
Bibliography.
2/ Information cn herbicides used on tobacco is from the "Report of use
Data far Exposure Analysis of Isopropalin" a report prepared for EPA, and
the "1980 Weed Control Manual" Meister Publishing Ccmpany.
9
-------
A significant number of potential alternatives to isopropalin are
contaminated with N-nitrosamines. Since these products which have similar
use patterns have produced risk levels which were found to be acceptable to
the Agency it is likely that the same will be determined for isop*opalin.
However, the continued registration of isopropalin products is dependent
upon the submission of data which demonstrates its safety.
The following data concerning the contaminant must be submitted:
o Analytical data cn representative samples of the product showing
acceptable levels of N-nitrosamine contamination according to the
proposed N-nitrosamine policy (45 FR 42854).
o For the product, a statement of certified composition limits for
isopropalin and the nitrosamine impurities, (43 FR 29709, July 10,
1978).
o Data demonstrating that N-nitrosamine impurities which exceed the
certified limits are not produced during extended storage of the
formulated product (43 FR 29711).
o A risk analysis fcr the NDPA contaminant as specified in the proposed
N-nitrosamine policy if NDPA values are greats than one part per
million.
CRITERIA FOR REGISTRATION UNDER TOE STANDARD
lb be subject to this standard, isopropalin products must meet the
following conditions:
1. The product must meet the composition standards as specified.
2. The product must meet the acute toxicity standards as specified.
3. The product must meet the labeling standards as specified.
4. The applicant must submit all data specified in the section - Data
Requirements and Data Gaps.
5. The applicant must offer, when applicable, to pay compensation to the
extent required by 3(c)(1)(D) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide
and Rodenticide Act [FIFRA], as amended, 7 U.S.C. 136(c)(1)(D).
6. The applicant must submit the application package in the required form
as specified in this Standard and the accompanying guidance package.
Ifte Elanco Products Company has submitted data in support of an isopropalin
product and has not waived their rights to compensation for these data*
10
-------
MANUFACTORING-USE PRODUCT FOR ISOPROPALIN
The registrant has registered their product as an Integrated-Fcrmulation-
System Rroduct. Consequently, there are no manufactur ing-usc products
registered. The technical material is formulated directly into an end-use
product.
All data required far this type of registration, both generic and product
specific, are the responsibility of the registrant of the formulated
product.
Tolerances
Data to support the establishment of tolerances in cr on food and feed are
normally supplied by the first producer of a technical chemical.
At this time, there are ro registered food uses fcr isopropalin.
Isopr.opalin was initially registered on February 9, 1972, far pre-emergence
use on tomatoes and peppers at a maximn rate of 2 lbs/aare. Tblerances
were simultaneously established far residue levels of 0.05 ppm for
both arops (40 CFR 180.313). These tolerances are not CODEX
tolerances. Later cn, the registrant amended the label far tobacco use
only and the reconmended uses on food arops ware removed from the label.
It should be noted that although the reported residues of isopropalin in or
on tomatoes and peppers has not been discussed in the standard, it is
considered adequate for a tolerance. Although the residue data is
adequate, the toxicology data base is inadequate. There ere no data on
chronic feeding, oncogenicity, teratology, reproduction, mutagenicity and
metabolism which-are currently required as.supporting data for tolerances.
Therefore, since there are no registered uses far this pesticide on
tomatoes and peppers and the toxicology data base is deficient, the
Administrator will propose issuance of a regulation to repeal these
tolerances under the authority of the Federal Food, Qrug and Cosmetic Act,
. Section 408(e) and 40 CFR 180.32.
FORMULATION (S)
EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE ISOPROPALIN
Product Composition Standard • -
Undo: this Standard an emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin of similar
cqmpositicn is acceptable far registration.
Acute Toxicity Limits
The Agency will oonsider for registration end-use products of any toxicity
category far isopropalin products. However the registrant must
incorporate the appropriate precautionary and use restriction statements
into the label.
To be registered for a nondonestic, general use under this standard, the
emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin must have a classification of
li
-------
Toxicity Category I through IV fcr each of the following effects:
Acute Oral Toxicity
Acute Dermal Toxicity
Acute Inhalation Toxicity
Primary Eye Irritation
ft"invary Dermal Irritation
Data are required for acute inhalation, and primary dermal irritation.
There are no data available far acute inhalation, and inadequate data
available for primary dermal irritation. Hie primary eye irritation data
cannot be recategorized since observations were not made past the seventh
day. According to the criteria established in 1975 (40 CFR 162.10(h)(1)]
the emulsifiable concentrate is a category I eye irritant. The Agency has
adopted the or iteria proposed by the National Academy of Sciences
publication 1138 far categorization of the ftrimary Eye Irritation test and
the Primary Dermal Irritation test. Revised testing protocols are now
available (46 FR 7074). Since new testing may result in a reclassification
to a lowigr toxicity category, the registrant may wish to repeat the Primary
Eye Irritation Test. If the registrant does not wish to repeat this test
then the labeling must be revised so that it is appropriate for a
Category I eye irritant.
Use Patterns and Application Method
To be registered under this standard, emulsifiable concentrate products of
isopropalin may be used only as a pre-emergent herbicide in tobacco fields
which are not rotated with food or feed crops.
Data requirements far rotational crops are listed on pages 23 and 61.
These data are needed to support removal cr change of the rotational or op
restriction far isopropalin products. These data provide the necessary
information far the selection of an appropriate time interval between
application of isopropalin and the planting of a rotational crop so that
residues will not occur in the crop. As an alternative the registrant may
obtain a tolerance or an exemption frcm a tolerance far isopropalin in
rotational ar follow-up crops (46 FR 3018). Itie registrant does have the
option of keeping the rotational crop restriction and not providing the
data.
The Agency finds that current dosage rates and application methods are
acceptable under this standard.
Data Gaps
Hie applicant proposing the registration of an emulsifiable concentrate
of isopropalin far end-use must cite ar submit the information an product
chemistry, residue chemistry, environmental fate, ecological effects and
toxicology of the proposed product. If the applicant establishes that a
product is substantially similar to another product, far which the Agency
has received acceptable acute toxicity tests, data frcm these tests may be
cited provided compensation has been offered to the submitters of these
studies. The Agency will consider both active and inert ingredients in
making the determination of substantially similar products.
12
-------
Data supporting the registration of isopropalin has been listed in chart
form. Hie Agency has not received acceptable data for some tests which
have been listed in the following charts (page 13 to 32).
Required Labeling
All emulsifiable concentrate products must bear appropriate labeling as
specified in 40 CFR 162.10.
All labels and labeling intended far agricultural use products must bear
the following statement: "This product must be applied in accordance with
40 CFR Part 170". Registrants may state the contents of 40 CFR Part 170 or
additional statements.
The following changes are necessary for the PAARLAN, emulsifiable concentrate
label:
1. The statement "Do not contaminate foodstuffs cr feeds" must appear under
the "Directions fcr Use" in the general restriction section.
2. The following rotational crop restriction must.appear cn the label: "Do
not use in a crop rotation program far food ar feed crops".
3. The "Environmental" subheading must be revised to "Environmental
Hazards." This section must be revised in the following way:
"Itiis pesticide is toxic to fish. Do not directly apply to water.
Do not contaminate water by cleaning of equipment or disposal of
wastes.
4. The subheading "Storage" must be changed to "Physical ar Chemical
Hazards." Ihis section must be revised to include the following:
"Do not store near heat ar open flame."
5. The statement, "It is a violaton of federal law to use this product in a
manner inconsistent with its labeling" must appear directly under
"Directions far Use."
6. A "Storage and Disposal" section must be added. Ttiis section must
include the proper statements fran the enclosure (pamphlet which
accompanies product).
7. Additional revisions may be required vtaen additional data are
submitted.
13
-------
If the registrant does not wish to repeat the pr unary eye irritaticri test,
then the label must include statements appropriate far a Category I eye •
irritant. The following statements wuld have to be added to the PAARLAN,
Qnulsifiable ooncentrate label:
8. The signal ward "DANGER" must appear en the front panel; delete the
word "caitticn".
9. The referral statement on the front panel must be revised to the
following:
"See back panel for additional precautionary statements."
10. The signal wcrd "DANGER" must replace the wcrd "CAUTION" cn the back
panel.
11. Rreceeding the signal wcrd "Danger" on the back panel, the heading
"Precautionary Statements" and the subheading "Hazards to Humans and
Domestic Animals" must appear. Delete the heading "Human" which now
appears on the labeling.
12. The "Hazards to Humans and Domestic Animals" section must read as
follows:
"DANGER. Corrosive, causes eye damage. Do not get in eyes, on skin
or on clothing. Wear goggles cr face shield and rubber gloves when
handling. Harmful if swallowed ar absorbed through the skin. Avoid
breathing vapcrs cr spray mist."
13. TVie statement of "Practical Tteatment" heading must appear on the
labeling. This section may appear directly following the "Hazards to
Humans and Domestic Animals" section or following the1 signal word on the
front panel. This section must include the following:
"If in eyes : Flush with water for 15 minutes. Get immediate
medical attention.
If on skin : Wash with plenty of 9oap and water.
If swallowed : Drink cne cr two glasses of water and induce
vcmiting by touching back of throat with finger. Do not give
anything by mouth to an unconscious person. Get medical attention."
14
-------
CHARTS
The following charts list the data requirements necessary fcr the
reregistraticn of the Integrated-Fcrmulation-System Product PAARLAN.
Since there are no registered Manufactiring-Use Products the
responsibility fcr providing the generic and product specific data rest with
the registrant of the formulated product.
15
-------
Product-Chemistry (see Chapter III)
Duta Requirements tor the Integrated Formulation Systan Product Isopropalin—
Guidelines
Citation
Name of "Pest
Are Lata Required
Gonpositicn
163.61-3
163.61-4
163.61-5
163.61-6
Product identity and
disclosure of ingredients
Description of
Manufacturing Process
Discussion on formation
of mintentional
ingredients
yes
yes
yes
yes!/
Declaration and
certification of
ingredient
yes^/
yes!/
Does EPA Have
teta to Partially
cr Ibtally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citaticn
68.6 « EC
Ttech.
68.6% EC?/
Tech.
68.6% EC
yes
yes
partial^/
partial!/
partial^/
Tech.
68.6*
partial
5/
Must Additional
Data be Sutmittod
under FLKRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If ao, ninths ollcMed for
submission tram publ is*>«d
date of standard?
Klanro^/
Eianooi/
00002789 Elanoo
00002551 Elanoo
00002789 Elanoo
00002559 Blanco
GS0005-001 Elanoo
(£0005-002 Bontoyan
(£0005-003 Elanoo
0500b328 Cohen
OS001066 Keszthelyi
05001065 Keszthelyi
GS0005-002 Bontoyan
(£0005-003 Elanoo
05006328 Cohen
05001066 Keszthelyi
yes 24 months
yes 24 months
yes 24 months
yes 24 months
yes 6 months
1/ Elanoo's Confidential Statement of Formula, Registration Jacket #1471-79.
2/ Iraplied in the requirement but not stated as such in the guidelines.
7/ DBta provided with respect to these requirements must also address the nitroeamine contamination issue.
4/ A detailed description of the manufacturing process, composition of starting materials, and reaction
solvents (including impurities), reaction temperatures and side reactions, packaging materials.
5/ A discussion of impurities associated with the manufacturing and formulating process are required. August 1981
These data support the registration of the product PAARLAN only.
-------
ISoprofuLiii Product-Chemistry (see Chapter III) ,
Data Requirements for the Integrated-Forinulat ion System Product Isoptopalin-
GuldelInes
Citation
163.61-7
Name of Test
Are Pata Required?
Comivjcition
Product analytical
methods and data
yes
163.61-8(o) (J) Color
163.61-8(c) (2) Odor
163.61—8(c) (3) Melting point
163.61—8(c)(4) Solubility
163.61-8(c)(5) Stability
163.61-8(c)(6) Octanol/water
partition coefficient
yes
yes
yes
yes
no V
yes
yes
y«s
68.6* EC
Tecti^
Itch.
68.6% EC
Tech.
68.64 EC
TV-ch.
Ttech.
Tech.
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or Totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
yes
yes
yes
no
no
no
yes
partial-^
Bibl ioijraphic
Ci tation
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
under FIFRA 3(c) (2)
-------
Isopropalin PaxJuct-Choinistry (sec Chapter III)
CBta Requirements tor the Int(>qrate<1 Formulation System Product Isopropalin '
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
urvler FIFKA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, months allowc-d for
sutinission tram pii>lished
date ot standard?
163.bl-8(c) (7)
rtiysical stale
y--
TVcti.
yes
- 05001096 Weber
nu
Vej
fifl .8% ex:
yt:s
Elancoi/
no
163.61-B(c)<8)
Density or specific
gravity
yeu
yes
Ha:Ii.
68.6% EC
nu
no
-
yes 6 months
yes 6 months
163.61—8(c)(9)
Boilinq point
yt-s
'iv-ch.
no
-
yes 6 months
163.61-8(c)(10)
Vapor pressure
TV;ch.
yes
05001063 Johnson
05001096 Weber
no
163.61-6(0)(11)
F»1
yc.-s
68.6% RC
l>:ch.
no
yes
05001096 Weber
yes 6 months
no
163.61-8(c)(12)
Storage stability
yes
68.6% FT
partial-^
00002591 Decker
yes 6 months
163.61-8.lc) (13)
Flanwubility
yeo
68.6% EC
no
-
yes 6 months
163,61-8(c)(14)
acidizing or
reducing action
yes
68.6% EC.
no
-
yes 6 months
163.61-8(c)(15)
Explosiveness
yes
bH.6% BC
no
-
yes 6 months
163.61-B(c)(16)
Miscibility
yes
68.6% EC
no
-
yes 6 months
163.61-8(c)(17)
Viscosity
yes
68.6% EC
no
-
yes 6 irunths
163.61-8(c)(18)
Corrosion
characteristics
yes
68.6% EC
fKJ
-
yes 6 months
163.bi-8(c)(19)
Dielectric Breakdown
Voltage
IIO
-
-
-
-
1/ Elanoo's Confidential Statonent of Formula,
Registration Jacket #1471-79.
3/ Dotd provided with respect to these requirements must also addresss the nitrosainine contamination issue. August 1981
9/ Hii-r.e data support the reqistratiop of the product PAARIAN only-
Guidelines tone of Itst
Citation
Are Duta Required (Juntos it ion
Coos EPA Have Bibliographic
Data to Partially Citation
cr totally Sat isfy
this Requirement?
-------
Qiviranmental Fate (see Chapter IV)
Data Requirements for the integrated Formulation System Product Isopropalin
Guide1ines
Citation
Name of Ttest
Are Uata Required
for Outdoor
~torn la nestic
Tcrreutrial,
TOtjucco uoo?
Composition
Does KPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Host Additional
Data be Sufjiuttod
under KIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, months tilloMjd fur
subnission frun published
date of stondanJ7
163.62-7(b) Hydrolysis
163.72-7(c) Photodegradation
163.62-8(b)
Aerobic soil
met aboli an
163.62-8(c) Anaerobic soil
metabolisn
yes
yes
yes
yes
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
"Itch, or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Itch. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
Tech. or
Radiolabeled
Analytical Gr.
no
partial—'''
partial—^
partial-'''
05001076 Parochetti
05001267 Kennedy
00002473 Golab
05001257 Gingerich
00002814 Elanoo
05001260 Golab
00002473 Golab
05001260 Golab
05001257 Gingerich
00002814 Elanoo
yes 24 months
yL's 24 months
yes 24 months
yes 24 nunUis
163.62-8(d) /*jvaenobic aquatic no - - - -
metabolism
163.62-8(e) Aerobic aquatic no - - -
niitdbolism
Microbial metabolism Reserved^ - - -
(2) effects of microbes
cn pesticides
(3) effects of Reserved-'"' - -
pesticides on microbes
2/ Some data are available on photoriegradafion of isopropalin in soil, and no additional data in soil are required. However data are required
on the photodeqradation of isopropalin in water.
2/ Data characterizing the decline of parent compound are adequate. All other data such as the patterns of formation and decline of metabolites
formed under aerobic conditions and differences in patterns of metabolism between aerobic and anaerobic soil conditions are required.
3/ The requirement for the submission of these data is currently being reserved pending the review and modification of the
testing protocols. Cbnsequently, the absence of acceptable data.does not constitute a data gap. a lqubi 1901
-------
Environmental Fate (see Chapter IV)
Data Requirements for the Integrated Formulation System Product Isopropalin
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data Required
tor OiiLdoor
Nondomestic
Terrestrial,
Tobacco Use?
Composition
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Ci tation
Must Additional
Data be Sutnutted
under FIFRA 3(c) (2)
-------
environmental Face (see Chapter IV)
Data Requirements for the Integrated Formulation System Product Isopropalin
Are Data Hequi red
for Outdoor
Nondomest ic
Herrestri al,
"tobacco Use?
163.62-10(h) Terrestrial field
dissipation
(1) Field & Vegetable yes
crop
r«>
(2) Tree fruit & nut no
crop uses
(J) Pasture land uses no
(4) Domestic outdoor no
park
GuTd(TTnpr. Name of Test
Citation.
Composition
Does EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
under FIFRA 3(c) (2)(HI?
It so, months allov.vd tor
submission troin published
date of standard?
EC yes 00002473 Golab no
05001260 Golab
05001064 Saghir
0000260'J Starker
00002610 Steenwyk
00002611 Shoop
00002612 Hobbr.
00002613 Watson
00002614 Humphreys
00002615 Keaton
00002616 Webster
00002621 Helmer
00002622 Webster
00002597 Eli Lilly
00002800 Elanco
00002801 Elanco
00002802 Elanco
00002798 Watson
00002797 Massey
050012C7 Kennedy
05002135 Harvey
00003260 Elanco
05001083 Romanowskl
05001088 Stoller
(5) Rights of way,
shelterbelts
and related uses
August 1981
-------
Environmental Fate (see Chapter IV)
Data Rcqui [eni'.'ni j f:>r the Integrated Formulation System Product Isopropalin
Guidel ino'j
Citation
Name of Test
Are U:ita liequlri.
for Outdoor
Nondomest ic
Herresrri.il,
Tbbaccu Ugc.'
Composition
Does EPA Hjvl"
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement:'
Bibl lcxji aptiic
Citation
Must Additional
Data be Sutmifted
under HKKA 3(c) {2) (B) >
If Go, months dilowed tor
submission from published
date of standard?
163.6?-iri(c)
163.62-10(d)
163.62—10(e)
/Vquatlc field
dissipation
(1) aquatic food
crop uses
(2) Aquatic noncrop
ises
(3) Specialized
aquatic uses
¦terrestrial/
aquatic (forest)
field dissipation
ftjuatic impact
uses
(1) Direct discharge
(2) Indirect discharge
(3) Wastewater treatment
no
no
no
August I'.JBl
-------
Environmental Fate (see Chapter IV)
Lata Requirements for the Integrated formulation System Product Isopropalin
Guidelines
Citation
Name ot Ttst
Arc Data Required
tor Outdoor
NondmniT.tic
'It'I tLStl l.ll ,
Ttotkjcco Use'/
(imposition
Does EPA I lave
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional
Data be Submitted
under FIFKA 3(c)(2)(B)/
If so, nonths allowed £01
submission tran published
date ot standard?
163.62-10(1)
Gcmbination aitd
tank mix field
dissipation
6/
no-
163.b2-ll(b)
163.62-11(c)
163.62-ll(d)
163.62-11(e)
7/
Accumulation
in rotational
crops
Accumulation in
irrigated crops
Pish accunulation
Special studies
accunulation in
aquatic ncncrop
uses
yes
4/
Heserve<3-
Radiolabeled
Analytical Cr.
tollowed by
formulation
partial-^
05001260 Golab
00002535 Golab
00002509 Eli Lilly
00002558 Eli Lilly
00002507 Eli Lilly
yes 24 months
A/ Hie requirement for the submission of these data is currently beiiiy reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of data
on hydrolysis, photodegradation in water, aerobic ar»1 anaerobic soil metabolism, and rotational crops. Consequently
the absence of acceptable data docs not oonslitute a data gap.
6/ Not applicable in single active ingredient startfard.
7/ Kemoval of rotational crop restriction requires one of the following:
A) Environmental Fate data to support a rotdtion interval which does not result in a pesticide
residue in the rotated crop;
B) A tolerance for the nontarget crop;
C) An exemption frcm a tolerance.
14 14
8/ Registrant must identity crops to be rotated with tobacco, provide data an the unidentified C residues; prcvide C
and in-use field data to support a rotation interval that will result in no residues in selected rotated crops.
Aucjn^t lyei
-------
Rc-sidue-Chemist_ry (sec Uupter V)
CBta Refillrc-jnonts for an Integrated Formulation System Product Isopropalin
Guide!ines
Citation
Name ot Tfest
Are Data Required'.'
Combos 111011
Docs EPA Have
Duta to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional
Data be Subiuttod
under FiFKA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, noiiLhs al lowed tor
subiussion Iran published
date ot standard?
ML-tabolisiii in Plants
Metabolisn in Animals
Analytical Methods
Residue Data: Crops
Residue llata: Processed
Crops
Residue Data: Milk and
Meat
Storacje Stability
no
no
no
yes
purtial
no
00002506
05001260
00002477
00002554
00002507
00002793
00002795
Blanco}'
Golab
Eli Lilly
Elanco
Eli Lilly
Johnson
Holzer
no
no
no
yi_-s months
\/ Raw data are requested for this study.
2/ Haw data are requested tor studies as footnoted.
August 1081
v
-------
Ecological Effects (see Chapter VI)
C&ta Requirement for the integrated-Pormulation System Product Isopropai in
Guidelinos
Citat ion
Name of Test
Are Data Required
for Outdoor
NaniJcmestic
Tterrestrial,
"tobacco Use?
Conposltion
Ddcs EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional
Eata be Submitted
under FIFRA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, months allowed for
submission from published
date of standard?
163.71-1
163.71-2
163.71-3
163.71-4
Avian Single-Cose
Oral lA-0
Avian Dietary
"*50
Haamalian Acute
"toxicity
Avian reproduction
yes
Tech.
TV.'ch.
yes 6 months
yea 6 months
163.71-5
16J.72-1
163.72-2
Simulated and Actual
Field Testing for
Mammals and Birds
Fish Acute
IC50
Acute Toxicity
to Aquatic
Invertebrate
yus
Itch.
Hach.
partial—^
00002592 C West
yus 6 nonths
yes 6 months
1/ Hiis data submitted is seriously deficient in that infornaticn on the test and test organisms parameters is lacking.
Although the
-------
t;ool«xjioal l.f s (see Chapter VI)
Data Requirement tot the Integrated-l'ormulation Systr-m Product Isopropulin
Guidelines
Citat ion
Name ot TVfSt
Are Data Required
for Outdoor
ftonilcnvct ir:
Teireslrial,
"Ibt-icco Use?
Giii|Osition
Dues EPA Have
Data to Partially
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Mditional
rata be Submitted
under FlKKA 3(c)(2)(H)?
If so, months allowed for
submission trciii (jublished
date of stcjrvddrd?
16J.72-J Acute Toxicity to
listuarine and
Marine Organisms
163.72-4 Hitoryolarvae and
Life-cycle Studies
of Fish and Aijuatic-
Invertebrates
163.72-b Ajuatic Organism
Toxicity ami Residue
Studies
163.72-6. Simulated or Actual
Field 'nesting for
Aquatic Organigns
163.121-1 "lfcrrjet Area
Phytotoxicity
163.122-1 Mantunjet Area
Phytotoxicity Seed
fiormination Vegetative
Vigor
163.122-2 Aquatic Harcroptiyte
163.122-2 Algao
waived
yes
y*s .
yon
TYjch.
TVcti.
Ifcch.
yes
no
no
See attachment
yes 24 Months
yes 24 months
2/ Discussion concerning the waiver ot efficacy and phytotoxicity data is given in detail in the preamble to Pruposod Sit>part J,
45 FN 729r,0 - 72952.
Auijij-.L 1081
-------
Attachment
Bibliographic Citations for Nontarget area Phytotoxicity
(Seed Germination and Vegetative Vigor) 163.122-1
Itmato
Author
Date
MRID
Ashton et al.
1970
00002575
Wilson
1972
00002633
Tisdell
1971
00002652
Putnam
- 1973
00002655
Elanoo
1969
00002695
Lade
1969
00002696
Massey
1969
00002697
Massey
1969
00002698
Massey
1969
00002699
Massey
1969
00002700
Elanoo
1969
00002701
Stoop
1969
00002702
Elanoo
1969
00002703
Elanoo
1969
00002704
Pafford
1969
00002705
Pafford
1969
00002706
Warner
1969
00002707
Steenwyk
1969
00002708
Steenwyk
1969
00002709
Steenwyk
1969
00002710
Steenwyk
• 1969
00002712
Steenwyk
1969
00002713
Cooper
1969
00002714
Elanoo
1969
00002720
Elanoo
1969
00002721
Elanoo
1969
00002722
Helmer
1969
00002724
Helraer
1969
00002725
Helmer
1969
00002726
Elanoo
1969
00002728
Elanoo
1968
00002729
Elanoo
1968
00002730
Hunphreys
1968
00002731
Humphreys
1969
00002732
Elanoo
1969
00002733
Massey
1969
00002734
Webster
1969
00002735
Keaton
1969
00002736
Elanoo
1969
00002737
Helmer
1969
00002738
Elanoo
1969
00002739
Elanoo
1969
00002758
Elanoo
1969
00003257
Fisher
1969
00002740
Hopen
1969
00002741
Greenfield
1969
00002742
27
-------
Ttrvato (cont.)
Author
Date
MRID
Elanco
1969
00002715
Elanco
1969
00002716
Elanco
1969
00002717
Elanco
1969
00002718
Elanco
1969
00002719
Steenwyk
1970
00002820
Steenwyk
1970
00002822
Steenwyk
1970
00002823
Talbert
1974
00003252
Steenwyk
1970
00003262
Steenwyk
1970
00004151
Alban
1972
05001038
Anderson
1972
05001041
err
1974
05001074
Eshel
1972
05002134
Warner
1969
00002743
Monaco
1969
00002759
Keaton
1970
00002773
Steenwyk
1970
00002819
Cotton
Webster
1970
00002487
Webster
1970
00002488
Keaton
1972
00002491
Pa f ford
1970
00002774
Overton
1972
05001075
28
-------
Soybeans
Author
Date
MRID
Keaton
1972
00002491
Shoop
1970
00002770
O/erton
1972
05001075
Harvey
1973
05002135
Peppers
Ashton
1970
00002575
Tweedy
1970
00002576
Univ. SWLA
1970
00002577
Monaco
1969
00002579
Keaton
1971
00002580
Alban
1969
00002581
Ogle
1969
00002582
Tweedy
1969
00002587
Massey
1969
00002746
Hobbs
1969
00002583
Steenwyk
1969
00002584
Elanoo
1969
00002585
Massey
1969
00002756
Humphreys
1969
00002757
Keaton
1970
00002773
Humphreys
1976
00002775
Hobbs
1970
00003244
Hobbs
1970
00002562
Hobbs
1970
00002563
Warner
1970
00002564
Steenwyk
1970
00002565
Cooper
1970
00002566
Humphreys
1970
00002567
Humphreys
1971
00002568
Hobbs
1969
00002744
Elanoo
1969
00003242
Hobbs
1969
00003243
Hobbs
1970
00002570
Hobbs
1970
00002571
Hobbs
1970
00003245
Chamberlain
1969
00002747
Warner
1969
00002748
Cooper
1969
00002749
Elanco
1958
00003258
Humphreys
1970
00002572
Humphreys
1969
00002573
Humphreys
1970
00002574
Elanoo
1968
00002750
Elanoo
1968
00002752
Helmer
1969
00002753
Eshel
1972
05002134
29
-------
Fruits and Vegetables
Author
Ashton
Massey
Chamberlain
O/erton
Harvey
Humphreys
Harvey
Eshel
MRID
00002575
00002769
00002771
05001075
05001263
00002799
05002135
05002134
Date
1970
1970
1976
1972
1977
1969
1973
1972
3
-------
Ibxicolorjy (see Chapter VII)
Data Requirenents for the Integrated-Formulation System Product Isoptopalin
Guidelines
Citation
Name of Test
Are Data Requited
for Outdoor
ttolKiiTIIKSL 1C
TVrri sl2 i.il ,
'lbtocco Use?
(Janfosition
Docs EPA Have
Data to Partaily
or totally Satisfy
this Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must /tfditional
Data be Submitted
under KIKKA 3(c)(2)(B)?
If so, months allowed tor
submission trail published
date o£ standard
163.B1-1
Acute Oral Toxicity
yes
BL'
yus
00002472 G
Worth
Ttcl i. —^
00002472 11
Worth
yes
00002472 A
Worth
00002472 B
Worth
000U2472 C
Worth
00002472 G
Worth
00002472 H
Worth
163.81-2
Acute Dermal Toxicity
yes
EC
yes
00002472 J
Worth
Tech.!/
yes
00002472 J
worth
163.61-3
^cute Inhalation
yes
EC
no
-
Toxicity
163.81-4
Primary Eye
yes
EC
no^
00002472 I
Worth
163.81-5
16a i - 7
Irritation
Primary Dtrrial
Irritation
Hernial
Sensitization
Acute relayed
Neurotoxicity
yes
yes
fcU
no
IIO
yes 12 months
yes 12 ntxitlis
yes 12 months
1/ Sane data oil U>e technical irwtenal is required Lor an InLcijrated-Fonnulation-Systan Product. Altliouijh the data suljmitted are inorc than
necessary, it has been used in supfort of tins product's registration.
2/ Data submitted, (Worth; 000024721), cannot bo rreateqorizc'd according to new criteria (NAS 1130). Ttie registrant has the following options:
a) use the existitx) data and revise product label so that it is appropriate for a Category I eye irritant or b) repeat the test using the
protocol arri evaluation criteria and revised label if necessary.
Au.mst. ] JH1
-------
Isoprot»lin Tbxicoloyy (see Chapter VII)
rata Rr-quiroircnts for the Intcgrated-Formulation System Product Iscprnpulin
Guidelines
Citation
Name ot Test
Ace Dutd Required
for Outdoor
Nordnmestic
Hitrest rial ,
hdiv-icco Uioy
(junposit ion
Daes EPA Have
Data to yartaily
or totally Satisfy
Uiis Requirement?
Bibliographic
Citation
Must Additional
Datii be Submitted
iaider FUKA 3(c)(2)(B).'
If so, months allowed for
suLmission trail pub I ishod
date ot suindard?
163.82-1
.. 163.82-2
163-82-3
163.82-4
J
163.82-5
163.83-1
163.83-2
163.B3-3
If, 3.83-4
lb3 .84-2
through -4
Subchiotiic 21-Doy
Dermal Toxicity
Subchronic 21-nay
Ittrmal 'toxicity
Subchronic
90-day Dermal
Toxicity
Sobchiunic
Inlulat ion
'Ibxicity
Subchronic
Neurotoxicity
Chronic Tbxicity
Oicogenici ty
Teratogenicity
Reproduction
Mutagenicity
no
yeii
no
yvs
Tw.h
Tt-ch.
no
yes 12 months
yes 12 i;ontliLi
163.85-1
Metabolism
no
ftu^ust mm
-------
III. PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
Introduction
FIFRA 3(c)(2)(A) requires the Agency to establish guidelines for
registering pesticides in the United States. The Agency's guidelines
(Subpart D) require registrants to provide quantitative composition data on
all added ingredients, active and inert, which are equal to cr greater than
0.1% of the product by weight.
lb establish the composition of products proposed for registration, the
Agency requires data and informaticn not only on the manufacturing and
formulation processes but also a discussion on the formation of
manufacturing impurities and other product ingredients, intentional and
unintentional. Further, to assure that the composition of the product as
marketed will not vary frcm the composition evaluated at the time of
registration, applicants are required to submit a statement certifying
upper and lower composition limits far the added ingredients, and upper
limits only for potentially hazardous imparities (e.g. nitrosamines).
In addition to the data on product composition, the Agency guidelines also
require data to establish the physical and chemical properties both of the
active ingredient and its formulations. Far example, data are needed
concerning the identity and physical state of the technical chemical and/cr
purer fcrm of the active ingredient (e.g., melting and boiling point data,
ambient vapor pressure and solubility). Data are also required on the
properties of the formulated product in order to establish labeling
cautions (e.g., flaimiability, corrosiveness or storage stability). The
Agency uses these data to characterize each pesticide and to determine its
environmental and health hazards.
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
Product Chemistry Profile
Isopropalin atr 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidino, belongs to the class of
compounds known as the dinitroanilines. These compounds ar£ often
contaminated with nitrosamines, as is isopropalin, with n: roso-
dipropylamine (NDPA). Elanoo has submitted data indicating that the level
of NDPA contamination is quite low, but additional data are needed to
show the contamination of representative samples of the end-use product at
the time of production and after a storage period of ore year.
The "Pesticide Use Pattern Profile" indicates that o^ly one isoprop»lin
product is marketed and it is for end-use — PAARIAN Bnulsifiable
Concentrate (Registration No. 1471-79). Therefore the isopropalin
product(s) is in the group of products defined by the guidelines as
integrated-farmulation-system products. Although the technical material
(approximately 99% purity) is not registered, product chemistry data on the
technical material, as indicated in the appropriate data gap section, are
needed to support the registration of formulated products produced by an
integrated-farmulation-system. PAARLAN E.C. contains six pounds of
isopropalin per gallon.
33
-------
Data Requirements
The ftroduct Chemistry data needed to support the registration of an
Integrated-Fcrmulation System Product are on pages 16-18. Preceding each
data requirement is the section in the Proposed Guidelines fcr the
Registration of Pesticides in the United States (43 FR 29696, July 10,
1978) that describes the type of data required.
Physical Hazard Precautionary Labeling
Manufacturing-use products and formulated products containing isopropalin
should bear an appropriate label warning in accordance with the natire of
the physical and chemical properties. Since much of this information has
not been submitted, rto recommendations far changes in labeling can be
made at this time. When appropriate data have been submitted and
evaluated, labeling changes may be necessary.
34
-------
TOPICAL DISCUSSIONS
Corresponding to each of the Tbpicrd Discussions is the number of the
section in the 'Proposed Guidelines fcr Registerinq Pesticides' in the
United States (43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978) which explains the minimum data
that the Agency requires in crder to adequately assess Product Chemistry of
manufactiring-use isopropalin products.
CHEMICAL IDENTITY 163.61-3
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI), in 1971, accepted
"Isopropalin" as the common name for 2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine.
Elanco Products Company, Division of Eli Lilly and Company, is currently
the only manufacturer of isopropalin.Elanco has submitted a Confidential
Statement of formula which lists the ingredients of the product PAARLAN,
(Registration Jacket 1471-79).
Molecular struct ire:
CH3—CH2— CH2 CH3
NO
NO
CH,— CH — CH
Chemical Nomenclature:
2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine
2,6-dinitro-N,N-dipropyl-p-isopropylaniline
4-i sopr opy1-2,6-d initr o-N,N-d ipr opylan i1ine
4-(1-methylethyl)-2,6-d ini tro-N,N-d ipropylbenzenamine
Other Names: PAARLAN, EL-179
Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) registery No.: 33820-53-0
EPA Shaughnessy No.: 100201
Molecular formula (and weight): C]5H23N3®4 (309.4)
35
-------
MANUFACTURING PROCESS 163.61-4
Information oh Elanco's manufacturing process is reported (Elanco Products
Co., 00002559 or 0002789) in the Appendix of Confidential Data.
The /Vjency does not consider the information given en the manufacturing
process used by Elanoo to be sufficiently detailed. Data and information
are needed concerning the specific factors in the manufacturing process
which affect the composition of the technical material; e.g., the
composition of the starting materials and reaction solvents with
information on their impurities, the reaction temperatures, and the side
reactions. Data are also needed concerning the packaging materials,
quality control measures, and other factors related to the composition and
presence of unintentional ingredients in the formulated product.
DISCUSSION ON THE FORMATION'OF UNINTENTIONAL INGREDIENTS 163.61-5
The Agency is concerned about the presence of impurities in pesticide
products which have the potential for producing adverse human and
environmental effects. Because such impurities are related to both the
manufacturing and formulating process, a discussion is needed relating
these processes to the composition of each isopropalin product proposed for
registration. TVie discussion should indicate the product ingredients,
and also the expected impurities and reaction products [secondary
nitrosamines are occasionally found in dinitroaniline herbicides of the
isopropalin type]. The discussion should be based on established chemical
theory.
Although such a discussion has not been submitted, analytical methodology
and quantitative composition data have been submitted fcr the registered
formulation, PAARLAN Emulsifiable Concentrate. Similar data have been
submitted far technical isopropalin. The composition data reported,
located in the Confidential Appendix show significant amounts of
nitrosodipropylamine (NDPA) in samples of formulated isopropalin.
Depending on the conditions of storage, such impurities may exceed 85 ppm
(Bontoyan, et al., GS0005-002). See the topical discussion on Product
Analytical Methods and Data, page 37.
DECLARATION AND CERTIFICATION OF INGREDIENT LIMITS 163.61-6
This section of the guidelines requires a commitment (certification) from
the registrant that the ingredients and impurities of his product will be
maintained within specified limits for as long as the product is offered
far sale. Far the product PAARLAN certification of upper and lower limits
are required foe the ingredients, active and inert; uppa: limits, fcr the
impurities (including N-nitrosamines). Without submitting such
certification, Elanoo has submitted much of the data needed to set such
limits; i.e., storage stability data fcr the isopropalin formulation and
also quantitative data far isopropalin and its related compounds and
associated impir ities.
36
-------
The only registered isopropalin product, PAARLAN E.C., is an
emulsifiable concentrate of 68.6% 16.0 pounds per gallon), inerts 31.4%,)
with directions far use on tobacco. Therefore, isopropalin formulations
that can be registered under this standard must be similar emulsifiable
concentrates of isopropalin and limited, in accordance with the latest
accepted label, to use on tobacco. Any producer proposing the registration
of another type of isopropalin product may petition the Agency to amend
this Standard.
PRODUCT ANALYTICAL METHODS AND DATA 163.61-7
The Guidelines require that the appropriate analytical methodology be used
for determining the composition of the product; i.e., the submitted methods
must meet the Agency's requirement far accuracy and precision and must be
capable of determining whether active ingredient(s) and impurities fall
within the limits certified fcr the product. These methods are also
expected to be suitable for determining the composition of samples of
isopropalin products that are collected in Federal-State regulatory
programs and other investigations conducted by the Agency.
Methods fcr isopropalin:
A collaborative study (Decker, et al. 05001253) conducted by the
Association of Official Analytical Chemists (AOAC) has established
acceptable methods, Gas-Liquid Chromatography (GLC) and spectrophotometric
ultra-violet (UV), fcr determining isopropalin in both the technical grade
material and formulations. Additional procedures (Matsunaga, et al.,
05001069? Johnscn, et al., 05001063), suitable as check methods, have been
submitted.
Methods for the unintentional ingredients and impurities:
Confidential company data (Elanco Products Co., 00002789 and 00002559)
provides procedures suitable for determining the related compounds of
isopropalin? another Elanco method (GS0005-003) effectively determines the
nitrosamine impurities of isopropalin products.
Studies published in 1978 (Cohen, et al., 05006328) and 1979 (Bontoyan,
et al GS0005-002), using Elanco methodology for determining the nitrosamine
impurities in isopropalin products, provide data on the nitroso-
dipropylamine (NDPA) of investigational samples collected by the Agency.
In a following secticn titled the "(Xiantitative Data on the Composition of
Isopropalin Rroducts", page 38 the data on the composition of isopropalin
products are sunmarized.
Identifying spectra and data related to the analysis of isopropalin:
Ultraviolet, infrared, and NMR-spectral data have been reported for
isopropalin (Elanco Rroducts Co., 00002789; Keszthelyi, et al., 05001065);
also a study was reported (Keszthelyi, et al., 05001066) on the reduction
potential of similar dinitroaniline compounds and the halfwave potential of
isopropalin in buffered solutions of aqueous ethanol.
37
-------
Quantitative Data on the Composition of Isopropalin Products;
The submitted composit ion data fcr isop:ope1 in per-se and its related
compounds in both the technical material and the formulated product are
adequate.
Concerning the impurities in the formulated product, additional data are
needed. A study published in 1978 (Cohen, et al. 05006328) gave values
of 85(87-84) ppm and 46(54-39) ppm of N-nitroso-di-n-propylamine in
marketed samples of isopropalin collected by the Agency. Explicate samples
were analyzed by two laboratories. Co-author Bontoyan also reported his
results of 46(54-39) ppm NPCft in a separate paper (Bontoyan, et al., GS0005-
002). Confidential data from the manufacturer filed with the Agency in
June 1978 (Elanco Products Co., GS0005-001) indicated that levels of NDPA
in formulated isopropalin products, analyzed six months after formulation,
were much lower than the minimum published NDPA figures. Further, data
submitted in February, 1930 (Elanco Products Co., GS0005-003) indicated
that the NDPA content of new lots of PAARLAN, E.C. were less than one part
per million. Chromatograms of the analyses ware not provided. No •
information has been provided indicating that the manufacturirvg process has
been changed to minimize the production of NDPA. If this is the case, then
details cri the new manufacturing process must be supplied. No information
has been provided cn NDPA formation over time. Aliquots must be taken at
different time intervals frcm a single batch of technical isopropalin and
the formulated product and analyzed fcr N-nitrosamines. Therefore on the
basis of the data that have been submitted, isopropalin's contamination
problem cannot be defined. NDPA levels may be due to contamination of the
starting material, occur as an impurity in the manufacturing process,
cr the NDPA may be formed during storage.
Additional data are needed concerning the NDPA and possibly other
nitrosamines that may be present in formulated products of isopropalin.
That is, quantitative data are needed for such impurities in the product
shcrtly after formulation and aftar a storage period of ere year, in
accordance with the guideline requirements, Section I63.61-8(c)(12).
Although confidential composition data have been submitted (Eli Lilly and
Co., 00002590; Decker, et al., 00002591) far isopropalin formulation
samples following cne year of storage, this study does not provide data on
the impurities of nitrosamines.
The unpublished data concerning the NDPA impurity in products of
isopropalin are reported in the "Appendix of Confidential Data."
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES OF THE TECHNICAL MATERIAL
Far every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines require data far both
the technical chemical (pesticide) used to formulate the product and data
concerning certain physical and chemical properties of the formulated
product. Ttiese data are needed to identify and assess the hazards
associated with the use pattern of the product.
The data available indicate technical isopropalin (approximately 99%
purity) has physical and chemical properties as follows:
Color: yellow-crange, (Johnson, et al., 05001063)
38
-------
Oder: There see no data for the technical material and data must be
provided.
Melting point: Isopropalin is a liquid at roan temperature, therefore
melting point data are not required.
Solubility: Hie following data are far the technical chemical at room
temperature (Elanco Products Co., 00002559, and 00002789).
Solvent Grams of isopropalin per 100 mis of solvent
water pH 3 9 x 10~6
pH 7 11 x 10~6
pH 11 13 x 10"6
acetone >100
acetonitrile >100
benzene >100
chloroform >100
hexane >100
methanol >100
Stability: The effects of snail amounts of impurities (e.g., alkali,
acids and metallic ions) cn the stability of isopropalin (the technical
chemical) are rot reported. These data must be provided by the applicant.
Isopropalin is light sensitive (Johnson, et al., 05001063) and decomposes
at elevated temperatures (Elanco Broducts Co., 00002789).
Octanol-water partition coefficient: There are no data for the
technical material and data must be provided.
Physical State: Liquid, (Weber, et al., 05001096).
Specific gravity: There are no data for the technical mater ial and data
must be provided.
Boiling point: There ere no data for the technical material and data
must be provided.
Vapcr Pressure: Far the technical material the following values have
been reported:
3.0 x 10 ^ nro Hg at 24.6°C. (Johnson, et al., 05001063)
1.45 x 10~5 nro Hg at 25°C. (Weber, et al., 05001096)
pH: The technical material is weakly basic (Wetxar, et al., 05001096)
39
-------
PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL PROPERTIES-OF THE EMULSIFIABLE CONCENTRATE 163.61-8
Far every pesticide product, the Proposed Guidelines require data for
certain physical and chemical properties, in ardor to determine the
necessary precautionary labeling.
A small amount of data are available on the physical and chemical
properties o£ isopcopalin's emulsifiable concentrate. PAARLAN E.C.
contains six pounds of isopropalin per gallon.
Colcar: There are no data for the formulation. Data must be provided by
the applicant.
Oder: There are no data for the formulation. Data must be
provided by the applicant.
Physical state: Liquid, Elanco's Confidential Statement of Formula,
Registration Jacket # 1471-79.
Specific gravity: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate.
Data must be provided by the applicant.
pH: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate and it must be
provided by the applicant.
Storage stability: The submitted data (Decker, et a^., 00002591)
indicate that the formulated product is stable at 25 C over a one year
period, but the data on impurities (nitrosamines) that developed during
storage, in accordance with Section 163.61—8(c)(12)v were not reported.
The data on the nitrosamine content of samples of the formulated product
following a six months storage period together with other data or the
impurities associated with the isopropalin manufacturing process are
summarized in the "Appendix of Confidential Data."
Flammability: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate and
data must be provided by the applicant.
Oxidizing, reduction potential; There are no data for the emulsifiable
concentrate and data must be provided by the applicant.
Explosiveness: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate
and data must be provided by the applicant.
Miscibility: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate and data
must be provided by the applicant.
Viscosity: There are no data for the emulsifiable concentrate and data
must be provided.
Ccrrosion characteristics; There are no data fcr the emulsifiable
concentrate and data must be provided.
Dielectric constant; Data are not needed fcr this property because the
registered use pattern for the emulsifiable concentrate indicates that the
herbicide is not used around high voltage lines and transformer stations.
40
-------
IV. EIIVI RQtiMENTAL FATE
Usp Profile for Isopropalin
Isop: opal in, produced by Elanco Products Company, a division of Eli Lilly
and Company, is used on tobacco land as a selective, soil-incorporated,
preplant cr pretransplant herbicide. It is used to control nnnual grasses
such as barnyardqrass, crabcrrass, foxtails and ryeqrass; *nd fcroadlcaf
weeds such as Jambquartcrs, pigweed, and purslane (See Table 1).
Approximately 400,000 to 500,000 pounds of the active ingredient are
produced per year.—
<1)
The product PAARLAN contains 68.6% isopropalin (2,6-dinitro-N,N-
dipropylcumidine), containing 6 lb. a.i. per gallon. It is used on soil
intended for flue-cired, birJey, Maryland, and dark tobacco. Isopropalin
is also registered in combination with other pesticides, nematocides and
dry bulk fertilizers, l^e pesticide products registered for^uso with
isop'opalin are Diazinon , {digzinon, Ciba-Geiqy), Di-Syston ,
(disulfoton, Chemaqro), Mo Cap , (pcophos, Mobil Chemical).
Flue-cured tobacco, the most extensively arov^n type of tobacco, is a
principal constituent of domestic blended cigarettes and the chief type
of tobacco exported. It is also used in smoking mixtures, and far
chewing tobacco. This type of tobacco is grown in southern Virginia,
middle and eastern North Carolina, eastern South Carolina, southeastern
Georgia, and northern Florida. Flue-cired tobacco is best suited to soil
which is well-drained and of low natural fertility, with good capacity to
hold moisture. Soils in these categories are found in the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain regions of the southeastern U.S. These soils are underlain
by different mixtires of gravel, loose sand, sandy clay, and sometimes clay
subsoil.
Rotation of flue-cured tobacco and other tobacco varieties with other crops
is a ccnncn cultural practice. Crops commonly rotated with tobacco are
corn, soybeans, and peanuts. Cover crops such as small grains, legumes and
grasses arc also rotated with tobacco. Data on isopropalin residues in
rotational crops must, be p"ovided by the registrant or a rotational crop
restriction must be added to the present label, far specific information
please see pages 12, 23 and 61.
The following major tobacco-producing states reported treatinq 47% of their
total acreage of flue-cured tobacco (187,500 acres) with isopropalin:
North Carolina (91,000), South Carolina (37,000), Georgia (37,000),
Virginia (22,000), and Florida (500). Application is bv tractor-mounted or
tractor-drawn sprayers with nozzles located 18 inches,above the ground at
rates of 1.5 to 2.0 lb A.I./acre. The pesticide is then incorporated
iimediately after application. The label for PAARLAN states that the
product can be applied and incorporated up to 5 weeks bcfcre planting or
transplanting at the rates of 2 pints (1.5 lb A.I./acre) on coarse and
mediun>-textured soils to 2 2/3 pints (approximately 2 lb A. I./acre) on fine-
textured soils.
1/ No confidential business information has been used to arrive at this
EPA estimate of production volume.
41
-------
2/
Table 1. Vfeeds Controlled by Isopropalin.—
Grasses Controlled
Large Crabgrass
Small Qrabgrass(Smooth crabgrass)
Barriyardgrass (Watergrass)
Qreen Foxtail (Bottlegrass, ftobust purple
Robust white, Giant robust
green)
Giant Foxtail
Yellow Foxtail
Ryegrass, annual (Italian ryegrass, Ryegrass)
Goosegrass (Silvar crabgrass, Silvergrass, Wiregrass, Yardgrass)
Johnsongrass (Seedling orly)
Field Sandbur
Fall Panicum(Spreading panicgrass)
Texas Panicum(Buffalograss, Colorado grass)
Ctowfootgrass
Broadleaf Weeds Controlled
Spiny amaranth »
ft"ostrate pigweed
Redroot Pigweed (Carelessweed, Rough pigweed)
Common L^mbsquarters
Common Purslane
Car pe tweed
Florida pusley, (Florida purslane, Mexican clover pusley)
Poorjoe
"y Isopropalin kills weed seeds as they germinate. Isopropalin will not
control established weeds. Also it will not control certain resistant
weeds such as cocklebu:, velvetleaf, ragweed, jimsonweed, Venice
mallow, and nutsedge (from PAARLAN, E.C. label).
42
-------
Burley tobacco is used in manufacturing cigarette blends, pipe-smoking
mixtures, and chewing tobacco. TTie leading states for bur ley production
are Kentucky, Tennessee, Ncrth Carolina, Ohio, Indiana, and Virginia.
Bur ley tobacco is grown principally on silt loam soils of limestone
origin. These soiis often lack good drainage and must be drained by
ditching cr underground tile. Isopropalin is used very little in the
growth of burley tobacoo. In Tennessee and Kentucky, which produced over
50% of the barley tobacco in 1979, Tennessee reported only about 1,500 lb
of isopropalin being used at a rate of 1.5 lb/acre on 1,000 acres of bur ley
tobacco, while Kentucky reported that the isopropalin product was the least
used of several herbicides used as preplant herbicides.
Hie PAARLAN label states that bur ley tobacco fields are to be treated at a
rate of 2 pints per acre en all reccmended soil textures. After
application the product must be incorporated into the soil within eight
hours. Planting or transplanting may be done the same day as application
or up .to five weeks after application. Ibbacco may be planted the same day
as application of the product, but after application and incorporation is
completed.
Dark, air-cured tobacco is grown in Tennessee and small areas of Virginia,
and Kentucky. The variety used in Virginia is grown on sandy loam with a
rather tight clay subsoil. Others are grown on relatively heavy silt loams
that contain a high percentage of clay and silt. Dark tobacco is used for
expert cr in the domestic manufacture of chewing and smoking tobacco.
There is no information cn the. use of isopropalin on dark tobacco.
There is no information on the use of isopropalin on Maryland tobacco.
This is a new use added to the label in November 1980. The label states
that PAARLAN can be used on Maryland tobacco before transplanting at rates
of 2 pints per acre far all soil types.
43
-------
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
Environmental Fate Profile
Isopropalin may be photodegraded and can volatilize from soil
surfaces. Preliminary data indicated that isopropalin may not leach
under field conditions and may be adsorbed to soil, at least to silt loam.
Isopropalin is degraded in soil to at least 12 metabolites, modifications
of the parent compound occurring on the alkyl side chains cr nitro groups.
None of the identified metabolites appeared to accumulate in soils, and
ultimate incorporation into soil humic and fulvic fractions was indicated.
Microarganisms play a significant, but undefined, role in isopropalin
degradation. Under field use conditions, isopropalin's half-life is less
than two months in soils with a high sand content; sand, loamy sand, and
sandy loam soils. Isopropalin persists in clay soil, with a half-life of
about eight months. Isopropalin can dissipate in sandy clay loam, medium
silt loam and loam soils as rapidly as it does in sandy soils. However,
isopropalin can also persist in the latter two soil types. Persistence can
be great enough, at least in silt loam and clay soils, that isopropalin
accumulation may occur after several annual applications.
Unidentified radiolabeled residues ware found in mature wheat, seed and
straw planted as a rotational crop about four months after soil treat-
ment of the recommended application^ate. Radiolabled residues accumulated
moderately in sunfish exposed to 14 isopropalin in a flow-through
exposure system. Subsequent depuration was rapid
Exposure Profile^ -Emulsifiable Concentrate Formulation
The potential far exposure of humans, livestock cr wildlife to isopropalin
outside the application site is low because the herbicide is incorporated
into the soil after application. The greatest exposure is likely to result
during dilution, mixing, and application operations, but no quantitative
data are available to estimate the degree of such exposure. A potential
fcr dermal and eye exposure exists due to splashing during the dilution and
mixing processes. Although isopropalin has a relatively low vapor pressure
(3.0 x 10 imi Hg at 24.6 C), rapid volatilization from soil surfaces
hag been reported (29% volatilized within 24 hours at 33% soil moisture at
30 C). This suggests a potential far inhalational exposure during
application, especially before soil incorporation is completed.
Preliminary leaching data indicate that human j^posure via drinking water
contamination may not be a problem. Neither [ C]isopropalin nor its
metabolites were eluted from aerobically aged (30 days) sandy loam soil
leached with the equivalent of 0.5 acre-inch of water for 45 days; all of
the radioactivity remained in the top 2 inches of a 30 cm column. Field
studies indicate that isopropalin usually remains in the 0-3 inch soil
layer. Octanol/water partition data are lacking but moderate
bioaccumulation occurs in sunfish (up to 1600X in edible tissues) with,
rapid depuration.
1/ 'itie exposure profile is a qualitative assessment which is an
extrapolation from little, if any, actual exposure data.
44
-------
The principal region of exposure to isopropalin is the Southeastern United
States, and especially Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina and
Virginia. These states are the majcr producers of flue-cured tobacco,
which accounts for the principal use of the herbicide.
Data Requirements
Environmental Fate data requirements for the registration of an Integrated-
Fcrmulation-System Product are.listed on pages 19-23. Specific data
requirements are frcm the Rroposed Guidelines far the Registration of
Pesticides in the United States, (43 FR 29712, July 10, 1978).
Labeling Requirements
Do not use in a crop rotation program far food ar feed crops.
45
-------
TOPICAL DISCUSSIONS.
I sop: opal in has outdoor, terrestrial -use on nonfood crops. Hi is requires
that certain information be submitted in crder to assess the possible
adverse effects of isopropalin on the environment.
Corresponding to each of the Ibpical Discussions listed below is the number
of the section in the 'FToposed Guidelines for Registering Pesticides'
of July 10, 1978 (43 FR 29712) which explain the minimum data that
the Agency usually requires in cr.der to adequately assess a pesticide's
Environmental Fate. Where no section number is listed, a minimum
requirement has not been set for such information.
PHYSICQ-CHEMICAL-TRANSPORMATIQN-163.62-7 . .
Hydrolysis 163.62-7(b)
Hydrolysis data are required to support the registration of each
manufacturing-use product and of each formulated end-use product intended
for terrestrial, forestry, aquatic, and aquatic impact use patterns,
including products directly discharged into the aquatic environment,
indirectly discharged into wastewater treatment systems, cr used as
treatments in a wastewater system. Soil incorporated pesticides may cane
into oontact with water, (by exposure to soil moisture from
precipitation; field run-off to rivers, ponds or other bodies of watar; cr
by discharge into wastewater systems from manufacturing
-------
These studies demonstrate that photodegradation of isopropalin can occur,
but no data ere available cn the rate of photodegradation and the nature
of the photodegradation products. Since isopropalin is used as a soil
incorporated herbicide, degradation studies on soil will not be needed.
However, since the potential exists far isopropalin to reach aquatic system
(by runoff), data specified in Section 163.62-7(c) are needed to
determine the effect of light on isopropalin in water.
METABOLISM-163.62-8
Data cn metabolism are required to determine the nature and availability
of pesticide residues to rotational orops and to help in the assessment of
potential disposal and reentry hazards.
Soil 163.62-8(b,c)
An aerobic laboratory soil metabolism study is required to support
registration of each formulated end-use product intended for terrestrial,
a: forestry use. Such a study is also required to support the registration
of each manufacturing-use product which legally could be used to make such
an end-use product.
An anaorobic soil metabolism study is required to support the registration
of each formulated end-use product intended for field cr vegetable crop
use. Such a study is also required to support the registration of each
manufacturing-use product which legally could be used to make such an end-
use product.
Four metabolism studies were reviewed, all of which were considered valid.
Two studies (00002473 and 05001260) were canbined into a single review
because they contained original data from the same experiment. Golab and
Althaus (00002473 and 05001260) removed the top 3 inches of^ clay soil
from field plots and mix«J it with uniformly ring-labeled [ C]
isopropalin to yield 1.5 and 3.0 lb a.i./A. The treated soils ware
returned to the field, vegetable orops were planted and rotated with wheat,
and the fate of the radioactivity and isopropalin in the top 6 inches of
the soil was assessed ever a three-year period. There was no difference in
the rate of dissipation or distribution of radioactivity in the soil with
respect to the different application rates. An increasing amount of
radioactivity became unextractable with time, reaching a plateau of 25-30%
of the original amount by 15 months. Based on extractable isopropalin, a
half-life of about eight months can be estimated. About 25, 19, and 7% of
the applied isopropalin was extractable 15, 24, and 36 months,
respectively, after treatment. A detailed analysis of 15-month samples
yielded the following results. About 50% of the unextractable
radioactivity was in the humic acid fraction, another 30% was in the fulvic
acid fraction. TV/elve radiolabeled metabolites were identified (Table 1),
none of which exceeded 4% of the applied isopropalin. About 20% of the
applied radioactivity was unaccountable with uptake indicated in samples of
the treated and rotational crops. Partial degradation pathways far
isopropalin in field soil were proposed based on the above results
(Figure 1, page 50).
47
-------
"able I.
Products of isopropalin degradation in field soil.
Compound
number
Structure
Compound
1-2
182
2,6-d1n1tro-N-propylcum1dfne
1-3
185
NH.
Q,N
Y
Z.S-dlnitnjcujnidine
1-4
183
*VC3-V^5H7
O.N
4-isopropyl -6-ni tro-N1 .f^-di propyl -o_-
phenylenedlamine
1-5
184
H—N-C^H-
4-isopropyl-6-nitro-N1-propyl-o-ohenylene-
dl amine
1-10
169
N-OH
2-ethyl-2,3-dihydroxy-5-i sopropyl-7-
nitro-i-propyl-benzimidazoline
1-11
VS-f—fi-W
02N-
la
v
2-ethyl-5-isoprocyl-7-nitro-l-prccyl -
benzimi cazole-3-oxi ce
48
-------
Table 1. Products of isopropalin degradation in field soil (continued!.
Compound
number
Structure
Compound
1-12
170
H-N C-C^
0,N
2-«thyl-5-1sopropyl-7-n1trobenzim1dazo1e-3-oxide
1-13
188
Vs-7—
^Tor
2-ethyl-5-f sopropyl-7-nitro-1-propyl benzini dazo1s
H-N — C-^
1-14
189
1-17
195
1-18
196
0,N
rGj-N-c-c^
2-«thy1-5-1sopropyl-7-n1trobenz1midazole
4*-1sopropyl-2'.S'-dlnitro-N-propylpropionani1ide
4'-1sopropyl -2' ,5'-
-------
u«
HI
|.U
Ida IOUHO MCOUCT1
WUTIYUT I AST
WUIMIT tlBW
Figure 1. Proposed degradation pathways for
isopropalln in field soil.
1-1, isopropalin; other chemical
names listed in Table 1.
50
-------
Ginger ich and Zimdahl (05001257) determined the rates of degradation of
isopropalin (unspecified formulation) added to a loam soil at 8 ppm and
incubated undo: aerobic (2% moisture) and anaerobic (submerged)
conditions. The calculated half-lives under aerobic conditions were 3.5
months at 30 and 13.3 months at 15 C. Its galculated anaerobic half-
lives were about 5 and 20 days at 30 and 15 C, respectively; thus,
anaerobic degradation was approximately 20 times faster than aerobic
degradation. No metabolites were sought in this study, and no attempt was
made to differentiate between hydrolysis and metabolism. Calculated
activation energies suggested that degradation was due primarily to
chemical processes.
Isopropalin (in acetone, unspecified purity) was added at 4 ppm to a silty
clay, loam, which was then submerged in one inch of tapwater and incubated
at 84 F (Elanco Products Company, 00002814). Only 4% of the applied
amount was detectable after 36 days, and the half-life under these
conditions was about ten days. In this study, the time at which
anaerobiosis was established was not determined. The moncnitro derivative
of isopropalin, Gcmpound 183 (Table 1), was detected in large amounts (at
least 20-30% of the applied isopropalin) at days 11 and 15 but declined
substantially thereafter. The precise values for the metabolite could not
be assessed due to poor recovery data.
In summary, isopropalin in soil is degraded mere slowly under aerobic
conditions than under anaerobic conditions. The initial stages of aerobic
isopropalin degradation in soil may occur via several routes, but the
metabolism of isopropalin beyond any of the products illustrated in Table 1
is not demonstrated in the available data. None of the metabolites in
Figure 1 and Table 1 appear to accumulate under aerobic conditions. Data
are not available to establish an anaerobic degradation pathway. A major
metabolite found under semiaerobic conditions is the mononitro derivative
of isopropalin. Available data provide information in that some of the
metabolites are identifed, however, aerobic soil metabolism studies are
needed to establish patterns of formation and decline of metabolic
products. Residues comprising mere ti r 10% of the initial application or
0.01 ppn, whichever is 9reatar, should be identified. Data specified in
Section 163.62-8(b) and Section 163.62-8(c) are needed to determine the
differences in patterns of metabolism between aerobic and anaerobic soil
conditions.
Aquatic 163.62-8(d,e)
No data are required on the aquatic metabolism of isopropalin since
it is not used in an aquatic environment.
MICROBIOLOGICAL
Data on the effects of microbes on pesticide degradation and the effects of
pesticides on microbes are required to support the registration of all
formulated products intended for the following uses: terrestrial noncrop,
tree fruit/nut crop field/vegetable arop, aquatic food crop and noncrops,
forest, and direct discharge aquatic impact. These data are also required
to support the registration of each manufacturing-use product which legally
could be used to make such a formulated product.
51
-------
Effects of Microbes on Pesticides
Qr>e study on the ability of microorganisms to metabolize isopropalin was
reviewed and considered valid. Golab (00002600) reported that isopropalin
was undetectable 24 hours after addition, as an unspecified formulation at
10 ppm, to artificial rumen fluid incubated undo: anaerobic conditions
(temperature not given). No degradation oould be demonstrated in
sterilized preparations of rumen fluid. Isopropalin was degraded slowly
in submerged samples of nonsterile soil, in which 27% of the applied sample
was detectable at 48 days. No degradation of isopropalin was observed far
27 days in soil samples kept under sterile conditions. Neither the
microorganisms responsible fcr isopropalin degradation nar its degradation
products wore characterized in the course of this study.
The requirement far the submission of above data is currently being
reserved. Consequently the absence of acceptable data does not constitute
a data gap.
Effects of Pesticides on Microbes
One study an the effects of isopropalin cn microorganisms was reviewed and
considered valid, ftrctost (00002601) reported that the growth of 35 species
of bacteria and fungi in culture was not inhibited by isopropalin (added as
an acetone solution) at 100 ug/ml or less and that the growth of six
species of protozoa and algae was not inhibited by isopropalin at 40 ug/ml
cr 'less. However, the highest concentration of isopropalin used in this
study exceeded its water solubility (0.11 ug/ml) by up to a thousandfold.
Although the formulation of isopropalin used was not specified, the details
of the dilution procedures suggested that an analytical standard was used.
If so, most of the isopropalin in the agar medium was in an insoluble
state. Therefore, it can be assumed enly that isopropalin is truly
nontoxic to these organisms when applied at concentrations equivalent to
its water solubility. Additionally, several groups of soil-inhabiting
bacteria were not represented in this study. Therefore, the results
reported here must be regarded as preliminary.
The requirement far the submission of the above data is currently being
reserved. Consequently the absence of acceptable data, does not constitute
a data gap.
Activated Sludge
No data an the activated sludge metabolism of isopropalin are available.
The requirement fcr the submission of these data is currently being
reserved. Consequently the absence of acceptable data does not constitute
a data gap.
MOBILITY 163.62-9
Data on mobility are required to determine pesticide residue movement in
the. environment.
52
-------
Leaching 163.62-9(b)
Leaching data ere required to supper t registration of each formulated end-
use product intended far terrestrial noncrop, tree fruit/nut crop, aquatic,
cr forestry use or far any aquatic impact use resulting in direct
discharges into the aquatic environment. Such data are also required to
support the registration of each nenuf actur ing-use product which legally
oould be used to make sucti an end-use product.
Five leaching studies were submitted and all were considered valid. Holzcr
and Sieck (00002474) reported that neither i sop: opal in nor its metabolites
a^jfld be eluted firan a 30-cm column containing sandy loam soil treated with
( C) isopropalin and aged aarobically for 30 days prior to leaching with
the equivalent of 0.5 acre-inch of water fcr 45 days. All of the applied
radioactivity remained in the bop 2 inches of the column.
Barrentine (00002803 and 00002804), Humphreys (00002806), and Helmer and
Thompson (00002805) used bioassays to determine that most of the
isopropalin (technical or 1-6 lb/gal emulsifiable concentrate) applied to
30- or 20-on columns containing silt clay loam and sandy soils remained in
the top 2 inches of the columns after leaching with the equivalent of 6
acre-inches of water. In these studies, 9oil properties were sometimes
inaanpletely reported, chemical identification and quantitation of residues
ware not rrede, the eluate was not analyzed and the columns were leached
with relatively low vol ones of water. Ttierefcre, additional acceptable
leaching studies cn aged isopropalin, in accordance with the registration
guidelines, are'required. However, the requirement far the submission of
these data is currently being reserved pending the receipt and evaluation
of data cn hydrolysis, photodegradaticn in water, aerobic and anaerobic
soil metabolism, and rotational crops. Consequently, the absence of data
does not constitute a data gap.
Volatility 163.62^9(c)
Laboratory volatility studies using nonradioisotopic analytical techniques
are required to support the registration of all formulated products
intended far greenhouse use cr where re-entry intervals must be considered*
far field applicators. Fbur volatility studies were reviewed and three
were oonsidored valid. Kennedy and Talbcrt (05001267) noted that
increasing moisture content increased the volatilization of isopropalin
(unspecified formulation) from a silt loam soil under UV light at 30 C.
At 1 and 14% soil moisture, 21% of the applied isopropalin (1 ppm)
volatilized in 24 hours. At 26 and 33% soil moisture, 28 and 29%,
respectively, of the applied isopropalin volatilized. Parochetti et al.
(05001077) studied volatilization of isopropalin (unspecified formulation)
firan a sand soil for a three-hour period. Although the results are of
limited use, the data demonstrate that increasing soil moisture increases
volatilization from sand. Harvey (05001264) studied isopropalin
(unspecified formulation) volatility with a bioassay in which vapors fran
isopropalin-treated agar (1.0 uM) inhibited foxtail millet growth to 14% of
control growth.
53
-------
Volatility data are only required fcr pesticides used in greenhouses cr fcx
the assessment of re-entry oonditions in field applications. Volatility
data fcr isopropal in are not required because no formulated product of
isopropalin has yet been proposed for greenhouse use and isopropalin
formulations as currently used do not warrant concern fcr re-entry
situations. Although these data are not required, the results of these
studies have been used in the preparation of the Exposure Profile, page 44.
Adsarption/Descrption 163.62-9(d)
A laboratory study using radioisotopic analytical techniques is required to
suppcrt the registration of all formulated products intended fcr all
terrestrial uses, tarrestrial/aquatic (forest) uses, aquatic uses, and
aquatic impact uses (if the pesticides are discharged directly into the
aquatic environment). Such data are also required to support the
registration of each manufacturing-use product which legally oould be used
to make an end-use product.
Two studies cn the adsorption/desarption of isopropalin ware reviewed and
one was considered valid and the other invalid. Harvey (05001264) studied
the adsorption of isopropalin (unspecified formulation) to a silt loam
soil. The results indicated that isopropalin is strongly adsorbed to silt
loam soil, but only one concentration was tested and therefore no
adsorption isotherm was developed. The requirement for the subnission of
these data is currently being reserved pending receipt and evaluation of
data on hydrolysis, photodegradaticn in water, aerobic and anaerobic soil
metabolism and rotational crops. Consequently the absence of acceptable
data does not constitute a data gap.
Water Dispersal 163.62-9(e)
No data cn the water dispersal of isopropalin are required because
isopropalin is not intended for use in the aquatic environment.
FIELD DISSIPATION 163.62-10
A field dissipation study under actual use conditions is required to
suppcrt the registration of all manufacturing-use and formulated products
intended fcr terrestrial (except greenhouse) uses, aquatic uses, and
terrestrial/aquatic (forest) uses.
Terrestrial 163.62-10(b)
A terrestrial field dissipation study is required to suppcrt the
registration of each formulated end-use product intended-fcr terrestrial
(except greenhouse) use. Such a study is also required to suppcrt the
registration of each manufacturing-use product which leqally could be used
to make such an end-use product.
54
-------
Twenty-five terrestrial field dissipation studies were reviewed and 23 were
considered valid and two invalid. TVra studies (00002473 and 05001260) were
combined into a single review because they contained original data fran the
same experiment. Golab and Althaus <00002473 and 05001260) removed the top
3 inches a clay soil from field plots and mixed it with uniformly ring-
labeled [ C] isopropalin to yield 1.5 and 3.0 lb ai.i/A. The treated
soils were returned to the field, vegetable crops were planted and rotated
with vdieat, and the fate of the radioactivity and isopropalin in the top 6
inches of soil was assessed over a three-year period. There was no
difference in. the rate of dissipation or' distribution of radioactivity in
the soil with respect to the different application rates. An increasing
amount of radioactivity became unextractable with time, reaching a plateau
of 25-30% of the original amount by 15 months. Total radioactivity in the
soil had a half-life of 28 months. Only 57% of the crginal radioactivity
had dissipated after 36 months. About 25, 19, and 7% of the applied
isopropalin was extractable 15, 24, and 36 months, respectively, after
treatment. Based on extractable isopropalin, a half-life of about 8 months
can be estimated. A detailed analysis of 15-month samples yielded the
following results. About 50 and 30% of the unextractable radioactivity was
in the humic and fulvic acid fractions, respectively, of the soil. TVielve
radiolabeled metabolites were identified (Table 1, page 48), none of which
exceeded 4% of the applied isopropalin. About 20% of the applied
radioactivity was unaccounted for after exhaustive analysis. Radioactivity
was taken up into both treated and rotated crops. Partial degradation
pathways fcr isopropalin in field soil were proposed based on the above
results (Figure .1, page 50).
Eli Lilly and Company (00002597) and Webster (00002622) independently
reported data on the same field dissipation experiment, in which a 6 lb/gal
emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin was incorporated into sandy loam
soil. TTiree and seven percent of the added isopropalin was extracted from
.the 0-6 inch soil layer 160 days after treatment at 1.5 and 3.0 lb ai/A,
respectively; the extraction method recovered only about 60% of the
isopropalin. Accumulation and decline patterns for two metabolites, 2,6-
dinitro-N-propylcumidine and 2,6-dinitrocumidine, were obtained. Maximum
concentration of 2,6-dinitro-N-propylcumidine occurred 91-107 days after
•treatment, i.e., 0.085 and 0.12 ppm far the respective application rates.
Maximum concentrations of 2,6-dinitrocumidine occurred 107 days after
treatment; i.e., 0.017 and 0.02 ppm far the respective application rates.
The metabolite residue levels declined by 25-50% of their maximum
concentration by 160 days after treatment. Further data on this experiment
are discussed below.
A number of field dissipation studies wore performed by Elanco Products
Company investigators, in which metabolites and levels of unextractable
residues ware not determined (Helmer et al., 00002621; Hobbs, 00002612;
Humphreys, 00002614; Keatcn,•00002615; Shoop and Strait, 00002611; Starkar
et al., 00002609; Steenwyk, 00002610; Watson, 00002613; Webster,
00002616). In all of these studies, only isopropalin residues were
determined by using methods with proven reliable recovery rates (range, 75-
100%). In all studies, a 6 lb/gal emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin
was applied at ar near the recommended application rate. In all
experiments but one, the herbicide was incorporated with a rotary hoe cr
tandem disc to depths of 2-3 and 3-4 inches, respectively. Various
vegetable and grain crops, cr tobacco, were planted immediately ar shortly
55
-------
after isopcopalin application in all experiments. In addition, fields were
rotated to grain crops in half of the experiments. Cnly a few samples were
taken at various times after application, and in sane cases only one sample
was taken. Thus, reliable half-life estimates cr quantitative decline
patterns cannot be deduced frcm the data. In addition, particle size
analyses (PSA) and other soil characteristics were not provided in any of
the studies.
The data from these studies, along with the data from the studies described
above (Golab and Althaus, 00002473 and 05001260; Eli Lilly and Company,
00002597; Webster, 00002622) are condensed and summarized in Table 2.
A variety of sampling methods were used: simultaneous sampling of the 0-3
inch and 3-6 inch soil layers, single sampling of th 0-3 inch layer and
single sampling of the 0-6 inch layer. Far the purposes of Table 2, these
data have been organized under the broader category of samples taken from
the 0-6 inch layer, with those samples representing only the 0-3 inch soil
layer indicated by a footnote.
On 42 occasions, samples were taken at the same time from both the 0-3 inch
and the 3-6 inch soil layers. Analysis of these studies show that in 60%
of these sampling events isopropalin residue levels are higher in the 0-3
inch layer than in the 3-6 inch layer. In the remaining 40%, residue
levels ware equal to cr higher in the 3-6 inch layer than in the 0-3 inch
soil layer. One-third of these values were generated by a study dene in
Oregon, (Starker, ot al., 00002609).
Sane data were available far the 6-12 inch soil layer. . Isopcopalin
residues below 6 inches uere undetectable cr proportionately much.lower
than those residues found above 6 inches. The exception to this finding
was the Oregon study (Starker, et al.; 00002609) which found that residue
levels in 6-12 inch layer were higher than those in the 0-3 inch layer far
two of the foir application rates tested (sampled 11 months post
application). With the exception of the Oregon study (Starker, et al.;
00002609), isopropalin residue levels in the 6-12 inch layers never
exceeded mere than 4% of the applied isopcopalin. A possible explanation
for the higher residue levels at lower soil depths in the Oregon study is
that the field was plowed to a depth of 10-12 inches four months after
treatment. No other plot in any of the other studies was plowed this deep.
Data in Table 2 are given far the reccrmended application rate when
possible. Otherwise the data for the two application rates nearest the
recommended rate were averaged. A trend is discernible far isopropalin
degradation patterns as they relate to soil type. The data indicate that
isopropalin disipates most rapidly in soils with a high sand content.. Less
than 10% of the applied isopropalin will bo extractable fran sand, loamy
sand, and sandy loam soils one year after application. Isopropalin
persists, but does not accumulate, in loam and clay soils, more so in the
latter as was discussed in detail at the beginning of this topical
discussion. In these types of soils, more than 10% of the applied
isopcopalin will be extractable one year after application. In a medium
loam soil, 11% of the applied isopropalin was extracted at 15 months post-
application, whereas in the clay soil 18% of the applied isopropalin was
extracted from the 0-3 inch layer 24 months after application.
-------
'liable 2. Summary of Data Fran Field Dissipation Studies.
State
Florida
Alabama
North Carolina
Georgia
Texas
Mississippi
creqon
Indiana
Calitornia
Indiana
Ind lana
Soil Type
Sand
lx>amy Rand
Sandy Loam
Sandy Loam
Sandy Clay
loam
Medium Silt
loam
Silt Loam
Medium loam
Loam
loam
Clay
Application
rates
(lb/A)
1 ai d 2
1 and 2
1 and 3
1.5
1 and 2
1.5
1 and 2
1.25 and
2.5
1 and 2
1.5
1.5
2-4
months
43
13
41—^
70
65
4.5-b
months
23
(£/
67
Percent—'' of applied isopropalin in tlic 0-6 soil layer
(unless otherwise noted) at various tijifs after application
a-y
months
25^/
ii
11-12.5
months
6?/
5
7
<2.6^/
27
26'
16
40
e/
15
months
11
2i
c/
24
months
36
montlis
References
e/
ldS/
a/ Expressed percentage values represent average of percentages obtained for two application rates
b/ In cases where the rpccmiwnded application rate (1.5 lb/A) was not tested, the two application
are used hero.
c/ Values obtained fran two separate experiments in plots in the same field,
d/ Residues were not quantifiable,
e/ Cnly the 0-3 inch soi,l layer was sampled.
K®/
Humphreys
(HH11) 00002614)
Webster
(MR1D 00002616)
Kcaton
(MRID 00002615)
Webster
(MRID 00002622
El l Lil ly and Co.
(MRID 000(12547)
Hobbs
(MRID 00002612
Watson
(MRID 00U0261J
Starker et al
(MRU) 00002609
HeLmer et al.
(MRID 00002621)
Steenwyk
(MK1U 00002610)
Shoop and Strait
(HRID 00002611)
Ciolab and Althaus
(MRID's 00002473
and 05001260)
wtiere appropriate.
rates nearest the recommended rate
-------
Oily one study was performed cn sandy clay loam soil, in which only 7% of
the applied isopropalin was extracted 1 year after application. As no PSA
cr other soil properties were reported, and in light of the results with
loam and clay soils, a oonclusion regarding the behavior of isopropelin in
sandy clay loam soil is not possible. It is possible that the sandy clay
loam aontained a high percentage of sand, in which case the results would
fit the pattern observed fcr the sandy and sandy loam soils.
The results obtained for the two silt soil studies are contradictory. In
one study (Mississippi), residues were not quantifiable 1 year after
application, whereas in another study (Oregon), 27% of the applied
isopropalin was extracted. Although there were differences in arqanic
matter oontent, weather conditions, and types of crops planted, no
conclusions can be drawn due to the lack of information on soil
characteristics and pretreatment residue levels.
A study b' ennedy and Talbert (005001267) demonstrates that isopropalin
dissipates much more rapidly when it is surface applied rather than
dissipates much mere rapidly when it is surface applied rathor than
incorporated into the soil. Only 68, 43, and 24% of sirface-applied
isopropalin was recovered at 1, 3, and 7 days, respectively, after
treatment with an unspecified formulation at 1.68 kg a.i./ha.
Four of the studies (Hobbs, 00002612; Shoop and Strait, 00002611; Starker
et al., 00002609; Webster, 00002616) described above also contain limited
data cn residues in soil after a second application of isopropalin. In
each case, the previous crops were harvested cr plowed under Friar to re-
treatment and the planting of crops. The data are summarized in Table 3.
In three cases (Oregon, Texas, and Georgia), the total amount of
isopropalin residues in the combined soil layers sampled 11-12 months after
the first treatment was 50% of the amount found 5-6 months after the second
treatment, although the distributions of residues in the layers were
proportionately different. These results indicate that the degradation of
isopropalin applied the second time occurred at a faster rate than
degradation after the first treatment because residues were still present
at the time of the second application. Thus, if the rate of degradation
was the same, the residue levels found 5-6 months after the second
application wauld have been greater than twice those found 11-12 months
after the first application. The rate of degradation after the second
af^licaticn to the Indiana loam soil was clearly much greater than that
after the first application.
A number of studies were performed in which isopropalin residues were
detected by bioassays that were incapable of quantifying residues.
Isopropalin was detected in medium silt loam and medium loam soils 4 and 5
months, respectively, after application of a 6 lb/gal emulsifiable
concentrate at 0.75 - 3.0 lb a.i./A (Watson, 00002798; Massey, 00002797),
and in a silt loam soil 75 days, but not one year, after application of an
unspecified formulation at 1.5 lb a.i./A (Harvey, 05002135). Residues were
detected in unspecified soil types five and six months after application of
1 cr 4 lb/gal emulsifiable ooncentrates at 0.5-3.0 lb a.i./A (Elanco
Rroducts Company, 00002800, 00003260, 00002801, and 00002802). Rcmanowski
and Libik 05001083, reported that isopropelin had dissipated to negligible
levels, as determined by bioassay, 4.5 and 3.5 months after application of
58
-------
Table 3. Residues of Isopropalin in Fields Treated Twice.
Residues
Soil Type
(State)
Application
Rate
(lb/A)
Sampled
depth
(inches)
Residues 11-12
Months After
First Application
(ppm)
After Second
Application (ppn)
15 6
month months months
References
Loam
(Indiana)
1.5
0-3
3-6
0.23
0.02
0.54
ND
0.12
0.02
Shoop and
Strait
(MRID
00002611)
Silt loam
(Ctegon)
2.0
0-3
3-6
6-12
0.06
0.53
0.18
1.18
0.24
0.04
Starker et
al. (MRID
00002609)
Sandy Clay
loam
(Texas)
2.0
0-3
3-6
6-12
0.09
0.03
ND
—
0.23
0.01
ND
Hobbs
(MRID
00002612)
Loamy sand
(Alabama)
2.0
0-3
3-6
6-12
0.02
0.05
0.02
0.08
0.02
<0.01
Webster
(MRID
00002616)
-------
an unspecified fcrmulaticn of isopcopalin at 1.12 kg/ha-3.36 kg/he. to silt
loam and fine sand soils, respectively. Isopropalin (6 lb/gal emulsifiable
concentrate) at 2.2 ppm persisted, as determined by bioassay, at least
five and nine months in a silty clay loam soil under field and greenhouse
conditions, respectively (Stollor and Wax, 05001088).
In summary, isopropalin will not accumulate in silt loam and sandy clay
loam soils, and soils with a high sand content under ncrmal field use
conditions. Most of the applied isopropalin will remain in the 0-3 inch
soil layer, and very little (<5% of the applied amount), if any, migration
below the 6-inch depth will occur in most instances. Isopropalin will
dissipate most rapidly from soils with a high sand content (sand, loamy
sand, arid sandy loam). Half-lives of Jess than 2 months can be expected
in such soils, although the variable data do not allow far accurate
estimates. Isopropalin tends to persist in loam and clay soils. The half-
life of isopropalin in loam soils can be variable, ranging from about 2
to 6 months. Hie reasons far this variability cannot be discerned from
the data. Isopropalin can dissipate as rapidly from a sandy clay loam
soil as from a sandy soil. However, the available data from a single
study are insufficient to determine if such a pattern is due to high
sand and low clay content.
The behavior of isopropalin in silt loam soils cannot be predicted based on
the available data, which are paradoxical. In such soils isopropalin may
dissipate rapidly or persist in a manner similar to that for loam soils.
Variables that may explain the observed behavior of isopropalin in silt
loam and loam soils include soil characteristics, and the amount of soil
bound residues. With only one exception, this information was not reported
in the submitted studies. Isopropalin dissipates roost slowly fir an a clay
soil in which a half-life of about eight months was measured far
ex tractable isopropalin. Unidentified unextractable residues also persist
in clay soil, reaching a plateau of 30% of the applied isopropalin within
15 months after treatment. Hie available data generally satisfy the data
requirements specified in Section 163.62-10(b).
Aquatic 163.62-10(c)
No data are required on the aquatic dissipation of isopropalin, because
isopropalin is not intended fcr use in the aquatic environment.
1>errestrial Aquatic (Fcrest) 163.62-10(d)
No data are available and no data are required on the terrestrial/aquatic
dissipation of isopropalin because isopropalin is not intended for use in a
terrestrial/aquatic (fcrest) environment.
Aquatic Impact Uses 163.62-10(e)
No aquatic impact data are required because repeated direct cr indirect
discharge into the aquatic environment is not expected with normal use of
this product.
60
-------
Combinations and Tank Mixes 163.62-10(f)
A laboratory or field soil dissipation study, using the formulated product
or the nonradiolabeled technical grade of each active inqredient, is
required to support the registration of all formulated products intended
far combinations and/or tank mixtures. This study shall compare the
dissipation characteristics of each active ingredient of the mixture when
applied to the soil as a mixture with the separate dissipation
characteristics of each active ingredient in soil when applied individually.
I sop: opal in has been registered in combination with other pesticides and
nematociges. Those products registered far use with isopropalin are
Diazinon , (diazinon, Ciba-Geigy), Di-Syston®, (disulfoton, Chemagro) t
and MoCaj** (prophos, Mobile Chemical). Data requirements far mixtures of
active ingredients are being reserved.
Data requirements are applicable only to mixed active ingredients.
ACQMUIATICN 163.62-11
Data on accumulation are required to determine the potential for
isopropalin to enter the food web and to assess potential adverse effects
on nontarget organisms indicated by rotational crops, irrigated crops and
fish.
Rotational Crops 163.65-ll(b)
Accumulation studies on rotational crops care required to support the
registration of each formulated end-use product intended far
field/vegetable or aquatic food or feed crop use and far use an any site on
which it is reasonably fcrseeable that any food or feed crop may be
produced after application of a pesticide. Such a study is also required
to suqppcrt the registration of each manufacturing-use product which
legally oould be used to rake such an end-use product.
Six rotational crop studies ware reviewed. One study was invalid and
five were considered valid. TVd of these studies (05001260 and 00002535)
were combined into a single review because they contained original data for
the same experiment.
Golab and Althaus (05001260) and Golab et al. (00002535) reported that
isopropalin residues were undetectable in straw and grain of wheat planted
in rotation withj^egetable and tobacco crops at least 17 weeks after
application of I C] isopropalin to clay soil at 1.5 and 3.0 lb a.i./A.
Unidentified radiolabeled metabolites were present at 0.007 and 0.01 ppm in
the grain, and at 0.16 and 0.36 ppm in the straw of one-year old wheat for
the respective application rates, as calculated based on radioactivity.
Intnature (tw-month old) wheat plants contained metabolites at 0.065-0.125
and 0.125-0.330 ppm far the respective application rates. Analysis of
extracts eliminated 2,6-dinitro-N-propyl-cumidine, 2,6-dinitrocimidine, and
^isopropyl-fi-nitro-N'-N" -dipropyl-o-phenylene-diamine as possible
metabolites.
61
-------
Eli Lilly and Company (0002509) treated fields with isopropalin (Paarlan)
at 1.5, 2 cr 3 lb/A and planted 14 rotational crops 112-374 days later.
Mature plants were harvested fcr analysis of isopropalin residues. No
isopropalin residues were detected in barley heads and straw; cabbage;
ccrncob and grain; lettuce; oat heads, straw, and grain; snap beans;
sorghum grain; soybean seed; spinach; turnip roots and greens; radish
roots; wheat straw; peanut meats; and sugar beet tops. Either no
detectable residues cr residues of <0.01 ppm wore found in .samples of wheat
heads, sugar beet roots, and peanut shells.
Eli Lilly and Canpany (0002558) detected no residues in matire and
inmature pepper plants planted 50 days after application of an emulsifiable
concentrate of isopropalin at 1-3 lb/A. Hie levels of residues in matire
and immature pepper fruit samples were undetectable cr less than 0.01 ppm,
the latter values obtained only in two samples from plots treated at
2 lb/A. Similarly, isopropalin residues were undetectable, cr at 0.01 pp*n
cr less, in tobacco planted 35 days after application of a 6 lb/gal
emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin at 1.5-3 lb/A (Eli Lilly and
Company, 00002507).
In surmary, the data submitted does not supply adequate information on
rotational crops. Unidentified radiolabeled residues are present in mature
wheat seed and straw planted as a rotational crop four months after field
treatment at the rccarmended application rate. Analyses made only far
parent isopropalin demonstrated that isopropalin did not accumulate in 14
rotational crops planted 112-374 days after treatment.
Or ops that can be rotated in oonnection with proposed use patterns must be
identified. Data specified in Section 163.62-ll(b) are needed to determine
the uptake of isopropalin residues in rotational crops. Studies using
radiolabeled isopropalin are required far representative leafy vegetable
and root crops, and subsequent field studies may be required. Hie
identification of residues found in small grains is required, along with
othar unsatisfied data requirements calling for radiolabeled cr
nonradiolabeled pesticide. Residues should be chemically identified.
If the registrant does not wish to have a rotational crop restriction on an
isopropalin product one of the following must be done:
a) Supply environmental fate data supporting a rotation interval which
does rot result in a pesticide residue in the rotated crops; cr
b) Obtain a tolerance fcr the nontarget crop (46 FR 3018) cr
c) Obtain an exemption from a tolerance fcr the nontarget arop.
Irrigated Crops 163.62-ll(c))
No data are required on the accumulation of isopropalin in irrigated crops
because the use pattern indicates that crops would not be irrigated with
water containing isopropalin.
62
-------
Fish Accumulation 63.62-ll(d)- .
i'.- , (1) A.-fish accumulation study is required to support the registration of
each formulated end-use product intended far outdoor use (except domestic
outdoor), cr aquatic impact uses resulting in direct discharge into aquatic
environments, and fcr each manufacturing-use product that could be legally
used to produce,such a product, except when the criteria below are
satisfied. Although isopropalin does not have aquatic uses, the potential
remains for contamination of aquatic systems (by run-off)-.
(2) Fish accumulation data will normally not be required in situations
where the registrant can offer evidence acceptable to the Agency showing
that the applied pesticide and/or its principal degradation product(s):
(a) Will not reach water, or will not persist in water (i.e., a
nominal half-life of four days cr less); and
(b) Has physical properties suggesting a relatively low potential for
accumulation (i.e., a nominal octanol/watar partition coefficient less
than 1000); cr
(c) Does not accumulate in the crgans and tissues of mammals cr avian
species.
(3) The Agency may oonsidar the particular use pattern and the rate and
frequency of application in making a decision to waive cr maintain the data
requirement (such as in cases where movement to water is obviously
negligible cr where frequent application counteracts a fast dissipation
rate).
Oie fish accumulation study was reviewed and considered valid. Sleight
(00002475) examined the accumulation of isopropalin (technical) in edible
tissues of bluegill sunfish, using a flow-through system. At an exposure
level of 0.01 ppn over a 28-day period, maximum isopropalin residue levels
of 2-4 ppm were found between three days postexposure and three days after
the start of depuration. Residue levels decline thereafter to 0.61 and
<0.04 ppm by 14 and 28 days, respectively, after depuration began. At an
exposure level of 0.05 ppm over a 42-day period, maximum isopropalin
residue levels of 25-40 ppm were found between 21 and 42 days post-
exposure. Residue levels declined immediately after the start of
depuration to an average of 9 ppm, 14 days later and to <1.07 ppn 28 days
later. Residue levels in nonedible tissues were 8 and 113 ppm, 28 and 42
days after exposure (the only nonedible tissue sample days) to 0.01 and
0.05 ppn isopropalin, respectively. Mean residue levels in water were 50%
of the nominal concentration. Thus, maximum bioaccumulation factors for
edible tissue were 800 and 1,600 far the respective nominal concentrations,
and these declined to <8 and <50 by the end of depuration. Respective
bioaccumulation factors in nonedible tissue were 1,600 and 5,120 on the
last days of exposure.
63
-------
This study partially fulfills the guideline requirements fcr
fish accumulation. Hie only additional data needed are on the identity of
residues in whole body fish, edible tissue and viscera at suitable sampling
intervals far a flow-through system.
The requirement far the submission of these data is currently being
reserved pending the receipt and evaluation of data on hydrolysis,
photodegradaticn in water, aerobic and anaerobic soil metabolism, and
rotational or ops. Consequently, the absence of acceptable data does not
constitute a data gap.
64
-------
V. RESIDUE CHEMISTRY
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
Residue Chemistry Profile
Because the residues of isopropalin measured in tobacco at recommended
application rates are quite low, less than 0.1 ppm, the Agency does not
require data showing the metabolism of isopropalin cn tobacco. Because
these residues are low, residue profiles far isopropalin in the green
tobacco, the cured tobacco, the tobacco smoke, cr the pyrolysis products in
the smoke are not required as specified in Section 163.64-1 of the
ft-oposed Registration Guidelines 43 FR 29724, July 10, 1978.
Tolerance Reassessment
Neither a tolerance nor an exemption frcm a tolerance is required by the
Agency fcr residue of pesticides in cr an tobacco [Section 163.63-11.
Although isopropalin is no longer registered fcr use on food crops,
tolerances have been established far negligible residues of the herbicide
in cr an peppers and tomatoes at 0.05 part per million, (40 CFR 180.313).
Residue data submitted fcr tai\atoes and peppers were evaluated and found
adequate far establishment of a tolerance. Because isopropalin is
ciarrently not registered fcr use on tomatoes and peppers, a discussion of
the data will not be presented in this chapter. Far further discussion of
tolerances please refer to the Regulatory Chapter, page 11.
Data Requirements
The proposed guidelines include the data requirements for pesticide
residues in tobacco: 43 FR 29724, July 10, 1978. The residue chemistry
data requirements are listed on page 24.
Data Gaps for Residue Chemistry
Although the residue chemistry studies needed to assess the recommended
applications of PAARLAN E.C..to tobacco'have been submitted, the fcgency
needs the raw data for the C-residue study (Elanco ftroducts Co.,
00002506; Golab, et al., 05001260) to complete the review fcr this
standard. It is also noted that residues of NDPA are not mentioned.
Required Labeling
For application to tobacco (bcrley, black, and flue-cired) to control
annual grasses and broadleaf weeds:
Up to five weeks before planting
-------
TOPICAL DISCUSSIONS
Introduction
Since isopropalin is currently used in the cultivation of tobacco and no
other crop, the discussion of its residues in crops will be limited to
tobacco.
Neither a tolerance nor an exemption from a tolerance is required far •
pesticide residues in tobacco, but the Agency does require "Residue
ftrofiles" in order to assess the human exposure to such residues when the
tobacco is consumed. The required residue profiles [quantitative data far
the pesticide per se and its metabolites] are dependent upon the total
pesticide residues resulting in green tobacco by the reccrmended use.
Total residues in the green tobacco equal to cr greater than 0.1 ppm
require a determination of the residue profile far the pesticide in the
cured tobacco; total residues in the cured tobacco equal to or greater than
0.1 ppm require profile data far the smoke and perhaps additional
toxicity studies. The proposed guidelines, Section 163.64-I(a)(b)(c),
(43 FR 29696, July 10, 1978] explain the Agency's Special Data
Requirements far pesticides used on tobacco.
- ' c
USE PATTERN AND RESTRICTIONS
PAARLAN Bnulsifiable Concentrate (Registration No. 1471-79), at this time
the only registered isopropalin product, oontains six pounds of the active
ingredient par gallon (68.6%). On the basis of the isopropalin "Use
Pattern Rrofile" applications of the product are limited to three types of
tobacco: burley, flue-cured, and dark. The application (either broadcast
or band), which must be soil incorporated to a depth of four to six inches,
can be made up to five weeks before planting. A single application of the
product is permitted par season. Isopropalin per se is applied at rates of
from 1.5 to 2.0 pounds par aare.
Nature of the Isopropalin Residue in Tobacco ¦
Because the total residues of isopropalin in green tobacco are shown to be
less than 0.1 Ram, the Agency does "not require data shewing the metabolisti
of isopropalin by tobacoo.
RESIDUE METHODS
Apart from the radiometric technique which was used to determine the total
isopropalin residues (see paragraph below) the residues of isopropalin per
se were acceptably determined in field tobacco by two of Elanco's GLC
procedures, method numbers 5801590 and 5801588, far residue in arops.
RESIDUE DATA
Total Residues in Green Tobacco
Itie most relevant of the submitted studies (Elanco Products Co., 00002506
or Golab, et al., 05001260), was conducted with C-ring labeled
isopropalin. This study repocts the total residues of isopropalin and its
metabolites (based cn total C) in the bottan leaves of the mature
tobacoo plant (a flue cured cultivar). When treated at the minimum
66
-------
recommended rate of 1.5 pounds of. the active ingredient (a.i.) per acre,
these residues were 0.043(0.031-0.050) ppm. When treated at 1.5 times the
maximum rate of 2.0 pounds of the a.i. per acre; i.e., with 3.0 pounds of
the a.i. per acre, the total residues in the bottom loaves were 0.085(0.052-
0.106) ppm; while total residues in the top leaves and stalk were
respectively equal to or less than 0.071 ppm and 0.046 ppm.
Although the raw data were riot submitted for this radiolabeled study,, the
reported-isopropalin residues, as expected, were much hiqho: than the
residues determined in the tobacco field studies (Eli Lilly and Co.,
00002477; Elanco, 00002554; Eli Lilly and Go., 00002507) conducted with
nonradiolabeled isopropalin. In these tobacco field studies the maximum
residue.of.isopropalin per se did not exceed 0.02 ppm; these residues were
determined by Elanco's GLC procedures, method, numbers 5801590 and 5801588
(Johnson, 00002793; Holzer, 00002795).
Also, noting the studies which were submitted in support of a negligible
isopropalin tolerance of 0.05 ppm in cr en peppers (A3mundson, 00002557;
Eli Lilly and Co., 00002558) and tomatoes (Golab, 00002796; Holzer,
00002790; Eli Lilly and Co., 00002620; Elanco ft'ouct Co., 00002816;
Johnson, W.S., 00002593), it is apparent that the isopropalin residues in
or cn tobacco, as cn peppers and tcmatoes, would, be quite low and
definitely less than 0.1 ppm when treated with PAARLAN E.C. in accordance
with the.accepted labeling.
Residue Profiles far Isopropalin in Tobacco
14
The only C-residue study.conducted on tobacco indicates the total
residue of isopropalin in green tobacco which wsuld result fran
applications at the maximum recommended rate of 2.0 pounds of the a.i. per
acre would not exceed approximately 0.073 ppm and wuld definitely be less
than 0.1 ppm. Therefore, a residue profile far isopropalin and its-
metabolites is not recruired fcr tobacco either green or cured.
I^tal isopropalin residues, however, were reported for both the c^red
C-tobacco and for the smoke from cigarettes prepared with the C-
tobacco. In this study, in which the treatment rate was 3.0 pounds of the
a.i. per acre, the maximum residues in the cured tobacco leaf (bottom) were
0.523 ppm [0.430(0.523-0.355) ppm.); and the total residues in the snoke,
0.116 ppm. Based cn calculations from these data, the total residues of
isopropalin in the tobacco treated at the maximum recommended rate of 2.0
pounds of the a.i. per acre would be approximately 0.35 ppm; and total
residues in the snoke from cigarettes prepared with cured tobacco, less
than 0.1 ppm (approximately 0.07 ppm).
Residue Profile far Isopropalin in Tobacco Smoke
Since the total residues of isopropalin in the tobacco is very low; i.e.,
less than 0.1 ppm, the Aqency does not require a residue profile for
isopropalin
-------
VI. ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
Ecological Effects Profile
Scientifically sound data on the toxicity of technical isopropalin to
nontarget organisms is extremely scant. One study was available which was
considered adequate to characterize the toxicity of isopropalin to a
wannwater fish species. No data were available which were considered
adequate to characterize its toxicity to other nomtarget animal groups.
ITie cne warmwater fish study showed isopropalin, with an UCrQ value of
200 (150-300) ppb, to be highly toxic to goldfish (Car ass i us auratus).
No data were available to assess the toxicity of the formulated product,
PAARLAN E.C., to wildlife.
Few studies an plants or microorganisms ware presented with respect to
the effects due to technical isopropalin. Par two fungal species,
1 x 10 M is a no effect level. Par tobacco, 1.5 lbs. a.i./A preplant
incorporated was found to have no effect. Numerous studies were available
noting the phytotoxic effects of an emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin
on various crops, A no observable effect level far tobacco was found to be
betv*>en 3 bo 4 lbs. a.i./A v*ien applied as a preplant incorporated
herbicide. Tcmatoes and peppors were somewhat more sensitive with a 10%
detrimental effect level between 0.75 and 4 lbs, a.i./A (PPI). Cotton and
soybeans showed a 10% effect level at 1.5 to 2 lbs. a.i./A. Other crops
had 10% detrimental effect levels ranging from 0.6 lbs. a.i./A for sarghun
to 3 lbs. a.i./A fcx broccoli.
Ecological Effects Hazard Assessment
Due to the absence of appropriate Environmental Fate and non target
toxicity data, an Ecological Effects Hazard Assessment cannot be made far
eitha: the technical or the formulated product.
Except for the effects on certain crops for which isopropalin is used and
due to the absence of environmental fate information, an in-depth non tar get
plant hazard assessment oannot be made at this time.
Par the crops far which isopropalin is used as a preplant incorporated
herbicide, there will be little ar no detrimental effect at the usage rates
as specified on the label.
Because the application methodology for isopropalin requires soil
incorporation, there should be little ar no effect on nan target area plants.
Data Requirements
Data requirements are from the "firoposed Guidelines" of July 10, 1978,
(43 CFR 29696) and November 3, 1980, (40 CFR 72948). Data requirements for
an Integrated-Farmulation System Product are on pages 25-30.
68
-------
labeling Requirements
In the absence of appropriate data, no new reoenmendations can be made with
regard to the Environmental iiazard Statement of the present label. The
revised label statement in the Regulatory Chapter, page 13, is considered
adequate, until additional data are submitted.
69
-------
TOPICAL DISCUSSIONS
Introduction
There is extreme variation in the sensitivity of non-human, non-target,
organisms to pesticides. Fcr example, among different species of fish
mare than a 30,000 fold difference in sensitivity in acute poisoning has
been reported. In some cases, in crdor to achieve a "no effect"
concentration for a species exposed to a chemical, it is necessary to
reduce the concentration 20,000 fold fran the level which causes "acute"
effects. Since there is this potential far extreme sensitivity to
wildlife species certain tests are required far all outdoor uses even if
extremely minute amounts are expected in the environment. A number of
species have been selected on the basis of sensitivity, habitat
significance, and developed methodology by the scientific oornmunity. These
recannendations have been incorporated into the proposed guidelines of
July 10, 1978, (43 FR 29696), and November 3, 1980, (40 FR 72948).
Birds 163.71-1 and 163.71-2
Birds may be exposed to toxic amounts of isopropalin by ingesting
contaminated soil organisms. Testing on birds is part of the first tier in
the ecological effects testing scheme for pesticides with outdoor,
terrestrial use.
There is insufficient information on isopropalin to characterize its
toxicity to birds. Studies done by West and Worth (00002592A; 00002592B)
were reviewed and found to be inadequate. In general, the testing
parameters were not sufficiently defined. Also, in one study, the only
treatment level (lg/kg) did not produce and LDcq value nor can one be
estimated.
The following studies are required for isopropalin. An avian single - dose
oral L£>cq on cne waterfowl (preferably the mallard) or an upland game
bird (preferably the bobwhite quail cr the ring-necked pheasant), according
to the guidelines 163.71-1, is required. The species shall be the same as
one of the two species selected for the avian dietary LC5Q in 163.71-2.
An avian dietary 1£cq on two avian species, one species of waterfcwl
(preferably the mallard) and cne species of upland game (preferably the
bobwhite cr the ring-necked) - 163.71-2. One of the two species selected
for these studies must be the same species selected for the avian oral
study required by 163.71-1.These test are required of products with an
outdoor, terrestrial use and are part of the first tier in the ecological
effects testing scheme.
70
-------
Effects on freshwater Fish 163.72-1
Studies done by Vtarth, Arthur and Anderson (00002472; and duplicates Eli
Lilly, 00002787 and Elanco, 00002788) using the fathead minnow were
inadequate. Another study in goldfish (West, et al.f 00002592C) contained
valid data cn the technical material, however it' does not satisfy the
guideline reporting requirement. In general, the information provided
with these studies was insufficent with regard to the test organism,
protocol and "statistical procedures used to analyze the data. Although
the goldfish is not considered representative of warmwater fish species,
the study does provide sufficient information to characterize isopropalin
as highly toxic to warmwater fish. Additional data on this study may be
submitted for further evaluation cr another fish acute LC^q study must
be initiated on one cold water (rainbew trout) and one warmwater (bluegill)
species.
Effects on Freshwater Invertebrates 163.72-2
Data are required on invertebrates because they are important food sources
for fish and other predators. Also, some species of invertebrates are
economically significant. No documents have been received cr evaluated
under this topic. Hie following study is necessary in crder to complete a
hazard evaluation: Aquatic invertebrate LC^q (48-hoir) on an immature
invertebrate, preferably the daphnia, amphipod, stonefly cr mayfly. This
test is required of products with an outdoor, terrestrial use and are part
of the first tier in the ecological effects testing scheme.
Terrestrial Macrophytes - Target Area Phytotoxicity 163.121-1
Requirements fcr efficacy data and phytotoxicity target data have been
waived. The Agency's position is given in detail in the preamble to
Proposed Subpart J, (45 FR 72950-72952).
Terrestrial Macrophytes - Nontarget Area Phytotoxicity (Seed Germination
and Vegetative Vigor) 163.122-1. •
The data submitted cn terrestrial maarophytes are sufficient to assess the
hazard of isopropalin to certain plants and are described according to
species in this section. No additional data are required.
Based on available data the following is known about the toxicity of
isopropalin to terrestrial maarophytes:
71
-------
a. Isopropalin preplant inccrpcrated expresses a 10% detrimental
effect between 0.75 and 4 lbs. a.i./A on tomatoes. Ttiis effect
level varies in response to edaphic and environmental conditions
of the test locations.
The data supporting these conclusions are listed in the following table.
Species: Tomato
Formulation
i^io
Author
Date
MRID
?EC
2 lb/A PPI
Ash ton et al.
1970
00002575
6 EC
<1 lb/A PPI
Wilson
1972
00002633
7
<1.2 lb/A PPI
Tisdell
1971
00002652
6 EC
<.75 lb/A PPI
Putnam
1973
00002655
6EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002695
6EC
4 lb a.i./A PPI
Lade
1969
00002696
6 EC
4 lb a.i./A PPI
Massey
1969
00002697
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Massey
1969
00002698
6 EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Massey
1969
00002699
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Massey
1969
00002700
SEC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002701
6 EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Shoop
1969
00002702
6 DC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002703
6EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002704
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Pafford
1969
00002705
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Pa f fcrd
1969
00002706
6 EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Warner
1969
00002707
6 EC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Steenwyk
1969
00002708
6 EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Steenwyk.
1969
00002709
6 EC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Steenwyk
1969
00002710
6 EC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Steenywk
1969
00002712
6EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Steenwyk
1969
00002713
6EC
4 lb a.i./A PPI
Cooper
1969
00002714
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002715
6 EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002716
6 EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002717
6 EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969 .
00002718
6EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002719
6 EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002720
6 EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002721
6EC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002722
6 EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Helmer
1969
00002724
6 EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Helmer
1969
00002725
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Helmer
1969
00002726
6EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002728
6 EC
0.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1968
00002729
6 EC
1.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1968
00002730
6EC
0.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Humphreys
1968
00002731
6 EC
0.5 lb a.i./A PPI
Humphreys
1969
00002732
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002733
72
-------
Species: Tomato Cont.
Formulation
— 10
Author
Date
MRID
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Massey
1969
00002734
6 EC
0.75 lb a.i./A PPI
Webster
1969
00002735
6 EC
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Keaton
1969
00002736
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002737
6 EC
4 lb a.i./A PPI
Helmer
1969
00002738
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002739
6 EC
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002758
6 EC
1 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00003257
Tech.(?)
2 lb a.i./A PPI
Fisher
1969
00002740
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Hopen
1969
00002741
6 EC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Qreenfield
1969
00002742
SEC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Warner
1969
0000274 3
(transplanted)
6 EC
0.75 lb/A PPI
War ner
1969
00002743
(direct seeded)
6 EC
3 lb/A PPI
Monaco
1969
00002759
6 EC
2 lb/A Post
Monaco
1969
00002759
6EC
<1 lb/A PPI
Keaton
1970
00002773
(direct seeded)
6 EC
1 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00002819
(direct seeded)
6 EC
2 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00002820
(direct seeded)
6 EC
1. 5 lb/A. PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00002822
(direct seeded)
6 EC
2 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00002823
(direct seeded)
?EC
<1.5 lb/A
Talbort
1974
00003252
6 EC
2 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00003262
6 EC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00004151
?EC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Alban
1972
05001038
Tech.(?)
1.5 lb/A PPI
Anderson
1972
05001041
Tech.(?)
2.0 lb/A PPI
Crr
1974
05001074
?EC
1.95 ppm (soil)
Eshel
1972
05002134
?EC
0.13 ppm (water)
Eshel
1972
05002134
b. . Isopropelin preplant incorporated expresses a 10% detrimental
effect between 1.0 and 4.5 lbs/acre on peppers. The effect levels
vary in response to edaphic and environmental conditions* of the
test sites.
The data supporting these conclusions are listed in the following table.
7-3
-------
Species: Peppers
Formulation
EC Author
Date
MRID
PEC
4 lb a.i./A PPI
Ashton
1970
00002575
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Tweedy
1970
00002576
PEC
4.5 lb/A PPI
Univ. SWLA
1970
00002577
pec
2 lb/A PPI
Monaco
1969
00002579
(direct seeded)
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Keaton
1971
00002580
6EC
2 lb/A PPI
Alban
1969
00002581
6EC
3 lb/A PPI
Ogle
1969
00002582
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Tweedy
1969
00002587
6 EC
3 lb/A PPI
Massey
1969
00002746
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1969
00002583
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1969
00002584
pee
3 lb a.i./A PPI
Elanco
1969
00002585
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Massey
1969
00002756
?EC
3 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1969
00002757
(Poor emergence)
?EC
1 lb/A PPI
Keaton
1970
00002773
6 EC
1 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1976
00002775
6 EC
3 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00003244
?EC :
4 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00002562
PEC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00002563
PEC
4.5 lb//A PPI
Warner
1970
00002564
PEC
2.5 lb/A PPI
Steenwyk
1970
00002565
PEC
3 lb/A PPI
Cooper
1970
00002566
PEC
4 11 'A PPI
Humphreys
1970
00002567
PEC
3 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1971
00002568
PEC
3 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1969
00002744
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Elanco
1969
00003242
PEC
4 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1969
00003243
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00002570
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00002571
PEC
3 lb/A PPI
Hobbs
1970
00003245
PEC
2.5 lb/A PPI
Chamberlain
1969
00002747
PEC
.2 lb/A PPI
Warner
1969
00002748
PEC
4 lb/A PPI
Cooper
1969
00002749
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Elanco
1958
00003528
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1970
00002572
pec
1.5 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1969
00002573
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Humphreys
1970
00002574
PEC
1 lb/A PPI
Elanco
1968 •
00002750
PEC
2 lb/A PPI
Elanco
1968
00002752
PEC
' 1 lb/A PPI
Helmer
1969
00002753
PEC
1.19 ppm soil*
Eshel
1972
05002134
PEC
0.04 ppm water**
Eshel
1972
05002134
* Concentration in soil after incorporation treatment
** Concentration in hydroponic media
74
-------
c. Isopcopalin preplant inccrpcrated expresses a no effect level
about 1 lb/acre and a 10% effect level about 1.5 to 2 lbs/acre
cn cotten.
The data supporting these conclusions are listed in the
following table.
Species; Cotton
Formulation No-Effect EC , n Author . Date MR1D
Level
6 EC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Webster
1970
00002487
6EC
1.5 lb/A PPI
Webster
1970
00002488
6 EC
2 lb/A PPI
Keaton
1972
00002491
6 EC
1 lb/A PPI
Pa f fcrd
1970
00002774
?EC
>1.0 lb a.i/A
Overton
1972
05001075
d. Isopropalin inccrpcrated expresses a no-effect level between 1.5
and 4.5 lb/acre and a 10% effect level at 2 lb/acre'and above on
soybeans. The differences are attributed to different
envircrimental conditions during testing.
The data supporting these conclusions are listed in the following
table.
Species: Soybeans
Formulation
No-Effect
Level '
— 10
Author
Date
MRID
6EC 2 lb/A PPI Keaton
6EC 1.5 lb/A Shoop
?EC <1.0 lb a.i./A PPI Overton
(?) 4.5 lb/A Harvey
1972
1970
1972
1973
00002491
00002770
05001075
05002135
75
-------
e. Hie 10% detrimental level effect of preplant incorporated
isopropalin an miscellaneous fruits and vegetable plants ranges
from 0.6 lb/acre fcr scrghum to 3 lb/acre for broccoli.
The data supporting these conclusions are listed in the following
table.
Miscellaneous Fruits and Vegetables
Species Formulation EC Author Date MRID
Asparagus
?EC
<1 lb/A
Ashton
1970
00002575
Qroccoli
?BC
3 lb/A
Ashton
1970
00002575
Cucumber
?DC
1.5 lh/A
Ashton
1970
00002575
Alfalfa
6BC
1 lb/A PPI
Massey
1970
00002679
Bushheans
6EC
1.5 lb/A
Chamberlain
1976
00002771
Lima beans
?BC
1.0 lb a.i/A
PPI
Overton
1972
05001075
Peas
?EC
<1.0 lb a.i./A
PPI
O/erton
1972
05001075
?EC
1.5 lb/A
Harvey
1977
05001263
Scrghum
?EC
0.6 lbs/A PPI
Hunphreys
1969
00002799
Oats
(?)
1.5 lb/A
Harvey
1973
05002135
Qkra
?EC
<1.0 lb a.i./A
PPI
Overton
1972
05001075
Eggplant
PEC
?BC
0.99 ppn soil* Eshel
0.05 ppm water* Eshel
1972
1972
05002134
05002134
* Concentration in soil after incorporation treatment
** Concentration in hydroponic media
76
-------
Aquatic Maarophytes and Algae 163.122-2
Ttwre are no data available to assess the effect of isopropalin cn aquatic
plants. Growth and reproduction studies of aquatic plants ( bemna, one
marine diatan, one freshwater diatan, a green alga, and a blue-green alga)
ore required in order to complete a hazard evaluation.
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN TABLES FOR TOE ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS CHAPTER:
a.i. = active ingredient (This term was used only when specifically
stated in study.)
A = aare
EC « cmulsifiable concentrate
6EC = emulsifiable concentrate **nch has a concentration of 6 pounds
of isopropalin per gallcn of end-use product (i.e. PAARWN)
? = no information cn formulation given
Tech. » technical product
Tech. (?) = technical product vras most likely used, although it was not
properly identified
PPI * preplant incorporation
Post = postemcrgence
EC,n = effective concentration viiich produces a 10% reduction in
AU yield
77
-------
VII. TOXICOLOGY
• DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
TECHNICAL ISOPROPALIN
Toxicology Profile
Technical isopropalin has low acute oral toxicity with LA^g values in
excess of 5000 mg/kq. Acute testing determined that at a single dose of
5000 mg/kg no mortality and very little toxicity was experienced by male cr
female rats. In addition, a single dose of 2000 mgAg produced no
mortality in mice, rabbits, dogs and chickens. These data suggest that
isopropalin presents a vary low level acute hazard to humans ingesting the
technical material.
The acute dermal IA-q exceeds 2000 mqAg and the primary eye irritation
test showed slight conjunctival redness in treated animals eyes. These
results indicate low dermal and eye toxicity. Neurotoxicity testing was
not requested because the chemical structure is not related to substances
that are known to cause acetylcholinesterase depression or delayed
neurotoxicity.
In the category of subchronic testing, there is one acceptable 90-day rat
study. The highest dose level used was 0.225% in the feed and no pathology
was attributed to treatment. .
No data cn long term testing have been submitted on technical
isopropalin. There is no information on the effects of chronic feeding,
the cncoqenic potential, cr teratogenicity and reproductive effects of
isopropalin.
The Agency has determined that certain testing will be required for
isopropalin use on tobacco. Epidemiological studies have correlated
cigarette smoking with cancer of the lungs, larynx, cral cavity,
esophagus, pancreas, and bladder, (Wyndcr et al., 1957, Wynder and Bross
1961, Wynder , et al. 1973, Wynder and Goldsmith 1977, Wyndcr and Stellman
1977, Royal College of Physicians 1977, U.S. Dept. of Health Education and
Welfare, 1971).
Also a correlation between tobacco chewing and cancer of the cral cavity,
esophagus and possibly, cancer of the nasopharynx has been documented,
(Moore et al., 1953, Vtynder et al., 1957, Wynder and Bross 1961, Wynder
and Hoffmann 1967, Jussawalla and Deshpande 1971, Staszewski 1974, U.S.
Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971).
The components of tobacco smoke have been studied and a number of oncogenic
agents have been identified, (Wynder and Hoffmann 1967, U.S. Dept. of
Health Education and Welfare, 1971). In addition, tobacco-specific
carcinogens have been identified in tobacco and tobacco snoke,
specifically, N-nitrosoncrnicotine (NNN) and 4-(N-methyl-N-nitrosamine)-l-
( 3-pyr idyl )-l-butanone (NNK), (Hecht et al. 1978a, Hecht et al., 1978b,
Hecht et al., 1979, Hecht et al., 1980, and Hoffmann et al., 1980).
78
-------
The Agency recognizes that the use of tobacco products is detrimental to
the consumer and that the use of these products is voluntary. Even if
pesticidal use were shown to enhance the formation of certain oncogenic
agents it oould not be considered the sole soiree of such agents.
Therefore the following tests will not be required far isopropalin's use on
tobacco: chronic feeding, oncogenicity, reproduction and metabolism.
However teratogenicity and mutagenicity testing will be required in crder
to assess the potential effects to futire generations of tobacco users.
N-Nitrosamine Contaminant of Technical Isopropalin
The technical material isopropalin is contaminated with N-nitroso-di-n-
propylamine (NDPA). N-nitrosc^di-n-propylamincvhas been shown ,to be a
carcinogen by Qruckery (1967)— , Roznik (1975)— , Pour (1973)- ,
and Dickhaus (1977)—/. Although Elanco has stated that the
contaminatcn level is less than one part per million, no data have been
submitted to support this statement. Appropriate data must be submitted by
the applicant to support contamination levels of less than one part per
million cr supply data necessary for a quantitative risk analysis.
Data Requirements
Data requirements for the registration of an isopropalin product are
tabulated cn pages 31-32. Listed beside each requirement is the section of
the Proposed Guidelines of August 22, 1978, (43 FR 36336) that describes
the type of data required.
Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment
The data provided for the technical material of isopropalin is
inadequate foe a meaningful hazard assessment. The acute data indicate
low toxicity and therefore suggest that the canpound does not present an
imminent hazard to those handling the product.
The lack of exposure data and data frcm long-term testing make estimation
of the long-term hazard impossible.
Contamination with the nitrosamine contaminant, NDPA, may be a serious
problem. Contamination levels need definition, storage stability confirmed
and a quantitative estimation of the risk established if the level of
contamination exceeds one part par million.
Required Labeling
Precautionary labeling of each product must correspond to the toxicity
categories: determined by five acute toxicity tests. Acceptable categories
of acute toxicity and the corresponding required labeling appear in
the Regulatory Chapter of this Standard (page 11).
1/ Hiese studies are listed as reference naterial in the bibliography.
79
-------
TOPICAL DISCUSSIONS
Technical Material
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the
number of the section in the 'Proposed Guidelines' of August 22, 1978,(43
FR 37336) which explains the minimum data that the Agency usually requires
in order to adequately assess a pesticide's toxicology. Where no section
number is listed, a minimum requirement has not been set foe such
information. Also under each of the topics is a reference to the section
in the 'Proposed Guidelines'.
The following topical discussions describe available toxicity data on
technical isopropalin and state whether they are adequate fcr regulatory
purposes.
ACUTE TESTING
Acute Oral Toxicity (163.81-1)
Acute testing using the technical material is required fcr integrated-
fcrmulation-system products. The minimum data requirement fcr testing acute
oral toxicity is an LDcq as described in the guide-lines, preferably
using the laboratory rat. One study in rats was reviewed, as well as
studies in dogs, rabbits, mice, and chickens (Worth, et al., 00002472A,
00002472B, 00002472C, 00002472G, 00002472H). TTie. rat study tested newborn,
juvenile, and young adult groups, with adequate design fcr an LDcq
determination. Acute oral toxicity studies in other species support the
acute toxicity observed in the rat, and may be used in support of the rat
data for regulatory purposes. The acute cral LD-0 values fcr isopropalin
in the young adult rat are greater than 5000 mg/Rg fcr each sex. No
mortality cr symptoms of toxicity were observed in male and female mice,
rabbits and dogs dosed with 2000 mqAg. In chickens the LD^q is greater
than 2000 mgAg. The chemical belongs to cral toxicity category IV. These
studies provide adequate information about the acute cral toxicity of
technical isopropalin to meet the Agency's data requirements.
Acute Dermal Toxicity (163.81-2)
Acute testing using the technical material is required for integrated-
formulaticn system products. The minimum testing needed on acute dermal
toxicity is cne test, preferably in the albino rabbit. One study was
reviewed (Worth, et al., 00002472J). The data showed the LDcq exceeded
2000 mgAg* therefore testing at other dose levels is not required. Ttie
study did not meet current guidelines fcr testing because an insufficient
number of rabbits was used and a difference in response due to the sex of "
the animal was not tested. However, because of the low acute toxicity
indicated by both the oral and dermal route, this test is accepted as.
adequate to justify labeling this product as dermal toxicity category III,
but it is not sufficient to assign dermal toxicity category IV. Further
testing of acute dermal toxicity is not required for the technical material.
80
-------
Acute Inhalation Toxicity (163.81-3)
Data vere not available for assessment of the acute inhalation toxicity of
the technical isopropalin. Ttiis test is not required far the registration
of an integrated-formulation system product.
Primary Eye Irritation (163.81-4)
Ihe minimum testing to evaluate eye irritation potential is one test, in
albino rabbits. If the test substance has a pH of 1-3 or 12-14, however, it
will be judged corrosive, and an eye irritation test is not needed.
Ore study was evaluated (Worth/ et al., 00002472 I). A slight conjunc-
tival redness was observed in treated eyes. Itiese results indicated that
the product falls into toxicity category III according to 1975 regulations
[40 CFR 162.10(h)(1)]. No observations were made after the seventh day,
therefore it is not possible to recategorize this test according to
criteria proposed in the National Academy of Sciences publication 1138.
Since this test is not required far the registration of an integrated-
focmulation system product no further testing is required for this type of
registration.
Acute Delayed Neurotoxicity (163.81-7)
An acute delayed neurotoxicity evaluation is not required because isopro-
palin is rot expected to cause acetylcholinesterase depression, nor.is its
chemical structure related to that of substances that induce delayed neuro-
toxicity. *
CHRONIC TESTING
Chronic Feeding (163.83-1)
No data ware submitted and none are required far tobacco use. Refer to the
Tbxicology ftrofile, page 78, far additional information.
Oncogenicity (163.83-2)
No data ware submitted and none are required far tobacco use. Refer to the
Toxicology ftrofile, page 78, far additional information.
Teratology (163.83-3)
No teratogenicity data have been submitted. Hie minimum requirement far
evaluating a pesticide far teratogenicity is testing in two mammalian
species with the technical product. - These data must be submitted by the
applicant in order to assess the potential hazard to the offspring of
tobacco-users.
31
a
-------
Reproduction (163.83-4)
No data were submitted and none ace required for tobacco use. Refer to
the Toxicology Profile, page 78, fcr additional information.
Mutagenicity (163.84-1 through 4)
In order to assess the potential hazard to the offspring of tobacco-users
mutagenicity data are required. No mutagenicity data wore submitted far
isopropalin. Hie following studies represent only the minimum requirements
fcr data on the potential heritable effects of isopropalin:
1. A manroalian in vitro point mutation test.
2. A sensitive sub-mairmalian point mutation test. (Bacteria,
fungi, insect.)
3. A primary DHA damage test (i.e. sister chromatid exchange cr
unscheduled DMA synthesis).
4. A manmalian in vitro cytogenetics test. If this test suggests
a positive result, a dominant lethal cr heritable translocation
test may be required.
After results frcm these test systems and other toxicology disciplines
have been considered, additional testing may be required to further
characterize cr 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
therein (43 FR 37388, August 22, 1978). Protocols and choices of test
systems should be accompanied by a scientific rationale. Substitutions of
test systems fcr those listed above will be considered after
discussion with the fiqericy.
The requirements should be considered an interim guide and not final
Agency policy. However, the Agency does consider the above testing scheme .
to be a reasonable minimum requirement.
Metabolism (163.85-1)
A general metabolism study is required to support the registration of each
product which requires a chronic feeding study cr an oncogenic study.
Since neither of these studies are required for isopropalin this study is
not required.
Emergency Treatment '
No information on the prevention and treatment of isopropalin intoxication
is available. •-
82
-------
DISCIPLINARY REVIEW
Emulsifiable Concentrate Isopropalin
Toxicology Profile
An acute oral dose of the emulsifiable concentrate isopropalin which
caused fifty percent mortality arong the test animals, was 2.92 + 0.15 ml/
kg far males and 3.38 + 0.19 mlAg fcr females. No moctalilty was
observed after a single dose of 2 mlAg- Although this indicates that the
emulsifiable concentrate is more toxic than the technical material it still
presents a low level of acute hazard to hunans ingesting the material.
An acute dermal toxicity test found no mortality with a single dose of 2
ml/kg. This indicates that the emulsifiable concentrate causes moderate
dermal toxicity (category III) and necessitates appropriate labeling. A
primary eye irritation test indicates that the emulsifiable concentrate is
not well tolerated, causing corneal injury which was not reversed in seven
days. The-emulsifiable concentrate is classified as a Category I eye
irritant according to the Agency's 1975 regulations [40 CFR 162.10(h)(1)|.
No data were provided on acute inhalation and dermal sensitization.
N-Nitrosamine Contaminant of the Emulsifiable Concentrate
The emulsifiable concentrate of isopropalin is contaminated with N-nitroso-
di-n-propylamine (NDPA). N-nitroso-di-pn-propyl amine has been shewn
to be a carcinogen by Druckery (1967)— , Reznik (1975)— ,
Four (1973)— , and Dickhaus (1977)— . Data must be provided by the
applicant which would confirm that the source of contamination is the
manufacturing-use product and that N-nitrosamines are not produced in the
emulsifiable concentrate upen storage. Appropriate data must be supplied
by the applicant for a quantitative risk assessment if contaminant values
are greater than one part per million.
Data Requirements
Data requirements for an Integrated-Fcrmulation System IVoduct are
tabulated on pages 31-32. Listed beside each requirement is the section of
the Ptoposed Guidelines of August 22, 1978, (43 FR 37336) that describes
the type of data required.
2/ These studies are listed as reference material.
83
-------
Human and Domestic Animal Hazard Assessment
The data provided fcr the formulated product of isopropalin is inadequate
fee a meaningful hazard assessment. TVie acute data indicate that the
emulsifiable concentrate is more toxic than the manufacturing-use product.
Although the formulation is currently classified as a Category I (high
toxicity) eye irritant, the overall assessment is that the formulation is
moderately toxic.
The lack of exposure data and data firom long-term testing make estimation
of the long-term hazard impossible.
Contamination with the nitrosamine contaminant, IJDPA, may bo n serious
problem. Contamination levels need definition, storage stability confirmed
and a quantitative estimation of risk established if the contaminant level
exceeds one part par million.
Required Labeling
Precautionary labeling of each product must correspond to the toxicity
categories determined by the five acute toxicity tests. Acceptable cate-
gories of acute toxicity and the corresponding required labeling appear in
the Regulatory Chapter.
84
-------
TOPIG\L discussions
Emulsifiable Concentrate
Corresponding to each of the Topical Discussions listed below is the nunber
of the section in the "Proposed Guidelines" of August 22, 1978, (43 FR
3733f>) which explains the minimum data that the Agency usually requires in
order to adequately assess a pesticide's toxicology.
ACUTE TESTING
Acute Oral Toxicity (163.01-1)
All formulated products are required to have acute cral toxicity data sub-
mitted by the applicant. The minimum testinq needed on acute oral toxicity
is one test in the laboratory rat on each formulated emulsifiable concen-
trate product.
Full strength emulsifiable concentrate.was tested in young adult rats of
each sex ("Worth, et al., 00002472H) using the same design as far technical .
isopropalin tests. This formulation was more toxic with LD^q values
found to be 2.92 _+ 0.15 mlAg for males and 3.30 + 0.19 ml/Rq for the
females, (the emulsifiable concentrate contained 720 mg of technical
isopropalin pea: ml).. "Erese authors also tested chickens (Worth, et al.,
00002472G) and observed longer lasting symptoms (anorexia and hypoactivity)
in males dosed with the emulsifiable concentrate as compared with technical
isopropalin; females were less affected. The LD™ remained greater than
2.0 mlAg-
These studies also provide information about the acute oral toxicity of this
formulated product adequate to justify labeling it as cral toxicity cate-
gory III, but they are not sufficient to determine whether this product
could be labeled as category IV. No further acute oral testing is
required for this product.
Acute Dermal Toxicity (163.81-2)
All formulated products are required to have acute dermal toxicity data
submitted by the applicant. Itie minimum testing needed on acute dermal
toxicity is cno test in the albino rabbit on each formulated emulsifiable
concentrate product.
The full strength emulsifiable. concentrate formulation was tested by the
same authors using the same protocol (Wcrth, et al., 00002472J) as was
used fcr the technical material. The single dose of 2.0 mlAg (formula-
tion containing 0.72 g isopropalin per ml) produced no mentality. The
study did not mrct current guidelines in other respects, such as sufficient
numbers of rabbits per group and ability to test by sex. This test is
accepted as adequate to justify labeling this product as dermal toxicity
category III, but it not sufficient fcr designating a category IV toxicity
rating. No further testing is required for assessing acute dermal toxicity.
85
-------
Acute Inhalation Toxicity (163.81-3)
An acute inhalation toxicity test is required on an emulsifiablc concen- ¦
trate fcrmulation if it causes a respirable vapor, oc if 20% or marc of
the aerodynamic equivalent is composed of particles not larger than
10 microns.
One study was review?d (Worth, et al., 00002472K). Itie study desiqn was
deficient in many important aspects with respect to current guidelines,
and did not permit an estimation of the The data available are not
adequate to meet the /qency's requirements for requlatinq this formu-
lation. Data must be submitted by the applicant.
Primary Eye Irritation (163.81-4)
All formulated products are required to have primary eye irritation data
submitted by the applicant. Itie minimum testing needed to evaluate eye
irritation potential is one test in albino rabbits on an emulsifiable
concentrate formulated,product. However, if the test substance has a pH
of 1-3 or 12-14, it will be judged corrosive, and an eye irritation test
is not needed.
One study was evaluated (Worth, et al., 000024721). Hie emulsifiable
concentrate was not well tolerated; corneal injury in two of the six
treated rabbits had not healed after seven days. Accordinq to the /y^ency's
1975 regulations f40 CFR 162.10(h)(1)] this study classifies the
emulsifiable concentrate as a Category I eye irritant. No observations
were made after the seventh day, therefore it is not possible to
recategorize this test according to criteria proposed by the National
Academy of Sciences publication 1138. In this case several options may be
exercised by the registrant: acceptance of category I classification
according to the previously used criteria and revision of labeling; or
submission of data from a new test which will permit recategorization
under the new criteria. This recategorization may or may not result in a
new toxicity categocy. Ttje notice of availability of new testing
guidelines far the primary eye irritation test was published on January 22,
1981 (46 FR 7075). ;
Primary Dermal Irritation (163.81-5)
All formulated products are required to have data on primary dermal
irritation sufcnutted by the applicant. The minimum testing needed to
evaluate dermal irritation potential is one test, preferably in the albino
rabbit; on each emulsifiable concentrate product. No data v«re
available from tests meeting current guidelines, although limited obser-
vations were made during dermal toxicity tests (163.81-2). These
observations are not adequate far regulatory purposes. Data must be
provided by the applicant.
Dermal Sensitization (163.81-6)
All formulated products are required to have data an dermal sensitization
submitted by the applicant. The minimum requirement for assessing dermal
sensitization is an intradermal test on one mammalian species, preferably
in the guinea piq, of the formulated product. No data were submitted and
they must be provided by the applicant.
86
-------
Guide to Use of This bibliography
1. Content of Bibliography. This bibliography contains citations of
all the studies review by EPA in arriving at the positions and
conclusions stated elsewhere in this standard, ifie biblioqraphy is
divided into 3 sections: (1) citations that contributed information
useful" to the review of the chemical and considered to be port of the
data base supporting registrations under the standard, (2) citations
examined and judged to be inappropriate far use in developing the
standard, and (3) standard reference material. Primary sources for
studies in this bibliography have been the body of data submitted to
EPA and its predecessor agencies in suppcrt of past regulatory
decisions, and the published technical literature.
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 far purposes of review, and can be attempted also to unite
basic documents and oanmentaries upon them, treating them as a single
study.
3. Identification of Entries. The entries in this bibliography are
sorted by author, data of the document, and title. Each entry bears, to
the left of the citation proper, an eight-digit nusneric identifier.
This number is unique to te citations, and should be used at any time
specific reference is required. Ttiis number is called the "Master
Record Identifier", cr "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) below for a further explanation. In a few
cases, entries added to the bibliography late in the review may be
preceded by a nine-charactor 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 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 show a personal author. When no individual
was identified, has shown an identifiable laboratory ar testing
facility as author. As a last resort, the Aqency has shown the first
known submitter as author.
-------
Docuirent Date. When the date appears as foir digits with no
questions marks, the Agency took it directly frcm the document. When
a four-digit date is followed by a question mark, the bibliographer
reduced the date from evidence in the document. When the date
appears as (19??), the fajency was unable to determine cr estimate
the date of the document.
Title. Tins is the third element in the citation. In seme cases
it has. been necessary fcr Agency bibliographers to create cr
ennhance a document title. Any such editorial insertions are
contained between square brackets.
Trailing Parentheses. Far studies submitted to us in the past,
the trailing parentheses include (in addition to any self-
explanatcry text) the following elements describing the earliest
known submission.
(1) Submission Date. Immediately following the ward
'received' appears the date of the ear lies known submission.
(2) Administrative Number. The next element, immediately
following the ward 'under1, is the registration number,
experimental permit number, petition number, cr other
administrative number associated with the earliest known
submission.
(3) Submitter. The third element is the submitter, following
the phrase 'submitted by'. When authorship is defaulted to
the submitter, this element is emitted.
(4) Volume Identification. The final element in the trailing
parenthesis identifies the EPA accession number of the volime
in which the criginal 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. For
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.
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION ONE: Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base
Supporting Registration Under the Standard
PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
MRID Citation
GS0005-002 Bontoyan, W.R.; Ii5w.; Wright, D.P. (1979) Nitrosamines in
agriculture and heme-use pesticides. J. Agric. Food Chem.
27:631-635.
05006328 Cohen# S. Z. ; Zwcig, G.; Law, M, ; Wright, D. ; Bontoyan, W.R.
(1978) Analytical determination of N -Nitroso canpounds in
pesticides by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency —A preliminary study. Pages 333-342, in
environmental aspects of N - Nitroso compounds. Washington,
D.C.: Environmental Protection Agency, (IARC Scientific
Publications, vol. 19).
00002591 Decker, O.D.; Prank, R. (1969) Agricultural Analytical Chemistry
Method IN-APZ: Determination of EL-179 by GLC: 2,6-Dinitro-
N, N- dipropylcunidine. Method dated November 18, 1969.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis Ind. ; CDL:091664-B).
05001253 Decker, O.D.; F\rank, R. (1974) Determination'of the herbicide
isopropalin in technical grade material and in
formulations. "Journal of the Association of Official
Analytical Chemists 57(3):645-647.
00002559 Elanco Products Company (1969) Data Sheet: PAARLAN E.C.
(Unpublished study received June 7, 1972 under 2F127R;
prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL.-095166-A.
00002789 Elanco Rroducts Company (1969) EL-179. (Unpublished study
received May 4, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
Products Co.; Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:093280-F).
GS0005-001 Elanco Products Company (1978) Response to the Federal Register
notices of 09/29/77 and 12/29/77. Submission of data:and
methods used to determine the nitrosamine levels in PAARLAN
E.C. (CDL1.
57
-------
PRODUCT CHEMISTRY
MRID
GS0005-003
00002590
05001063
05001065
05001066
05001069
050010%
Citation
Elanco Products Company (1980) Submission contains a copy of
analytical procedure no. 5801677 fcr nitrosamines and the
results of recent analyses on isopropalin.
Eli Lilly and Company (19??) EL-179 Formulations Stcrage
Stability. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under
1471-EX-321; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli,
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-A).
Johnson, W.S.; Decker, O.D. (1976) Isopropalin. Paqes 169-279,
In Analytical Methods for Pesticides and Plant Cirowth
Regulators. Vol. 8. New York, N.Y.: Academic Press.
Keszthelyi, C.P.; Gardiner, H.L. (1976) Analytical spectroscopy
environmentally important nitroarerratic compounds. Pages 59-
64, In ftroceedings of the Louisiana Academy of Sciences.
Vol. XXXIX.
Keszthelyi, C.P.; Kenney, D.A.; Buras, P.J.; Southwick, L.M.;
Willis, G.H. (1978) Coulonetric study of the reduction of
dinitroaniline compounds. Joirnal of the Electrochemical
Society 125(5):714-717.
Matsunaqa, A. K.; Yoneda, H. (1976) Determinacao dos herbicidas
can qrupo nitro par cromatografia de gas. (Determination of
herbicidal nitro group compounds by gas chromatography]
Arquivos do Instituto Biologico, Sao Paulo. [Archives of the
Biological Institute of Sao Paulol. 43(1/2):9—11.
Weber, J.B.; Monaco, T.J. (1972) Review of the chemical and
properties of the substituted dinitroaniline
herbicides. Pages 31-37, _In Proceedings—Southern Weed
Science Society. Vol. 25. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed
Science Society.
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION CNE: Citations Considered to bo Part of the Data Base
Supporting Reqistration Under the Standard
• ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
MRID Citation
00002803 Barrentine, J.L. 1969. Experiment No., JLB9-1: soil leachinq
data. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis,, Ind.; CDL: 091661-C).
00002804 Barrentine, J.L. 1969. Experiment No. JLB9-2: soil leachinq
data. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970, under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-P).
00003260 Elanco Products Company.. 1968. Experiment No. G18-36X: herbici-
dal efficacy data. (Unpublished study received April 30,
1970, under 0F0968; prepared by Elancc -oducts Co., Div of
Eli Lilly and Co;; CDL:091661-K).
00002801 Elanco Products Ccmpany. 1968. Experiment No. GM8-41X:
herbicidal efficacy data. (Unpublished study received April
30, 1970, under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-L).
00002814 . Elanco Products Ccnpany. 1968? Introduction: deqradation of
EL-179. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970, under
0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:091661-AA).
00002800 Elanco Rroducts Company. 1969. Experiment No. CDH8-32X: soil
persistence data. (Unpublished study received April 30,
1970, under 0F0963; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-J).
00002802 Elanco ftroducts Company. 1969. Experiment No. GM8-55X:
herbicidal efficacy data. (Unpublished study received April
30, 1970, under 0F096S; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-M).
7/
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Citation
Eli Lilly and Company. 1971. Degradation of isopropalin in soil
Includes method .No. 5R01606 dated March 12, 1971.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971, under 1471-EX-
32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind. ; CDL:091664-H).
Eli Lilly and Company. 1971. EL-179—Poppers: EI^179 (2,6-dini
tro-N,N-dipropyicumidine) as a preplant application for
prcemergence weed control in direct seeded and transplant
peppers. Includes method No. 5801588 dated September 22,
1969; method No. 5H01590 dated January 20, 1970.
(Unpublished study received October 10, 1972, under 2F127B;
prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
• CDL:091815-B).
Eli Lilly and Company. 1971. Isopropalin—Tobacco: residue
data cn isopropalin (2,6-dir,itro-N,N-dipropylcumidine) as a
preplant application for preerierqc.nce weed control in
transplant tobacco. Includes method No. 5801590 dated
January 20, 1970 with modification. (Unpublished study
received May 25, 1972, under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of EJi Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:006399-C).
Eli Lilly and Company. 1973. Rotation crops—Paarlan: residue
data cn crops grown in rotation cn Pa ar lan-treated fields.
Includes method No. 5801590 dated January 17, 1974.
(Unpublished study received September 17, 1974, under 1471-
79; submitted by. Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co.; Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006925-A).
Ginger ich, L. L. , and R. L. Zimdahl.. 1976. Soil persistence of
isopropalin and aryzalin. Weed. Sci. 24(4):431-434.
Golab, T. 1970. Effect of microorganisms on isopropalin.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971, under 1471-EX-
32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and-
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-K).
Golabj^T., and W.A. Althaus. 1971. Radiochemical studies with
C-isopropalin in soil. (Unpublished study received
February 11, 1972 under 1471-79; prepared in cooperation
with United States lasting Co., Inc.; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:126281-A).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Citation
Golab, T. , and W.A. Althaus. 1975. Transformation of
isopropalin in soil and plants. Weed Sc. 23(3):165-171.
Golab, T., W.A. Althny^, and M.E. Amundson. 1975? Uptake and
distribution of C-isopropalin in plants. (Unpublished
study received on unknown date under 1471-79; submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:221991-A).
Harvey, R.G. 1973. Field comparison of twelve dinitronaniline
herbicides. Weed Sci. 21(6):512—516.
Harvey, R.G. 1974.. Soi 1 adsorption and volatility of dinitroan-
iline herbicides. Weed Sci. 22(2):120—124.
Helmer, J.D. , and L.L. Itiompson. 1969. Experiment No. W39-56:
soil leachinq data. (Unpublished study received April 30,
1970, under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind; CDL:091661-0).
Helmur, J.D. ; W.J. Johnson, and T.W. Waldrep. 1970. Experiment
No. WB(F)9-132: soil persistence data. (Unpublished study
received April 26, 1971, under 1471-EX-32; submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli LilLy and Co., Indianapolis
Ind.; CDL:091664-AK).
Hobbs, C.D. 1970. Experimcnt'No. CDII,0—15: herbicidal efficacy
data. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971, unaer
1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-W).
Itolzar, F.J., and R.F. Sieck. 1972. EL-179: leachinq study on
degradation products. (Unpublished study received February
11, 1972, under 1471-79; prepared in cooperation with Purdue
Univ., Aqroncmy Dept., submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126281-C),
Humphreys, W.H. -1969. Experiment No. WHH9-27: soil leaching
data. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1979, under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:09l661-R).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATF
MRID
Citation
00002614 Humphreys, W.H. 1970. Experiment No. lM19,0-28: horbicidal
efficacy data. • (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971,
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-Y).
00002615 Keaton, J.A. 1970. Experiment No. JAK9,0-8: hocbiciaal
efficacy data... (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971,
under 1471—EX—32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-Z).
05001267 Kennedy, J.M., and R.E. Talbert. 1977. Comparative persistence
of dinitroaniline type herbicides on the soil surface. Weed
• Sci. 25(5):.373-381.
00002797 Massey, G.D. 1969. Experiment No. GDM9-19X: herbicidal
efficacy data. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970,
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-G).
05001076 Parochetti, J.V., and G.W. Doc, Jr. 1978. Photodeccmposition of
eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci. 26C2):153-156.
05001077 Parochetti, J.V., G.W. Dec, Jr., and G.W. Burt. 1976.
Volatility of eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Sci.
24(6):529-532.
00002601 Probst, G.W. Undated. Ttie effect of isopropalin on
microorganisms. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971,
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:091664-L).
05001083 Romanowski, B.R., and A.W. Libik. 1978. Soil persistence of
isopropalin, nitralin, and trifluralin. Weed Sci. 26(3):258-
. 261.
05001084 Saghir, A.R.; Foy, C.L.; Hameed, K.M. (1972) Effect of herbicides
on the germination of Orobanche. Pages 21-22, In
Abstracts—1972 Meeting of theWeed Science Society of
America; February 8-10, 1972, St. Louis, Missouri.
Champaign, 111.: Weed Science Society of America.
00002611 Shoop, G.J., and A. Strait. 1970. Experiment No. GJS9,0-12:
soil persistence data. (Unpublished study received April
26, 1971, under 1471-EX-0-32; submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091664-V).
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL FATE
Citation
Sleiqht, R.H., "III, ^72. Research Report: accumulation and
persistence of C-EL-179 residues by bluegill (Lepcmis
marcrochirus) continuously exposed to the chemical in
water. (Unpublished study received February 11, 1972, under
1471-79; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126281-D).
• Starker,. C.H., H.E. Chamber lain, and D.I. McFee. 1970.
Experiment No. CHS9,0-11: Herbicidal efficacy data.
(Unpublished study received April 26,-1971, under 1471-EX-
32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-T).
Steenwyk, P.I. 1970. Experiment No. PLS9,0-19: herbicidal
efficacy data. (Unpublished study-received April 26, 1971,
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-U).
Stoller, E.W., and L.M. Wax. 1977. Persistence and activity of
dinitroaniline herbicides in soil. J. Environ. Oual.
6(2):124—127.
Watson, J.H. 1969. Experiment No. JHW9-21X: soil persistence
data. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970, under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL.-091661-H).
Watson, J.H. 1970. Experiment No. JHW9,0~21: soil persistence:
canpound EL-179. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971, under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind. ;
CDL:091664-X). (MRID 00002613).
Webster, H.L. 1970. Experiment No. HLW0-3: soil persistence
data. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971, under
1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Indianapolis,
Ind.; CDL:091664-AL).
Webstar, H.L. 1970. Experiment No. HLW9,0-16: herbicidal
efficacy data. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971,
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-AA).
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION CNE: Citations Considered to be Part of the Data Base
Supporting Registration Under the Standard
RESIDUE CHEMISTRY
MRID
00002506
00002554
00002477
00002507
05001260
00002795
Citation
Elanco Rroducts Company (^971) Radiochemical Studies with 14C
Isopropalin (Paarlan ) on Tobacco. (Unpublished study
received May 25, 1972 undo: 1471-79; prepared by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:006399-A).
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1969) Sunmary of Deta: fELr-179).
Summary of studies 126687-C through 126687-R. Includes
method No. 5801590 dated January 20, 1970. (Unpublished
study received January 8, 1970 under 1471-EX-32; prepared by
Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:126687-
P; 126639).
Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1972) Isopropalin—Tobacco: Isopropalin
as a Herbicide far Tobacco in Combination with Diazinon,
DiSyston, and ftrophos. Includes undated method entitled:
The determinaticn of Disyston, Diazinon and MoCap in tobacco
plants; Method No. 5801590 dated January 20, 1970 entitled:
Determination of compound EL-179 (2,6-Dinitro-N,N-dipro-
pylcumidine) in agricultural orops. (Unpublished study
received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79; prepared in
cooperation with WARF Institute, Inc., submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:101603-A).
Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1971) Isopropalin—Tobacco: Residue Data
on Isopropalin (2,6-Dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidinc) as a
Rreplant Application for Preomcrgence Weed Control in
Transplant Tobacco. Includes method No. 5801590 dated
January 20, 1970 with modification. (Unpublished study
received May 25, 1972 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:006399-C).
Golab, T.; Althaus, W.A. (1975) Transformation of isopropalin in
soil and plants. Weed Science 23(3):165-171.
flolzer, F.J. (1969) Determination of EL-179 (4-Isopropyl-2,6-dini-
tro N,N-dipropylaniline) in Tomatoes and Peppers. Method
No. 5801591 dated November 6, 1969. (Unpublished study
received April 30, 1970 under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091661-D).
-------
RESIDUE CHEMISTRY
MRID Citation
00002793 Johnson, W.S. (1969) Rrocedurc No. 5801588: Determination of
Compound EL-179 (4-Isopropyl-2,6-dinitr&-N,N-dip:opylaniiinc)
in Agricultural Crops and Soil. Methoa dated September 22,
1969. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-E).
V
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION CNE: Citations Considered to bo Part of the Data Base
Supporting Registration Under the Standard
• ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID Citation
00002581 Alban, K. (1969) Research Data Record—Herbicide. (Unpublished
study received June 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Ohio
State Univ., Horticulture Dept., submitted by Elanco
ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.,;
CDL:092108-A0).
05001038 Alban, E.K. (1972) Herbicide studies with processing tomatoes—
1971. Pages 29-30, _In Outdoor Vegetable O-ops Research—
1972. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center. (Research sumnary No. 57).
05001041 Anderson, J.L. (1972) The influence of temperature and moisture
on tbmato and weed responses to trifluralin and
isopropalin. Pages 25-28, _IH Proceedings of the
Western Society of Weed Science; March 14-16, 1972, Salt
Lake City, Utah. Vol. 25. Boise, Idaho: Western Society
of Weed Science.
00002575 Ashton, P.M.; Tisdell, T.; Neff, B. (1970) Evaluation of Herbi-
cides far Vegetable Crops—1970. (Unpublished study
received June 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Univ. of
California—Davis, Dept. of Botany, submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:092108-AG).
00002747
00002771
Chamberlain, H.E. (1969) Experiment No. HEC9-13: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data.] (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-BF).
Chamberlain, H.E. (1970) Experiment No. HECO-25: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data.) (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-D).
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS.
MRID Citatim.
00002749 Cooper, R.B. (1969) Experiment No. RBC9-7: fHerbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
OF0968; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind. ; CDL:092119-B1I).
00002714 Cooper, R.B. (1969.) Experiment to. RBC9-G: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
'0F0968;' submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092U9-V).
00002566 Cooper, R.B. (1970) Experiment No. RBC0-4: fHerbicidal Efficacy
Data).- (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-F).
00002716 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. CDH8-32:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Detal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-Y).
00002750 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. CDH8-33:
fHerbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL-.092119-BJ).
00002717 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. CDU8-38:
fHerbicidal Efficacy Data]. .(Unpublished study received
Apr^il 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-Z).
00002718 Elanco Products Company (.1968) Experiment No. 018-7:
fHerbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
¦Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AA).
00002719 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. GM8-36:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
¦April 9, 1970 under 0FO968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AB).
77
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRIU Citation
00002720 Elanco Products Company (1960) Expriment No. CM8-41:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AC).
00002722 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. GM8-58:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.#
Div. Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AE).
00002752 Elanco Products Company (1968?) Experiment No. GM8-63:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under HF0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-BL).
00002729 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. IW8-46:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Eteta]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AL).
00002730 Elanco Rroducts Company (1968) Experiment No. P3H-20:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under OF0963; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AK).
00002695 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. CDU9-5:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data|. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL-.092119-B).
00002758 Elanco Products Car,pony (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-7:
IHcrbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0FO968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-BS).
00003242 Elanco Products-Company (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-8:
[Herbicidal E iicacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
June 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092108-L).
00002733 Elanco ftroducts Products Company (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-15:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco ftroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AP).
J o
./ u O
I
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID Citation
000025B5 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-17:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data], (Unpublished study received
Juno 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; Indianapolis, Ind. ;
CDL:092108-AS).
00002701 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. (JJS9-10:
IHerbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-H).
00002721 Elanco Products Ccmpany (1969) Experiment No. CM8-55:
[Horbicidal Efficacy Datel. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under OF0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AD).
00002703 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. JDH9-6:
IHerbicidal Efficacy Dutal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0963; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-K).
00002704 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. JHW9-4: ¦
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under OF09bO; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-L).
00002728 Clar.co Products Company (1969) Experiment No. IW8-3C:
IHerbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared, by Elanco Broducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092U9-AK).
00003257 Elanco Products Ccmpany (1969) Experiment No. WB(F) 9-L30:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data] . (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-X).
00002739 Elanco Rroducts Company (1969) Experiment No. WH8-50:
IHerbicidal Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.',
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092110-AV).
00002715 Elanco Products Company (1969)- Experiment No. VJRA9-10:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly ?nd Co., CDL:092119-\<).
00002737 Elanco Products Crmpnny (1969) Experiment No. WRA-9-11:
[Horbicidcil Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; p'epared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-AT).
A/
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Citation
Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. WB(F) 9-129:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0903; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.? CDL:092119-BI).
Eshel, Y.; Katan, J. (J972) Effect of dinitroanilines on solana-
ceous vegetables and soil funqi. Weed Science 20(3):243-246.
Fischer, B.B. ; May, D.M. (1969) Weed Control in Tomatoes Qrown
for Processing: Summary of 1969 Field TVials—Ftesno
County. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0FO968; submitted by Elanco FToducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.,. Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AW).
Greenfield Laboratories (1969) Research Data Record—Herbicide.
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under 0F0968;
prepared in cooperation with Michiqan State Univ.,
Horticulture Dept., Rutgers Univ., Weed Research, and Ohio
State Univ., Horticulture Dept., submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:092119-AY).
lUrvey, R.G.. (1973) Field comparison of twelve dinitroaniline
herbicides. Weed Science 21(6):512-516.
Harvey, R.G.; Jacques, G.I. (1977) Dinitroaniline herbicides for
weed control in peas. Weed Science 25(3):256-259.
Helmcr, J.D. (1969) Experiment No. JH8-68: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco FToducts Co., Div. of Eli LiLly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AG).
Helmcr, J.D. (1969) Experiment No. JH8-69: IHerbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;: CDL:092119-BN)
Helmer, J.D. (1969) Experiment No. JH8-70: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092119-AH)
Hclmer, J.D. (1969) Experiment No. JH8-71: {Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;: CDL:092119-A)
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID
Citation
00002738 Helma:, J.D. (1969) Expcrijnent No. JH8-73: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092119-AU)
00002744 Hobbs, C.D. (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-6:~(Herbicidal Efficacy
Cetal. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968? submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092U9-EC)
00003243, Hobbs, C.D. (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-20: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and CO., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-M)
00002583 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDHO-2: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:09210R-AQ)
00002562 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-21: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-B)
00002563 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-22: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco FVoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-C)
00002570 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-27: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-C)
00002571 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-28: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly-
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-P)
00003244 Hobbs, C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-42: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-Q)
/D3
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Citations
Hobbs,. C.D. (1970) Experiment No. CDH9-43: fHerbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.: CDL:092108-R)
Hopen, H.J. (1969) Tomato Weed Control Study: Downers Grove—1969
(Unpublished study including letter dated Oct. 30, 1969 from
H.J. Hopen to George Shoop, received April 9, 1970 under
OF0968; prepared by Univ. of Illinois, Cooperative Extension
Service, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AX)
Humphreys, W.H. (1968) Experiment No. WH8-1: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AN)
Humphreys, W.H. (1969) Experiment No. WH8-40: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received April, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-EB)
Humphreys, W.H. (1969) Experiment No. WH8-43: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AC)
Humphreys, W.H. (1969) Experiment No. WHH9-22: IHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-I)
Humphreys, W.H. (1969) Experiment No. WHH9-33: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-Y)
Humphreys, W.H. (1970) Experiment No. WHHO-4: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, ,Ind.; CDL:092108-G)
Humphreys, W.H. (1970) Experiment No. WHH9-31: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-X)
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID Citation
00002775 Humphreys, W.H. (1970) Experiment No. WHH9-35: (Herbicidal
Efficacy. Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted ..by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-H)
00002574 Humphreys, W.H. (1970)' Experiment Mo. W1II19—43: iHerbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco EVoducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co. /Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-Z)
00002568 Humphreys, W.H. (1971) Experiment No. WHHO-32: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-I)
00002736 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No. JAK9-24: IHerbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received-April 9, 1970
under OF0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:092119-AS)
00002773 Keaton, J.A. (1970) Experiment No. JAKO-38: IHerbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:006401-F)
00002580 Keaton, J.A. (1971) University Research Report: January 11, 1970.
(Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under 2F1278;
prepared in cooperation with Ncrth Carolina State Univ.,
Dept. of Horticultural Science, submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.:
CDL:092108-AN)
00002491 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No. JAK9,0,1-8 : IHerbicidal ,
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received Sep. 17, 1974
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:005589-N)
00002696 Lade, D.H. (1969) Experiment No. DH19-17: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-C)
00002697 Massey, G. D. (1969) Experiment No. GDM9-8: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
OF0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-D)
/ojt
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID
Citation
00002698
00002734
00002699
00002756
00002746
00002700
00002769
000002579
Massey, G.D. (1969
' Efficacy'Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1969
Efficacy Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1969
Efficacy Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1969
Efficacy Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1969
Efficacy Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1969
Efficacy Data
under 0F0968;
Lilly and Co.
Massey, G.D. (1970
Efficacy Data
under 1471-79
Lilly and Co.
Monaco, T.J. (1969
Experiment No. GDM9-16: (Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
submitted by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-E)
Experiment No. GDM9-18: [Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AQ)
Experiment No. GDM9-19: [Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-E)
Experiment No. GDM9-20: (Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 197Q
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-EQ)
Experiment No. GDM9-31: [Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-EE)
Experiment No. GDM9-34: [Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092I19-G)
Experiment No. GDM9-48: (Herbicidal
(Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-F)
Evaluation of Herbicides in Direct-Seeded
Peppers. (Unpublished study received Jun. 6, 1972 under
2F1278; prepared by Ncrth Carolina State Univ., Dept. of
Horticultural Science, submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:092108-
AM)
/Ch
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MIRD Citation
00002759 Monaco, T.J. (1969) Evaluation of Herbicides in Direct-Seeded
Tomatoes. (Unpublished study including letter dated October
27, 1969 from J.W. Hooks to H.K. Bell, received April 9,
1970 under 0F0968; prepared by North Carolina State Univ. ,
Coastal Plain Vegetable Research Station, Dept. of
Horticultural Science, submitted by Elanco Rroudcts
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:
. 092119-ETT)
Ogle, W.I. (1970) An Evaluation of Herbicides for Vegetable Qrops
in 1970. Clemson: Clemson Univ. (Research series no. 133;
p. 12 only; also In unpublished submission received June
6, 1972 under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-
AP)
05001074 Qrr, J.P.; Elmore, C.I. (1974) Canning tomato herbicide—varietal
interaction trial. Pages 48-50, _In Rroceeaings—Western
Society of Weed Science. Vol. 27. Boise, Idaho: Western
Society of Weed Science.
05001075 Q/ertcn, J.R.; Jeffery, L.S.; Brown,' J.F.; Chambers, A.Y. ;
Swingle, H.D. (1972) Dinitroaniline evaluations in^
Tennessee over a three year period. Pages 73-87,
In Proceedings—Southern Weed Science Society. Vol.
25. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
00002705 Paffcrd, J.I. (1969) Experimennt No. JLP9-15: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co./Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-M)
00002706 Paffcrd, J.I. (1969) Experiment No. JLP9-17: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data!. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-N)
00002774 Paffcrd, J.I. (1970) Experiment No. JLP0-10: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-G)
00002655 Putnam, A. (1973) Weed Control in Seeded Ttamatoes: Report No.
39375. (Unpublished study received May 6, 1976 under 3125-
277; prepared by Michigan State Univ., submitted by Mobay
Chemical Corp., Agricultural Chemicals Div., Kansas City,
Mo.; CD: 224187-AI)
J 07
00002582
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MIRD Citation
0002537 Ridqeway, J.L (1975) Physical Stability of Paarlan with Liquid
Fertilizers. (Unpublished study received September 29, 1975
under 1471-79; submitted by Elonco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:223273-A)
00002702 Shoop, G.J. (1969) Experiment No. GJS9-11: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Detal. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-I)
00002770 Shoop, G.J. (1970) Experiment fto. GJS0-28: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco EVoducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-C)
00002708 Steenwyk, P.L. (1969) Experiment No. PLS9-6: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-P)
00002709 Steenwyk, P.L. (1969) Experiment No. PLS9-8: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-Q)
00002710 Steenwyk, P.L. (1969) Experiment No. PLS9-9: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received Ap-il 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by. Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-B)
00002712 Steenwyk, P.L. (1969) Experiment No. PLS9-14: (f -bicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-T)
00002713 Steenwyk, P.L. (1969) Experiment No. PLS9-15: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April, 1970
. under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-U)
Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLSO-9: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AF)
Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLS0-10: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under. OF0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AG)
00002819
00002820
ID'S
I
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MR1D
Citation
00004151 Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLS0-11: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Deta]. (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AH)
00003262 Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLSO-12: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under OF0968; submitted by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AI)
00002822 Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLS0-13: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AL)
00002584. Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLSO-14: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-AR)
00002565 Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLSO-17: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-E)
00002823 Steenwyk, P.L. (1970) Experiment No. PLSO-19: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received June 15, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products CO., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AM)
00003252 Talbcrt, R.E; Kennedy, J.H. (1974) Field Evaluation of
Herbicides in Vegetable Qrops, 1973. Dy Univ. of Arkansas,
Depts. of Agronomy, Horticulture and Forestry.
Fayetteville, Ark.: Univ. of Arkansas, Agricultural
Experiment Station. (Mimeograph scries 219;
also _in unpublished submission received May 6, 1976 under
3125-277; submitted by Mobay Chemical Carp., Agricultural
Chemicals Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-BD)
00002652 Tisdell, T.; King, R. (1971) Nightshade Control in Tcmatoes:
Report No, 38866. (Unpublished study received May 6, 1976
under 3125-277; prepared by Univ. of California—Davis,
Botany Dept., submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp.,
Agricultural Chemicals Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-
AP) .
/D?
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
MRID Citation
00002587 Tweedy,? (1969) Research Report.: An Evaluation of EL-179, "Iteflan
and Dymid for Control of Weeds and to Establish Crop Injury
on Peppers. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; prepared by Southern Illinois Univ., submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL: 092108-AX)
00002576 Tweedy, ? (1970) 1970 Research Report: An Evaluation of EL-179
Tteflan, Dymid, and Planavin fcr Control of Weeds and to
Establish Qrop Injury en Peppers. (Unpublished study
received June 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Southern
Illinois Univ., submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-AI)
00002577 University of Southwestern Louisiana (1970) Summary of 1970
Peppa: Herbicide Studies. (Unpublished study received June
6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Dept. of Plant Industry,
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-AJ)
00002743 Warner, L.C. (1969) Experiment No LCW9-8: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data], (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; prepared by Utah State Univ., Branch Experiment
Station, submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL;092119-BB)'
00002707 • Warner, L.C. (1969) Experiment No LCW9-13: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indiainapolis, • Ind.; CDL;092119-C)
00002748 Warner, L.C. (1969) Experiment No LCW9-19: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco ftoducts Co., Div, of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL;092119-BG)
00002564 Warner, L.C. (1970) Experiment No LCW0-8: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; submitted by Elanco FToducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL;092108-D)
00002735 Webster, H.I. (1969) Experiment No. HLW9-7: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970
under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092119-AR)
U-v
-------
ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Citation
Webster ,- H. I. (1970) Experiment No. HIJW9-3; [Hcrbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-J)
Webster, H.I. (1970) Experiment No. HLW9-11; (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-K)
West, H.C.; Worth, H.M., ed. (1970) Acute Effects of Compound
70379 in Quail, Ducks, and Goldfish. [96-hocr LCcq in
goldfish U9ing the technical material and the emulsifiable
concentrate, study numbers F-0-7-70 and F-0-8-70].
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-DC-32;
submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-C)
Wilson, H.P. (1972) 1972 Weed Science Research Sunmary: Report
No. 36933. (Unpublished study received May 6, 1976 under
3125-277; prepared by Virginia Ttuck and Ornamentals
Research Station, Eastern Share Branch, Dept. of Plant
-Physiology, submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural
Chemicals Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-H)
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES PROGRAM
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION CNE: Citations Considered to bo Part of the Date Base
Supporting Registrations Under the Standard
TOXICOLOGY
MRID
00002472A
00002472B
00002472C
00002472G
00002472H
000024721
CITATION
Worth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal'Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide (An LDcq experiment
in the mouse using the technical material). {Unpublished
study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted
by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
Wcrth, H.M.; Arthur, B. H.; Andersen, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [An acute cral
toxicity test in rabbits using the technical material).
(Unpublished study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-
79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
Wcrth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Andersen, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [An acute cral
toxicity test in dogs using the technical material].
(Unpublished study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-
79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
Worth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [An acute cral
toxicity test in the chicken using the technical and
emulsifiable concentrate]. (Unpublished study received
December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091662-A)
Wcrth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. (An acute cral
toxicity test in the rat using the technical and
emulsifiable concentrate]. (Unpublished study received
December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091662-A)
Wcrth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [A primary eye
irritation test in the rabbit using the technical and
emulsifiable concentrate]. (Unpublished study received
December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanoo
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL-.091662-A)
-------
TOXICOLOGY
MRID CITATION
00002472J Kfcrth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H. ; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. fA primary dermal
irritation test in the rabbit using the technical and
emulsifiable concentrate]. (Unpublished study received
December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091662-A)
U3
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDES PROGRAM
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION CNE:. Citations Considered to be Part of the Date Base
Supporting Registrations Under the Standard
APPENDIX OF CONFIDENTIAL DATA
MRID Citation ' .
00002591 Decker, O.D.; FVank, R. (1969) Agricultural Analytical Chemistry
Method IN-APZ: Determination of EL-179 by GLC: 2,6-Dinitro-
N,N- dipropylcumidine. Method dated November 18, 1969.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
submitted by Elanco Etoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:091664-B)
05001253 Decker, 0. D.; Rrank, R. (1974) Determination of the herbicide
isopcopalin in technical grade material and in formulations.
Journal of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists
57(3):645-647.
00002789 Elanco Products Canpany (1969) EL-179. (Unpublished study
received May 4, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly ana Co.; CDL:093280-F)
GS005-003 Elanco Products Canpany (1980) Submission containing a copy of
analytical procedure no. 5801677 for nitrosamines and the results
of recent analyses on isopropalin
I If
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION TYvO: Citations Examined and Judged to be Inappropriate foe
Use in Developing the Standard
MRID Citation
14
00002557 Amundson, M.E^ (1972) Radiochemical Studies with C-Isopropalin
(PAARLAN ) cn Peppers. (Unpublished study received
October 10, 1972 under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091815-A).
00002668 Alban, E.K. (1973) Effect of Certain Herbicide Applications on
the Yield of Tcmato Cultivar Campbell 28, and Doqree of Weed
Control: Report to. 40289. (Unpublished study received May
6, 1976 ander 3125-277; prepared by CARDC Research,
submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., /Agricultural Chemicals
Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-AW)
05001039 Alban, E.K. (1973) Horbicide studies with processinq tomatoes—
1972. Paqes 19-20, _In Outdoor Vegetable Or ops
Research. Woostcr, Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center. (Research summary no. 65)
00002632 Alban, E.K. (1973) Herbicide Studies with Processing Tanatoes—
1972: Report No. 36931. (Unpublished study received May 6,
1976 under 3125-277; prepared by Ohio Agricultural Research
and Development Center, Dept. of Horticulture, submitted by
Mobay Chemical Ccrp., Agricultural Chemicals Div., Kansas
City, Mo.; CDL-.224187-G)
05001040 Altman, J.; Campbell, C.I. (1977) Effect of herbicides on plant
diseases. Pages 361-385, In Annual Review of
Phytopathology. Vol. 15. Edited by Kenneth F. Baker. Palo
Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews. .
05001042 Ashtcn, F.M.; Kukas, R.D. (1974) Relative toxicity of ten
dinitroaniline herbicides to six crops. Paqes 16-17,
In Abstracts of the 1974 Meeting of the Weed Science
Society of America; fc^eb. 12-14, 1974, Las Vegas, Nevada.
Champaign, 111.: Weed Science Society of ftnerica.
00002803 Barrentine, J.L. (1969) Experiment No. JLB9-1: [Soil Leaching
Data). (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
0F0968: subnitted by Elanco Products., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-O)
00002804 Barrentine, J.L. (1969) Experiment No. JLB9-2: ISoil leaching
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
OF0968; submitted by Elanco .Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-P)
-------
MR1D
Citation
00002514
00002525
05001043
05013065
05001044
05000993
05001252
05001045
00002642
Benton, D.A. (1972) Herbicide Index on Farm Herbicide Tobacco
Tests 1972. (Unpublished study includnq letter dated
April 17, 1972 from D.A. Benton to John A. Keaton received
April 2, 1973 under 1471-79; prepared by Clemson Univ.,
[Dept. of) Agronomy and Soils, Pee Dee Experiment Station;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-E)
Benton, D.A.; Arnett, J.D. (1973) Tobacco Nematocide, Herbicide
Tank Mix on Farm Text Demonstration 1973. (Unpublished
study including letter dated November 20, 1973 from D.A.
Denton to John A. Keaton, received July 22, 1974 under 1471-
79; prepared by Clemson Univ., Cooperative Extension
Service, [Dept. ofl Agronomy and Soils and [Dspt. of]. Plant
Pathology? submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024956-F)
Beste, C.E. (1974) Weed Control in transplanted tomatoes. Pages
265-269, In Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth Annual
Meeting oF~the Northeastern Weed Science Society. Vol. 28.
Salisbury, Md.: University of Maryland Vegetable Research
Farm.
Brathwaite, R.A.I. (1978) Effect of Herbicides on ed Control
Yield and Quality of Eggplant (Solanum Melongcna L.) in
Ttinidad. Vteed Research 18(4) :243-246.
Bianco,. V.V.; Magnifico, V. (1974) Risultati di esperienze sul
diserbo chimico della melanzana. [Results of experiments
on chemical weed killers far eggplants] Rivista di
Agroncmia 8(2/3):311-316.
British Crop Protection Council (1974) Pesticide Manual: Basic
Information on the Chemicals Used as Active Components of
Pesticides. Edited by H. Martin and C.R. Vtorthing. 4th
ed. London, England: British Grop Protection Council.
Buczacki, S.T. (1973) The effects of trifluralin and related
dinitroaniline herbicides on clubroot of Brassicae.
Annals of Applied Biology 75(l):25-30.
Burg is , D. S. (1971) Herbicide tests on tomato transplants and
seeded tomatoes. Pages 198-205, Jn Proceedings—
Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 24. Athens, Ga.:
Southern Weed Science Society.
Burgis, D.S. (1972) Gulf States Paper Company Hepcrt on
Herbicide Studies with the Paper Mulch System of Vegetable
Production: Report No. 37725. (Unpublished study received
May 6, 1976 under 3125-277; prepared by [Univ. of
Florida], IFAS [Institute of Food and /vgricultural
Sciences), Agricultural Research f. Education Center,
submitted by Mobay Chemical Carp., Agricultural Chemicals
niv., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-S)
-------
Citation
Burgis, D.S. (1972) Herbicide tests on pepper transplants and
seeded peppers. Pages 183-186, _In Proceedinqs—Florida
State Horticultural .Society; 1971. Vol. 84. Lake Alfred,
Fla.: Florida State Horticultural Society.
Burgis, D.S. (1973) Herbicides fcr. the full bed mulch tomato
culture system—II: in-the-row. paqes 201-204,
In R-oceedinqs—Southern Weed Science Society. Vol.
26. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
Burgis, D.S. (1974) In-the-row weed control for peppers on full
bed mulch. Pages 194-198, In Proceedings—Southern Weed
Science Society. Vol. 27. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed
Science Society.
Chapman, W.H. (1973) Weed control and crop tolerance with
various herbicides applied to Florida shade tobacco. Paqes
170-172, _In Proceedings—Southern Weed Science Society.
Vol. 26. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
Cialone, J.C.; Braden, D.A. (1971) Evaluation of herbicides for
weed control in transplanted and seeded tomatoes. Paqes 401-
402, _In Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of
the Northeastern Weed Science Society, vol. 25.
Farmingdale, N.Y.: Cornell Ornamentals Research Laboratory.
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., Jr.; Kittrell, B.U. (1970) Investiga-
tion cn Response of Flue-Cured Tobacco to EL-179 in 1970.
(Unpublished study received February 10, 1972 under unknown
admin, no.; prepared by North Carolina State Univ.,
Agricultural-Extension Service, submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:126632-F).
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., Jr.; Kittrell, B.U. (1971)
Isopropalin and diphenamid for weed control in flue-cured
tobacco. Tobacco Science 15:62.
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., Jr.; Kittrell, B.U. (1972) Effects of
three herbicides on weed control, yield and value of flue -
cored tobacco. Tbbacco Science 174(21):51-52.
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., Jr.; Kittrell, B.U. (1973) Results of
a Study with I nrlan 6EC @ 1.5 lbs/A (AI) and 2.0 lbs/A (AI)
Conducted on Piedmont Soil Types in North Carolina in 1973.
(Unpublished study received June 5, 1974 under 1471-79;
prepared by North Carolina State Univ., Agricultural
Extension Service, submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024954-C).
-------
Citation
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., Jr.; Kittrcll, B.U.Robertson, R.I.
(1973) Response of Flue-Cured Tobacco to Paarlan in Tank
Mixes with Co:tain Insecticides and/cr Nematocides in 1973.
(Unpublished study received July 22, 1974 under 1471-79;
prepared by North Carolina State Univ., {Agricultural
Extension Service, Dept. of Qrop Science and Entomology
Dept.], submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis,.Ind.; CDL:024956-B).
Collins, W.K.; Hawks, S.N., ^-; Kittrell, B.U.; Walls, F.R.,
Jr.; Rober tson, R.L. (1972) Response of Flue-Cured Tbbacco to
Paarlan in Tank Mixes with Co:tain Insecticides and/cr
Nematocides in 1972. (Unpublished study received April 2,
1973 undo: 1471-79; prepared by Ncrth Carolina State Univ.,
/Vqricultural Extension Service, Dept. of Qrop Science and
Entomology Dept., submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-C).
Collins, W.K. (1975) Field Evaluation Report on Tolerance of Flue-
cured Tobacco to Modown 80WP. (Unpublished study received
January 29, 1976 under 2224-EX-14; prepared by North
Carolina State Univ., submitted by Mobil Chemical Co.,
Industrial Chemicals, Richmond, Va.; CDL:224669-D)
Collins, W.K.; Weeks, W.W. (1975) Effects of tank mix
combinationson isopropalin, pebulatc, ethylened ibrcrude and
insecticides on wire worms, weeds, and growth on flue-cured
tobacco. Tobacco Science 177(12):85-86.
Currin, R.E.; Pitner, J.B.; Benton, D.A; Stephens, R.L; Ford,
Z.T. (1977) Tobacco Herbicide Evaluation —1977.
(unpublished study received Feb. 9, 1978 under 2224-50;
prepared by (Clemson Univ.], Pee Dee Experiment Station,
submitted by Mobil Chemical Co., Industrial Chemicals,
Richmond, Va,; CDL:232880-C)
Davis, D.W; Sweet, R.D. (1971) Soil incorporation methods and
herbicide effectiveness. Pages 159-165, _In proceedings
of the Twenty-fifth Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Weed
Science Society. Vol. 25. Farmingdale, N.Y.: Cornell
Ornamentals Research Laboratory.
Eaddy, J.S. (1972) Agronomy Test—1972: ASCS # B-61.
(Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco Broducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.;; CDL:024957-G)
Elanco Products Canpany (1967?) Introduction: [Degradation of
EL-179]. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:091661-Z)
: I! 2
-------
MRID
Citation
00003260 Elanco Products Company (1968) Experiment No. C?18-36X:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 30, 1970 under OF0968; prepared by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-K)
00002801 ¦ Elanco Rroducts Company (1968) Experiment No. GM8-41X:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished Study received
: Apr. 30, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Cb.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL;091661-L)
00002814 Elanco Broducts' Company (1968?) Introduction: Degradation of
: EL-179 (Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study
received April 30, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-AA)
00002546 Elanco Rroducts'Company (1969) Experiment No. HLW9-1:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
January 8, 1970 under 1471-EX-32; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and. Co.; CDL:126687-G).
00002547 ; Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. HLW9-2:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
January'8, 1970-under 1471-EX-32; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:126687-H).
-00002550 Elanco'Products Company (1969) Experiment No. WHH9-12:
[Herbicidal Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received
January 8, 1970 under 1471-EX-32; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:126687-K).
00002755 Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. ODH9-17
(Herbicidal Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
' Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-BP)
00002694 Elanco Rroducts Company (1969) EL-179 as a Preplant Application
fcr Preemerqence Weed Control in Direct-Seeded and
'transplant Tomatoes. Summary of studies 092119-B through
' 092119-BT. (Unpublished study received April 9, 1970 under
0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:092119-A)
00002800 Elanco R-oducts Company (1969) Experiment No. CDH8-32X
[Soil Persistence Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 30, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-J)
00002817 Elanco Rroducts Company (1969) Decomposition in Rumen.
- (Unpublished study received October 12, 1969 under 0F0968;
. prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co.; CDL:091660-A)
-------
Citation
Elanco Products Company (1969) Decomposition in Soil.
(Unpublished study received October 12, 1969 under
0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:091660-B)
Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-8:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data], (Unpublished study received
April 9, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:092119-BD),
Elanco Products Company (1969) Isopropalin Recovery from Soil.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
, . prepared by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.?
CDL:091664-I)
Elanco Products Company (1969) Experiment No. GM8-55X:
(Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received
April 30, 1970 under OP0968; prepared by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-M)
Elanco Etoducts Company (1969) Summary of Experimental Data.
(Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under 0F0968;
prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:091661-T)
Elanco Product's Ccmpany (1970?) ELr-179 Soil Persistence Studies.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
prepared by Elanco Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:091664-N) *
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1970?) Supplemental Field Data:
[EL-179]. Sunmary of studies 091664-AC through 091664-
AI. (Unpublished study received Apr. 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-
32; prepared by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co.; CDL:091664-AB)
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1970) Effect of Ozone oh UV Light
Degradation of Isopropalin. (Unpublished study received
April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;prepared by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091664-M)
Elanco Products Company (1970) Degradation Studies in Tomatoes.
Includes undated method. (Unpublshed study received April
30, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco Broducts Co.,
Div.. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091661-AD).
-------
MRID
Citation
00002608 Elanco ftroducts Ccmpany (1970) EL-179 Soil Persistence Studies.
Sunmary of Studies 091664-T through 091664-AA. (Unpublished
study received April 26, 1971 under 147.1-EX-32;prepared by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:091664-S)
00002595 Elanco Products Company (1970) EL-179 Soil Persistence
Studies. Surtroary of Studies 091664-T through 091664-AA,
091664-AK and 091664-AL. (Unpublished study received
April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32rprepared by Elanco Products
Co.,, Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.? CDL:091664-F)
00002502 • Elanco Products Company (1970) Experiment No. H-32-70-H-13k:
Weed Control in Tobacco. (Unpublished study received
February 10, 1972 under unknown admin, no.; prepared by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:126632-H).
00002597 Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1971) Degradation of Isopropalin in
Soil. Includes method no. 5801606 dated.March 12, 1971.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-
32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co.; Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-H)
00002558 . Eli Lilly and Company (1971) EL-179—Peppers: EL-179 (2,6-
. Dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine j as a Rreplant Application for
Preemerqence Weed Control in Direct Seeded and Itansplant
Peppers. Includes method No. 5801588 dated September 22i
1969; Method. No. 5801590 dated January 20, 1970.
(Unpublished study received October 10, 1972 under 2F1278;
prepared by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:091815-B).
00002620 Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1971) Isopropalin—Tomatoes:
Determination of Ftee and Conjugated Isopropalin—2,6-Dini-
tro-N-propylcumidine; 2,6-Dinitrocunidine; 4-Hydroxy-3,5-
dinitrocunene—in Tcmatoes. (Unpublished study received
February 12, 1971 under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091663-A).00002558Eli
.Lilly and Company' (1971) EL-179—Peppers: EL-179 (2,6-
00002558 Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1971) EL-179—Peppers: EL-179 (2,6—
Dinitro-N,N-dipropylcumidine) as a preplant Application far
Preemerqence Weed Control in Direct Seeded and Itansplant
Peppers. Includes method no. 5801588 dated Sep. 22, 1969;
Method no. 5801590 dated Jan. 20, 1970. (Unpublished study
received Oct. 10, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:091815-B)
00002498 Elanco Rroducts Ccmpany (1971) Effect of Herbicides on Yield of
Tobacco. (Unpublished study received February 10, 1972
under unknown admin, no.; prepared, by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:126632-C)
JX!
-------
Citation
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1971?) Summary: Rotational Crop
Response to Paarlan. Sunroary of Studies 005589-7-B through
005589-7-S. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974
under 1471-79; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co.; CDL:005589-7-A)
Elanco Products Ccmpany^1972) Radioactivity in Wheat Or own in
Soil "Ideated with C-Isopropalin after Harvest of
Tcmatoes. (Unpublished study received Feb. 11, 1972 under
1471-79; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., CDL:126281-E)
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1973) Paarlan in Tank-Mix Combination
with Certain Soil Incorporated Insecticides and/cr
Nematocides for Weed, Insect and/cr Nematode Control in
Transplant Tobacco. Sumnary of studies 024957-B through
024957-L. (Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under
1471-79; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:024957-A)
Eli Lilly and Ccmpany (1973) Rotation Qrops—Paarlan :
Residue Data on Crops Grown in Rotation on Paarlan Tteated
Fields.' Includes method no. 5801590 dated January 17,
1974. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Elli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006925-A)
Elanco Products Ccmpany (1974) Paarlan for Weed Control in Trans-
plant Tobacco in Heavy Textured Soil. (Unpublished study
received June 5, 1974 under 1471-79; prepared by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and . Co.; CDL:024954-A).
Elanco Products Canpany (1975) Delayed Incorporation of Paarlan-
6EC far Preemergence Weed Control in Flue-Cured Tobacco.
CDL:224666-A.
Elanco Rroducts Ccmpany (19??) Chemical and Physical Rroperties:
[EL-179]. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970 under
1471-EX-32; prepared by Elanco ft:oducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co.; CDL:126687-A)
Elanco ftroducts Company (19??) Chemical Stability of Isopropalin
in Liquid Fertilizers. (Unpublished study received
September 29, 1975 under 1471-79; prepared by Elanco
Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:223273-B)
Elanco Products Ccmpany (19??) EL-179 as.a Preplant Application
.far Preemergence Weed Control in Transplant Tobacco.
Summary of studies 126687-C through 126687-R. (Unpublished
study received January 8, 1970 under 1471-EX-32; prepared
by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:126687-B)
-------
MRID
Citaticn
00002815 Eli Lilly and Company (19??) Procedure No. 789-AAC-80-128:
Determination of EL-179 (4-Isopcopyl-2,6-dinitro-N, N-
dipropylaniline) in soil and rumen. Undated method.
• - (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under 0F0968;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-AC)
00002561 . Elanco Products Company (19??) Paarlan E.C. as a Preplant
Application far Preeraergenee Weed Control in Direct-Seeded
and Transplant Peppers. Summary of studies 092108-E through
092108-AZ. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972 under
2F1278; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.; CDL:092108-A)
00002619 Elanco Products Company (19??) Rate—Range Recommendations for
EL-179. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under
1471-EX-32; prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co.; CDL:091664-AJ)
00002791 Elanco Products Company (19??) Reasonable Qrounds in Support of
the Petition: [Isopropalin]. (Unpublished study
received May 4, ,1970 under 0F0968; prepared by Elanco
Products- Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:093280-H)
00002560 Elanco. Products Company (19??) Reasonable Qrounds in Support of
the Petition: [Paarlan E.C.]. (Unpublished study
received June 7, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:095166-B)
00002794 Elanco Products Company (19??) Recovery of EL-179 from
Fortified Tcmato Tissue. (Unpublished study received April
30, 1970 under 0F0968; prepared.by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., CDL:091661-C)
00002792 Elanco Rroducts Company (19??) Summary of Data: Ttmatoes
(Direct Seeded and Transplant). Suntnary of study 091661-E.
.(Unpublished study received Apr. 30, 1970 under 0F0968;
prepared bv Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.;
CDL:091661-A)
00002813 Elanco Products Company (19??) Model Compounds: Figure II-l.
(Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under OF0968;
prepared by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lillv and Co.;
CDL:091661-Y)
000002768 Elanco Rroducts Company (19??) Paarlan (EL-179) as a Preplant
Application for Preemergence Weed Control in Transplant f
Tobacco. Summary of studies 006401-B through 006401-AB and
006401-AD. (Unpublished study including map, received May
. 25, 1972 under 1471-79; prepared by Elanco Rroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.; CDL:006401-A)
J 7-3
-------
MRID
Citation
05001055 Eshel, Y;; Katan, J.; Ckrinstein, A. (1975) Interaction between
soil-applied herbicides and soil-borne diseases. Pages 19-
21, _In Israel-France Symposium on Behaviour of
Pesticides in Soil: Summaries of Lectures. Bet Dagan,
Israel: Centre Volcani. (Dep. des Publications
Scientifiques. Publication speciale 48)
05007048 Fairchild, E.J., Ed. (1977) Agricultural Chemicals and
Pesticides: A Subfile of the NIOSH Feqistry of Toxic
Effects of Chemical Substances. Cincinnati, Ohio: National
Institute far Occupational Safety and Health. (Pagination
includes 46 pages numbered I-XLVI; Available from: OTIS,
Springfield, VA: PB-274748)
05001056 Finke, R.L. ; Warner, R.L; Muzik, T.J. (1977) Effect of
herbicides on in vivo nitrate and nitrite reduction. Weed
Science 25(1): 18-22.
05001255 Fischer, B.B.; Lange, A.H. (1972) Persistence of trifluralin
and related compounds.at 3 months after, application. Pages
116-117, Jji Research Progress Report of the Western
Society of Weed Science; March 12-14, 1972, Salt Lake City,
Utah. Boise, Idaho: Western Society .of Weed Science.
05001256 Ford, D.H.; Massey, G.D. (1971) Characteristics of the
substituted dinitroaniline herbicides, Iteflan, Balan,
Paarlan and EL-119. Pages 142-147, In Rroceedings of
the 23rd Annual California Weed Conference; January 18-20,
1971, Sacramento, California. Sacramento, Calif.:
California Weed Conference.
00002641 Fcrtino, J. (1973) Sane physiological Effects of Motribuzin and
its Usefulness far Weed Control in Tomatoes: Report No.
37550. Doctoral dissertation, Univ. of Illinois—Urbana-
Champaign, [Dept. of] Horticulture. (Unpublished study
received May 6, 1976 under 3125-277; submitted by ?4obay
Chemical Corp., Agricultural Chemicals Div., Kansas City,
Mo.; CDL:224187-R)
00002503 Foy, C.L.; Petty, J.G.; Witt, H.L. (1970) Effect of Several
Herbicides on Weed Control, Yield, and Grop Quality in Flue-
Cured Tobacccr—Chatham, VA. (Unpublished study received
Feb. 10, 1972 under unknown admin, no.; prepared by Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant
Pathology and Physiology, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126632-J)
IXf
-------
MRID
Citation
00003239 Foy, C.L. ; Link, L.A.; Witt, ti. 1. (1970) Effect of Several
Herbicides on Weed Control, Yield, and Crop Quality in
: Bur ley Tobacco, Glade Spiring, Virginia. (Unpublished study
received February 10, 1972 under unknown admin, no.;
prepared by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ.,
Dept. of Plant Patholoqy and Physiology in cooperation with
[U.S. Agricultural Research Service,'Southwest Virginia
Research Station], submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co niv. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126632-1).
00002520 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1972) Evaluation of Herbicides,
Nematoeides, and Insecticides in Flue-Cured Tobacco—
Chatham, Virginia (1). (Unpublished study received April 2,
1973 under 1471-79; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and
Physioloqy, submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-K)
00002521 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1972) Evaluation of Herbicides, Nemato-
cides, and Insecticides in Flue-Cured Tobacco—Chatham,
Virginia (2).' (Unpublished study received April 2, 1973
under 1471-79; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and Physiology,
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-L).
00002527 Foy, C.L.; Witt, H.L. (1973) Evaluation of Rre-Plant, Soil-Incor-
porated Pesticides in Flue-Cired Tobacco: Chatham,
Virginia. (Unpublished study received July 22, 1974 under
1471-79; prepared by Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and Physiology,
submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind,; CDL:024956-H).
05002492 Frye, D.M.; Ilnicki, R.D. ; Micheika, R.W. (1978) Weed control in
southern greens. Pages 239-245, In ftroceedings—
Northeastern Weed Science Society. Vol; 32. Painter, Va.:
•Virginia Ituck and Ornamentals Research Station.
05001057 Gacso, L.; Foldesi, D.; Sticber, G. (1977) Kiserletek a maria-
toevis (Silybum marianura (L. ) Gaernt.) vegyszeces
gyemirtasara. [Chemical weed control experiments in lady's,
thistle (Silybun marianum (I.) Gaernt).] ilerba
Huhgarica 16(3):45-57.
05001257 Gingerich, L.L.; 2iniriahl, R.L. (1976) Soil persistence of
isopcopalin and aryzalin. Weed Science 24(4) :431-434.
05001258 Glaze, N.C.; Gaines, T. P. (1972) Effect of herbicides on
direct-seeded tcmatoes. I. Nitrogen and carbohydrate
determinations. Weed Research 12(4):395-399.
-------
MRID
Citation
00002600
00002596
00002473
00002786
00002535
05001058
00002517
00002504
05001261
Glaze, N.C.; Gaines, T.P. (1972) Some herbicidal effects on the
biochemical composition of pepper. Pages
3, In Abstracts of the 1972 Meeting of the Weed Science
Society of America; Feb. 8-10, 1972, St. Louis, Missouri.
Champaign, 111.: Weed Science Society of ftnerica.
Golab, T. (1970) Effect of Microorganisms on Isopropalin.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-K)
Golab, T. (1971) Studies on Dissipation of; EL-179 in Soil.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-G)
14
Golab, T.; Althaus, W.A. (1971) Radiochemical Studies with C-
Isopropalin in Soil. (Unpublished study received
February 11, 1972 under 1471-79; prepared in cooperation
with United States Testing Co., Inc., submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis,
Ind.; CDL:126281-A)
14
Golab, T. (1971) Radiochemical Studies with C-Isopropalin on
Tanato Plants and Rruit. (Unpublished study received
September 15, 1971 under 0F0960; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co. , Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL.-093280-A).
Golab, T.; Althaus, W.A.; Amundson, M.E. (1975?) Uptake and
Distribution of C Isopropalin in Plants. (Unpublished
study received on unknown date under 1471-79; submitted by
Elanco Products Co.-, Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:221991-A)
Golab, T.; /vnundson, M.E. (1975) Degradation of trifluralin,
cryzalin, and isopropalin in soil. Pages 258-
261, Jn Environmental Quality and Safety. Supplement
Vol. 3: Pesticides. Mew Ycrk: Academic Press.
Goodson, C.C. (1972) Agronomy Test—1972: ASCS # H-327. (Unpub-
lished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79; submitted
by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-H)
Qreenfield Laboratories (1971) Research Data Record—
Herbicide. (Unpublished study received February 10, 1972
under unknown admin, no.; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126632-K).
Qrinstein, A.; Katan, J.; Eshel, Y. (1976) Effects of
dinitroaniline herbicides cn plant resistance to soil borne
pathogens. Phytopathology 66(4):517-522.
-------
MRID
Citation
00002496 Guse, L. (1972) Research Data Record—Herbicide. (Unpublished
study received September 17, 1974 under 1471-79; submitted
by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:05589-S)
05001262 Hall, R.C.; Giam, C.S. (1972) Synthesis of dinitroaniline as
plant growth regulators and fcr identification of amines.
.. - , Journal of Pgricultural and Food Chemistry 20(3):546-552.
b
05001059 Hall, R.C.; Giam, C.S. (1974) Formation of Meisenheimer
complexes in dinitroaniline plant growth regulators.
Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 22(3):461-463.
00002518 Harrelson, L.M. (1972) Tobacco ftjronomy Ttest—1972: ASCS #
E-472. (Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-
79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co.,.Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-I)
05001264 " Harvey, R.G. (1974) Soil adsorption and volatility of dinitro-
aniline herbicides. Weed Science 22(2):120-124.
05001060 Harvey, R.G.; Hagedorn, D.J. (1974) Root rot protection in peas
from dinitroaniline herbicides. Pages 69, _In Rroceedinqs of
; the Ncrth Central Weed Control Conference; December 3-5,
1974, St. Paul ,• Minnesota. Vol. 29. Lincoln, Nebtr.: North
Central Weed Control Conference.
00002796 Helmer, J.D.; Johnson, W.S.; Waldrep, T.W. (1969) Experiment
No. WB(F)9-132: [Soil Persistence Data]. (Unpublished
.study received April 30, 1970 under 0F0968; submitted by
Elanco Products Co, Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis,
Ind.; CDL:091661-F)
00002805 Helmer, J.D.; Thompson, L.L. (.1969) Experiment No. WB9-56:
-[Soil leaching Datal. (Unpublished study received April 30,
' . 1970 under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-Q)
00002621 Helmer, J.D,; Johnson, W.J.; Waldrep, T.W. (1970) Experiment.
No. WB(F)9-132: [Soil Persistence Data]. (Unpublished
study received-Apr.il 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by
Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-AK)
05001061 Herman, D.J.; Lay, M.M.; Ilnicki, R.D. (1974) Some promising
herbicides fcr weed control in sunnier squash. Pages 224-
228, _In Rroceedings of the Northeastern Vteed Science
Society.- Vol. 28. Painter, Va.: Virginia Uruck and
Ornamentals Research Station.
jn
-------
Citation
Hess, B. ; Bayer, D.; Ashton, F. (1974) Anatomical effects of -
isopropalin on tomatoes. Pages 17, In Abstracts of the
1974 Meeting of the Weed Science Society of America; Feb, 12-
14, 1974, las Vegas, Nevada. Champaign, 111.: Weed Science
Society of America.
Hobbs, C.D. (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-8: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data}. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-D)
Hobbs, C.D. (1969) Experiment No. CDH9-24: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972
under 2F1278; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-N)
Hobbs, C.D. (1971) Experiment No. CDH9,0-15: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-C)
Hobbs, C.D. (1971) Experiment No. CDH9,0-7: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-B)
Holzer, F.J. (19??) A Study of the Descrption of Isopropalin
frcm Soil by Water. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-J)
Holzer, F.J.; Sieck, R.F. (1972) ' EL-179: Leaching Study on
Degradation Products. (Unpublished study received
February 11, 1972 under 1471-79; prepared in cooperation
with Purdue Univ., Agronomy Dept., submitted by Elanoo
Ftoducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:126281-C)
Holzer, F.J. (1971) Rrocedire 5801604: The Determination of free
cr Conjugated Isopropalin and Certain Degradation
Broducts... in Itamato Ftuit. Method dated January 7, 1971..-
(Unpublished study received on unknown date under 0F0968;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-G).
Hooks, R. (1970) Evaluation of Rre-emargence Herbicides an
Direct-Seeded Chile at Los Lunas, New Mexico, in 1970:
Table 1. (Unpublished study including letter dated
October 16, 1970 from R. Hooks to Joe Paffcrd and grant
report, received June 6, 1972 under 2F1278; prepared by New
Mexico State Univ., Middle Rio Qrande Branch Experiment
Station, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:092108-AL)
in
-------
Citation
Hooks, R. (1970) Evaluation of Rre-plant Herbicides on
Transplanted Chile at Los Lunas, New Mexico, 1970: Table
2. (Unpublished study received June 6, 1972, under 2F1278;
prepared by [New Mexico State Univ., Middle Rio Grande
Etanch Experiment Station], submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:092108-AZ)
Huffmann, J.B.; Camper, N.D. (1978) Qrowth Inhibition in
Tobacco ( Nicotiana Tabacum ) Callus by 2,6-Dinitroaniline
herbicides and Protection by D-Alpha-Tocopherol Acetate.
Weed Science 26(6):527-530.
Humphreys, W.H. (1969) Experiment No. WHH9-27: [Soil leaching
Data]. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
OF0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co. ,¦ Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-R)
Humphreys, W.H. (1970) Experiment No. WHH9,0-28: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-Y)
Jaques, G.L.; Harvey, R.G (1974) A simple bioassay technique
for dinitroaniline herbicides in soils. Page 93,
In Proceedings of the Ncrth Central Weed Control
Conference; December 3-5, 1974, St. Paul, Minnesota. Vol.
29. Lincoln, Nebr.: North Central Weed Control Conference.
Johnson, W.S.; Decker, O.D. (1976) Isopropalin: [Chapter
24]. Pages 375-379, In Government Regulations,
Pheromone Analysis, Additional Pesticides. Edited by G.
Zweig and J. Sherman New Ycrk: Academic Press.
(Analytical methods far pesticides and plant growth
regulators, Vol. VIII; also In unpublished submission
received July 19, 1976 under 476-1615; submitted by Stauffer
Chemical Co., Richmond, Calif.; CDL:225188-H)
Johnson, W.S.; Donoho, A.L. (19??) Stability of Isopropalin
in Itmato Ftuit During Storage. (Unpublished study received
April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco
Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091664-D)
Jones, M.I. (1976) Delayed Incorporation of Paarlan 6EC for
Pre-emergence Weed Control in Flue-Cured Tobacco.
(Unpublished study received Feb. 23, 1977 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:228098-A)
-------
MRID
Citation
00002494 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No JAK9-10: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data). (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., IndianaDOlis, Ind.; CDL:005589-Q)
00002548 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Fx per inent No. JAK9-10: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126637-1) ' .
00002549 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No. JAK9-11: fHerbicidal
Effi cy Data]. (Unpublished study received January 0, 1970
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:126687-J)
00002555 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No. JAK9-15: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli .Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:126687-C)
\ .
00002495 Keaton, J.A. (1969) Experiment No. JAK9-11: [Herbicidal
Efficacy -Datal. (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;. CDL:005589-R)
00002492 Keaton, J.A. (1970) Experiment No. JAK0-12: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co.Indianapolis, Ind..; CDL:005589-0)-
05001064 . Keaton, J.A. ; Webster , H.L. (1970). EL-179—a new soil
incorporated herbicide for tobacco. Paqes 106-114,
In Proceedings—Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 23.
Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
00002784 Keaton, J.A. (1970) Experiment No. JAKO-13: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May, 25, 1972
.under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div.-of
Eli Lilly, and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:006401-O)
00002785 Keaton, J.A. (1970) Experiment to. JAKQ-14.: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
/ under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:006401-R)
00002499 Keaton, J.A. (1970) University Research Report: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received Feb. 10, 1972
under unknown admin, no.; prepared in cooperation with North
Carolina State Univ., submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:126632-E)
-------
MRID
Citation
00002702 Keaton, J.A. (1971) Experiment No. JAKO-3: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli'Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:006401-C)
00002783 Keaton, J.A. (1971) Experiment No. JAKO-12: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under. 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
• Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind., CDL:006401-P).
00002519 Keaton, J.A. (1972) University Report: November 9, 1972.
(Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79;
prepared in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State Univ.,. Dept. of Plant Pathology and Physiology,
submitted by Elanco Products Co.,-Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-J)
00002490 Keaton, J.A. (1972) Experiment.No. JAK1,2-10: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Datal. (Unpublished study, received September 17,
1974 under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-M)
00002511 Keaton, J.A. (1972) University Research Report: November 11,
1972. (Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-
79; prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State Univ.,
Dept. of Qrop Science, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-B)
00002513 Keaton, J.A. (1972) University Research Report: October 28,
1972. (Unpublished study including addendum and letter
dated April 17, 1972 fir an D.A. Benton to John A. Keaton,
received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79; prepared in
cooperation with .Clemson Univ., Dept. of Agronomy and Soils,
Pee Dee Experiment Station, submitted by Elanco Products
- Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:024957-D)
00002526 Keaton, J.A. (1973) University Research Jtepcrt: November 2,
1973. (Unpublished study received July 22, 1974 under 1471-
79; prepared in cooperation with Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ., Dept. of Plant Pathology and
Physiology, submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024956-G)
00002524 Keaton, J.A. (1973) University Research Repoct: November 26,
1973* (Unpublished study received July 22, 1974 under 1471-
79; prepared in cooperation with Clemson Univ., Pee Dee
Experiment Station, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div.
of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024956-E)
/3
-------
MRID
00002522
00002508
00002532
05001266
05001267
05001065
05001067
05001068
00002797
00002618
Citation
Keaton, J.A. (1973) University Rosea-:ch Report: October 18,
1973. (Unpublished study received July 22, 1974 under 1471-
79; prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State Univ.,
Dept. of Crop Science, submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024956-A)
Keatcn, J.A. (1973) University Research Report: October 25,
1973. (Unpublished study received February 12, 1975 under
1471-79; prepared in cooperation with North Carolina State
Univ., Dept. of Qrop Science, submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDI 301585-B)
Kcaton, J.A. (1973) University Research Report: October 25,
1973. (Unpublished study received June 5, 1974 under 1471-
79; prepared in cooperation with Ncrth Carolina State Univ.,
Dept. of Qrop Science, submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024954-F)
Kennedy, J.M (1976) Comparative persistence of dinitroaniline
type herbicides on the soil surface. Dissertation Abstracts
International B 37(5):2006.
Kennedy, J.M.; Talbert, R.E. (1977) Comparative persistence of
dinitroaniline type herbicides on the soil surface. Weed
Science 25(5):373-381.
Keszthelyi, C.P.; Gardiner, H.L. (1976) Analytical spectroscopy
of environmentally important nitroaromatic compounds. Pages
59-64, In Rroceedings of the Louisiana Academy of
Sciences. Vol. XXXIX.
Magnifico, V. (1974) Confronto fra prodotti diserbanti su
peperfone. [A comparison between herbicides used on
peppers.) Rivista de Agronomia 8(2/3):305-309.
Maksymowicz, W.; Rieck, C.E.; Thompson, L., Jr. (1972) Chemical
characteristics and biological activity of dinitroanilines.
Pages 61, _In Rroceedings—Southern V«eed Science
Society. Vol. 25. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science
Society.
Massey, G.D, (1969) Experiment No. GDM9-19X: fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970
under 0FO968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-G)
Massey, G.D. (1970) Experiment No. GDHQ-13: [Horbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received Apr. 26, 1971
under 1471-EX-32 submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-AC)
-------
Citation
Massey, G. D. (1970) Experiment Ho. GDMO-13: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data). (Unpublished study received June 15/ 1970 under
0F0968; submitted, by Elanco Hroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:093280-AK)
Mobil Chemical Company (1972) Discussion and Sunroary of
Wireworm Control Data. (Unpublished study received
August 17, 1973 under 2224-44; CDL:010063-A)
Mobil Chemical Company (1977 ) Sunxiary of Efficacy Data: Modown
80WP—Tobacco. (Unpublished study received January 27, 1970
under 2224-EX-14; CDL.-232747-A)
Mobil Chemical Company (1977) Sumnary of Large Scale Efficacy
Data: Tobacco. (Unpublished study received February 9,
1978 under 2224-50; CDL:232880-E)
Mobil Chemical Company (1977) Weed Control in Tobacco.
(Unpublished study received Feb. 9, 1978 under 2224-50;
.prepared by [Univ. of Tennessee], Tobacco Experiment
Station and Highland Rim Experiment Station, submitted by
Mobil Chemical Co., Industrial Chemicals, Richmond, Va.;
CDL:232880-D)
Moocc, L. D. (1979) Effect of Air Pollutants on Growth and Yield
of Forest 'Itecs, Ornamentals and Field Crops Abstract No.'
If).07611. 'lbxicoloqy Research Projects Directory. Section 1
4(10):86.
Maceland, -D.E. ; Farmer, F.S.; Hussey, G.G. (1972) Inhibition of
photosynthesis and respiration by substituted 2,6-
dinitroaniline herbicides. I. Effects on chlocoplast and
mitochondrial activities. Pesticide Biochemistry and
Physiology 2(3):342-353.
Mcreland, D. E.; Farmer, P.S.; Hussey, G.G. (1972) Inhibition
of photosynthesis and respiration of substituted 2,6-
dinitroaniline herbicides. II. Effects on responses in
excised plant tissues and treated seedlings. Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology 2(3):354-363.
Mcreland, D.E.; Huber, S.C. (1979) Inhibition of photosynthesis
and respiration by substituted 2,6-Dinitroaniline
herbicides: III. Effects on Electron Transport and Membrane
Properties of Isolated Mung Bean Mitochondria. Pesticide
Biochemistry and Physiology 1.1(1): 247-257.
Nastev, N.; Jankulov, J. (1975) Finfluss einigor Herbizide auf
den Skopolamingehalt der einzelnen Pflanzenteile des
Stechapfels. (Influence of several herbicides on the
scopolamine content of the individual plant parts of thorn
apple.] Ccmptes Rendus de l'Academie Agricole Gecrgi
Dimitrov 8(3):11-14.
-------
Citation
Ogle, W.L. (1972) Performance of several herbicides for weed
control in transplanted tomatoes and peppers. Pages 203,
In Rroceedings—Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 25.
Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
Page, J.G (1968?) Metabolism of 70379 (EL 179) in Dogs, Rats,
and Mallard Ducks. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-E)
Parka, S.J. (1975) Composition of the Liquid Fertilizers Used in
the Herbicide-Liquid Fertilizer Research Program.
(Unpublished study received September 29, 1976 under 1471-
79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and
Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:223273-C)
Parka, S.J. (1975) Experiment No. PA5-088F: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data) (Unpublished study received September 29, 1975 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:223273-D)
Parochctti, J.V.; Dec, G.W., Jr. (1978) Photodeccmposition of
eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed•Science 26(2):153-
156.
Parochetti, J.V. ; Dec, G.W., Jr.; Burt, G.W. (1976) Volatility of
eleven dinitroaniline herbicides. Weed Science 24(6):529-
532.
Pennsylvania State University, Southeastern Field Research Labora-
tory (1974) 1974 Tobacco Herbicide TVial. (Unpublished
study received Janu+ary 1976 under 2224-EX-14; submitted by
Mobil Chemical Co., Industrial Chemicals, Richmond, Va.;
CDL:224669-C)
Rrobst, G.W. (19??) The Effect of Isopropalin on Microorganisms.
(Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32;
submitted by Elanco Rroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind. ;•CDL:091664-L)
ftrobst, G.W. (1970) Aspects of Substituted Dinitroaniline
Herbicide Degradation. (Unpublished study received
April 30, 1970 under 0F0968; submitted by Elanco Rroducts
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly .and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091661-S)
Putnam, A.R. ; Hess, F.D.; McReynolds, W. D., Jr. (1970) New
herbicides for seed tomatoes. Pages 78, ^n Proceedings-- .
North Central Weed Control Conference; December 8-10, 1970,
Lexington, Kentucky. Vol. 25. Lincoln,'Nebr.: North
Central Weed Control Conference.
/ 35
-------
MRID
Citation
05005679 Rapparini, Cu ; Bencivelli, A. (1974) Prove Di Diserbo Chimico Del
:Pomodcro, Peperone E Melanzana Da TVapianto. Chemical Vfeed
Control Trials of Transplanting Tomatoes, Peppers and
Bggplant. Rivista Di Agroinomia 8(2/3):293-297.
05001268 Raulston, J.C.; Eiker, W.M., Jr. (1972) Evaluation of herbicides
for gladiolus weed control. Pages 228-234, In Rroceedings—
" Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 25. Athens, Ga.:
Southern Weed Science Society.
05001079 Raulston, J.C.; Waters, W.E. (1972) Use of. herbicides in
crnamental flower production under sub-tropical conditions.
Pages 229-238, In Rroceedings of the XIX Annual Meeting of
the Tropical Region, American Society fcr Horticultural
Science; July 18-24, 1971, Managua, Nicaragua. Vol. 15.
Edited by D. Rios-Castano.
05001082 Rxhriguez* E.B.; Worsham, A.D. (1972) Persistence of benefin,
isopropalin, pebulate, and R-7465 in tobacco field soils.
Pages 101, _In Proceedings—Southern Vfced Science Society.
Vol. 25. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed Science Society.
05002552 Rodriguez, E. B.Worsham, A.D. (.1973) Herbicides for flue-cured
tobacco. II. Soil persistance. Ibbacco Science 17:170-
174.
05001081 Rodriguez, E.B.; War sham, A.D. (1973.) Herbicides for flue-cured
tobacco. I.. Weed control, methods of soil incorporation,
yield and value of tobacco, ibbacco Science 175(24):57-60.
05001083 Rcmanowski, R.R.; Libik, A.W. (1978) Soil persistence of
isopropalin, nitralin and trifluralin. Weed Science
26(3):258-261. ,
00002659 Schweers, V.H. (1973) Fresh Market Transplant Tonatoes: Weed
. Control Ttial'—Hotcapped: Report No. 39493. (Unpublished
study received May 6, 1976 under 3125-277; prepared by
Univ. of California, (Agricultural Extension Service!,
Tulare County Farm Advisor in cooperation with Majarian
Brothers, submitted by Mobay Chemical Corp., Agricultural
Chemicals Div., Kansas City, Mo.; CDL:224187-AM)
00002543 Shoop, G.J. (1969) Experiment. No. GJS9-16: [HerbicidalEfficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970 under
1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126687-C)
00002544 Shoop, G.J. (1969) Experiment No. GJS9-17: [Hesrbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970
. under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126687-D)
-------
Citation
Shoop, G.J. (1969) Experiment No. GJS9-18: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126687-R)
Shoop, G.J. (1969) Experiment No. GJS9-22: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1970
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126687-F)
Shoop, G.J. (1970) Experiment No. GJSO-18: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly*and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-J)
Shoop, G.'J. (1970) Experiment No. GJSO-19: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-K)
Shoop, G.J.; Strait, A. (1970) Experiment No. GJS9, 0-12: (Soil
Persistence Data]. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-V)
Shoop, G.J. (1971) Experiment No. GJS0-17: [Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-I)
Shoop, G.J.; Newman, R. (1969) Havana 52 Dark Ibbacco: Plots
. IVeated: June 16, 1969; Ibbacco Transplanted: June 24,
1969. (Unpublished study received January 8, 1974 under
1471-EX-32; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of Wisconsin,
Arlington Experiment Station, submitted by Elanco Products
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:126687-0) .
Sheet, T.H. ; Alban, E.K.; ftretchman, D.W. (1973) An evaluation
of chemical weed control with early direct seeded tcmatoes.
Pages 17-18, ^In Outdoor Vegetable Crops Research. Wboster,
Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center.
(Research Summary No. 65)
Slack, C.H. (1969) (Burley Tobacco]. (Unpublished study
including letter dated December 11, 1969 from C.H. Slack to
Gccrge J. Shoop, received January 8, 1970 under 1471-EX-32?
prepared by Univ. of Kentucky, Cooperative Extension
Service, Dept. of Agroncmy; submitted by Elanco Ftoducts
Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:126687-M)
-------
MRID
Citation
00002475
Sleight, B.H., III (j,^72) Research Report: Accumulation and
Persistence of -el-179 Residues by Bluegill (Lepcmis
maarochirus) Continuously Exposed to the Chemical in
Water. (Unpublished study received February 11, 1972 under
1471-79; prepared by Bionomics, Inc.; submitted by Elanco
ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
.CDL:126281-D)
00002497 Smiley, J. (1970) Insecticide-Herbicide Compatibility on Tobacco.
(Unpublished study received February 10, 1972 under unknown
admin, no.; prepared by Univ. of Kentucky; submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126632-A)
05001086 Southwick, L.M.; Willis, G.H.; Dasgupta, P.K.; Keszthelyi, C.P.
(1976) The polarographic reduction of some dinitroaniline
herbicides. Analytica Chimica Acta 82(l):29-35.
00002609 Starker, C.H. ; Chamberlain, H. F.; McFee, D.I. (1970) Experiment
No. CHS9,0-11: (Herbicidal Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished
study received April 26, 1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-T)
00002760 Stauffor Chemical Ccmpany (1975) Tillam 6-E Residue Data on
Wisconsin Cigar Binder Tobacco (Types 54 and 55).
(Unpublished study received July 19, 1976 under 476-1615;
CDL:22518ft-A) '
05001087 Stevenson, M.R. (1977) Evaluation of herbicides far direct-seeded
tomatoes. Pages 106-112, In ftroceedings of the 30th New
Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference. Hamilton, New
Zealand: New Zealand Weed and Pest Control Conference,
Ruakura Agricultural Research Centre.
00002551 Strait, A.O.; Shoop, G.J. (1969) Barley No. 10 Tbbacco: Plots
Tteated: June 5, 1969; Tbbacco Transplanted: June 6, 1969.
(Unpublished study received January 8, 1970 under
1471-EX-32; prepared in cooperation with Univ. of Kentucky,
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126687-L)
05012596 Sung, S.J.S.; Moore, L.D. (1979) The Influence of Three
Herbicides cn the Sensitivity of Qreenhouse-Cirown Flue-Cured
Tobacco (Nicotiana Tabacum) Plants to Ozone. Weed Science
27(2):167-173.
05001092 Talbert, R.E. (1973) Herbicides far transplanted tcmatoes.
Arkansas Farm Research 22(5):8.
)U-
-------
Citation
Talbert, R.E.; FVans, R.E. (1972) Comparisons of dinitroanilines
in row crops in /Arkansas. Pages 38, _In Rroccedings—
Southern Weed Science Society. Vol. 25. Athens, Ga.:
Southern Weed Science Society.
Talbert, R. E.; Kennedy, J.M.; Kennedy, M.R.; Ramthun, L.E. (1974)
Field Evaluation of Herbicides in Vegetable Qrops, 1974.
Fayetteville, Ark.: Agricultural Experiment. Station.
(Mimeograph scries no. .227)
Tappan, W.B.; Littell, R.C.; Dickson, D.W.; Sanden, G.E.; Lundy,
H.W. (1977) Interaction of pesticides used in a pest
management study on flue-cured tobacco in Florida. Pages
175-178, In ftroceedings—Soil and Or op Science Society of
Florida. Vol. 36. Gainesville, Fla.: University of
Florida. .
Teasdale, J. R.; Harvey, R.G. (1976) Dinitroaniline herbicides for
weed control and root rot suppression in peas. Page 185,
In Proceedings—North Central Weed Control Conference;
December 9-11, 1975, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Vol. 30.
Lincoln, Nebr.: North,Central Weed Control Conference.
Teasdale, J.R.; Harvey, R.G.; Hagedorn, D.J. (1978) Suppression
_ . of Pea (Pisum Sativum) Root Rot by Dinitroaniline ,
Herbicides. Weed Science 26(6):609-613.
Thompson, L. , Jr.; Herron, J.VI.; Slack, C.H. (1971) Weed control
in burley tobacco. Pages 50-51, _In Agroncmy Research—1971:
Forages, Qrains, Seed, Soil, Tobacco. Lexington, Ky.:
University of Kentucky, College of Agriculture.
Walls, F.R.,.Jr.;. Collins, W.K.; Weeks, W.W. (1974) Response of
flue-cired tobacco to soil-incorporated tank mix combi-
nations of herbicides, insecticides and/cr nematocides.
Tobacco Science 176(2):29-31. .
Watscn, J.H. (1969) Experiment No. JHW9-21X: [Soil Persistence
Data). (Unpublished study received April 30, 1970 under
0F0968; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091661-H)
Watson, J.H. (1970) Experiment No. JHW9,0-21: Soil Persistence
Compound EL-179. (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971
under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of ,
Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-X)
Webstar,. H.L. (1969) Experiment No>. HLN9-1: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-I)
-------
MRID
Citation
00002489, lobster, H.L. (1969) Experiment No. HLW9-14: fHerbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 ander
1471-79; submitted by Elanco RrodUcts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-L)
00002779 webster, H.I. (1970) Experiment No. HLhO-3; fHcrbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
... under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-L)
00002780 Webster, H.I. (1970) Experiment No. HIWO-4; (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-M) }
00002781 Webster , H.I. (1970) Experiment No. fIUJO-5; fHerbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received May 25, 1972
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:006401-N)
05001097 Webster, 11. L.; Cooper , R. Q.; Helrnor, J. D. ; Hobbs, C.D.;
Humphreys, W.H. (1970) EL-179: a new soil incorporated
herbicide for direct-seeded and transplant tomatoes and
peppers. Pages. 167-180, Jn Proceedings—Southern Weed
Science Society. Vol. 23. Athens, Ga.: Southern Weed
Science Society.
00002622 Webster, H.L. (1970) Experiment No. HLWO-3: |Soi 'ersistence
Data). (Unpublished study received April 26, 1971 under
1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly arid Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091664-AL)
00002484 Webster, H.L. (1971) Experiment No. HLW0-3: fHerbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-G)
00002485 Webster , H.L. (1971) Experiment No. HLiWO-4: (Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianpolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-H)
00002482 Webster, ILL. (1972) Experiment No. HLW1-11: [Herbicidal Efficacy
Data]. (Unpublished study received September 17, 1974 under
1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly
and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-E)
00002483 'Webster , H.L. (1972). Experiment No. IILW9,0,1-16: (Herbicidal
Efficacy Data]. (Unpublished study received Sep. 17, 1974
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:005589-F)
?
-------
Citation
Vest, H.C. ; Worth, II.M. , ed. (1970) Acute Effects of Cartpound
70379 in Quail, Ducks, and Goldfish. ' lAcute cral LD^q for
bobwhite and Japanese quail using the technical material,
study # Q-0-1-70]. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.;
CDL:091664-C).
West, H.C,; Worth, H.M., ed. (1970) Acute Effects of Compound
70379 in Quail, EXicks, and Goldfish, [Acute cral LD,-0far
mallards using the technical material,"study numbers wF-0-1-
70 and WF-0-2-70]. (Unpublished study received April 26,
1971 under 1471-EX-32; submitted by Elanco Products Co.,
Div. of Eli Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.?
CDL:091664-C).
Wilcox, M.; Cirrey, W.L. (1975) Chemical control of weeds in
field crops. Pages 64, _In Annual Research Report of the
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of
Florida, 1973. Gainesville, Fla.: University of Florida.
Wcrley, C. (1972) Tobacco Agronomy Test—1972: ASCS #F-718.
(Unpublished study received April 2, 1973 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024957-F)
Worsham, A.D. (1970) Tobacco Weed Control. (Unpublished study
including letter dated November 4, 1970 fran A.D. Worsham to
John A. Keatcn, received February 10, 1972 under unknown
admin, no.; prepared by North Carolina State Uriiv., Qrop
Science Dept., submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:126632-G)
Wcrsham, A.D.; Rodriguez, E.; lemons, B. (1972) Annual Report of
Tobacco Weed Control Research in 1971. (Unpublished study
received June 5,,1974 under 1471-75"; prepared by North
Carolina State Univ., Dept. of Crop Science, submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:024954-E)
Worth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [A 90-day toxicity
study in rats using the technical material], (Unpublished
study received Dec. 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by
Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
Worth, H.M,; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of FL 179, A New Herbicide. fA 90-day toxicity
test in the dog using the technical material]. (Unpublished
study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-79; submitted by
Elanco Products Co.,. Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
-------
MRID
Citation
00002472F Worth, H.M.; Arthur, D.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [A 21-day toxicity
test in the chicken using the technical materiall.
(Unpublished study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco ftroducts Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
00002472K Ytorth, H.M.; Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. .(1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. fAn acute
inhalationtost in the rat using the emulsifiable
concentratel. (Unpublished study received December 19, 1969
under 1471-79; submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div, of Eli
Lilly and Co., Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
00002472L Worth, H.M.j Arthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. [A 22-day inhalation
study in the rat using the emulsifiable concentrate].
(Unpublished study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
00002472M Worth, H.M.; /"rthur, B.H.; Anderson, B.C. (1969) Animal Safety
Evaluation of EL 179, A New Herbicide. IA 21-day dermal
study in the rabbit using the emulsifiable concentrate).
(Unpublished study received December 19, 1969 under 1471-79;
submitted by Elanco Products Co., Div. of Eli Lilly and Co.,
Indianapolis, Ind.; CDL:091662-A)
-------
OFFICE OF PESTICIDE PROGRAMS
REGISTRATION STANDARD BIBLIOGRAPHY
" CASE GS0005 ISOPROPALIN
SECTION THREE: Reference Material
Citation
Anon. (1973) Common names of pesticides. Revised list—
February 1973. PANS 19(2):287-306.
Dickhaus, S.; Reznick, G.; Qreen,U.; Ketkar, M. (1977) The
carcinogenic effect of beta-oxidized dipropylnitrosamine in
mice. Z. ftfebsforsch. 90:253-258. •
Druckary, H.; Preussman, R.; Ivankovic, S.; Schmal, D. (1967)
Organotropic carcinogenic effects of 65 different N-nitroso
compounds cn BD rats. Z. Krebsforsch. (EPA translation from
German), 69(2):103-201. '
Hecht, S;S.; Chen, C.B. ; Hoffmann, D. (:1979) Tobacco-specific
nitrosamines: Occurrence, formation, carcinogenicity and
metabolism. Acc. Chem. Res. 12:92.
Hecht, S.S. fChen, C.B.; Ohmcri, T.; Hoffmann, D. (1980) Ccmpari-
t'ive carcinogenicity in F-344 rats of tho tobacco-specific
• nitrosamines N'-nitrosoncrnicotine and 4-(N-methyl-N-nitros-
amineo)-l-(3-pyridyl)-l-butanone: Cancer Res. (in press).
Hecht, S.S.; Chen, C.B.; Ornaf, R.M.; Jacobs, E.; Adams, J.D.;
Hoffmann, D. (1978a) Reaction of nicotine and sodium nitrite
Formation of nitrosamines and fragmentation of the pyrroli-
dine ring. J. Org. Chem. 43:72.
Hecht, S.S.; Chen, C.B.; Hirota, N.; Qrnaf, R.M.; Tso, T.C.;
Hoffmann, D. (1978b) Tobacco-specific nitrosamines: Forma-
tion frcm nicotine in vitro and during tobacco curing and
carcinogenicity in strain A mice. J. Natl. Cancer Inst.
60:819.
Hoffmann, D.; Chen, C.B.; Hecht, S.S. (1980) The role of volatile
and nonvolatile N'-nitrosamines in tobacco carcinogenesis.
Banfury Report 3: A Safe Cigarette? Cold Spring Harbor
Laboratory.
IARC Working Qroup (1978) N-nitrosodi-n-propylamine. Pages
177-189, _In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Hunans. Vol. 17. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Agency for Research on Cancer.
Jussawalla, D.L.; Deshpande, V.A. (1971) Evaluation of cancer
risk in tobacco chewers and smokers: An epidemiologic
assessment. Cancer 28:244-252.
-------
MRID
Citation
Moore, G. E. ; Bissinger , L. L. ; Rroehl, E. C. (1953) Intraoral i
cancer and the use of chewing tobacco. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc.
1:497-506.
Pour, P.; Kruger, F.W.; Cardesa, A.; Althoff, J.; Mohr, U.;
(1973) Carcinogenic effects of di-n-propylnitrosamine in
Syrian Golden Hamsters. J. Nat. Cane. Inst. 51:1019-1027.
Reznik, G.; Mohr, U.; Krugcr, F.W. {1975) Carcinogenic effects of
di-n-propylnitrosamine, be ta-hydr oxypr opyl-n-pr opyl
nitrosamine on Spraaue-Dawley rats. J. Natl. Can. Inst.
54:937-941.
Royal College of Physicians (1977) Smoking and Health Pitman
Medical Publishing Co., Ltd., London.
Staszewski, J. (1974) Mortality from cancer of the buccal cavity
and pharynx. Nowotwcry 24:167-172.
United States Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (1971)
The health consequences of smoking; A report to the Surgeon
General. DHEW Publication No. (HMS) 71-7513.
Wynder, E.L.; Bross, I.J. (1961) A study of the etiological
factors in cancer of the esophagus. Cancer 14:385-413.
Wynder, E.L.; Hoffmann, D. (1967) Tobacco and tobacco smoke,
studies in experimental carcinogenesis. Academic Press, New
Wynder, E.L.; Goldsmith, R. (1977) The epidemiology of bladder
cancer. A second look. Cancer 40:1246.
Wynder, E.L.; Bross, I.J. ? Feldman, R.M. (1957) A study of etio-
logical factors in cancer of the mouth. Cancer 10:1300-1323
Wynder, E. L.; Msbuchi, K.; Maruchi, N.; Partner, J.G. (1973) Epi-
demiology of cancer of the pancreas. J. Natl. Cane. Inst.
lender, E. L.; Stellman, S. D. (1977) Comparative epidemiology of
tobacco-related cancers. Cancer Res. 37:4603-4622.
York
50:50
OV& GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: '991-341-052/252-1-3
------- |